Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, both former President Clinton and others have said that he saw the same intelligence as President Bush did. With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), a newly elected Member.

Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I would just advise the supporters of the resolution that while Mr. Clay and others did oppose the war, and I certainly commend them for their consistency, the fact is the Democratic leader at the time and many of the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate strongly supported the war resolution in October of 2002, both in the House and the Senate.

Mr. KING of New York. Reclaiming my time, I never suggested unpatriotic. I said you are questioning the competency or credibility of the commander in Iraq, who was just confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate, which as my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, isn't this a historic debate? It is part of our job. It is our obligation. It is a legal obligation; it is a moral obligation to be heard on this most pressing issue of our time. I would also add at the outset, when we have talked about those who died in Iraq, and all of us go to the wakes of those who were killed in our district. Just the other day, if we are talking about the quality of the type of person, where they come from and who was killed in Iraq, there was a young man who was actually in what used to be the heart of my district, very affluent area, Manhasset. He was a graduate of Duke University, all-American Lacrosse player, was offered a scholarship to law school, but he turned it down to go in as an enlisted man, as an Army Ranger. He served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was killed on his third tour of Iraq. His family was proud of what he did, what he accomplished, what he stood for. I think it doesn't really add to the level of debate to somehow be suggesting that those who go to Iraq because they cannot be anywhere else or somehow it is all driven by economic need, he was a young man with everything in front of him. He had all the opportunity in the world, and he went, and he joined the Army, went in as an enlisted man, died as a sergeant, and he was on his third tour in Iraq. So I think it is important to put that in the Record. Also, I know there are any number of Members in this body who have had members of their families serving in Iraq. I think if we are going to talk about the gentleman from New York who wants to bring back the draft, we can have that in a separate debate. But I don't think it should be part of this debate. Now, when this debate was actually scheduled, I actually thought it would serve a constructive purpose. But as I look at the resolutions being offered, if I could really, I guess, quote from Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, rather than a resolution, it is really a resolution of irresolution. It is inherently contradictory, because it pledges support to the troops but also at the same time washes its hands of what the troops are attempting to do. I have heard speaker after speaker get up here today and say the new policy cannot work. The new policy is more of the same. This is the President's policy. He hasn't gotten the message from the American people. Well the fact is, this policy is strongly supported by the new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. As was pointed out, the Senate unanimously approved the appointment of General Petraeus by a vote of 81-0. Now, for people to come here today and say this is an inherently flawed policy, this is a policy that cannot work, this is a policy that is doomed to failure, to me, after General Petraeus has said that he believes the policy can work, that he supports the policy, is to attack directly either the credibility or the competency of General Petraeus, and that is a terrible message to be sending to our troops. Actions do have consequences. I don't doubt the good faith of anyone on either side of the aisle when it comes to supporting the troops. The fact is, often you have to think beyond what the actual words are saying and realize the consequences those words have. For instance, my good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I have actually traveled to Iraq with in 2003, where we met with General Petraeus and others in Mosul and with others and troops in Baghdad, he said that Iraq is a mess, and we have to end the nightmare. Does anyone really think by Americans pulling out the nightmare is going to end, that the Middle East will become stable if we leave? Certainly al Qaeda doesn't believe that. Certainly the mullahs in Iran don't believe that. And also our allies don't believe that. Again, what are the consequences of our actions? Are we saying just draw down for the sake of drawing down? I heard the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives say our goal is to get our troops home. Well, I would say our goal should be to have our troops come home after we have achieved a goal, a goal of at least a stable Iraq, an Iraq which is able to protect its borders against Iran, and an Iraq which is able to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a privileged sanctuary in Iraq, and an Iraq which is able to create a situation in the north where the Kurds and the Turks are not fighting with one another. So these are all serious issues that have to be addressed. I regret to say this resolution does not address it in any way. If anything, it is a serious step backward. Now, also we have heard that we have to listen to the polls. We have to listen to what public opinion has to be at any particular time. Well, if anyone wants to go back and look at the polls, in 1952, President Truman's popularity rating was 22 percent. War in Korea was amazingly unpopular, and yet today he is acknowledged as one of our greatest Presidents, and the war in Korea is looked upon as an absolutely indispensable step in the defeat of communism, because they drew the line in Asia at the 38th parallel. I know my good friend Mr. Rangel served in Korea, he was wounded in Korea, and he performed valiantly in Korea. That war now is looked upon as one of the linchpins of the Cold War strategy, which, again, brought down the Communist menace. Also I tried to research this. I am not aware of any time in the entire history of our country where the United States Congress has adopted a resolution questioning a particular battlefield strategy. Like him or not, and I certainly support him, but the President is our Commander in Chief. I said the same thing when President Clinton was our Commander in Chief, and I was serving in this body at that time when there was tremendous criticism directed at him. But the fact is, the President, no matter where he or she happens to be from, is the Commander in Chief. And we are at war. It was a war that was authorized by this Congress. And we should not be, I do not believe, setting the precedent of adopting resolutions questioning specific strategies. Should we have adopted a resolution in the winter of 1944, 1945, questioning President Roosevelt's strategy in allowing the intelligence failures that brought about the Battle of the Bulge? We can go step by step. Certainly President Lincoln, during the Civil War when strategies were changed throughout the war and finally resulted in a victory. Also we have to realize that the war in Iraq is part of an overall war against Islamic terrorism. As the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, certainly we see that this is an enemy which is overseas and it is here. It is an enemy which is plotting every day to find ways to attack us. I know later the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee will also speak to this part of the issue. But the fact is, we do not live in vacuums. We cannot isolate battlefields and silos and say this is Iraq, this is Afghanistan, and this is the Twin Towers. The fact is, we are talking about actions having consequences. And I have been very critical of the Republican Party for 1983 when I believe we precipitously withdrew from Beirut. That had consequences. I was in this body when we precipitously withdrew from Somalia. I was also in this body when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993 and we took no action, or Khobar Towers when a constituent of mine was killed in 1996. We took no action. The USS Cole in 2000 when we took no action. In 1998 the attacks on the African embassies, where we took very limited action. All of those had consequences. In fact, now we see after September 11, 2001, we find the historical record where Osama bin Laden said that when we saw that the United States was willing to withdraw from Somalia, how that emboldened Islamic terrorists throughout the world, how that showed them that we did not have the staying power, we did not have the guts to stick it out. Listen, those who are really putting it on the line, those who have the guts are the men and women of the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. But also we as elected officials have to show some courage and not just give in to the zeitgeists, not just give in to the latest public opinion poll or to the latest election, because quite frankly we were not elected to win elections; we were elected to show leadership and to do what has to be done. When future generations look back at this, will they really say that we helped the struggle against Islamic terrorism by pulling out of Iraq, by not continuing that fight? Does anyone really think that that will not embolden al Qaeda, that that will not embolden Iran? Can anyone honestly say that? And so I believe that what disappoints me about this debate and this resolution is we are treating Iraq almost like it is a pinpoint. It is one issue standing by itself, and it is not. It is part of a mosaic; it is part of a worldwide struggle. As someone who lost more than 100 friends, neighbors, constituents on September 11, I have seen firsthand the evils of Islamic terrorism. As ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, I know how there are forces in this country who would take action against us. I know the connections between forces in this country and forces overseas. It is no secret. It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda wants us to lose in Iraq. It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda encourages the enemy against us in Iraq, and in fact has al Qaeda in Iraq itself fighting against us. So now we come to the question of, with our troops committed there, with this being an absolutely essential part of the war against terrorism, what do we do? I agree that there is a consensus that the current policy has not been successful. There have been successes, but the policy itself has not been fully successful. That is true in almost every war in which America has been engaged. It was certainly true during World War II, it was certainly true during Korea, and even take a war like Kosovo, which is probably almost as antiseptic as a war could be, even though every war when anyone's life is on the line is brutal and deadly. But from a strategic point of view, we are talking about it should have been a simple war. We ended up bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade. So, I mean, mistakes are made. And for us to say because mistakes are made we should redeploy our troops, which really is a euphemism for withdrawal. We are sending signals to the world. We are sending signals to our troops, we are sending signals to our allies, we are sending signals to our enemies. On the one hand if we are unanimously confirming General Petraeus who supports this policy, and on the other hand we are saying we know the policy cannot work and we are actually going for the first time in American history going on record opposing a particular strategic policy, then I would say, where are we getting this from? People say that this is just the same policy as we have had all along. General Petraeus says it is not. And I do not believe it is. Can I guarantee the new policy will work? No, I cannot. But I have met with generals, I have met with military experts, and they give good reasons why it can work. And there are people of very good faith on the other side who say it will not work. But as I look at this, our commander, who is looked upon as the expert in counterinsurgency, who is the general who has certainly achieved the most in Iraq, and anyone who has been to Mosul knows the job that he achieved there, if he says this policy should work, and can work, then I believe we have the moral obligation, we have the legal obligation, and we have the obligation to history and for our children and grandchildren that we not undercut General Petraeus, that we not tell our troops we do not have faith in their ability to carry out the mission which General Petraeus says can be carried out, and we do not embolden our enemies by saying just wait this out a few months, wait it out a few months and you will get it, wait us out a few months and we will pull out like we did in Beirut or Somalia. We cannot allow that message to be sent. The burden is on us. And if we fail in this mission, and the mission I believe of standing with our troops, standing with our commander in the field, and standing with the policy that the overwhelming majority of Congress voted for in 2003, and also the pledge that all of us made on September 11, 2001, then we will have failed in our obligations as Members of the United States Congress and failed in our obligation to our oath of office to do what has to be done, which should be done, which is essential if we are going to win the war against Islamic terrorism.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of the debate, I commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on his elevation to the position of chairman. He is an outstanding Member of this House, and I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan manner throughout the next 2 years. I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the manner in which this bill was brought to the floor today and, indeed, with many of the provisions that are in this bill. I say that as someone who lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11th, who has a number of staff members working for me who lost relatives on September 11th, so no issue is more important to me than getting homeland security right and making it work. But during the previous 2 years, certainly during the 15 months that I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, it was bipartisan. Every bill that came to the floor went through subcommittee and went through the full committee. Port security legislation, FEMA restructuring, chemical plant security bill, all went through the subcommittee, full committee and were adopted by this House and were signed into law. In addition to that, we had the risk-based funding bill which went through the committee and again passed on the House floor. It was blocked in the Senate. But the fact is, we got results, and we got them in a bipartisan basis. No bill came to the floor without full bipartisan cooperation from day one. Now, unfortunately, for whatever reason, as part of the 100 hours show, the leadership refuses to allow any bipartisan input, no committee involvement at all, no subcommittee involvement and no amendments. And in doing that, it is not just a shot at us. We can survive that. We will be back in 2 years. But what I am concerned about is, what this does for the next 2 years and what it does to the Homeland Security Committee, because the 9/11 Commission specifically stated that a committee should be given primary jurisdiction. That should be the Homeland Security Committee. The Democrats could have taken care of that in their rules package. They refused to do it. So the most important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is not being enacted today. It is not being done at all. In fact, they are weakening the committee by bypassing the committee process. I will use as one example what happens when a bill is rushed to the floor without the proper deliberative process. We talk about 100 percent scanning of all cargo coming into our ports. The fact is in the port security bill, which passed the House, passed the Senate and was enacted into law, we set up pilot projects around the world to find a scanning process that works. The fact is there is no current technology that works at 100 percent. We don't have it. We want to find what works the best. Nowhere in the 9/11 Commission report do they call for 100 percent scanning. All of us want to have it. The fact is we are not going to be able to scan 11 million containers coming into our shores. Now, last year when this was first raised by the Democratic Party, the Washington Post said it is a terrible idea. It is a slogan, not a solution. We hope lawmakers resist the temptation to use it in the election season to come. Now, the Washington Post is not exactly an advocate of the Republican Party. Today in their editorial, they talk about what a tough job it is to bring about homeland security. They say it will not be done by wasting money on the kind of political shenanigans written into the sprawling Democratic bill introduced on the House floor today. The Democrats don't offer a realistic cost estimate for the mandate they will propose, but the cost to the government and the economy is sure to be in the tens of billions of dollars and quite possibly hundreds of billions annually. Luckily, the Senate will give more thought to its homeland security bill, the Washington Post says, but House Democrats can figure those odds as well as anyone, but why not score some easy political points in your first 100 hours. Well, the fact is you shouldn't be scoring political points on the issue of homeland security. That is too important an issue to be trivialized the way you are doing it here today. Now I will, in the end, I will vote for this bill despite its faults, because I want to send a bipartisan message that the House stands behind homeland security. But I will hope that in the future, we will have a Homeland Security Committee which is empowered the way it should be by the Democratic leadership, that a Homeland Security Committee, which I know the chairman wants to do, will work in a bipartisan way so we can address the scourge of Islamic terrorism as Republicans and Democrats and Americans and not having something rammed through to score cheap political points in the 100-hour circus. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Mississippi as to how many speakers he has?

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to E. Ronald Durand, Jr., a longtime friend and true patriot who passed away on September 20, 2006. I first met Ron Durand in the late 1960s when we were both students at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Ron had entered law school after serving 6 years in the United States Marine Corps. Rising to the rank of captain, Ron's service included a tour of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, where he was highly decorated and flew many rescue missions. During our time together in law school Ron was a true leader--soft- spoken but strong. He and his wife Liz were close friends to me and my wife Rosemary and we remained in contact in the years that followed. During his professional career, Ron achieved much as an entrepreneur and as an airport executive. He was a true renaissance man. With all his varied accomplishments, Ron Durand was first and foremost a true American patriot, exemplified by his heroic service in Vietnam. Ron's love of country, however, went beyond his military duty. He truly cared about our country and always maintained an acute and detailed knowledge, awareness and interest in national and international matters. Ron Durand was admired, respected and loved by all who had the privilege of knowing him. It is fitting and appropriate that he will be interred at Arlington National Cemetery with military honors on November 22. No one is more deserving. May he rest in peace. Go Irish.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This is a night of a true success in the area of homeland security and port security. This is an issue which the country was focused on earlier this year with the whole Dubai Ports issue. It is an issue which the Homeland Security Committee addressed head on. We passed the bill out of committee. It passed the full House floor by a vote of 421- 2; and now we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, for final passage. Let me at the outset commend the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, for the tremendous cooperation that he gave throughout the committee process on this bill; Subcommittee Chairman Lungren on our side for his work, the leadership he demonstrated; and also Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. This was definitely and truly a bipartisan effort, and we are here tonight because both parties came together, we worked together, we realized the importance of this. We realized that homeland security should not be a partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on at great length, but I will give just some of the highlights of the bill. It provides $400 million a year in dedicated port security grant programs, three pilot programs for 100 percent screening for nuclear and radiological material. It enhances the Container Security Initiative, CSI. It codifies and strengthens CTPAT. It also establishes the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. It also sets deadlines for TWIC. Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which encompasses so much of the issues that we have to address with port security. It is legislation whose time has come. It is legislation which makes our country safer or makes our ports more secure. It will enable the commerce of the country to go forward. And it is a bill which distinctly addresses the concerns raised by the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the matter under consideration.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I assure the House I will not use the 14 minutes. I also at this stage would like to commend the staff for the tremendous work they have done throughout this process. I would like to thank Mandy Bowers, Matt McCabe, Amanda Halpern, Kevin Gronberg, Diane Berry, Sterling Marchand, Kerry Kinirons, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, and also the people on the minority staff. In saying that, let me just say, Mr. Markey brought us into the new day, his eloquence, his soaring rhetoric brought us into the new day, but he uses the same tired arguments of yesterday, the arguments we hear time and again, the tired metaphors, the lame similes, he goes on and on. He says Democrats were kept out of the process. Democrats were involved every step of the way, every minute, until the Internet gambling came over, which we found out about for the first time at the same time he did. Now, he may want to talk to the minority leader in the Senate and ask him why he consented to this being in, why they wanted it in. That is not my problem. But the fact is, it is really wrong to suggest that there was any moment at all throughout the past 10 or 12 days, when at every stage of the way we ensured that the Democratic staff was there reporting back to their principals, I don't know where the gentleman from Massachusetts was. Maybe he was out buying a dog. I don't know. But the fact is if he had spoken with his staff, if he had spoken to the committee staff, if he had spoken to the ranking member, he would have known what was going on. Also, I waited patiently for 29\1/2\ minutes listening to the opposition trying to hear one person say one negative word about the port security bill. Finally, Mr. Markey came up with his argument and he was talking about detecting radiation overseas. The fact is, again in the spirit of bipartisanship and bicameralism, we adopted the language put forth by Senator Lautenberg in the Senate to have three pilot projects. So there we are agreeing with the Senator from New Jersey, which I guess is not good enough for the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would also say that this legislation goes right to the heart of the issues that we are trying to address. The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot accept that. But I will say for the other Members, certainly Mr. Pascrell, for the contributions that he made to this bill, to the ranking member, to Mr. Langevin, who has really been a leader in the whole issue of radiation portal monitors, they have been there. So I would again say let us celebrate the fact that we are passing historic port security legislation tonight. Let us respect the fact that our committee, which is only in its second year, has passed major legislation. Let us respect the fact and acknowledge the fact that our committee paved the way. We showed the way for the Senate. We passed a bill which has been virtually intact, from the subcommittee to the committee to the House floor and now here tonight with the conference report. And rather than begrudging, rather than saying it could have been this or it could have been that, rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good, let's accept this good legislation, let's go forward, let us realize we made the American people far safer. And we did it because of a bipartisan effort, which should have been bipartisan right to the last moment. Unfortunately, the naysayers tried to take this over. The fact is they cannot deny the reality. This is excellent legislation that makes our country safe. We should be proud. I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1064, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, again I inquire as to how much time remains. The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that I was listening very carefully to the gentleman's remarks, and I really heard nothing at all critical of the port security bill. We are talking about other bills that maybe should be covered or other items. The fact is, on the issue of port security, this is the port security bill. It did receive wide bipartisan support. And I think, rather than go on extraneous issues and talking and talking about fences, we are talking about port security. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor of the port security bill, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 236, a resolution expressing Congressional support for a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan. As a cosponsor of this resolution, I join with over 65 of my colleagues in urging the Administration to begin these negotiations. For more than 50 years, the U.S. and Taiwan have shared a close economic and security relationship resulting in more than 140 bilateral agreements. In 2005, trade between these countries totaled $56.9 billion as Taiwan became the 8th leading trading partner of the U.S. while the U.S. was Taiwan's 3rd leading trading partner. The Bush Administration has shown its commitment to expanding free trade in the region by signing FTAs with Singapore and launching negotiations with Korea and Malaysia recently. Now it is time to start discussions with Taiwan on a FTA that will further strengthen this relationship. A 2002 report issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission found various sectors of the U.S. economy would increase significantly if the U.S. entered in to a FTA with Taiwan. While both the U.S. and Taiwan would benefit greatly from the elimination of trade and investment barriers, New York State stands to gain as well. Some of the largest U.S. companies whose headquarters are based in New York have invested in Taiwan. And over 300 Taiwanese companies specializing in computers, finance, and jewelry have invested in New York. In 2005 New York State exported over $1 billion worth of products to Taiwan. The reduction of these tariffs will certainly increase exports to Taiwan and create more jobs in New York. Finally, this FTA will allow New York companies to use Taiwan as a gateway for selling its products to China and the entire Asia-Pacific region. A FTA between the U.S. and Taiwan has already been endorsed by 23 state legislatures. This important agreement will expand and greatly enhance the already close relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, given these facts, I believe now is the time to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would like to address the meaning of section 546 of the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security appropriations conference report regarding the Western Hemisphere Traveling Initiative, also known as WHTI. I would like to establish the fact that the language proposed in the conference report does not require a delay in implementation; in fact, the date change does not prohibit the administration from complying with its original deadline of January 1, 2008.

Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let me at the outset thank Chairman Rogers for the extraordinary work he has done and the extraordinary cooperation he has exhibited toward the Homeland Security Committee. There are two key components of this appropriations bill which are in fact legislation passed by our committee and which Mr. Rogers has so generously moved forward for us: certainly FEMA reform, and chemical plant security. On the issue of FEMA reform, let me also commend Chairman Reichert for the extraordinary work he did at the subcommittee and committee level; and on the chemical plant security legislation, let me commend Chairman Lungren for his work. As someone coming from New York, let me point out the fact that this legislation includes a $30 million increase for the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, a grant program particularly important for the New York City and the metropolitan area. On FEMA reform, this is real reform. This gives FEMA the leverage and the power and the autonomy it needs within the overall perspective of homeland security. As far as chemical plant security, this is extraordinary legislation because for the first time it gives the Department of Homeland Security rulemaking power over the chemical plant industry. I could go on for great length about this legislation, but I would like to yield to Sheriff Reichert.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding, and we had the opinion of committee counsel on this, that it does not preempt States.

Mr. KING of New York. That is not the intention. Mr. Speaker, let me just commend the gentleman for his many years of service to this House and wish him the very best in the years to come.