Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 310, which is due for its second reading today, be considered as having been read the second time and that the bill be placed on the Calendar under General Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution, and do so on behalf of the 400 members of the International Mountain Bicycling Association in North Carolina, as well as the 1,500 members of affiliated cycling clubs.

It is appropriate that the House is considering this resolution today. On Saturday, I.M.B.A. brought together kids and adults across the country to hold the first ``National Take A Kid Mountain Biking Day.''

According to the Surgeon General, the percentage of youth that are overweight has nearly tripled in the last twenty years. Forecasts predict that the current generation of our children could actually have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. Childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions. Overweight adolescents have a 70% chance of becoming overweight or obese adults. NIH research indicates that the large increase in childhood obesity rates can be traced to overeating and a lack of exercise.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was drafted in memory of Jack Doub, an avid teenage mountain biker who had a passion for introducing others to the sport. Jack saw the need for kids to get off the couch, get outside, and get some exercise. After being introduced to mountain biking at age 11 near Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina, he won almost every cross-country race he entered for two years. Between the ages of 14 and 17, he became a top national-level downhill and slalom competitor. He actively encouraged others--particularly kids--to ride bicycles. He was a leader in every sense of the word.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10. This bill represents the hard work and coordination of many Committees' of jurisdiction. The level of cooperation and collaboration that went into creating this bill demonstrates our commitment to bringing about real Intelligence Reform. This bill responds in a very serious way to the 9/11 Commission report.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee I have seen ``first-hand'' the needs facing the Intelligence Community. The intelligence reforms proposed by H.R. 10 go to the heart of these issues--and provide the remedies to correct many of the organizational problems that contributed to the tragedy of September 11th.

H.R. 10 addresses the major findings of the 9/11 Commission, in particular: It creates a strong and empowered National Intelligence Director; it enhances budget and management authorities of the national director; it improves information sharing by giving the director the mandate and authority to establish community-wide standards; it sharpens intelligence tools, particularly analytic capabilities; and it improves our ability to detect and deter terrorist threats.

Taken together--the new organization, these capabilities, and enhanced authorities--provide the foundation necessary to empower the National Intelligence Director to effect real transformation throughout the Intelligence Community.

While providing these new authorities, H.R. 10 carefully balances the authorities required to empower the National Intelligence Director to conduct the nation's intelligence analysis and collection operations, with the authorities of the Department heads who have to administer the intelligence elements that conduct and execute those operations.

Those checks and balances ensure that the equities of the various departments are not unintentionally harmed--and I will point out that, unlike other legislation that we will consider here today, H.R. 10 carefully and rightfully ensures unfettered intelligence support to our armed forces deployed around the world.

H.R. 10 also eliminates the creation of unnecessary new bureaucracies, unlike two substitute amendments that we will debate. The other major proposals being considered add layers of management between the Intelligence Community agencies and the National Intelligence Director. These layers create duplicative auditing agencies and burden intelligence operations with unnecessary review boards and councils. These layers will hamper the process of change not enhance it, and may even serve to prevent the dramatic changes that are needed.

Finally, H.R. 10 creates an Information Sharing Environment which will handle the sharing of all intelligence data, not just that which deals with terrorism.

The other proposals being considered limit the scope of technological change to simply one set of intelligence data. I can tell you firsthand--my experience on the Intelligence Committee has demonstrated to me that technological reform will come from the fusion and sharing of all intelligence data. Only H.R. 10 proposes to do this.

It is a very good bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 10.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the time.

This is indeed a special night for many people across this country, farmers who have struggled over the last 5 years, who have made a livelihood on the farm, because of a commitment to the land, and throughout North Carolina and many other States, we see the benefits of their success in the schools and the churches because it is their generosity that built the communities that, in fact, they live in.

Because of that program that we put them into decades ago, which has now served as a noose around their neck over the past 5 years, the Federal Government has cut their livelihood by 50 percent. I ask anyone in this body who were in business before they came here if they artificially got 50 percent of their revenue eliminated, would they be able to survive? The answer is likely they would not, and the fact is that our farmers are not.

This piece of legislation that this body will pass tonight will probably enable 10,000 individuals in North Carolina alone not to file bankruptcy this year. It is inevitable that communities will exist tomorrow because we are willing to step up and to provide the necessary help that they need.

Mr. Speaker, former Senator Helms once said that getting a tobacco buyout through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that. Mr. Speaker, not only was it a long road, it was an uphill road. The obstacles were many, but they have been overcome tonight, and I believe tomorrow both bodies will have passed this legislation.

I would like to take the time remaining to thank those individuals who helped so much: My colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), individuals that for over 10 months met to try to strategize on how we move a piece of legislation, not that that was the richest, but one that could be signed into law, the single most important objective. We are not the first to stand in this well and promise people back home that we can deliver, but we are the first to be able to deliver.

I would also like to thank the staff members who put their long hours in and probably spent too much time with each other: Brenda Otterson, Jeff Hogg, Michael Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, Emily Howard and Chris Joyner.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). He was truly a partner in this every step of the way. It is not often that we take an agricultural piece and we ask to put it on a tax bill, but let us face it. We needed a vehicle that could become law. I thank the Chairman for his willingness to work with us. I thank him for the informative response that we always had with the Committee on Ways and Means, and I praise him tonight for a great piece of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. This legislation contains a number of critical provisions. It ends sanctions on our exports, and provides tax benefits for our Nation's manufacturing sector. It provides tax incentives for businesses, including much needed S-corp reform. It extends important electricity production and alternative fuel tax credits.

But it also includes a long-overdue and desperately-needed provision that is near and

dear to my heart--and the hearts of countless farmers in my State and across the southeast: A tobacco quota buyout and repeal of the Federal tobacco program.

It is hard to find an agriculture issue in my State that has taken on more passion--more emotion--than the tobacco buyout. My State's tobacco farmers--like their colleagues in other tobacco States--are trapped in the depression-era tobacco program. It is a program that promises little more than bankruptcy and foreclosure. It is a program that promises economic collapse for their communities. Today, at long last, we are taking action to restore some hope to our tobacco farmers and their communities.

With the inclusion of the tobacco buyout and reform package, this Congress is extending a lifeline to rural communities that were built on tobacco, but have faced difficulties as tobacco use has declined. It is offering tobacco farmers a way out, and the assistance they need to transition to new crops. It is providing tobacco families with some certainty, and the promise of a better day ahead. It is restoring hope to those who thought that this city had forgotten them.

The inclusion of the buyout in this legislation is the culmination of years worth of work. It has been a long road since Charlie Rose began his work on the issue in the early 1990s. It is a road that saw few travelers in the early years--but it is a well-traveled road now.

So difficult has it been at times to see the end of the road that most people said it would be impossible to reach it--that we would never get to our destination. It was always just out of reach--just over the next hill. Over the years, the ``buyout'' took on an almost mythical status. It was talked about in feed stores and coffee shops in almost reverential tones, but people began to believe they would never see it in their lifetime.

Former Senator Jesse Helms once said that getting a tobacco buyout through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that, Mr. Speaker. Not only was the road long, it was uphill.

The obstacles were many, but they have been overcome. I would like to take what time I have left to thank some of my fellow travelers on this long journey. We would not be here today if it were not for my colleagues Bill Jenkins, Mike McIntyre, Hal Rogers, Ron Lewis, Virgil Goode, and Jack Kingston. I would also like to thank their staff members, who put in long hours--and probably spent too much time with each other--over the last year: Brenda Otterson, Jeff Hogg, Michael Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, and Emily Howard.

I would also like to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their hard work--and for recognizing the critical need for this buyout.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have reached our destination. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misguided amendment that threatens not only the delicate balance achieved in passage of the international tax bill, H.R. 4520, but also the future of every farm program administered by USDA.

Tobacco simply happens to be first. More crops will most certainly follow. To my colleagues who produce feed grains, wheat, rice, cotton, tobacco, dairy, soybeans, oilseeds, peanuts, sugar, honey, wool, and certain other crops: Your crops are next.

It is also somewhat disingenuous for proponents of this amendment to claim that they are protecting the American taxpayer. If indeed ``taxpayers'' are impacted by the tobacco reform provisions included in H.R. 4520, the burden falls only on those who pay excise taxes on tobacco products. Any approach other than the one proposed in H.R. 4520 will actually result in a tax increase on those who choose to use tobacco products. If that is what colleagues really are seeking, they should say so.

The facts, Mr. Chairman, are that tobacco and tobacco taxes raise more than $30 billion every year for states and the Federal government. We are only asking for a portion of this money over five years to provide relief to our struggling farmers and their communities.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate my colleague including me in this colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina is correct. This is an exciting and important work. With the Committee on Appropriations' financial and USAID's technical support, Iraqis have seized the opportunity to participate in government and have demonstrated an aptitude for local governance. They are working hard to restore services in their communities. They are drafting and approving procedures and policies to efficiently provide government services. They are prioritizing the needs of the people within their communities, and they are developing budgets to support those plans.

The Iraqi people have discovered government that operates with the consent of the governed, and they are enthusiastic about it. Their representative officials have discovered accountability to the people, and they are eager to demonstrate their fidelity.

There is still a long way to go in Iraq before the seeds of democracy that have been planted are fully established. We cannot be short- sighted with respect to these kinds of activities in our foreign operations agenda. We must make certain that the work started by such programs can be sustained as a partnership not only between the United States and Iraq but also through our foreign operations activities throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank both my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee. We are selected by the leadership, we are asked to serve, we are asked to uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of what goes on in that committee, and we are asked to reassure the Members of the House that do not have the type of access that we do that we are in fact doing our job. So let me assure every Member, Republican and Democrat, we are doing our job.

There is a difference today, and I do not hold the individuals on the other side of the aisle responsible. I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) put it well, politics is alive and well in Washington. It is an election year, and I think that strings are getting pulled. And I make a pledge to the Members on that side of the aisle: That when this bill has passed, and I hope you vote for it on final passage, that we will work together in that committee. We will make sure that the tools are available to our intelligence community. We will make sure that the workings and the oversight are good enough that we can look our fellow Members in the eye and say we are doing our job.

But I think today we need to look back at why we are here. Sure, we are here because of the intelligence threat that exists today and the need for intelligence to grow, but we are here because of the devastation to the intelligence community in the 1990s. We are here because human intelligence was not important to anybody in this town. We are, in fact, trying to rebuild. And when I heard Director Tenet stand up in front of the independent commission and talk about 5 years, here was a man being honest at what it took to recruit people that could infiltrate; that we could take individuals who could fluently speak Arabic.

We have to remember that we went from a Cold War need for linguistics, which was Russia and Eastern Europe, to now a need for Arabic and a lot of different tribal languages that exist, and you cannot do it overnight and you cannot do it for no money. The reality is that both sides suggest funding levels at about the same, and that is above where the administration's request was. We have differences on how we get here. That is leadership and it is politics mixed in with it.

I am confident we can put politics aside and we can get passed not only this rule debate but the debate on the bill. Because the important thing is that our intelligence community knows that this Congress is united. We are united behind them, we are united behind the effort, we understand the value of what they do as it relates to the safety of the troops that we have who defend this country every day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also highlight the leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be a tremendous loss to the Congress, the entire Congress. The dedication of this man, the leadership, his experience and what he has brought to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is invaluable. I am sure his years of community service are not over with his decision to leave Congress. But with him we lose a tremendous resource in our ability to understand and to become better in the world as it relates to our intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, our enemies are watching us. The terrorists know it is an election year, and they want us to become divided. They believe that a terrorist act against our country will influence our elections. They have a belief that democracy can be divided; yet they underestimate the passion of our citizens and their patriotism.

Despite the decision of minority Members to play politics with this bill, I believe we all are united against our enemies. These are serious times, and it is important that we send a message to our enemies that we cannot be divided. Support this intelligence bill. Send the message.

It sends the message that we are on the offensive to eliminate the threats to our homeland. Our intelligence community needs to know the United States Congress supports them 100 percent.

This bill increases the funding for the global war on terrorism. It increases by 22 percent our human intelligence. It supports our effort on counternarcotics to eliminate the 17,000 Americans that die every year from drug-related causes and the $160 billion annually in health care, social, and criminal costs. We have provided extra funding for the DCI to tackle this problem in this country.

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bid farewell to my colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I have enjoyed serving under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), and I think we are all fortunate that he was in the Chair immediately following September 11. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) was the right man for our country when we needed an intelligence community with expertise, intelligence, moral clarity, and compassion. We will miss him.

I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who will also leave, and wish him good luck on his future endeavors. I have been proud to serve with both of them.

Immediately after September 11, the esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations came to this floor and quoted the words of Sir Winston Churchill which he wrote 6 decades ago: ``Civilization will not last,'' Churchill wrote, ``freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them.''

We were united on September 11. Let us unite today. Let us support the Intelligence authorization bill. Let us do it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, today I would like to bring to your attention the opening of a wonderful new children's camp in Level Cross, NC.

After years of planning, Kyle Petty, CEO of Petty Enterprises, and his wife Pattie have opened The Victory Junction Gang Camp. This camp is the seventh of the Hole in the Wall Gang Camps network founded by actor Paul Newman. The camp was created to serve as a retreat for critically ill children who deserve the chance to enjoy themselves in a medically safe environment, free of charge.

The Pettys, a family synonymous with generosity, decided to create the camp after the untimely death of their son, Adam, in a tragic race car accident in 2000. After visiting one of the Hole in the Wall Gang Camps in Florida and seeing the joy it brought to the campers, the Pettys felt the children of North Carolina and surrounding states needed such a place of their own. All their hard work--and the hard work of the NASCAR family--paid off this summer. The camp's grand opening was Tuesday, June 15.

Victory Junction is an independent, not-for-profit organization that relies upon the generosity of individuals and corporations. Over the past 2 years, NASCAR has graciously lent its support to Victory Junction through an extensive media campaign and the assistance of NASCAR drivers who have volunteered their time and energy. This summer, the camp will provide much-needed distractions to children afflicted with cancer, asthma, HIV, heart disease, and other diseases.

Much goes into establishing and maintaining a special needs camp. Those that have helped in the planning and building process, and those that are already freely giving their time as medical volunteers, deserve our respect and gratitude. There could be no better tribute to Adam Petty. I commend the Petty family for their dedication to children and public service.

I am so pleased that there is now a local place for some very special children to have an exciting camping experience and well-deserved vacation.

Today, I ask my colleagues and fellow North Carolinians to join me in extending congratulations and support to the Victory Junction Gang Camp. May it enrich the lives of many children in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues and the rest of the Nation to mourn the passing of one of our Nation's greatest Presidents, but also to celebrate his legacy. While Ronald Reagan is considered by almost everyone as an extraordinary leader and one of the greatest Americans, it was not Ronald Reagan's vision, his confidence, his charm or his strength that truly set him apart.

It was his boundless optimism and his overflowing love and concern for his fellow men that made Reagan who he was and which were his underlying source of everything he accomplished. Reagan saw himself as an ordinary man, called to serve his country to the best of his ability, and serve he did.

He inspired a Nation to rediscover the principles of freedom that have made our country great. We remember Ronald Reagan as a man who maximized his gifts from an unknown to an actor to a Governor to the leader of the Free World. Our President was one who never stopped growing and giving.

President Reagan's life provides a witness to how we should all live, stirring up whatever gifts and potentials we have so that the world is a better place when we leave, more so than when we arrived. We remember President Reagan as one who named bad leadership for what it was, and turned his people towards a nobler path. He said the only places communism would work are in heaven because they do not need it and in hell because they already have it.

Today, we are enjoying a world where communism is de-fanged and former communist nations rank among our closest allies, much of which is due to President Reagan's unflinching commitment and resolve to seeing peace and freedom flourish throughout the world.

President Reagan was a true man of the people. What Reagan did more than anything else, and it will be his lasting legacy, is replace despair with hope. Most people, even his detractors, admired and respected his integrity. He never thought that he had all the answers or that he was put on Earth to reveal and implement God's plan for the rest of us.

Madam Speaker, he has now, and as he noted in the eulogy of the crew of the Challenger shuttle, and I quote, ``slipped the surely bonds of Earth and put out his hand and touched the face of God.''

The days of this week will be remembered for many, many years. Let them be remembered well. Let them be the passing of the torch. A new day is dawning. Leadership, vision, optimism, and faith most of all are needed at every level in our great country and in our homes. Reagan used to say that America's greatest days are ahead of it. Now it can be said so are his.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 3, 2004, and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 497) commending the Wake Forest University Demon Deacons field hockey team for winning the 2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Field Hockey Championship, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 497.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud alumni and as a former athlete of Wake Forest University, it is my privilege to bring before this House this resolution.

On November 23, 2003, the Wake Forest University field hockey team won the NCAA Division I-A field hockey championship by a score of 3 to 1 over the Duke Blue Devils. Having also won the 2002 championship, the Lady Deacons became only the third school in Division I history to have won back-to-back championships.

The team was led by 2002 and 2003 Coach of the Year, Jennifer Averill, and 2003 All-Americans Kelly Dostal, Kelly Doton, Katie Ridd, and Lucy Shaw.

The Deacons started and finished the season ranked number one by the National Field Hockey Coaches Association. They outscored their opponents 96 to 13, and they finished the year with a record of 22 and 1. The seniors finished their careers with an overall 88 and 12 record, 2 NCAA championships, 4 final-4 appearances, and 2 ACC championships. The team won the 2003 ACC regular season, ACC tournament, and the NCAA tournament, only the second time any athletic team at Wake Forest has achieved such an accomplishment. The only other team in school history that shares its distinction with last year's field hockey team was in fact the famous golf team of Jay Haas, Curtis Strange, and Lanny Wadkins who won back-to-back NCAA championships for Wake Forest.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is but one of many awards and accolades these young ladies will receive this year. As true student athletes, though, they will all receive the most valuable award after completing their studies: a degree from one of the most prestigious and respected universities in the country.

I want to also congratulate the athletic director, Ron Wellman, and the school president, Tom Hearn, and the entire Wake Forest community and wish the field hockey team the best of luck as they seek their third consecutive title next fall.

Mr. Speaker, before I relinquish my time, since we will in a few minutes acknowledge the great success of the New England Patriots and their victory in the Super Bowl, let me take this opportunity to say as a football fan and as a Carolina Panthers fan that I congratulate the Patriots, and I also think that for football fans across this country, regardless of their allegiance, it was one of, if not the best, Super Bowls in history.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 877--the CAN SPAM Act of 2003--and urge my colleagues to accept the technical changes made by the Senate. I also rise in an effort to provide clarification for our nation's professional, trade, and non profit associations who may be unintentional victims of the Congress's efforts to control the fraudulent and abusive practices of spam email through the CAN-SPAM Act.

Trade associations have long provided representation for most of America's industries such as telecommunications, insurance, banking, realty, and transportation, just to name a few. Individuals or businesses that opt to join these associations do so in large part because of the outstanding benefits afforded to them, including reduced professional insurance premiums, continuing education opportunities, legislative awareness seminars, and conventions. While most of these opportunities are offered at a price, the cost is set at a greatly reduced rate than might otherwise be offered to non-members, primarily to offset operating costs, but also as a means of contribution to the furtherance of the association's non-profit status.

As a matter of expediency, trade associations often communicate with their membership through email, as this method is the fastest, most convenient, and most cost-effective process for both the associations themselves and the members with whom the associations communicate. These emails are a valuable element of membership privileges agreed to by the member upon joining, as they keep the member apprised of upcoming events, industry-related products, and legislative alerts. These emails are restricted to circulation within the membership only, and excluding the general public. It is my belief that association members have essentially opted-in to the receipt of these emails by virtue of their membership, and that these emails would fall under the definition of ``transactional emails'' that S. 877 contains. Therefore, email between a professional or trade association and its members should be a protected and mutually agreed-to line of communication and is hence not included in the definition of spam in the CAN SPAM Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to call attention to Section 5(a)(3)(C), which provides an exception for not being able to receive the commonly-referred-to ``unsubscribe messages'' from commercial email recipients in circumstances where there are technical problems beyond the control of the sender. Although I'm sure that legitimate commercial email senders will make every effort to fully comply with the stipulations of this bill and receive unsubscribe emails whenever they are sent, I believe that the authors of this legislation understand that there may be short periods of time during which the sender is unable to receive unsubscribe messages because of necessary technical maintenance to the email systems receiving such unsubscribe messages.

Additionally, where Section 7(b) of the bill provides that banking agencies have enforcement authority over their respective financial services providers, it is my hope that the Federal Trade Commission will coordinate with the various regulators of banking agencies in its efforts to implement the rules called for in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the important bill we have before us today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this consumer protection and anti-fraud bill, and to quickly send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, North Carolina lost a great friend today. For 36 years, the Old North State's agricultural interests were overseen with care, love, and passion by Jim Graham. For 36 years, Jim Graham served as Commissioner of Agriculture for my State, and he was probably the most beloved figure in public life in 20th century North Carolina.

Anyone who met the Commissioner--whether they met him once, or knew him for all of his 82 years--knew the same Jim Graham. He was affable, kind, and passionate. Mr. Graham grew up in Rowan county, was educated at State College (now North Carolina State University), and held several agriculture-related jobs before he entered public service, including managing the Dixie Classic fair in my home town of Winston- Salem. He was appointed Commissioner of Agriculture in the summer of 1964, was elected to the position that fall, and held it until his retirement in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner was a passionate member of the other political party. So passionate, in fact, that when introduced at political rallies, he would let out the loudest donkey bray you have ever heard. But while he brayed loudly for his party, he never spoke louder, or with more passion, than he did when preaching for the betterment of the North Carolina farmer. He always held the land, and the people who worked the land, in the highest esteem.

With all the changes that have occurred in North Carolina agriculture in the last 30 years, it is a good thing that we had Jim Graham looking out for us. When he was looking out, he was looking forward. He took the Tar Heel State from near-total dependence on the golden leaf of tobacco, to today, when tobacco income is complemented by hogs, poultry, winegrapes, soybeans, sweet potatoes, and more.

He was a positive voice for the future of North Carolina, and just as he would never forget your name, not soon will many forget his ever- present cigar and cowboy hat, his kind manner and love for his state.

No farmer anywhere had a better friend than Jim Graham. No State in the Union had a better public servant than Jim Graham. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process. Aside from our own Nation's ongoing military operations in the war against terrorism, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is one of the most important foreign policy issues being discussed and debated by my constituents.

Clearly, there is a wide range of points of view on this critically important issue, and they cover the range of the political spectrum. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of my own thoughts on some of these subjects.

I should state at the outset that I believe Israel has a right to defend herself against the actions of Palestinian extremists. It would be the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for our own country--engaged in its own fight against terrorists bent our destruction--to deny Israel the right to pursue those bent on her destruction. Since obtaining independence in 1948, Israel has been engaged in a near- constant struggle for survival.

The current violence, and Israel's military response to it, is a reflection and continuation of that struggle. There are some on the Palestinian side, many of whom have close ties--if not direct connections--to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, who desire nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. These are the very groups sending young Palestinians to detonate suicide bombs on buses, in pizza parlors, in sidewalk cafes, and even at Jewish religious celebrations. On that basis alone, Israel has no choice but to continue efforts to round up those responsible. Even prior to the eruption of the latest violence more than two years ago, Arafat refused to do so. He refuses to do so to this day.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that Arafat has abdicated his position as a responsible negotiator

and representative of the best interests of the Palestinian people. On too many occasions, he has walked away from the peace table and given tacit approval to renewed violence by Palestinian extremists. Arafat remains--for better or worse--the ``chosen'' representative of the Palestinian people. For real progress to occur, however, the Palestinian people need a prime minister with real authority--the authority to go after the extremists, the authority to negotiate with the government of Israel, and the authority to make decisions that will not be overturned at Arafat's whim. If a lasting peace in the Middle East is the ultimate goal, and I firmly believe that it must be, the Palestinian people must have a capable, effective prime minister. I am hopeful that Ahmed Qureia, sworn in as the Palestinian prime minister earlier this month, will be permitted to take the steps necessary to end the terror attacks against Israel and return the Palestinians to the peace table.

I am not opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Neither, for that matter, are the people and government of Israel. That state, however, can only be established if it and the larger Arab world in turn recognize Israel's right to exist. Without that recognition, there can be no lasting peace. If Israel were to accept the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that maintained its opposition to Israel's existence, the country would only be ensuring its own destruction.

I firmly believe that our country should continue providing financial and military assistance to the Israeli people. As long as the nations surrounding Israel continue to provide assistance to those trying to destroy the country, the United States should continue its efforts to support her. As the region's only democratically elected government, Israel deserves our support.

Our Nation has an important role to play in the peace process, Mr. Speaker, and we should continue to do so. We can and should continue diplomatic efforts to bring a lasting peace to the region. It remains to be seen if the Arab states, which have called on us to play a more active role, will actually respect that role. I do not believe, however, that our involvement should extend to the deployment of U.S. troops to ``police'' any final peace agreement. Any agreement that requires peacekeepers to be deployed is flawed to begin with--it means neither side actually expects the other to abide by the agreement's provisions. We must pursue a comprehensive agreement that both sides accept.

Having accepted Israel's right to defend herself, I also believe there must come a time for negotiations and a legitimate peace process. Israel should make every effort to limit incursions into Palestinian- controlled areas. There must be recognition, both in this country and around the world, that both sides must be willing to talk. The Israelis have shown that willingness in the past, and have made significant proposals aimed at achieving a lasting peace. What remains, however, is the need for a serious commitment on the part of the Palestinians to return to the table and actively work with the Israelis.

In order for that to happen, though, the new Palestinian leadership must denounce terrorism once and for all and make a firm commitment to restrain, arrest, detain, and destroy those militant elements in Palestinian areas that want the violence to continue. After all, there are groups who have stated that they will never accept cease-fire, nor respect any peace agreement. More than a firm commitment, however, the Palestinians must take firm action--or empower a prime minister to take firm action on their behalf.

In crisis, Mr. Speaker, there is opportunity. The only thing that remains is for both sides to accept the challenge, and take advantage of the opportunity. Peace in the region is long overdue, but it will take the active participation of both sides to achieve it.