Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding. I must begin by reacting to the two distinguished Republican speakers who preceded me. The distinguished Republican leader recited movingly and accurately terrorist outrages across the globe. Those terrorist outrages make the passage of our resolution all the more urgent and all the more imperative. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are attempting to referee a religiously based civil war which saps our strength and destroys our fabric as a society. As to the distinguished Republican whip, may I say this resolution does not make tactical decisions. It reverses a mistaken course. The administration is recommending an acceleration of the wrong course. Our resolution reverses that course. Mr. Speaker, it is too late to go back and make right all that has gone wrong in Iraq, and clearly carrying on with more of the same will do no good. But the administration has yet to learn that you cannot unscramble an omelet. Instead, it is trying to add to the mix another 21,500 men and women who deserve better than that. In pursuing its policies in Iraq, the administration cannot unscramble and undo its many mistakes: buying into rogue and flawed intelligence; disbanding the Iraqi Army; conducting mindless and extreme de-Baathification; permitting the early looting and destruction and violence; allowing the growth of a government based on hate-filled sectarianism; allowing waste, fraud and abuse in the use of U.S. taxpayer funds; and on and on ad nauseam and ad infinitum. While we all hope that the goal of a quiet and stable Iraq will be achieved under General Petraeus, I am deeply skeptical. It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. The place is just too much of a mess. Our continued heavy presence in Iraq has not forced Iraqi leaders to take the requisite actions on power-sharing, resource-sharing, and national reconciliation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite. They have made minimal and cosmetic efforts in the knowledge that we will fill the gaps. In the meantime, there are so many other fronts, globally and here at home, on which we might have made much more progress if we had not been fixated these last 4 years on Iraq. Domestic and foreign problems have festered while we invested blood and treasure in Iraq. As our Iraq problems have mounted, our commitment and ability to resolve other pressing issues have vanished. Last November, the American people sent a loud and unmistakable message. With the announcement of an escalation of the war in Iraq, it is obvious that the administration did not get it. So we are trying one more time. The resolution before the House is the second chance for this administration to hear a strong and clear message on Iraq, one it ignores at its peril and at ours as a country. The majority of Congress wants de-escalation. The majority of the American people want de-escalation. Many Republicans throughout the Nation, and even our Republican colleagues in this Congress, want de- escalation. Poll numbers show that the Iraqi people want the United States to gradually withdraw, and Prime Minister al- Maliki has indicated in virtually every way that he can that he, too, opposes the surge. But the administration wants escalation. So it is going its own way, nearly alone. There is a clear-cut policy difference here, Mr. Speaker. It is reflected simply and unambiguously in our resolution. Those of our colleagues who oppose escalation should vote for the resolution. Those of our colleagues who stand with the administration in supporting escalation should oppose it. Along with 52 hearings on Iraq in the House and the Senate over the past 5 weeks, this resolution represents the first phase in a long overdue process of congressional oversight of the war in Iraq. It is not the last phase. Congress will be dealing with the Iraq issue for months to come, in fact, for as long as it takes to end this nightmare. But this simple resolution will establish the first marker. Those who want to draw down the U.S. presence will be on one side of that marker. Those who want to take further steps into the quagmire will be on the other. Mr. Speaker, we are throwing our soldiers into the midst of a civil war, particularly those whom we are sending to Baghdad. It is utterly unrealistic and grossly unfair to expect soldiers straight out of Iowa, Alabama, or California to be able to differentiate between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shias, much less to be able to tell at a glance which of these groups are with us and which are against us. But that is exactly what we are asking them to do, and we are asking them to do it in an urban terrorist setting and to do it without any linguistic or cultural background. The first sentence of the recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us everything we need to know on this issue: ``Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.'' Every day we read another article illustrating the impossibility of the situation into which we have inserted our brave men and women. One day, we read how the Iraqi Army is infested with militia members. Another day, we read that countless members of al-Sadr's violently anti-American Mahdi Army have actually been trained by U.S. soldiers unaware of the trainees' true affiliation. On yet another day, we read that U.S. soldiers cannot even tell their Iraqi counterparts the object of their joint military missions for fear that the mission will be compromised. This weekend, we read an interview with a U.S. soldier who acknowledged that he had no idea whatsoever whether an arrest he witnessed by Iraqi security forces was justified or merely another instance of sectarian revenge. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a hall of mirrors, and the administration has utterly lost its way. More troops will not help. The United States wants Iraq to be a state based on the rule of law, but too many Iraqis prefer score-settling, chaos, and civil war. We cannot create a stable Iraq when the Iraqis themselves do not seem to want it. Let us not leave our finest young men and women literally stranded in an Iraqi maze. Let us make this resolution the first step on their journey home. We must begin a reduction in force at the fastest responsible rate possible, consistent with the safety of our troops. And then it will be time to rebuild our battered military and, just as importantly, rebuild the battered reputation of the United States. For the sake of our troops and our national interests, I strongly support this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Missouri for yielding. I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, chairman of our Europe Subcommittee, my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my neighbor from Northern California, Ms. Lynn Woolsey.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia, a new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. Scott).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that today I, along with Frank Wolf, David Price, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and a number of other members have introduced the Advancing Democratic Values, Addressing Non-Democratic Countries and Enhancing (ADVANCE) Democracy Act of 2007. In the 109th Congress, precursor legislation spurred the Administration to start a number of changes in its approach, including adding capacity to the Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and creating an Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion. H.R. 982 builds on that momentum by continuing to try to achieve five major reforms. H.R. 982 (1) Requires the Secretary to develop long-term strategies for democracy promotion and human rights protection for non-democratic and democratic transition countries and countries where there are severe human rights violations, and focuses such strategies on building democratic institutions. (2) Requires that such strategies be developed in consultation with individuals and groups from each particular country that support democratic values and that such strategies be carried out in cooperation with our friends and allies and with international organizations. (3) Requires training on democracy promotion and human rights protection throughout the careers of members of the Foreign Service and other State Department employees. (4) Creates financial and promotion incentives for State Department employees who excel in democracy promotion and human rights protection. (5) Requires that Ambassadors and other senior members of the Foreign Service do more to reach out to foreign audiences and engage robustly with government officials, foreign media, non-governmental organizations and students to have serious discussions about U.S. foreign policy, particularly that related to democracy and human rights. The ADVANCE Democracy Act also contains a number of other additional reforms, such as requiring the establishment of an office to serve as a contact point for emerging activists, the development of guidelines for when nongovernmental organizations and contractors are appropriate implementing partners, and efforts to foster more multilateral cooperation on democracy promotion. The central thrust of these reforms is to ensure that democracy promotion is based on a long-term, multilateral approach that is created in consultation with those who are risking their lives for dignity and freedom and that does not ignore the most difficult countries. Madam Speaker, the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights are two sides of the same coin. We all recognize that these must be fundamental components of U.S. foreign policy, just as we realize that they are not the only components of U.S. foreign policy. We recognize the tension between these and other imperatives, but must always remember that building of democratic institutions and forward movement on democracy and human rights is always in U.S. interest, even if such movement is not as fast. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important reform initiative.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007. This critically important piece of legislation helps detect and safely dispose of Methamphetamine production sites across this nation. The issue of illegal methamphetamines is a top health concern for me and my constituents in the 12th district of California. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center's February 2005 National Drug Threats Assessment Report, the level of methamphetamine consumption in San Francisco is critically high compared with that of most other cities in the United States. Mr. Speaker, let me start by emphasizing the extreme danger that methamphetamines pose on today's youth. Methamphetamine is a drug concocted from a variety of household items including gasoline, paint thinner, battery acid, propane, and lighter fluid among other things, cooked together to form a powder or crystal like substance that is either smoked, ingested or injected. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy methamphetamines are a highly addictive drug that can cause progressive social and occupational deterioration and lead to episodes of violent behavior, paranoia, anxiety, confusion, and insomnia. Habitual usage can lead to physical complications such as inflammation of the heart lining, damaged blood vessels, skin abscesses, as well as variety of cardiovascular problems that ultimately can lead to death. Doctors have equated damage to the brain caused by methamphetamine use with brain damage caused by Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and epilepsy. Psychotic symptoms can sometimes persist for months or years after drug use has ceased. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health an estimated 10.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes. The Drug Abuse Warning Network estimates that in 2004 methamphetamine was involved in 73,400 emergency room visits. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the horrific effects that methamphetamine has on the human body the caustic nature of the production of the drug has enormously detrimental effects on the environment. This horrendous drug is produced in what is often referred to as ``Meth Labs.'' These laboratories can exist virtually anywhere, in fact methamphetamine laboratories have been found in all 50 states. They are overwhelmingly hidden amongst residential communities and pose a detrimental risk to millions of Americans. It is estimated that methamphetamine production creates approximately six pounds of waste for every one pound of product. If not properly cleaned, this highly volatile waste product leaves a toxic residue that can threaten the health of whoever may come in contact with it. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) there were more then 47,000 reported Meth Lab incidents between the years 2003 and 2005. Nearly one in five of those were fires or explosions caused by the highly toxic and potentially flammable ingredients used to create the drug. Even after these Meth Labs are discovered by authorities and shut down, and the criminals operating the labs are long incarcerated, the effects of their morally reprehensible action can continue to adversely affect the health and well-being of the innocent citizens living and working nearby. While some states including my home State of California have taken the initiative to pass laws that outline methamphetamine laboratory cleanup procedures, there are currently no federal standards for cleaning up these potentially toxic sites. Mr. Speaker, the time is long overdue for us to take action to seek out and shut down these labs in a safe and healthy way. H.R. 365, The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007 will do just that by creating a road map to assure the safety of our children and first responders. The bill authorizes $1.75 million in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to research best practices programs for detection and proper sanitation of methamphetamine labs. It will also specifically authorize $750,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in collaboration with the EPA to research and develop methamphetamine detection equipment. Thirdly, the bill will direct the EPA to work with the National Academy of Sciences to study the long term health effects of methamphetamine laboratory exposure to children and first responders. Mr. Speaker, the war against meth is being waged on many fronts. This bill is a critical step to ensuring that law enforcement agencies and first responders are provided with the best information and ability to mitigate the numerous detrimental effects caused by methamphetamine production. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation in an effort to rid our communities of this epidemic.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor a remarkable man, whose recent passing leaves a tremendous void in the world. I am referring of course to Father Robert Frederick Drinan, the first Catholic priest to serve as a voting Member of Congress and a pioneer advocate for human rights. According to news reports Father Drinan passed away from complications from pneumonia and congestive heart failure, but during his life Father Drinan spoke out clearly and loudly on behalf of those without a voice. His passion to protect the fundamental rights of the human condition both great and small was second to none. Mr. Speaker, Father Drinan's was a powerful force on behalf of human rights and he helped pave the way for the establishment of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. Although I came to Congress after he was forced to resign his seat, I fondly remember working with him in the defense of Soviet Jews in the early 1980s and I recall that he was routinely denied entry into the Soviet Union because of these convictions. I think it is poignant to know that Father Drinan never got caught up in the trappings of power or the personal ambitions of high public office. The best evidence of this fact is that Father Drinan never considered resigning from the priesthood when Pope John Paul II asked him to retire from Congress or resign. Robert Drinan was born in 1921 in Boston and entered the Society of Jesus after graduating from Boston College in 1942. He completed his seminary work at Weston College, where noted activist Daniel Berrigan was a classmate. After earning a master's degree from Boston College in 1947, Father Drinan headed south to Washington, DC, where he received two law degrees from Georgetown University. Father Drinan was ordained in 1953 and completed his doctorate in theology from Rome's Gregorian University. In 1955 he returned to his native Boston to take a position as associate dean and professor at Boston College Law School. He became dean of the law school until 1969, when he left to run for Congress. After besting a 14-term Member in the Democratic primary, Father Drinan sailed to victory to become the first Catholic priest to be elected as a voting Member of Congress. During his 10 years as a Member of the House of Representatives, Father Drinan was an active member of the House Judiciary Committee and brought the first resolution of impeachment against President Nixon. For years after he left office until his death he continued to write and teach as a professor at the Georgetown University Law School. Mr. Speaker, during his time in Congress Father Drinan's dual role as priest and Representative personified the beauty of our constitutional underpinning of the separation of church and state. Using his priestly authority, he easily fit the mold of moral architect on efforts to end the war in Vietnam and to highlight abuses of human rights around the globe. However, he also disregarded church doctrine to faithfully represent the views of his ``pro-choice'' constituency on issues like abortion that rankled and angered many conservative Catholics. Truly, Father Drinan was a beacon to follow for those of us who know the difficulties and challenges of having to fight for sometimes unpopular positions. He fought those fights all of his remarkable life that we will long remember.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to call to the attention of my colleagues two very important statements affirming the historical significance of the Holocaust by our new Secretary- General, Ban Ki-Moon, at the U.N. in New York. The Secretary-General's first statement on January 17 stresses the uniqueness and undeniability of the Holocaust as a tragic historical event, and reaffirms the United Nations' commitment to observe the International Day in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust annually on January 27. Secretary-General Ban's strong statement demonstrates that he is committed to fulfill Kofi Annan's legacy as the first Secretary- General who dedicated himself to moving the United Nations past its sad and crippling legacy of anti-Semitism. The second statement, made on January 26, welcomes the adoption of a U.N. resolution refuting the putrid attempt by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to sow discord and hatred in the international community by attempting to deny the historical reality of Hitler's systematic slaughter of millions of Jews. Secretary Ban's statement demonstrates strong leadership in facing down the Iranian dictator by declaring the denial of historical events to be ``unacceptable.'' The new Secretary-General deserves our strong support as he moves forward in his effort to confront the anti-Semitic climate that pollutes the United Nations. Secretary-General, in Message for Holocaust Victims Memorial Day, Stresses Importance of Reasserting Commitment to Human Rights New York, Jan. 19.--Following is the text of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's message for the second observance of the International Day in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, to be observed on 27 January: The Holocaust was a unique and undeniable tragedy. Decades later, the systematic murder of millions of Jews and others retains its power to shock. The ability of the Nazis to command a following, despite their utter depravity, still strikes fear. And above all, the pain remains: for ageing survivors, and for all of us as a human family that witnessed a descent into barbarism. The work of remembrance pays tribute to those who perished. But it also plays a vital role in our efforts to stem the tide of human cruelty. It keeps us vigilant for new outbreaks of anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. And it is an essential response to those misguided individuals who claim that the Holocaust never happened, or has been exaggerated. The International Day in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust is thus a day on which we must reassert our commitment to human rights. That cause was brutally desecrated at Auschwitz, and by genocides and atrocities since. We must also go beyond remembrance, and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the Holocaust to today's world. And we must do our utmost so that all peoples must enjoy the protections and rights for which the United Nations stands. On this International Day, I reiterate my strong commitment to that mission, and call on all to join in our common quest for human dignity.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, moments before we opened this session, I had the privilege of witnessing a historic moment. Our distinguished Speaker, a lady who has just returned from a bipartisan visit to Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, met the distinguished Speaker, another lady, another statesman, another political leader of outstanding qualities, the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament. When these two women met, Nancy Pelosi and Katalin Szili, history was made. We saw two great democratic republics, with parliaments headed by outstanding women, exchange views and plan the future of stronger and even better relations between the Republic of Hungary and the United States of America. I salute Speaker Pelosi and Speaker of Parliament Katalin Szili and wish both of them the very best.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 24) establishing the House Democracy Assistance Commission for the One Hundred Tenth Congress, as amended.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. When the Berlin Wall fell, I was there with other congressional colleagues. We experienced firsthand the exuberance of the people of East Germany and across the newly liberated region. But to sustain the momentum of that unique instant in history to commitment on both sides of the Atlantic, commitment not just to elections, but to the development of permanent, democratic institutions that permeate society. Madam Speaker, I vividly recall how excited we in Congress were when we first provided assistance to our new colleagues in democratically elected parliaments across Central and Eastern Europe. That is why I strongly support the resolution before the House today, which reestablishes the House Democracy Assistance Commission. This important body plays a critical role in ensuring that the new generation of emerging democratic institutions get desperately needed assistance. In the 109th Congress, the House created this commission to enable members and staff to assist their counterparts in the parliaments of new democracies around the globe. With our help, they will build strong, independent legislatures. The commission has been led by two steadfast and consistent supporters of democracy promotion, David Price, our colleague from North Carolina, and David Dreier, my fellow Californian. I want to offer my sincere gratitude to both of them for their efforts. Under their leadership, the commission took congressional delegations to six new or reemerging democracies and hosted six visiting parliamentary delegations here in Washington. The commission also offered material assistance to several legislatures through USAID, most notably a project to furnish and equip and train staff of the parliamentary library of East Timor with the invaluable assistance of our own Library of Congress. Pending the passage of this resolution by the full House, the commission in 2007 plans to assist the legislatures of Afghanistan, Colombia, East Timor, Georgia--not our own Georgia, but the former Soviet Republic of Georgia--Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Mongolia and Ukraine. Madam Speaker, in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson expressed the idea that it is in our national interest to encourage free and open and democratic governments. Over the past nine decades, the United States has sustained and expanded this important commitment. The Price-Dreier Commission is an important part of this tradition, and it deserves our continued support. I urge all of our colleagues to participate in the House Democracy Assistance Commission and to support this most important legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and our distinguished colleague from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the commission for the 109th Congress.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to my good friend from North Carolina, let me pay tribute to the two Davids who have done an extraordinary job in the last session and, in fact, should be called two Goliaths of legislative accomplishment across the globe. I could not think of a person more qualified than my friend David Price of North Carolina to chair the House Democracy Assistance Commission. David Price is a legislator's legislator. His understanding of the legislative process as a distinguished academic political scientist and his practice as one of the most outstanding legislators in the history of the Congress uniquely qualify David Price to chair the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Under his leadership, this body will take to many parts of the world not only the principle but the practice of the democratic process. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride I yield such time as he may consume to my friend David Price. (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. It was an understatement.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, a distinguished member of the commission.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 20) calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, and public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane, as recommended by Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park Agreement, in order to move forward on the Northern Ireland peace process, as amended.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. These are promising times for Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein, the party linked to the Irish Republican Army, has just voted to start cooperating with the Northern Ireland police. With this action, Sinn Fein has abandoned decades of opposition to law and order, and vastly improved the chances of a Catholic-Protestant administration in Belfast before long. Yes, Madam Speaker, these are promising times for Northern Ireland. But there are also reminders that the road to reconciliation remains long and tortuous. Last week the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland released a comprehensive report confirming that police in Northern Ireland have colluded with the loyalist paramilitaries over the last dozen years, and that such collusion could not have occurred, and I quote, ``without the knowledge and support of the highest level of the Northern Ireland police.'' Such incidents must be thoroughly investigated and their perpetrators caught. Madam Speaker, February 12 marks the anniversary, 18 years ago, of the tragic murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane. He was brutally shot 14 times by masked men before his wife and two young children in his North Belfast home. He was a solicitor who represented republicans in many high profile cases, most notably, IRA hunger striker, Bobby Sands. But he also acted on behalf of loyalists. A wide array of human rights groups alleged that his murder was at the hands of loyalist paramilitaries, colluding with British security officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch. The paramilitaries later claimed that Mr. Finucane was killed because he was a high-ranking officer in the provisional IRA. However, the police indicated at his inquest that they had no evidence to support that claim. Canadian Judge Peter Cory was appointed by the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom to examine these allegations. In 2004, the report came that sufficient evidence of collusion existed to warrant a full, independent and public inquiry without delay. Madam Speaker, in order to move the Irish peace process forward, the resolution before us today calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to conduct a full, independent and public judicial inquiry into Mr. Finucane's murder, which will enjoy the full cooperation and support of his family and the international community. The time to bring justice and put an end to this tragic matter is long past due. Again, I would like to thank our distinguished colleague, Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey, for his tireless pursuit of this most important issue. Mr. Smith has been a long-time friend of Ireland, and his dedication to this issue and to human rights across the globe is well known and much admired by many, certainly including myself. I want to thank the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her strong support for this measure. I strongly support this legislation and encourage all of my colleagues across the full spectrum to do so as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from New York, Congressman Eliot Engel, a distinguished senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Payne.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, a fighter for justice for all the Irish people, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Friends of Ireland group, our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. We are striking a blow for justice, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.