Mr. Richard Neal:

Last week I was one of the speakers at a retirement party for Peter King, a Republican from New York. We were full partners and never had a word of disagreement as it related to the North, and we are also good friends. I like former Congressman Jim Walsh, a Republican from New York. This morning I was on a call with the Secretary of State where Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, could not have been any more aggressive in his questioning of the Secretary of State about the Pat Finucane murder, because that is what it was. We have always tried to keep this bipartisan and bicameral, and I believe we have succeeded in doing such. This is one of the reasons it worked.

The Friends of Ireland, which was founded by Speaker O'Neill, a friend to me, was based upon the idea that what was taking place in the United States of America because of gun running had to be brought to heel. The trade-off for that was there had to be a serious discussion about addressing the inequities that had existed for the nationalist people in the North of Ireland. The plan that was developed, the Friends of Ireland, was to try always to be an honest broker while understanding that one of the traditions might not always see it that way. At the same time, they always got a hearing in the United States of America. They might not have liked the answer but they did get a hearing. Speaker O'Neill's vision in establishing Friends of Ireland was meant to offset the primordial grievances that many of us felt about the North and how human rights had been handled there. He befriended many of the people over the years and came in time to be friends with members of both traditions on that sort of basis. It is our understanding, even to this day, when one hears some of the words from people like Mr. Peter Robinson and some of the comments that have been made by Baroness Paisley and many others, that they are light years away from where these positions may have been adopted 30 years ago, and so I am very encouraged.

On the multilateral trade agreement, the committee might reference a piece I authored in The New York Times just four or five days ago, in which I took the position that a multilateral trade agreement between the United States of America and the European Union would be the best way to address the more aggressive posture that China has adopted around the world. The most important bilateral economic relationship, and perhaps military relationship, in the world is now that which exists between the United States of America and China. Managing that relationship is essential.

One of the best ways to do this is to engage fully and remind people that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, negotiation that I urged former President Obama to juxtapose with the Transition to Practice, TTP, plan, is fully engaged. I have had conversations with President-elect Biden and I believe that he shares my view on this. He has, by and large, been a free trade Senator and a free trade Vice President, and I believe he will take those sensibilities to the White House with him also. It would allow us to address climate change, as the Senator has aptly described, and the intercedence of American democracy in some manner or reflection of the long history we have had in our relationship with the European Union. Engaging that process makes a good deal of sense to me. That is a welcome question.