The library is being constructed in Charlotte, North Carolina, by Franklin Graham, himself an evangelist and the head of the Billy Graham Evangelist Association(BGEA), the organisation started by his father in 1947 with the aim of spreading Christianity around the world.

Due to be completed by next spring, visitors to the converted barn and silo will be able to view exhibits from Mr Graham's life and take in a garden where a site has been set aside as a possible burial spot.But Mr Graham's younger son, Ned, is trying to persuade his other siblings to instead follow the wishes of their mother, Ruth, who is ill with a degenerative spine condition. He has also complained that the memorial "library" will not actually contain any books.

"I've spent the last few years trying to help my parents preserve their mental acuity, independence and dignity," Ned Graham, also an evangelist, told the Washington Post. "And I'm saddened that the family is not unified on this issue."

Mrs Graham reportedly said of the library: "It's a circus. A tourist attraction."

For more than half a century, Billy Graham has been seeking to spread Christianity by a series of "crusades" that have seen him preach live to more than 210 million people in 185 countries. He has also enjoyed close relationships with a number of US presidents, including Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Perhaps most famously, Mr Graham ministered to the current president in 1985, helping him give up a serious problem with alcohol and eventually leading the 40-year-old Mr Bush to become a born-again Christian. Mr Bush once said of Mr Graham: "[He] planted a seed in my heart and I began to change."

Mr Graham, who last year attended the ground-breaking ceremony for the library, is now almost blind and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Though he held what he said would be his final crusade last year, he appeared in summer at an event in Baltimore organised by Franklin Graham. In a letter released at the time, he said: "As I grow older, my confidence in the inspiration and authority of the Bible has grown even stronger."

Franklin Graham has headed the BGEA for the past six years. In an interview with the Post, Mr Franklin said he was preparing two possible sites for his parents' burial. "Some of the board members feel the library ought to be the place," he said. "I would hope that every person who comes through hears the message and by the time they come out of the library be confronted with a decision to accept or reject God."

WASHINGTON - The hard work of finalizing the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement last week convinced me that the world's two largest democracies need to develop a strong trade partnership based on free exchange of goods and ideas. Most senators recognize we need to improve our relationship with India and that's why the nuclear cooperation pact attracted overwhelming support before it finally passed last week.

While it's a good beginning, however, we can't let this energy agreement stand alone. Once the U.S. and India settle the thorny outstanding trade issues in the World Trade Organization talks, the president should begin an effort to negotiate a full scale U.S-Indian free-trade agreement. America's economic prosperity and security would benefit.

To begin with, American competitiveness in the global economy depends on expanding our global commercial partnerships. Over the next decade, India will almost certainly grow to have the world's largest population. Its economy has already grown larger than Germany's - the largest in the E.U. - and will eventually surpass Japan's. India's growing middle class provides a fertile market for American goods and its skyrocketing economic growth creates a strong environment for American investors.

Trade volumes have already begun to grow and, with a trade agreement, they would grow further. Between 2001 and 2005 alone, trade between the U.S. and India increased from $14 billion to $26 billion. In the same period, over 1 million Indians - the great majority of them skilled professionals - have also moved to the United States to work and set up businesses. While the U.S. and India have committed to a goal of doubling trade within the next three years, even that level would lie far below the potential. By letting both countries do what they do best, opening up trade with India will continue to increase the standard of living in both countries.

In addition, both India and the United States face a mortal threat from radical Islam. Islamic fascist terrorists have killed more citizens of India than those of any other country. India's position as the world's largest democracy and its ever-growing economy means that al-Qaida and their ilk will target it even more often in the future. The United States must stand with our democratic allies like India as we continue to wage a global war on terror.

In the long term, we should also consider inviting India's neighbors - Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh in particular - to join agreements we make with India. Each of these countries has the potential to play a major role the war on terror, and an enduring relationship with each will require both economic and military cooperation. As India plays a leadership role in its region, it should be the first country we approach.

Of course, concluding a free trade agreement will take a lot of work. A final agreement should, of course, include measures to protect the environment and workers while promoting governmental transparency. Small details also matter. The World Trade Organization's ongoing Doha Round talks themselves have stalled on agricultural issues. Both the U.S. and India have legitimate interests at stake that require resolution. But we cannot let these differences stop all progress. The prospect of a much broader trade agreement might be just the thing to get the talks moving again.

Should it come to fruition, a U.S./India free trade agreement would comprise over a quarter of the world's economy - the largest free trade zone in history. A free trade agreement with India, quite simply, is a national imperative. We should start work towards one without delay.

Sen. Bill Frist is the retiring Senate Majority Leader from Tennessee.

Twenty-six percent of the 1,000 adults questioned in the TNS Sofres survey said they were "completely" or "pretty much" in agreement with Le Pen's views on restricting immigration and defending France's "traditional values".

The proportion of people opposed to Le Pen's stance has fallen over the past year, to 70 percent (from 73 percent in 2005) - the lowest level since the mid-1990s.

Those scores suggested Le Pen was well-placed to compete in the April-May presidential elections against the field of 38 other candidates.

In the last elections in 2002, he surprised the country and Europe by knocking out all other candidates in the first round of voting except for incumbent conservative President Jacques Chirac.

Chirac went on to crush Le Pen in the knockout follow-up round when left-wing voters decided it was "better to vote for a crook than a fascist".

This time around, Le Pen trails well behind the two leading presidential contenders, the Socialist Party's Ségolène Royal and the ruling right's Nicolas Sarkozy.

But his influence can be seen in the programmes of both, suggesting a general shift to the right has occurred in French politics. Sarkozy, in particular, has adopted similar attitudes on immigration and on boosting public security.

The TNS Sofres survey found that only 34 percent of the French thought Le Pen's ideas were "unacceptable". That was a five-point drop from a year ago, an eight-point drop from 2003, and a 14-point drop from 1997.

Nearly half (47 percent), however, judged his ideology "excessive", compared to just 15 percent believed it to be "fair".

The number of people thinking the National Front was a "danger for democracy" has now slid to the lowest level since the early 1990s and stood at 65 percent.

Le Pen's opinion that "there are too many immigrants in France" met with record support - 59 percent agreed with him. But 77 percent disagreed with his view that French citizens be given preference over foreigners residing in the country legally.

His call for "traditional values" to be defended in France drew the support of 39 percent of those polled, while 53 percent disagreeing.

A third approved of his tough line against suburban violence, his views on security and justice, and his criticism of the political establishment.

The survey was carried out December 6-7.