Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 1036, recognizing the contributions of Korean Americans to the United States. As a cosponsor of this resolution, I join with 50 of my colleagues in urging the House to pass this resolution today. For six decades now the United States and the Republic of Korea have maintained a strong alliance that rests on a shared commitment to peace, democracy, and freedom not only on the Korean peninsula but throughout Asia and the rest of the world. And this alliance between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea remains resilient and firm based on the shared values, mutual trust, and common interests of our peoples. The Korean War was a major battlefield in the Cold War as American forces and our allies fought so heroically to resist North Korean aggression and prevent communist forces from imposing their rule on the Republic of Korea. Nearly seven million Americans served during the Korean War period and the United States suffered 54,246 casualties and over 8,000 POW/MIAs during this ``Forgotten War.'' The nearly 30,000 American soldiers who remain stationed in the Republic of Korea are a testament to this relationship. One of the fastest growing immigrant communities with over a million people in the United States, Korean Americans have made great contributions to all facets of American society. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to pass this resolution today.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I was not present for votes on Friday, February 26, 2010. Had I been present, this is how I would have voted: On rollcall #69 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall #70 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall #71 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall #72 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall #73 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall #74 I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I rise in strong support of this resolution. As the gentleman from Texas indicated earlier, it is unfortunate that it is only at times like this that many of the American people realize just what an outstanding service is performed by the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency day in and day out, year in and year out. They perform missions and they put themselves at risk in ways that many of us cannot even imagine. I have only been a member of the Intelligence Committee for less than a year, but during that time I have had the opportunity to visit with members of the CIA at remote outposts, seeing the type of conditions under which they live, seeing the burdens they bear, seeing the risks that they endure. And it should be reminded to all of us that not only do we honor these seven men and women who were murdered in the line of duty, not only do we offer our condolences to the family members of those who were killed, and not only do we pray for those who are recovering from their wounds, but we should also, I think, take an extra moment to express our solidarity for those that are in the field today, those who are doing, as we are standing here on the House floor here today speaking, as we go back to our apartments tonight, as we go back to our districts over the next several days and be with our families, that there are men and women out there who will not be with their families, who will not be living in the comfort we take for granted in this Nation. And it also should be reminded to us that we should not find ourselves being Monday morning quarterbacks or second-guessing these men and women who were on the field, who have to make literally life and death decisions at any moment. And sometimes looking back on them years later we can say they should have done this, they should have done that. The reality is they are the people on the front lines. They are the people actually, as Congressman Miller said, almost beyond the front lines. They are as remote as you can be in many instances, and also have to take extraordinary risks, as they did in this situation. Because if we are going to win the war against terrorism, we have to obtain the intelligence. We have to get that information that is so vital to heading off attacks. And we can't do it just by intercepts. We can't do it always in a neat and easy way. It has to be done by people putting themselves on the line, actually going out and meeting with those who may turn out to be, as in this case, double agents or triple agents. So let's just again express our heartfelt admiration, our sympathy, our sense of condolence for all these people who, again, died so tragically, these brave men and women. But also keep in mind that there are many, many more brave men and women out in the field today doing this exact same type of work. And they deserve our support. So it is not only at times like this, in times of tragedy, that we acknowledge them, but we acknowledge them 365 days a year for the work that they do. With that, again, I am proud to support the resolution.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, let me thank Chairman Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee and my good friend from New York, Congresswoman Clarke, for her strong efforts on this legislation, which is truly bipartisan. The addition of two additional cities makes it truly a national program in scope. Madam Speaker, when we look at London, when we look at Madrid, it becomes clear that a very likely means of attack by terrorists in the United States would be from suburban areas into urban areas. And certainly in New York, which is the number one terrorist target in the world, enormous steps have been made to protect us against that type of attack, specifically a dirty bomb attack coming from outside the city through the highways, the parkways, the tunnels, the bridges, actually into Manhattan itself, which has already, as we know, devastatingly on September 11, also in 1993, been attacked by Islamic terrorists. But also a number of other plots against New York City have been thwarted. New York City is definitely the main target in the country, but any number of other cities are as well. That is why I believe the program, which has been implemented in New York, can be a model for other cities throughout the country. Now, I was very concerned last year when the administration decided to zero out all money for this funding in its budget. This was, I believe, a serious mistake. Fortunately, Congress, by appropriating $40 million in this House and finally $20 million when it came back from conference committee, did continue to fund this program, because we need these radiological detectors on the highways, the toll plazas, the bridges and the tunnels. I have had the privilege of attending a number of these drills and training sessions when they are conducted. As Representative Clarke said, we're not just talking about New York City. We're talking about a large number of police departments and first responders--fight departments, EMS services--from not just New York City but from Long Island, from Connecticut, from New Jersey. We're talking about the State police, and we're talking about Federal support as well, seeing them all working together in a cohesive way to stop what would be the absolutely devastating impact of a dirty bomb attack, the human toll that that would take, the devastating economic impact it would have, the fact that it would make parts of the city unlivable for extended periods of time, and the fact that it would, in effect, cut off transportation into New York City. All of these are reasons that we have to go ahead and continue with this Securing the Cities program. It's no guarantee, but it's another layer of defense that we need to protect ourselves against a terrorist attack. As we know, the terrorists are constantly adapting, and we have to try to stay one step ahead of them. We have to always be on our guard. Actually, we have to be lucky all the time. They only have to be lucky once. We have to rely on more than luck. We have to have preparation, and we have to have a layered defense. That's why I am so proud to support this legislation which will, in effect, almost set in stone the importance of the Securing the Cities program. We will expand it beyond New York City because, again, while Congresswoman Clarke and I feel that those of us in the New York area are the main targets, the fact is that a human life is a human life; an American life is an American life. Whether it's New York City or any other city in this country, any, certainly, major urban area, I believe this program is adaptable and compatible to those areas. So I thank Congresswoman Clarke for her effort. I thank the bipartisan support that we have for this legislation, and I, certainly, strongly urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again, let me thank Congresswoman Clarke for her leadership on this. Let me also thank Ranking Member Dan Lungren for his work. Let me especially thank Mr. Schiff for his efforts on this and for so many other efforts on behalf of our national security. I have the privilege of serving with Mr. Schiff on the Intelligence Committee, so I have firsthand knowledge of the dedication which he brings to issues such as this. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 730. Let me just say that, in many ways, this is the other side of the same coin. We just adopted H.R. 2611, which is to prevent nuclear attacks against our cities. H.R. 730 will enable us to detect where those nuclear devices came from. It's absolutely essential that we deal with the process of determining the source of confiscated nuclear material. This is a grave, grave threat to our homeland, and it must be addressed immediately and robustly. We must have a rigorous attribution program to find the culprits of these crimes and to offer a deterrent to nuclear terrorism. The one concern I do have is that the bill, as amended, coming back from the Senate does not authorize the appropriation of $30 million. I believe that is important. It is essential that we have it; but, again, this is a major step forward, so I am pleased to support the legislation even though I wish that the $30 million had been included in it. This bill targets an ongoing threat in a unique way. It will reinvigorate the workforce pipeline to guarantee the Nation a resource of technical experts in this vital and critical field, and it will strengthen America's attribution capabilities. Again, this is a bipartisan effort. It's the Homeland Security Committee working with Mr. Schiff and the Intelligence Committee. It is important that we pass this and that we really, again, send a strong signal of how we do believe in layered defenses, of how we realize the need of staying ahead of the terrorist threat and of doing all we can to protect the American people in a way which certainly transcends Republican or Democrat lines or liberal-conservative lines. It is an issue that should galvanize all Americans. So, with that, I strongly urge support of H.R. 730. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I would like to close by stating that all of us realize that a terrorist attack is a nightmare scenario. The fact that we came so close to the loss of life on Christmas Day reminded us dramatically of the dangerous world in which we live. Those of us from New York will never forget September 11, 2001. But just think of the ultimate nightmare scenario, and that would be a nuclear attack. That is almost beyond our imagination. That is why everything must be done to stop those attacks, and to also have the deterrent, as Congressman Schiff said, the deterrent of retaliation against any country, against any entity, against any individual, any organization, which was in any way involved in providing nuclear weaponry to be used against the United States. I strongly urge the adoption of this legislation. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1242, the TARP Accountability and Disclosure Act. As the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, I have worked closely with Representatives Maloney and Cantor as well as Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus to bring this important bill to the House floor. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, created the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, which authorized the Treasury Department to buy $700 billion worth of troubled assets from financial institutions. This money has also been used by Treasury to purchase preferred stock from banks and other financially troubled companies, such as AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler, and in support of programs such as the Targeted Investment Program, Asset Guarantee Program, and Consumer and Business Lending Initiative Investment Program to name a few. While Congress did subsequently place additional conditions on how it could be spent, it has been rather difficult to follow and account for this vast amount of money. It is also important that not only our government but also the American People know exactly where their taxpayer dollars are going for programs such as TARP. The TARP Accountability and Disclosure Act requires the creation of a database system within the Department of Treasury and provides for additional monitoring and accountability that will provide true transparency of how the TARP funds are used. This system would serve as an efficient mechanism for oversight, audits, and investigations. H.R. 1242 will also require that this database be made publicly available, allow for the daily collection of information and for the filtering of data content. Finally, it will prohibit the disclosure of information that would already be prohibited by any federal or state law or regulation including proprietary information. So, why is this necessary? Well, not only is this information reported to over 25 different federal agencies, including the SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Commodities Futures Trading Commission, but the data is located in various systems and formats that are incompatible with one another. The TARP Accountability and Disclosure Act would require all relevant TARP data collected be put in a single standardized format so these funds will be transparent and traceable. I am pleased to report that this legislation is supported by many organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, the Center for Democracy and Technology, OMB Watch, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, and the NAACP. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. The Fire and SAFER grant programs reauthorized by this bill are highly effective and vitally important programs which provide much-needed support to fire departments and emergency responders across the country. As chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, I strongly support reauthorization of these two grant programs. First responders rely on Fire grants for the training, vehicles, and equipment that are necessary to keep our communities safe, while SAFER grants provide the necessary funds to hire and train new firefighters and to help recruit and train volunteer firefighters. In 2008 alone, the Fire grant program received $3.2 billion in requests for grants, which highlights a serious need in the firefighter and first responder community for more resources. I continue to support strong funding for both the Fire and SAFER programs. I am pleased that H.R. 3791 authorizes $1 billion annually for the Fire program and approximately $1.2 billion annually for the SAFER program over the next 5 years. The Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act that passed the House in June provided double the amount of funding for the SAFER program over last year. However, I am disappointed that the final funding level approved by Congress for the Fire grant program in Fiscal Year 2010 is $175 million less than last year's funding for that program. Both of these programs merit robust funding. The bill under consideration today incorporates the unified recommendations of the major fire service organizations that represent volunteer, career, and combination fire departments across the country. For example, this bill adds an ``economic hardship waiver'' for the Fire grant program for fire departments that are unable to meet certain matching requirements or budget requirements. In addition, the bill adds an economic hardship waiver to allow fire departments to retain staff with SAFER grant funds whom they would otherwise have to lay off in these difficult economic times. This bill also allots 10 percent of Fire grants to the Fire Prevention and Safety program, which is up from 5 percent in previous years. I hope that both the Fire and SAFER grant programs will see continued support from this administration and the Democratic leadership. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important bill.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996--the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference Report, 2010: Requesting Member: Congressman Peter King Bill Number: H.R. 2996 Account: Environmental Protection Agency--STAG Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nassau County Address of Requesting Entity: 1550 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501 Description of Request: $300,000 will be used to complete the technical design report for the relocation of the Bay Park Sewer Treatment outfall from Reynolds Channel to the Atlantic Ocean.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of New York. I thank Chairman Rangel for yielding. Speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of the entire New York Republican delegation of myself and Congressman Lee--a very powerful two-man delegation against 27--seriously, Congressman Owens, it is a privilege to welcome you to the House of Representatives. Thank you for your years of service to your country. We look forward to working with you. You will find, whether it's 27-2 or 18-13--or whatever it was a few years ago--we in the New York delegation do work across the aisle and work with each other, and I wish you the very best.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I am proud to rise in support of this legislation which will be naming a post office in honor of Jack Kemp. As the Speaker well knows, Jack Kemp was a long-time Congressman from New York. Jack Kemp was a proud Republican who was always willing to reach across party lines. Jack Kemp was a principled conservative who tried to find ways always to make those who were not as well off as others, to enable them to move up in society. He was particularly interested in low-income areas. He was particularly interested in expanding housing opportunities for the underprivileged. As the Speaker knows, Congressman Kemp worked very closely with Congressman Garcia in the Bronx to expand housing, to provide more opportunities. Jack Kemp was a Republican who saw a large world. He saw a world where we could reach out to all people. In my own case, I was proud to call Jack Kemp a friend. I knew him for many years before I had the opportunity to be here in Congress. During that time I was always struck by his integrity, by his candor and by his willingness to explain, even to people like myself, the nuances of economics. Jack Kemp was the author and the architect--and no one was more involved than he was in the Reagan Revolution--of the Kemp-Roth tax bills which brought unprecedented job growth to this country. Mr. Speaker, Jack Kemp personified the very best of this Congress. He personified the very best of being an all-pro athlete, a person who was always there for his friends, always there for his country, a man who until the day he died was fighting for the principles he believed in. I am proud to join in this resolution.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the issue of chemical plant security is obviously a very vital one. It's one that has to be addressed. It's an issue which certainly since September 11 is more vital than ever. That is why, in 2006, the Homeland Security Committee, when I was chairman working across the aisle, worked long and hard to enact landmark legislation. There was much negotiation. There was much debate. We covered issues such as preemption and inherently safer technology. Legislation was put in place, and that is the basis upon which the Department has been acting for the past 3 years. And this legislation that we enacted then is in the process of being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, the Department, itself, asked for a 1-year extension. That was voted on in the appropriations bill last month, which I strongly supported. As far as I know, the administration has not asked for this legislation, and I'm not aware of any statement of support that they've sent up in support of it. But before I get to that, let me just commend the chairman, Mr. Thompson, the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent, because even though we are going to have differences during this debate today, I want to emphasize the fact that this was done very fairly, very openly, and with a tremendous spirit of cooperation from your side of the aisle and I hope from ours as well. The differences today are very honest ones, but I want to emphasize the level of cooperation that existed throughout this process. I am, however, opposed to the legislation because I believe it is going to create confusion and undue cost. It is going to cost jobs, and it's going to raise taxes. It gives far too much credibility to IST, or inherently safer technology, which is a concept, yet this concept will have, I believe, a very stifling effect on the private sector. We should keep in mind that we're not just talking about large chemical plant facilities, but we're also talking about institutions such as colleges and hospitals which will have to incur these costs. The current law is working. And I asked the chairman this during the time of the debate when it was in the committee, what is the rush to move it through? And when I say ``rush,'' obviously, if it had to be done, we should do it immediately, we should do it yesterday. But the fact is that the Department did not ask for this extension, did not ask for these changes. I believe that we took a good concept, an admirable concept of enhancing chemical plant security, and have allowed concepts and ideas regarding the environment, regarding certain pet projects, and allowed that to, I believe, have too large an influence on this bill. There is another aspect of this bill which has been added, and that's the concept of civil lawsuits against the Department. I know Mr. McCaul, in the debate later, is going to offer an amendment on this issue. But any fair reading of the testimony of the Department at the hearing we held on this legislation made it clear that they did not support this language regarding the civil lawsuits. Quite frankly, with all the work the Department of Homeland Security has to do, with the difficulty there is in bringing all of these thousands of entities into compliance with the law, I believe the last thing they need right now is to be subjected to civil lawsuits where there would virtually be no limitations on who could bring those lawsuits. My understanding is that the person doesn't even have to be a citizen to bring a lawsuit under this or live in the State where the facility is located. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a bridge too far. This is a rush to judgment. Rather than work with the carefully crafted and thought-out legislation that we adopted in a bipartisan way 3 years ago, we are now changing it--and changing again--without a request from the Obama administration. We have language in this legislation which was clear the administration opposed at the time of the debate on the bill when it was before the committee. So I strongly urge, reluctantly, that the legislation be voted down. But in doing that, let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a large number of organizations opposed to this legislation, such as the American Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association. I will place into the Record the letter which was sent by a group of these organizations in opposition to the legislation, H.R. 2868. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude--and by the way, I will be asking Mr. Dent to manage the balance of the time on our side. I would ask those on the other side to go easy on Mr. Dent; he is suffering from trauma. His team, the Phillies, after being lucky last year, have gone back to their usual ways and they were defeated last night. I give him credit for coming out of his bed, from coming out from underneath the covers to be here today to take part in this debate. So especially I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has a talent for going for the jugular, you can do it to me, but please go easy on Mr. Dent today if you would. And I'm sure the chairman concurs in the sympathy we feel for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on a serious note, we started work on this legislation in good faith. That good faith continues. But I strongly believe, and others on our side do, that the extreme environmental language in the bill is going to tie the hands of the Homeland Security Secretary with unrelated costly and burdensome provisions. Congress has granted the President's request for a 1-year extension. We should let the Department of Homeland Security continue its work. I believe that moving this legislation forward will hurt the Department, will hurt small businesses, and will not improve the security of these facilities. November 4, 2009. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner: We write to you today to express our opposition to H.R. 2868, the ``Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009.'' Despite the changes made to this legislation in the Energy and Commerce and Homeland Security Committees, we continue to oppose the bill due to the detrimental impact it will have on national security and economic stability. Specifically, we strongly object to the Inherently Safer Technology (IST) provisions of this legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. These provisions would be significantly detrimental to the progress of existing chemical facility security regulations (the ``CFATS'' program) and should not be included in this legislation. DHS should not be making engineering or business decisions for chemical facilities around the country. It should be focused instead on making our country more secure and protecting American citizens from terrorist threats. Decisions on chemical substitutions or changes in processes should be made by qualified professionals whose job it is to ensure safety at our facilities. Furthermore, forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Because chemical facilities are custom-designed and constructed, such mandates would also impose significant financial hardship on facilities struggling during the current economic recession. Some of these forced changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility. Ultimately, many facilities would not be able to bear this expense. Thank you for taking our concerns into account as the House of Representatives continues to consider the ``Chemical Water and Security Act of 2009.'' We stand ready to work with Congress towards the implementation of a responsible chemical facility security program. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association American Farm Bureau Federation American Forest & Paper Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Trucking Associations; Chemical Producers and Distributors Association; Consumer Specialty Products Association; The Fertilizer Institute; Institute of Makers of Explosives; International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International Liquid Terminals Association; International Warehouse Logistics Association; National Agricultural Aviation Association; National Association of Chemical Distributors; National Association of Manufacturers; National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry; National Mining Association; National Oilseed Processors Association; National Paint and Coatings Association; National Pest Management Association; National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; National Propane Gas Association; North American Millers' Association; Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association; Petroleum Marketers Association of America; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; USA Rice Federation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3619--the Coast Guard Authorization Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King Bill Number: H.R. 3619 Section: 1321 Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nassau County Police Department Address of Requesting Entity: 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501 Description of Request: The transfer of two excess 41-foot utility boats from the U.S. Coast Guard to the Nassau County Police Department. The conveyance of these vessels will enhance the port and homeland security capabilities within the region.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise on the House floor tonight to manage a Special Order on behalf of our former colleague and the present Secretary of the Army, former Congressman John McHugh, now Secretary John McHugh. Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who does have to leave, and I would recognize him for 2 minutes.

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, who actually served in the State legislature with John McHugh back when John was a senator and the gentleman was an assemblyman, Mr. Tonko from Upstate New York.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his very gracious remarks. In your remarks, you demonstrated the same bipartisan spirit that personified John McHugh's career here in the House of Representatives, and I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Now I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his remarks. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania referenced, Congressman McHugh did go on a number of congressional delegations to Iraq. I was privileged to go on one that he led in 2004. But just to show that Congressman McHugh is not perfect, he did have one person on the trip who really didn't fit in at all, but Congressman McHugh, being the wonderful person that he is, brought him along with a sense of charity and compassion. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter.

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks. Now I will yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who served in the New York State legislature with John McHugh when John was a senator and Mr. Hinchey was in the New York State Assembly. And I believe that Mr. Hinchey and Mr. McHugh came to Congress in the same year, in 1992. It was quite a year, Mo. With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks. I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his remarks. I must say, I agree with him completely that Congressman McHugh had a level of sophistication and sartorial splendor which you and I certainly lack. We all try to emulate John but come nowhere close. General Leave

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who also served in the New York State Legislature, in the assembly when Congressman McHugh was at that time a State senator. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, a good friend of Secretary McHugh, Mr. LaTourette.