Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 1, 2004, several hundred people will gather at a location in my congressional district for the 73rd year in a row to commemorate what some fear is becoming a lost art--quilting. No one knows what the future holds for this wonderful tradition, but thanks to a group of dedicated volunteers, there will be a permanent reminder to all who travel to our area. On April 1, an historic highway marker will be unveiled commemorating ``Uncle Eli's Quilting Party.'' Named after Eli Whitney-- the father of the cotton gin--``Uncle Eli's Quilting Party'' has been a tradition in Alamance County, North Carolina, since 1931. The unveiling will take place in front of the community center that bears Eli Whitney's name on the ``Football Road'' (SR 1005) in southern Alamance County. Community volunteers wanted to mark the historic and cultural significance of ``Uncle Eli's Quilting Party'' with a roadside historical marker. The state of North Carolina agreed that it met the standards needed for the sign's erection, but it did not have any available funding. So, like the determined quilters the sign commemorates, the group pitched in, raised the needed funds themselves, and convinced the state to manufacture the sign. On April 1, all will gather with pride when the sign is unveiled. To fully appreciate the wonderful traditions kept alive by the quilters, allow me to quote Erma Kirkpatrick from Quiltmaking in America, Beyond the Myths: Selected Writings from the American Quilt Study Group (edited by Laurel Horton): ``The day begins early. By 8:00 a.m., the first cars have parked outside the big old brick gymnasium, which is the Eli Whitney Community Center. Nannie McBane, quilter, quilting instructor, and coordinator of the quilting party unlocks the door. Inside, the gym seems huge, cavernous and bare. One or two quilts have been `put in' the previous day so the quilters can get an early start. Otherwise the gym is empty, with bleachers folded against the wall and tables stretched out along one end ready to receive food. Gradually the room comes to life. A table is placed by the door so that everyone can sign the register and make a name tag to wear. Early arrivals unfold chairs brought from the storage room and begin to wipe off the bleachers. As women bring in quilted items for display, willing hands help drape the quilts over the now-dusted bleachers or hang them on clothes lines which are stretched around the walls. Suddenly there is a quilt show! . . . The day and the quilting progress. Around noon the covered dishes are uncovered, the line forms, a blessing is asked, and a serious attack is made on the heavily loaded tables . . . The quilters take pride in their cooking as well as their quilting.'' Erma Kirkpatrick also writes that in the last few years, the focus of ``Uncle Eli's Quilting Party'' has changed: ``Today the quilting party is a social gathering for which the Eli Whitney community is well known. People attend from as far away as 50 miles. There is less dedication to putting in and completing a quilt. In fact, seldom is a single quilt completed by the end of the day. The number of quilts in frames has gone down and the number of visitors has increased. It has become a spectator sport.'' No matter what the future holds, ``Uncle Eli's Quilting Party'' will continue to mark the start of spring in southern Alamance County. And thanks to a group of dedicated, civic-minded quilters and their fans, a highway marker will let the world know that there is a quilting party every year in North Carolina that would make Uncle Eli proud.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, this bill implements the revised Strategic Business Plan proposed by Director Rogan when he was at the Patent and Trademark Office to update the services and structure of the office. The Strategic Business Plan will enhance the quality of the patent and trademark examining operations, accelerating the application pendency period, making it more consumer friendly and efficient. The manager's amendment to the bill addresses the fee diversion problem and prevents the PTO funds from being used to fund general revenue programs throughout the Federal Government. Under the agreement reached between the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on Appropriations, PTO fees collected in a given fiscal year that exceed the appropriation to PTO for that year would be placed in what will be known as a PTO reserve fund. At the end of that fiscal year, the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office may determine if, and how, these funds should be allocated back to the eligible applicants. Mr. Speaker, I have been a proponent of modernizing the patent and trademark fee structure and have fought on this floor year after year to protect these dollars from being used to fund non-PTO programs, as have my chairman the gentleman from Wisconsin and other Members of the Committee on the Judiciary. They have fought equally diligently to this end. A fully funded United States Patent and Trademark Office is vital to sustaining the strength and growth of United States companies, inventors and innovations, and this legislation is integral to preserving the United States' worldwide leadership in the intellectual property industry. I say to my friend from Georgia, who yielded to me, I was at the PTO office about 5 years ago for an event. I was invited to take part in an event there, and I said to those people, from the Director to all the patent examiners who were there and trademark examiners, I said I want to send a message to Capitol Hill and I want to tell everybody up there to keep their grubby paws out of the PTO coffers. Now that may have been an indelicate way of saying it, but I wanted to make clear to everyone up here that these funds should not be removed from PTO custody and control. The opponents of such a proposal indicate that some sort of unjust enrichment will ensue if the PTO gets to keep these funds. That is poppycock. That is nonsense. These funds belong to the PTO, and I am confident that with the passage of this legislation, the diversion anathema that has plagued us for so long hopefully will finally be resolved. I again thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the nutmeg land of Connecticut for yielding me this time. I am not sure how I became a fan, but I will say this: the words ``Stockton to Malone'' are synonymous words with winning basketball. And to watch those two guys play was not unlike, I say to the gentleman from Connecticut, watching a ballet. I mean Malone would haul down the rebound, dish off to Stockton, Stockton would very methodically and effectively move the ball into the front court and then, before you know it, the ball from Stockton back to Malone, and then Malone buried the shot. It was winning basketball, and it was unselfish basketball. My good friend, the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, Senator Orrin Hatch, knows that I am a Jazz fan. He said one day, Howard, I am going to get you out there as my guest. Well, it was not the Senator's fault, nor was it my fault, but we never got to go. Now, as a result of that, Malone has gone to another team, and Stockton has retired. And when you procrastinate, I say to the gentleman from Connecticut, it comes back to bite you. It was no one's fault. Finally, and I do not mean this to be a negative note, but many Jazz fans, including yours truly, believe that a no-call in a game that involved, I believe the Chicago Bulls and the Jazz, to what most Jazz fans conclude was an obvious foul, with which I am in agreement, but it was not called, the whistle did not sound. And I think the Bulls went on to win that game. Ugh, you are right; ``ugh'' is correct. And many Jazz fans to this day relive that no-call, as I do. But what a great tribute to a great basketball player. My friend mentioned Stockton's many attributes. I think he is the all-time leader in steals and assists, destined for the Hall of Fame, I am sure. But I commend my colleagues for doing this resolution for John Stockton. I hope the gentleman from Connecticut now knows why I am a Jazz fan.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a serious gap in our homeland security strategy and to encourage my colleagues to work with me to move expeditiously and cost effectively to remedy this problem. Currently, the Coast Guard only employs eight armed air assets that are equipped to use force to protect our entire port and waterway network and to enforce our nation's drug laws. This is unacceptable. This fleet is obviously much too small to provide coverage to the almost 90,000 miles of U.S. coastline and hundreds of ports and waterways. In light of this serious vulnerability, it is my strong belief that the Coast Guard should move quickly to initiate a competition for a new multi-mission armed cutter helicopter. We need more assets now and should not stand idle while millions of Americans who live along our coastlines remain vulnerable. This being said, I completely support the mandate of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee contained in H.R. 2443 that directs the Coast Guard to expand its fleet of armed Sting Ray helicopters. The plan to acquire additional HITRON Sting Ray helicopters through a flexible lease arrangement is a common sense interim solution until a new state-of- the-art multi-purpose helicopter can be deployed. In the aftermath of 9-11, the Sting Ray fleet suddenly has a key role on the front lines of both America's war on drugs and terrorism. On September 15, 2003, Coast Guard Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Filner wrote the leadership of the Appropriations Committee to emphasize the priority our Coast Guard Subcommittee is giving to the establishment of a an expanded fleet of MH-68A armed helicopters. Recognizing the Coast Guard is confronting a serious challenge in trying to balance its limited resources to meet both its humanitarian missions and its new homeland security responsibilities, it is my belief that the only way to effectively address this problem is to increase the number of assets tasked to perform these kinds of operations and to ensure that these assets have prioritized missions. The Coast Guard simply does not have enough assets to perform all their traditional missions plus all their new responsibilities. As a result, the Coast Guard should acquire additional assets for the airborne use of force mission. I am particularly alarmed over reports out of the Coast Guard that there is a plan to rebuild their existing 20 year old HH-65 fleet rather than replace it through a competitive process. This is a classic case of being penny wise and dollar foolish and it defies common logic in this post-9-11 environment. Instead of accurately identifying the new mission and then deciding on the best possible helicopter to carry it out, it is an example of shrinking the mission to fit the assets on hand. The Department of Homeland Security requires a new and larger state-of-the- art cutter-deployed helicopter to meet the growing challenge. Rebuilding a twenty year old helicopter is simply not acceptable. The Coast Guard should move quickly to initiate a competition to procure a modern technology Multi-Mission Cutter Helicopter and related Airborne Use of Force assets that can also be used by Customs, Secret Service and the Border Patrol. Mr. Speaker, as you and others in this body know, I am a fiscal conservative who is always conscious of how we in Washington spend taxpayer dollars. I have also always been a strong advocate for the Coast Guard and believe that this branch of our military service is a big bang for the taxpayer buck. Given the 100 percent success of the current HITRON fleet, I believe this would be one of the most effective and cost-efficient ways to address the enormous vulnerabilities that continue to exist along our nation's coastlines and in our ports and waterways.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Blackburn and I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the five House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only. Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio. Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 22, 1935. A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills; first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws. Under rule XXIV, clause six, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House. On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the Committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills unobjected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately. Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. When the previous question is ordered on a Private Calendar bill, the bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with the great volume of Private Bills. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Seated near then to provide technical assistance are the majority and minority legislative clerks. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their clerks, or from the Member who introduced the bill. The great volume of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement, adopted on November 17, 2003, the Members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 108th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) days, excluding the day the bill is reported and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended. This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva). I feel confident that I speak for my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance considerations to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary. Howard Coble. Steve Chabot. Marsha Blackburn. Rick Boucher. Adam Schiff. Raul Grijalva.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. While I support our efforts to train inmates to become productive citizens of society, I believe such effort should take great care not to threaten the job of hardworking taxpayers. This issue is especially important to the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina, home to more than 40,000 textile and furniture workers, since two major classes of items produced by FPI are textile and furniture. FPI's mandatory source status gives it an unfair advantage, it seems to me, over private manufacturers contending for Federal contracts. Therefore, many of my constituents are deprived of employment opportunities in order to give work to Federal inmates. The furniture and textile industries in North Carolina are already competing with an increasing number of imports arriving in the United States from countries such as China as has been previously mentioned. From January 2001 to May of 2003, 100,000 furniture and related products jobs in the U.S. were lost. In addition, the North Carolina textile industry has suffered over 10,000 job losses in the past year. For these reasons, I am concerned about FPI's proposal to begin selling inmate furniture services in the commercial market. It is my belief that the FPI is in need of reform before it is allowed to expand. I am a strong proponent of H.R. 1829 because it does just that, eliminates the FPI's mandatory source advantage. It also limits FPI's ability to enter the commercial market, which I believe may have an adverse effect on private companies not able to compete with low wages and cost benefits enjoyed by FPI. Further, the bill incorporates vocational and educational programs to teach inmates job hunting and professional skills and coordinates funding to help inmates transition back into society. So this bill does not turn a deaf ear to inmate training. In my opinion, these are real and necessary reforms that will preserve FPI's goal of providing inmates with essential skills while allowing for better marketplace for competition. Hardworking taxpayers in the Sixth District of North Carolina and other districts who are employed in the furniture and textile industries can compete with anyone in the world. They should not have to compete with their own government which is using their tax dollars to train inmates how to become textile and furniture workers.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, very seldom do we find a law enforcement tool that benefits everyone involved in the criminal justice system equally. DNA is this tool. Prosecutors, defendants and victims all benefit from the fact that DNA provides an unquestionable evidence of guilt and innocence. Forensic DNA technology is the future of investigations and Congress must ensure that the criminal justice system has the necessary resources so that this technology can keep pace with the future demands an eliminate any backlog that may slow its progress. The bill before us would ensure just that. The ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act,'' would provide grants to improve the administration of justice by eliminating the DNA backlog, testing rape kits, improving forensic science and DNA labs in states, and providing training for law enforcement, prosecutors, medical personnel in DNA analysis. There is no question that the current federal and state DNA collection and analysis system needs improvement. In many instances, public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples. In addition, these labs may be ill-equipped to handle the increasing influx of DNA samples and evidence. More research is needed to develop faster methods for analyzing DNA evidence and professionals involved in the criminal justice system need additional training and assistance to solve crimes. The bill would also provide grants to states to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the public in capital cases. As my Chairman stated earlier, it is important to note that these grants may not be used for representation in a particular case or to fund political advocacy. This prohibition will prevent such dollars from being used to promote an anti-death penalty agenda. The bill would also allow funding to process post conviction DNA test if certain criteria are met. It is important to clarify that the bill allows DNA testing of evidence only when an applicant can show that it is consistent with a theory of defense, that testing would produce new material evidence to support the theory of defense, and assuming it excluded the defendant, would raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit the offense. Further, a judge would only be authorized to grant a new trial after considering potentially exculpatory DNA evidence in conjunction with all other evidence in the case. Finally, a defendant could only apply for post conviction testing if the specific evidence to be tested was not previously subjected to DNA testing or new technology in testing has been developed and the defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to have the evidence tested. Again, it is important to note, a judge would still have to have to consider all evidence in the case. I believe that the Innocence Protection Act provisions in the bill are necessary to both protect the rights of those wrongfully convicted and to preserve the integrity of the death penalty. As a proponent of capital punishment in appropriate cases, I also believe that individuals convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced to death by a jury of their peers should have fair access to competent legal advice and due process under the law. It is my opinion that as technology improves and new tools are available to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals, we must grow our justice system to accommodate such tools to preserve equal justice for all.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in hearty support for this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and many others on the subcommittee and the full committee for their hard work. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution to remove the poisonous, snake-infested Iraqi regime because I believe it was the appropriate response. Do I approve of the manner in which the postcombat peacekeeping effort is developing? No. It appears to me that we should be beneficiary of more precise intelligence gathering from our Iraqi allies on the ground. We must insist upon better, more timely intelligence. These ruthless murderers who kill and wound our servicemen and women, who bomb and destroy hotels and other facilities must be identified and apprehended before they subsequently kill and destroy. Granted, the borders are porous and terrorists enter at will, but I believe that better surveillance can be effected, and we must insist upon it. Some Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, have accused President Bush of practicing political opportunism by dispatching troops into Iraq. They should be ashamed. Common sense clearly concludes the safe political course would have been to have done nothing. President Bush acted presidential. The approval ratings of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would be far more favorable had they turned blind eyes to Iraq. Great risk was assumed in going forward, but they responded as able leaders. Approximately 18 months ago, an Iraqi citizen said to me, the U.S. must take out Saddam. We are afraid of him because we know what punishment and torture he is capable of inflicting. The U.S. must remove him. The world is not safe as long as he remains in power, he concluded. I then asked him, If we remove this evil regime, will the Iraqi people embrace us or reject us? The gentleman was silent. I repeated my question, and he reluctantly replied, I do not know. I said, Neither do I and that concerns me. It continues to concern me. It concerns me, as well, that we have become the Rodney Dangerfield in the world of diplomacy to some; no respect for what we have done. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, the great majority wanted Saddam gone, but they did not want to become involved. Let someone else do the heavy lifting. Let others expose themselves to danger. We were given warnings. The first attack on the World Trade Center in the nineties; our two embassies subsequently attacked; the attack upon the USS Cole, and we did virtually nothing in response. No surprise that the terrorists concluded these Americans have no backbone. They have no will to respond. We can attack them with impunity. Then 9/11. Some insist we should have delayed our efforts to remove Saddam. Delay for what? The U.N. was indecisive. The U.N. observed Saddam's violation of one agreement after another without reprimand, and all the while Saddam operated as he pleased. Surely, Saddam must have viewed the U.N. as his own personal dancing bear. Some insist that our responding to the 9/11 attack was a mistake, implying that had we done nothing in response, that terrorists would simply have gone away. That gang does not simply go away. Finally, weapons of mass destruction. There is ample evidence voiced by Democrats and Republicans alike that Iraq and Saddam did possess, in fact, weapons of mass destruction. They have not been detected, but do we then conclude that these weapons do not exist? Neither have Saddam nor Osama bin Laden been detected, so applying this logic, I suppose they do not exist. We are at war. And war has a way, Mr. Speaker, of frustrating timetables, good intentions notwithstanding; I cite Bosnia. I know we in the Congress are appreciative to the countries around the world that are assisting us in this effort and to our servicemen and women as well. If we prevail, the world will be better for it, but we must be strong. As we know from the outset, it will not be a quick fix. Many have compared Saddam and Osama bin Laden and their fellow terrorists with Adolf Hitler, but there is a salient distinction, Mr. Speaker. Hitler and his gang wanted to conquer the world. Saddam and Osama bin Laden and their thugs are not averse to destroying the world. Therein lies a distinction, Mr. Speaker, that makes our task far more formidable. As the majority leader just said earlier, to retreat at this juncture would be ill-advised.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit the recently concluded American and National League Championship Series. I represent neither Boston, New York, Florida, nor Chicago; but I do have a direct interest in that two of the managers in the aforementioned series are my constituents in North Carolina's Sixth Congressional District. Manager Jack McKeon of the Florida Marlins calls Alamance County his home while Boston Red Sox skipper Grady Little hangs his hat in Moore County, known to many Americans as America's golf capital. I am a long-time Cubs fan, Mr. Speaker, but I compromise my Cubs' loyalty in favor of my constituent Mr. McKeon. And speaking of the Cubs, I hope the Chicago fans will permit the beleaguered left field fan who is now internationally known to become the beneficiary of goodwill in lieu of hostility. Steve Bartman, by his own admission, is a true-blue solid Cubs fan. An isolated ill-fated attempt to retrieve a foul ball does not a seven-game series make or break. Other circumstances as well contributed to the Cubs' elimination; so cut Steve Bartman some slack. While my love for the Cubs caused me some anxiety while cheering for the Marlins, I felt no such discomfort while I was supporting Grady Little and his Bosox, since I am not a Yankee fan. Mr. Speaker, permit me to focus on the World Series. Strike that. Permit me to focus on the 2004 World Series. Not unlike many American baseball fans, it is my hope that the Red Sox and the Cubs will square off in that series. Even then I may be forced again to relegate my Cubs' loyalty to the shelf in favor of Grady Little. Constituency loyalty, Mr. Speaker, runs deeper and closer to the heart than does baseball loyalty. Finally, I extend my best wishes to Trader Jack McKeon and his Marlins as they attempt to conquer the Yankees. If this series, unfortunately, results in the Yanks prevailing, I will reluctantly tip my hat to them and to my New York colleagues who serve here in the people's House with me. Insufferable fans though they are, on balance they are pretty good folks. Meanwhile, go Marlins.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Lexington, North Carolina, is celebrating its 175th birthday this year. Lexington is a furniture and textile center, known for its famous Lexington-style barbecue and its annual Barbecue Festival which draws 100,000 people each October. There are numerous Lexingtons in our country, from sea to sea, border to border, across the fruited plain, but none dispenses barbecue that is as delectable and tasty as Lexington barbecue. Go visit the old girl on her 175th. While there, tell her you want to order a chopped tray, laced with hush puppies and slaw. You will come back. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and I, wish Lexington, North Carolina, a happy 175th birthday with wishes for many more to come.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, some years ago when I sat as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary's Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, we had an occasion to resolve a copyright matter, which of course brought many entertainers and performers to Capitol Hill that day. Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash, and I believe his agent was with him, came into my office prior to the meeting just to say hello. I left him in my office and went down to the meeting, and when he appeared as a witness, he proudly announced that he had just left my office where he had sat in my chair. Well, I thought it was I who would be proud that he sat in my chair in my office, and I told him that. He was a very good witness; I remember it very vividly. And we resolved the copyright matter favorably for all concerned. It is one of those issues where neither side was ecstatic about it, but both sides could live with it. Subsequently, I saw a replay of a Larry King interview, and perhaps many of my colleagues saw it when he interviewed Cash. Johnny Cash told King that night on the interview that he recalled one time when he had been arrested, I believe in Georgia, and spent the night in jail. And the jailer came the next day, and Johnny Cash said that the jailer threw the money and his clothes on the counter and said, I do not want to see you here any more. He said, my wife is a Johnny Cash fan; and she cried all night when I told her that you were in my jail. Now, you get out of here. Tough love I think is what it amounted to. I think that jailer was saying to him, now, listen, pal, you caused me a tough night last night; my wife is upset at me for having you here. Get yourself squared away. I think he did. He obviously did get himself squared away. Many years ago, perhaps many of my colleagues were with me here in Washington when the four outlaws, as the gentlewoman from Tennessee mentioned, Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, each of whom I am sure were regarded as outlaws by the profession, but they made one tremendous quartet here that night; and it was a sold-out crowd here in Washington. I vividly remember it. As has already been said, the gentleman from Tennessee, the gentleman from Maryland and the gentlewoman from Tennessee have already said it, he was indeed an icon and will indeed be missed. The man in black, always standing up; always, almost without exception, standing up for the underdog, standing up for the other guy. He will indeed be missed.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today, of course, we commemorate what occurred 2 years ago, an event that changed the face of America forever. We are not the same country we were then. Our country was once referred to as a giant hotel lobby, where you come and go at will. Well, giant hotel lobbies that are open, notoriously are easy pickings for terrorists, and they were easy pickings that day. My friends from New York lost many constituents that day, Mr. Speaker. I lost, as far as I know, only one. Sandy Bradshaw was a flight attendant on the United Airlines flight that ditched in Pennsylvania, and I believe that she and her fellow crew members saved many lives by having elected to ditch that day. Today, at Eastern Randolph High School in Ramseur, North Carolina, my district, there is a special event that will commence very shortly in honor of Sandy Bradshaw, who was an alumni of that school. These people who came calling, and I will have to give the sanitized version of how I have referred to them, because I have referred to them in language that perhaps would not be acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the House, but, for want of a better word, they are cowardly criminals, murderers, who came calling that day. But they have not won. We are of strong resolve, and I am confident we will prevail.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Dr. George Rolofson--``Dr. George'' as I call him--has been a good friend of mine for many years and has worked with me on a number of issues relating to the U.S. agrichemical industry. Soon he will be retiring as Senior Vice President of legislative and regulatory affairs from CropLife America, where he has been a tireless champion of the agriculture and chemical industries. As Dr. George prepares to retire, I want to take the opportunity to thank him for these efforts and for his many contributions to the industry and to let him know that he will be greatly missed by all those with whom he has come in contact over the years. George spent his entire adult life devoted to the study and improvement of the field of agricultural science, specifically as it regarded the use of important agrichemicals. He earned his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in entomology from the University of Nebraska and later went on to receive a Doctorate from Virginia Tech in entomology and toxicology. He then applied those degrees to practical use with the former Ciba Geigy Company in their agricultural division, now known as Syngenta Crop Protection. George worked in product development, toxicology, environmental sciences, and most recently in government relations for CropLife America here in Washington, D.C. Our nation was largely built upon the back of the agriculture industry. Even here in our Capitol building, we see numerous artistic references to this critical industry and its importance in our nation. I would like to ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking my friend, Dr. George, for the devotion he has demonstrated to such an important part of our nation. George, you have left a legacy of pride and commitment to the American farming industry and we are most appreciative for your dedication and contributions. Best wishes in the next phase of your life.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 8, and I commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for the diligent work that she has performed regarding this issue. I was proud to support the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which included a permanent repeal of the death tax. Unfortunately, due to arcane rules of the other body, this much-needed relief for working Americans is scheduled to sunset at the conclusion of 2010. Since then my colleagues, many of my colleagues, and I have voted twice to make this repeal permanent. I am hopeful that this Congress, both the House and the other body, will finally agree to permanently repeal the death tax and send it to the President for his signature. Unless we pass H.R. 8, it is my belief that some of my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina will once again be subject to the death tax in 2011. Further, the sunsetting of this tax makes it difficult for business owners to make strategic planning and investment decisions which could have a major impact on the future of their business and loved ones. Finally, I do not believe we should punish American families who have worked diligently to provide for themselves and their families and want to pass along the fruits of this success to their children and grandchildren. The death tax is a threat to the American Dream as we know it. It is my belief that this tax is the most onerous in the code. Conceptually and in practice, it reduces personal incentive to remain industrious, a disincentive to save, to invest. Eliminating the death tax, coupled with the recent Jobs and Growth Relief and Reconciliation Act, will greatly assist in restoring consumer confidence, spurring capital investment, and creating new jobs which are critical components of economic viability and growth, particularly in the small business community. I urge passage of H.R. 8.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 16, 2003, I missed rollcall votes 276-278. Had I been present on this date, I would have voted ``aye'' on all rollcall Nos. 276, 277, 278. On this date, my flight coming back to Washington, DC, was canceled due to inclement weather and I was not able to get back to town in time for these votes.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my chairman of the full committee, but I am doing it today. What I am saying today is consistent with what I have said previously about this bill. We reported the bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security without the Cannon amendment. The Cannon amendment was added in full committee and comes back to us today when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) submits his amendment subsequently. The amendment, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, will strike the provision of the bill that states that the term ``bets or wagers'' does not include any lawful transaction with a business licensed or authorized by a State. This provision is duplicative of the actual definition of ``unlawful Internet gambling,'' which is defined as a bet or wager that is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law. I am told, Mr. Chairman, and I think the gentleman from Louisiana has corroborated this, that some groups feel that this is a carve-out from the prohibition set forth in the bill. I believe that those groups who so declare are misinterpreting current law and, with or without this provision, we still have to contend with the prohibitions of the Wire Act. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Sensenbrenner amendment will pretty well remove the muscle from the arm of States' rights. I believe that the language that the Sensenbrenner amendment seeks to strike simply preserves the ability of States to regulate gambling, and that is where I think the regulatory issue should arise.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Northwest Guilford High School has a reputation throughout North Carolina as an excellent academic institution. As the winner of North Carolina's ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition, Northwest Guilford has once again proven itself as a first-rate academic institution. Upon winning the North Carolina competition, a group of Northwest students instructed by Mr. Ray Parrish went on to compete at the national competition held in Washington, DC. The ``We the People'' program provides a forum in which high school students are tested and challenged on their knowledge of the United States Constitution. The Northwest team demonstrated an outstanding comprehension of the issues and the fundamentals of American government and represented the Sixth District with courage and pride. Congratulations to Mr. Parrish, Michael Bowles, Blair Brooks, Lauren Campbell, Marnie Cheshire, Jenny Cimaglia, Josh Clark, Kelly Crocken, Melati Crook, Nadia Eksir, Ricky Elmore, Kristin Forrest, Ken Gangong, Elias Hage, Shelly Hanks, Martha Heise, Haley Hoffman, David Holst, Taylor Johnson, Adam Kincaid, Heidi Kunkle, Carson Leach, Leigh Anna Pittman, Matt Rothkopf, Andrew Shoffner, Naresh Sundaresan, Anne Marie Wittmann, John Yeago, and Eliana Ziri. We would also like to thank State Coordinator Carleen Wray and District Coordinator Barbie Creech for their tireless efforts in supporting such a valuable program. The Sixth District would like to extend its congratulations to Principal Mrs. Anne Murr, the students, faculty, and families at Northwest Guilford High School. Your hard work and dedication are admirable and set an example for all of us. Once again, congratulations and ``Go Vikings''.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Larry Johnson, President of the North Carolina Credit Union League and Credit Union Service Corporation, and I have been friends for many, many years and have endured numerous legislative struggles and debates through those years. As Larry prepares to retire at the end of this year, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the tremendous contributions he has made to this industry and to tell him that he will be missed by many of us whose lives he has impacted over the decades. Larry began his credit union career in December 1967 and has been an asset to credit unions in North Carolina and across the country for years due to his excellent people skills and his ability to effectively promote the priorities of credit unions and their members. He is sincere in his effort to ensure that credit unions prosper so that those who may encounter difficulty finding help elsewhere will not be without resources. As President of the League, Larry has been very active in state, regional and national activities and has served his members with honor and dignity throughout his tenure. In keeping with the local community tradition that has become a trademark of the credit union industry, Larry has used his position and influence within the organization to positively impact a number of important charities across North Carolina. He actively promotes credit union participation in the League's social responsibility activities such as support of the Duke Medical Center's Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Research Laboratory, the Prevent Child Abuse North Carolina project, and his current effort to raise support for the Victory Junction Gang Camp, a camp for children with life threatening illnesses. Larry, we thank you for the contributions that you have made in our communities and across the state of North Carolina. This legacy will be an ever-present reminder of your hard work and dedication. Cheers to you, my friend, and best of luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as we perhaps know, at the beginning of May we kicked off National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. It is in this week we recognize correctional officers and employees across the Nation and applaud their dedication and service to our country. They are often asked to work long hours serving the public, and in the past few years we have asked them to work even more difficult schedules. Statistics from the Bureau of Justice indicate that we are housing more and more men and women in prisons and jails than ever before. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, prison overcrowding is another issue that warrants our consistent attention. As we focus on taking the most dangerous elements of our society off the streets, it is the correctional officer and the employee upon whom we rely to maintain order and assure safety. Correctional officers' and employees' daily duties to safeguard the public and the incarcerated are oftentimes dangerous. I gladly support H. Res. 180, which encourages the goals of the National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. This resolution recognizes the exemplary work done by correctional officers and the employees across the Nation.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit the war in Iraq, if I may. On March 25 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I came to the House floor and said the following: ``Many insist that this is a unilateral operation. Not true. There are many supporters, but they are reluctant to openly oppose Saddam. They fear him. They, in fact, Mr. Speaker, are afraid. Many of his neighbors loathe Saddam, but they stand in fear. But the Bush-Blair wagon will move forward with the support, albeit sometimes anonymous, of other nations.'' Mr. Speaker, as we have continued to praise our U.S. troops, I want us to avoid ignoring our allies, because as I said on this floor about 2 months ago, it is not a unilateral effort. I recently read in the Sergeant Shaft article, which appears regularly in the Washington Times, a letter from an Australian commander who wrote, ``When are the British and Australian troops going to be included in the television coverage?'' A fair question. Now, I am not critical of the coverage, Mr. Speaker, as it is only natural to praise our own troops first, but we certainly do not want to turn deaf ears to the contributions of our allies, Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Poland, many others. I was recently in Denmark regarding the sensitive issue of maritime security and learned while there of the impressive assistance we have received from the Danes in this war effort. Finally, Mr. Speaker, another point. Some Members of the Congress have been openly critical of President Bush's recent visit with our troops aboard the carrier Lincoln, alleging excessive costs. Some of these same critics are hardly paragons of restraint when it comes to pork barrel spending of taxpayers' dollars. I am more inclined, Mr. Speaker, to place a higher value upon the troops' enthusiastic welcome to the President as opposed to some sour grapes criticism after the fact. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, President Bush has demonstrated responsible leadership. We have been a beneficiary of able assistance from our allies, which we need to openly and gratefully acknowledge; and we need to be patient and deliberate in restoring some sense of order in Iraq. But the people of Iraq who demanded the removal of Saddam need to demonstrate patience and deliberation as well.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. I probable will not take 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It seems to me, it seems very basic to me that an industry that manufacturers, distributes, imports and/or sells a legal product lawfully should not be held liable for criminal acts of a third party. If an individual sells a firearm following all the rules and regulations of firearms, sales including conducting backgrounds checks to ensure that the purchaser is eligible to own a firearm, and the purchaser who buys the firearm violates the law by surrendering that firearm to an individual who subsequently uses the gun to commit a crime, why should the law-abiding dealer be liable? Laws are violated in that hypothetical, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, when the purchaser shared his firearm or surrendered his firearm to a third party, not at the point of sale. In my opinion, that means that the liability should lie with those who violated the law and not with a manufacturer who made the firearm to standard, maybe 6 months earlier, or even with the dealer who sold the gun complying with existing law. H.R. 1036 which, by the way, came out of our House Committee on the Judiciary, does nothing to exempt the firearm industry from liability if the industry acts negligently, if the industry produces or sells a defective product, or if a firearm is sold in violation of any State or Federal law. The bill simply protects the industry from unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits. Once again, it is important to note that the firearm industry is heavily regulated, and I am not averse to that. I think it ought to be heavily regulated at both State and Federal levels. This is not an industry that is operating willy-nilly, unchecked and unmonitored. Licensed firearm dealers are required to meet various regulations prior to the sale of a firearm. Furthermore, the industry itself is very actively involved in ensuring that dealers know and are enforcing current firearm laws. Firearm trade groups, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) I would say, are responsible for publishing literature on gun safety, responding to questions about firearms, and the proper manner in which to store firearms, for example. The firearm industry also, I am told, sponsors seminars across the country for gun dealers and distributors to certify that all gun sales adhere to strict transaction requirements. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, is that firearms are legal products that are heavily regulated at the State and Federal level. It is my belief that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and/or importer of firearms who follows all laws of sale and marketing and does not act in any way negligently should not be held responsible for the criminal behavior of a third party. I think this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) again for yielding me time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Phase III Implementation Act. I believe the time has come for Congress to find a way to break the current stalemate on the tobacco buyout issue. To that end, I am calling for the creation of a non-federal trust fund--similar to the Phase II trust fund created by the 1998 multi-state settlement agreement--to provide buyout payments to tobacco quota holders and growers. This new ``Phase III'' Trust Fund would be coupled with tobacco program modernization which is addressed in the legislation I am introducing today. There are three major objectives motivating this legislation. First, Congress needs to undertake major reform and modernization of the federal tobacco program. Second, we need to encourage a dialogue on alternative ways to fund a tobacco quota buyout. Third, the tobacco buyout and program reform debate needs to remain separate from a massive tobacco product regulatory debate like the one we saw in 1998. The current program has served tobacco-growing families quite well since the 1930's and has been modified and improved several times through the years; however, the last major overhaul was in 1986, and I believe it is time to take a new look at the program. Historically, the federal tobacco program has worked well to keep supply in line with demand. Since 1986, growers and buyers alike have paid an assessment on every pound of tobacco grown to keep the program operating at no net cost to the federal government. This approach has generally been strongly supported by quota holders, growers, manufacturers, dealers, and in recent years, even public health organizations; however, certain structural problems have emerged in the last few years to make the program less efficient. Tobacco quotas can be rented or leased by quota holders. This means that active tobacco growers seeking to increase their production can do so by obtaining the production rights from inactive quota holders. In the last few years, rent and lease costs have risen substantially, and the overall demand for tobacco leaf has been cut in half. Much of this reduction stems from the $268 billion multi-state settlement in 1998, and fears of excessive federal regulation of tobacco products by manufacturers which has driven export production overseas. In the past two years, there has been much speculation about a tobacco quota buyout. This speculation has caused many quota holders to hang on to their quotas longer than they otherwise might have, making quotas more, expensive to buy and driving up rent and lease costs. At the same time, the price of domestic tobacco leaf has been supported at levels that are incongruous with international prices, making domestic leaf less competitive in world markets. As a result, support for the current program has been falling among active tobacco growers, thereby creating the need for reform. Under my proposal, growers can opt for a modernized program or eliminate the program altogether, giving growers a vote on this issue. It calls for an up-front referendum for each type of tobacco to decide whether growers move forward with a licensing program that includes a cost-of-production safety net, or no program at all. This bill will eliminate the current tobacco quota program and create a modernized program in its place. Quota holders would be eligible for buyout payments from non-federal sources through the existing Phase II trust fund and additional amounts provided under a new Phase III trust fund. Active tobacco growers would also be eligible for payments from these non-federal sources and would be issued tobacco production licenses based on their actual production history. The new licensing program would be administered by the Department of Agriculture, establishing licenses that are non-transferable, except to the heirs of the tobacco grower. In other words, the renting or leasing of production rights would be eliminated and tobacco leaf would be sold with a new safety net formula based on costs of production. Finally, growers would be given a vote on a new modernized program or no program at all. The second objective of my legislation is to stimulate a discussion of alternative ways to fund a tobacco quota buyout. The current debate in Congress is at a stalemate, and I believe that it is well past time to look at alternative solutions. I continue to oppose all federal tax increases as a way to pay for a buyout including direct taxes, user fees, assessments, or new revenues by any other name. Before the Attorneys General from the major tobacco states would sign the multi-state settlement in 1998, they wanted guaranteed relief for tobacco growers, but they did not come to Congress looking for the money. The tobacco manufacturers and the states sat down and negotiated a separate $5.15 billion trust fund, known as Phase II, that did not require taxpayer dollars. In this same vein, I believe we should begin looking at non-federal ways to fund a buyout, like developing a new Phase III trust fund with buyout payments made over 5 years. This would require a willingness on the part of manufacturers and growers to come together to find a solution, and I think it is an idea worth trying given that such a solution could potentially be accomplished far faster than waiting on the legislative process. The third objective of my legislation is to keep the tobacco buyout and program reform debate separate from a massive tobacco product regulatory debate like the one experienced in 1998. I don't believe such a debate can be successfully concluded in the near future, yet group after group continues to meet with our tobacco growers and tell them that they need to accept FDA regulation of tobacco products if they want a tobacco buyout. One of my major concerns with FDA regulation is its application of medical device language to tobacco products. Language regulating each machine part of a medical device will not work when applied to a tobacco leaf. Instead, it could end up giving the federal government broad authority to reengineer the compounds in the tobacco plant. Our tobacco growers have been pawns in the FDA power struggle long enough, and we simply must separate this issue and move forward to help our growers. I hope my colleagues who represent tobacco-growing states will join with me in looking at the tobacco buyout issue in a different light. Tobacco growers cannot wait indefinitely for a solution. Let us find a non-federal, taxpayer friendly way to fund a buyout, enact sensible tobacco program reform that gives growers a choice, and move forward so that our farm families can enjoy a more stable future.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The gentleman from Wisconsin has pretty thoroughly examined this bill. I just want to reiterate that this legislation is good policy. It has the potential to protect and save lives, the lives of the most innocent among us. H.R. 1104 is divided into three titles to improve the law related to child abductions by addressing sanctions and offenses, investigation and prosecution, and public outreach. The legislation sends a clear message that child abductors will not escape justice. Title I, ``Sanctions and offenses,'' strengthens the penalties against kidnapping by providing for a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for nonfamily abductions of a child under the age of 18. This title also requires lifetime supervision for sex offenders, which is similar to a bill that passed the House last year 409 to 3. Also included is a provision that requires mandatory life imprisonment for second-time sex offenders that also passed this body 382 to 34 last Congress. In addition, this title directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase offense levels for crimes of kidnapping and adds child abuse that results in death as a predicate for first degree murder. Title II, ``Effective investigation and prosecution,'' gives law enforcement agencies the tools they need to enforce the laws against child abduction. This title adds four new wiretap predicates that relate to sexual exploitation crimes against children which previously passed the House 396 to 11 last Congress. The title also provides that child abductions and felony sex offenses can be prosecuted without limitation of time and provides a rebuttal presumption that child rapists and kidnappers should not get pretrial release. Title III, ``Public outreach,'' establishes a national Amber Alert program based on the bill of the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to codify the AMBER Alert program currently in place. This is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent alert bulletin in serious child-abduction cases. The goal of the AMBER Alert, as has been explained, is to have the assistance of millions of people in the search for an abducted child. This title also increases support for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Nation's resource center for child protection, by doubling its authorization to $20 million. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the title authorizes COPS funding for local law enforcement agencies to establish sex offender apprehension programs within their States. Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of high-profile child abductions illustrates the tremendous need for this legislation in this area. The criminals breach the security of our homes to steal, molest, rape and kill our children. Immediate action is necessary.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I attended the dedication of a recently constructed house of worship at High Point, North Carolina. The minister reminded those of us in the congregation about the past history of the United States, our benevolence, our having offered assistance time and again to our distressed neighbors across the world. When I heard these words, I concluded that we Americans do need to remind the world, pardon my immodesty, that we are indeed the eternal good guy. We have pulled chestnuts from the fire for many nations and many people; and some who have become beneficiaries of our benevolence conveniently become victims of amnesia. I recently saw a televised interview, Mr. Speaker, of one protesting our involvement in Iraq, who blamed President Bush for having led us to believe that this would be brief and easy. That charge, Mr. Speaker, is misleading and inaccurate. President Bush from the very outset has made it clear that this encounter would be arduous and demanding. I have been advised that President Clinton publicly said that this war would be quickly won. I did not hear him say it, but, if he did, it was a reckless, irresponsible conclusion. Such utterances lull observers into what could be a sense of false security and serve no good purpose to our troops. The United Nations has been disappointing throughout this exercise. Certain members of the U.N. need to enroll, it seems to me, in refresher leadership courses. Saddam Hussein has danced circles around the U.N., and he surely must be laughing up his sleeve. Saddam, not unlike the school yard bully, has imposed havoc upon his people and upon his neighbors; and, not unlike the school yard bully, he will continue to destroy until someone has the fortitude to challenge him, to call his bluff. Permit me to examine Saddam's record during his bloody regime: Thousands have disappeared in the Iraqi prison network; there are numerous accounts of torture and burning of human flesh of accused victims, children dying of starvation, starvation accelerated by Saddam, women notoriously raped in the presence of third parties; and, once this evil dictator is removed, I am confident many additional unbelievable horrible accounts will surface. Enter President Bush, enter Prime Minister Tony Blair, enter Spain and Australia and others. These leaders have decided the time has come to take on the school yard bully. Many insist that this is a unilateral operation. Not true. There are many supporters, but they are reluctant to openly oppose Saddam. They fear him. They in fact, Mr. Speaker, are afraid. Many of his neighbors loathe Saddam, but they stand in fear. But the Bush-Blair wagon will move forward with the support, albeit sometimes anonymous, of other nations. Some observers have suggested that the U.N. should remove the United States from the U.N. Kick the United States out, they say. I have an alternative suggestion: Certain members of the U.N. should be led to the gate that leads to the road out of the country. They might be advised to follow that road if they are unable and are unwilling to assume the mantle of responsible leadership. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, the liberation of Iraq advances, as we continue to keep our troops and their families and the troops of our neighbors and their families in our thoughts and prayers.