Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Last month, the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKIine produced the one-millionth donated tablet of albendazole, a drug that is being used to eliminate a devastating tropical disease called lymphatic filariasis (LF). I would like to congratulate GlaxoSmithKIine (GSK) on this outstanding accomplishment, and thank the company for its commitment to the World Health Organization's (WHO) Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Program. GlaxoSmithKIine has its U.S. headquarters in my state, where it employs close to 6,000 North Carolinians in the search for disease treatments and cures that improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer. In addition to developing leading treatments for such diseases as diabetes, depression, asthma and HIV/AIDS, GSK produces an anti-parasitic drug called albendazole that is used to prevent a tropical disease known as lymphatic filiarias, or LF. LF is a parasitic disease caused by thread-like worms that live in the human lymphatic system after being transmitted by a mosquito bite. LF is one of the leading causes of permanent and long-term disability in the world. The WHO estimates there are a billion people at risk in about 80 countries, mostly in India, Africa, South Asia, the Western Pacific and Central and South America. Over 120 million people have already been affected by LF, and over 40 million of these are seriously incapacitated and disfigured by the disease. In an infected person, the adult worms damage the lymphatic system, causing fluid to collect and cause swelling in the arms, legs, breasts and genitals. Such infections cause a grotesque hardening and thickening of the skin, known as elephantiasis. LF has been a scourge of civilization for thousands of years, being first depicted on the pharaonic murals of Egypt and in the ancient medical texts of China, India, Japan and Persia. Elephantiasis was first associated with parasitic filarial worms and their mosquito vectors in the late 19th century by French, English and Australian physicians working with patients from Cuba, Brazil, China and India. The WHO has determined that LF can be eliminated through an intense prevention program that will break the chain of infection through the use of anti-parasitic drugs. When these efforts succeed, LF will be only the second disease in history, after smallpox, to have been eradicated through human intervention. In December 1997, GlaxoSmithKIine formed a collaboration with the WHO to spearhead efforts to eliminate LF. GSK would donate albendazole, one of three essential anti parasitic drugs, for as long as necessary until the disease was eliminated--best estimates put the scale of this commitment at around five to six billion treatments. Since then, the program has evolved into a major public-private partnership known as the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis. GSK has become an active and involved partner in eliminating LF along with the WHO, organizations in the private and public sectors, and academia. By the end of the program to eliminate LF, GSK will have donated approximately five to six billion albendazole treatments for people in 80 countries. In addition to providing albendazole, GSK is supporting the Global Alliance for the Elimination of LF through help with coalition building, planning, training and communication initiatives. GSK's production of the millionth dose of albendazole for the LF Elimination Program is an outstanding milestone achievement on the road to what will become the single largest pharmaceutical donation in history. I am pleased to represent the employees of GlaxoSmithKIine, and proud to share the news of their historic accomplishment with this chamber.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I congratulate the chairman for a job well done. I want to thank the leadership, also, for sticking with their commitment to require printing and dyeing and finishing of textiles to remain in the United States. I am speaking today in support of the Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report, because it is a victory for the textile industry and at no cost to the Government. In the 1970s and 1980s, 13 small towns in Western North Carolina attracted printing, dyeing and finishing jobs to their communities. These towns sold bonds to pay for the necessary water and sewer infrastructure, while textile companies built plants whose taxes would pay for those bonds. Since this manufacturing method had a low labor content and high value added content, these firms expected to remain competitive. All was well until the textile industry started leaving because of lower labor costs around the world. The printing and dyeing and finishing jobs also started leaving, resulting in what we call stranded bonds investment without a manufacturing base to pay for the bonds. Local water-sewer rates have exploded to cover the costs. With the new commitment requiring that printing, dyeing and finishing remain in the United States, these small towns will have available attractive facilities for economic development and taxable investment to pay for the bond expense while enhancing employment opportunities. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the conference report on H.R. 4775. The small towns of North Carolina thank my colleagues.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). The chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is raising a reasonable point. In his amendment he is asking that before we lift the Treasury Department restrictions on travelers spending money in Cuba without a license, we should get some answers to some critical home security questions: Does Cuba have an offensive biological weapons capability? Is Cuba sharing dual use biotechnology with rogue states? Does Cuba harbor and support terrorists? Our administration has released statements approved by our intelligence community that say that our government believes the answer to the first two questions is yes. As for the third question, Cuba is on the State Department's list of state-sponsored terrorism. We need to take a closer look at these potential threats to our citizens. That is what the Goss amendment does. It says to the President, look into this and certify to Congress whether these things are true. There are also some commonsense questions about Cuba's possible motives for developing biological weapons that we ought to be asking. Why is it that the government of this poor nation has poured many, many millions of dollars into developing a biotech industry? Can we really accept at face value Cuban claims that they are only pursuing medical research? Cuba has on numerous occasions over the years falsely accused the United States of deploying biological agents against Cuba. Could such paranoia motivate the regime in Havana to develop biological weapons? Since the Cuban regime says it fears a U.S. invasion, is it possible that such a perceived threat would motivate the Cubans to develop offensive biological weapons? I urge my colleagues to support the Goss amendment so Congress could get the answer to these questions.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on 9-11 I stood here and made a speech about the overvalued dollar and its bad effect on our trade, especially the textile industry. Then came the vicious attack. Since that time, the President and the House leadership have promised to aid our beleaguered industry and have delivered on those promises. But in the long run, the weakening dollar will provide immediate aid in our ability to compete, to compete in the world market in textiles and steel and other important sectors of our economy. Our retail prices will increase; but now, more goods in the stores will be made in America.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have been to Colombia many times. I would also like to say that no additional troops to the 400 that we have there at the present time, and it is capped at 400, have been asked for or will be asked for by the Colombian government. But I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts which removes the freedom of the Colombian government to use our aid and makes them fight with 2 hands tied behind them. Colombia today is a nation under siege by 3 terrorist organizations. Two of these terrorist organizations, the FARC and ELN, have kidnapped over 50 Americans and murdered at least 10. The third, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is a vicious, violent terrorist organization that indiscriminately murders Colombians. All three of these terrorist groups have been designated by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations because it has been determined that they are a threat to our Nation's security. Terrorism in Colombia is financed by illegal trafficking in narcotics that kills up to 40,000 of our young people in the United States each year. The largest terrorist organization in Colombia, the FARC, has in essence declared war on the Colombian people. This group is attacking Colombia's democratic institutions. The FARC is holding a presidential candidate, Colombia legislators, and local elected officials as hostages. They also attack police stations and kill innocent people. The Colombian government is continuing its efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with ELN, and we should support those efforts. No one has done more than President Andres Pastrana, however, to hold that door open to a negotiated political agreement with the FARC. His perseverance and forbearance have made one thing clear: It is the FARC's willful disregard of the rule of law and human rights that led President Pastrana to make the decision to end the FARC's safe haven and send in Colombia's security forces to reestablish legitimate government. On March 6, this body passed a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of the House that ``The President, without undue delay, should transmit to Congress for its consideration proposed legislation, consistent with United States law regarding protection of human rights, to assist the government of Colombia to protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations and the scourge of illicit narcotics.'' The Bush administration responded to this invitation and included such a proposition, so it is in this bill. The Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations have both held hearings in which the administration discussed its proposal. The language that the gentleman from Massachusetts is seeking to strike is itself the product of a bipartisan compromise. We must help the people of Colombia in their darkest hour. Colombia is a democracy and an ally of the United States. It is under attack by terrorist organizations funded by illegal drugs. Colombia is not asking us to send troops. The democratically-elected government of Colombia is asking that we make it possible for us to help them defend their democracy from these terrorists. The restrictions on the use of aid should be removed. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendments being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the plight of a Cuban man, Francisco Chaviano Gonzales. Francisco is a political prisoner in Cuba. He is the President of the National Council for Civil Rights, an organization dedicated to democracy and human rights. Francisco was arrested for possessing documents revealing human rights abuses in Cuba. A military tribunal sentenced him to 15 years in prison. He languishes today in isolation where he is deprived of basic medical care and proper food. Ironically, Francisco's captivity proves the existence of human rights abuses in Cuba even more than the documents they arrested him for. The Cold War is over, but the United States' fight for freedom will never end. This man was arrested for promoting the very things America values. Francisco, we remember you.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 412 and offer my sincerest condolences to the families and friends of the four Canadian soldiers who gave their last full measure of devotion in the defense of liberty during Operation Enduring Freedom last month. Eight of their comrades also were wounded in the same tragic incident. They, along with the rest of Canada, are now left to mourn the loss of their fellow patriots. The tragic event of April 17 should remind all of us that war is dangerous. Service men and women often risk their lives each and every day, so that we may enjoy our freedom and security. These brave Canadians have made the ultimate sacrifice for Canada and for freedom throughout the world. Today, I pray for their families and loved ones. Canada is not only our neighbor, it has been our closest friend and ally. Soon after the terrorist attacks on September 11, Canadian families selflessly opened their homes to American travelers who were stranded in Canada when American airspace was closed. Since then, Canada has stood, shoulder to shoulder, with its American ally to face the forces of evil in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Despite this tragic accident, Canada and the United States will continue to stand together and fight our mutual enemies until they are vanquished and peace prevails. Canada, we grieve with you today for your fallen heroes. Their dedication and steadfastness in the face of danger should be a source of pride and comfort. With soldiers like these, I have no doubt that the days of the terrorist are limited and that victory will be ours. I want to commend my friend and colleague from New York, Mr. Houghton, for this resolution. I urge my colleagues to stand with our Canadian neighbors and support passage of the resolution.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced four measures which will help the United States textile industry in its efforts to compete on the global playing field. Many American textile companies are fighting for their survival due to unfairly undervalued imports produced by low-wage foreign manufacturers. One competitive advantage that the U.S. industry still has is its productivity. The American textile industry is one of the most productive in the world, but American companies must constantly modernize to retain that edge. Unfortunately, much of the machinery the American textile industry needs to compete is no longer produced here in the United States, so the industry must seek such equipment from foreign sources. However, they must still pay duties on those machines. At a time when our domestic industry is suffering its most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, with hundreds of closed mills and nearly 70,000 jobs lost in the past year, it makes no sense to require companies to pay duties on equipment that is not produced domestically. Some of our leading American textile companies have entered Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, others are experiencing substantial losses, and even some of those who are profitable are barely so. For these companies, if we suspend the duties, the money they could save when purchasing new equipment can be put to better use, and we could save more American textile jobs from being lost. Congress has acted previously to suspend the duties on these particular machines, but that suspension has now expired. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to temporarily suspend the collection of duties on these four types of machines that are no longer produced in the U.S. The machines in question include certain ink jet and other textile printing machines, certain shuttle type power looms, and certain shuttleless power looms. The detailed description of these machines, including their Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers, are found in the bills themselves. All four types of equipment are essential to various textile producers, large and small, throughout the United States. I urge the Ways and Means Committee to act swiftly to approve these bills.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I rise in support of the base bill and in opposition to the Miller-Rangel substitute on the grounds that it would oppose a host of new government regulations that will drive businesses out of offering, and I emphasize the word, voluntary retirement savings plans. I happened to be in a situation in 1950 in my company back home where we had an employee that had worked for the company for 30 years and decided to retire, and I found out at that time, I did not realize much about the way things went, I realized that this gentleman after 30 years with me had only his Social Security to count on. So what I did is I put into our company at that time a defined benefit plan that was going to take care of all the employees, some retirement and so forth. This whole situation, to my way of thinking, was a fabulous thing. We should take care of employees. All of a sudden, somewhere down the road we ran into the fact that the government's regulations were coming along and it appeared to me I was not trustworthy of Uncle Sam, so what I did is I liquidated the whole pension plan and gave the employees all the money and started over again. And we ended up with a 401(k) and an ESOP right now, which I realize the ESOP is not involved in this. But I want you to know, I got out of this pension plan even before I knew about trial lawyers or fiduciary responsibility. The Democrat substitute creates a new resource for trial lawyers to line their pockets by increasing the liability exposure of employers, administrators, service providers to an ill-defined and uncapped damage. From the CEOs to the middle managers and those who have no control over the plan's investment decisions, they could be personally liable for losses in their retirement plan, and these men and women who are sued for something out of their control could be forced to pay damages beyond the lost value of their retirement plan. Current law allows Labor, Treasury and the Justice Department, as well as affected individuals, to take actions to recover damages from a plan. Additionally, the Democrat substitute would extend this unlimited right to sue to all ERISA plans, including retirement, health, disability, all of these plans, as well as reducing the availability of retirement plans. This amendment would destroy the current system of employer provided health insurance, leaving millions of Americans uninsured. The Miller-Rangel substitute would force every fiduciary to a defined contribution plan to have insurance themselves in case there was a breach of fiduciary duty. I do not know how many of you have looked at the cost of that insurance, but today it is unbelievably expensive. However, mandating each individual fiduciary to have his or her own insurance would be redundant and costly, and, once again, these costly, unneeded measures would discourage employers from offering retirement plans. Finally, the substitute would mandate that retirement plans include an employee representative on the joint board of trustees. What employee can you find that would be willing to serve on a board when he knew he was going to get sued? That is an interesting situation. This is already allowed under ERISA, and some employers do it. This mandate would increase administrative burdens on employers, and since ERISA currently requires that plan administrators act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries, what is the benefit of mandating an employee to join the Board of Trustees? There is not one, but it does add a substantial burden. While I believe the government has a role in protecting employees' retirement plans, I cannot support a massive imposition of Federal regulations that will destroy the incentive for employers to offer retirement plans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute amendment and a ``yes'' vote on final passage of H.R. 3762.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I have been to Colombia many times on many occasions since I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere. I have seen a terrible situation unfold in that troubled nation. On my last trip in January, we met with President Andres Pastrana as he was forced to issue an ultimatum to the FARC in a last- ditch effort to get them to come back to the negotiating table. No one has done more to hold the door open to a negotiated, political solution to end the violence in Colombia than President Pastrana. His perseverance and forbearance have made one thing clear: it is the FARC's willful disregard for the rule of law and human rights that led President Pastrana to make the decision to end the safe haven and send in Colombia's security forces to reestablish legitimate government authority. Colombia today is a nation under siege by three terrorist organizations. Two of these terrorist organizations, the FARC and the ELN, have kidnapped over 50 Americans and murdered at least 10 Americans. The third, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is a vicious, violent terrorist organization that indiscriminately murders Colombians. Individuals who aid those terrorists dishonor and discredit themselves and the institutions that they represent. All three of these terrorist groups have been designated by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations because it has been determined that they are a threat to our Nation's security. Terrorism in Colombia is financed by illegal trafficking in narcotics that kill and destroy the lives of our young people in the United States. The FARC has, in essence, declared war on the Colombian people. This group is attacking Colombia's democratic institutions. Five Colombian legislators are being held hostage by the FARC. The FARC has been attacking the infrastructure. It attacks police stations with propane gas cylinder mortars that indiscriminately kill innocent people. The Colombian Government is continuing its efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with the ELN, and we should support those efforts. It is time, however, that we reassess our policy towards Colombia. This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the President, without undue delay, should transmit to Congress for its consideration proposed legislation, consistent with United States law regarding protection of human rights, to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations and the scourge of illicit narcotics. We cannot afford to fail to help the people of Colombia in their darkest hour. Colombia is a democracy and an ally of the United States, and it is under attack by terrorist organizations funded by illegal drugs. Colombia is not asking us to send troops. The democratically elected Government of Colombia is asking that we make it possible for us to help them defend their democracy from these terrorists. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this reasonable, bipartisan resolution.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the Colombian Army has made progress in this area, and, while not perfect, no one is. At least they are trying and have made good progress. I also note that an alternative to a well-trained and respectful Colombian Army is the AUC, and that right-wing paramilitary respects no one's rights, engages in terrorism, illicit drugs, and kills innocent civilians. No one here is proposing that we repeal the Leahy amendment that prohibits aid to the units of Colombian military that engage in human rights abuses. Leahy is existing law. The Leahy restriction will remain law and has my strong support, and human rights concerns will not be thrown out the window in a new Colombian policy. I also note the counter-drug aid that we provided to the Colombian police, their antinarcotics unit, has been delivered and used in the last 2 years without even one allegation of a human rights abuse; I repeat, not even one allegation. The Colombians can and will respect human rights if we help them and we train them and we stand shoulder to shoulder next to them in the fight. The police antinarcotics unit is a case of study for engagement. Absent a new U.S. policy, the right-wing paramilitaries will fill the void in Colombia, and the human rights of no one, especially civilians, will be safe. We can stay on the sidelines or help our neighbor. The answer is clear, especially since September 11. We need to fight global terrorism whenever and wherever it raises its ugly head.

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

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's economists have confirmed what thousands of American workers have already feared, that our economy is in a recession. House Republicans have passed an economic security package to create new jobs and help unemployed workers. But the stalling economy continues to be in jeopardy because the Senate continues to stall economic security legislation. People are hurting, unemployment is rising, and now we have proof that the economy is in recession. What more does the Senate Democratic leadership need? The American people deserve action on this right now. The Senate Democrat leadership failed to push through a strictly partisan version of a stimulus plan on November 14. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Senate Democrat leadership to stop stalling and send President Bush an economic stimulus package that creates jobs and helps affected Americans.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as an employer with employees who have 401(k) plans back home, I am pleased that the House is voting on a bill to ensure professional investment advice for rank-and-file workers and their individual needs. I urge my colleagues to reject the Andrews-Rangel substitute which would, in fact, reduce the number of employers and financial advisors willing to offer their advice to employees. This is just the opposite of what the worker needs at a time when they are nervous about their retirement assets. It is just more government regulation. The substitute is bad because it increases the cost for advisory services by requiring two fiduciary advisors as options. It undermines the current ERISA remedies, and erodes the preemption statute, and adds more Federal regulation in areas already regulated by Federal and State entities, areas in which the Department of Labor has no expertise. And it reverses the burden of proof in lawsuits against employers and financial advisors which surely will attract our friends, the trial lawyers. It will reduce the number of employers that are willing to have a 401(k) plan. Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues support the bipartisan Boehner bill endorsed by Labor, Commerce, Department of Treasury, along with the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Rural Electric Coop. These groups speak for a great many of the employers and employees in my district, and I support the Boehner bill as a much-needed update of the current law. This bill gives protection and access to today's employees who seek investment advice to maximize their retirement savings. The primary focus of this act is to give participants advice solely in their best interest. The bill achieves this by including strict disclosure requirements, with sanctions, to inform plan participants about any potential fees or conflicts of interest in what average investors have today. Most important, workers will have full control over their investment decisions. I urge the House to reject the substitute amendment and pass the Boehner bill today.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, lack of experience in times of decision can easily lead to mistakes. I would imagine that the largest number of employees most Members of Congress have ever employed is their staff here in Washington and back in their districts. As employers, Members of Congress are called on to make hiring, firing and fringe benefit decisions for their staffs. They are involved in hiring, firing, evaluating, and eliminating weak or unsatisfactory employees. These decisions can be made without government advice or instructional guidelines. Now, let us just imagine that we federalize all congressional employees. They would immediately gain all the benefits of civil service, which would then require us to hire, pay, and advance employees according to government regulations; and by the way, we could not fire them without a major just-cause hearing, which we would probably lose. Everything would have to be done according to prescribed rules. In other words, we would no longer control the operation of our offices, good or bad. In the case of a Member, we are talking about 15 or 20 employees; but suppose we are talking about Federal aviation safety. We are talking about 31,000 employees who deem their jobs by government hiring and would not have to be efficient, polite or qualified. Under the control of the FAA, the Justice Department or whatever agency, can we imagine how long it would take to get such an operation started? Probably a year or two. Does that sound about right? Stop and think about how efficient any government operation is. Can we replace the FAA or the INS or Internal Revenue Service or even change their operating system when it becomes out of date? We tried, but to no avail. Remember the reduction to government employees under President Clinton? Those reductions were nearly all Armed Forces. He could not touch civilian employees. By the way, over 40 of the Senators who voted for the Senate version now confess they would never have supported it if their leadership had given them another choice. Vote to allow private airport security operation overseen by the Federal Government. Vote for President Bush's choice. announcement by the chairman

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 421, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, upon assuming control of the entire nation of Vietnam, the Communist Government imprisoned many of its citizens in reeducation camps where they endured brutal conditions. Many died due to abuse and deprivation. Most of those placed in these camps were sent there because of their service to the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War. In 1979, the Orderly Departure Program was created to provide a way for the immediate relatives of those who spent 3 years or more in those camps, and the widows of those who died in the camps to immigrate to the United States. I know a number of these people who now reside in my congressional district and work in a business that I founded. They are productive and patriotic citizens. However, when the deadline to register for the program expired, many qualified beneficiaries were left behind. The bill of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), H.R. 1840, will offer these individuals an opportunity to be considered for admission under the Ordinary Departure Program through the fiscal year 2003. I support the bill. It is a fair and honorable way to help the families of the brave men and women who endured great suffering for their service to the cause of democracy and their support of the American military and civilian personnel during the Vietnam War. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote for H.R. 1840.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support President Bush's stellar leadership during these difficult times. His compassion, integrity, and sound judgment sound brightly as critical steps are taken to combat terrorism at home and abroad. This is a different kind of a war and a different kind of enemy, but many of the problems have been with us for a long time. Drug-related income funds the Taliban regime by as much as $50 million per year. Clearly, drugs fund terrorism. I chair the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and am a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America. The relationship between drug traffic and terrorism is undeniable not only in the Middle East, but in South America. The war on terrorism must coincide with our efforts to end the illegal drug trade. Mr. Speaker, drug use is not a victimless crime. It funds the murder of our own people.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I have a strange problem with the way we are talking about our present debate on the surplus. For 30 years, 40 years we never worried about the surplus. We never had a surplus and we spent it all. So, here now, we are about to have a nervous breakdown on whether we are going to have a $150 billion surplus. Oh, my goodness gracious, only $150 billion, my, how can we possibly get along there? What we really should be worrying about is, we are having a manufacturers' recession right now. Why? Well, as a manufacturer myself, and I checked with businesses back home, the main problem we have got is our dollar is the most overvalued currency on the planet today. You should be a tourist traveling anywhere in the world. Everything seems cheap. The reason it is cheap is because our dollar is worth so much more than the value of currency of the place you are visiting. If we could do something to reduce this I think we would accomplish something, but we cannot compete with anybody in the world at the present time with the dollar as long as it continues to be the most expensive currency in the world. Let me give some examples. After the earthquake in El Salvador, some of my friends there approached me with the idea that they needed to buy two by fours. They bought all the two by fours that were available as far as they were concerned in Central America, and so I called up some friends of mine down in North Carolina and asked them about what kind of a deal can you give me on 14 foot and 12 foot two by fours, and they said, Cass, well, the lumber market is terrible now but we will see what we can do. These numbers are not exact, but they will show what I am talking about. This gentleman down there offered me something like a container load of two by fours, mixed 12 and 14 foots, for, say, $4,000 for a container. I checked with a real large timber firm down in Louisiana and theirs was $5,000 a container. So I figured I had a pretty good price. So I called back my friend from El Salvador, and I said I think I have got a good deal for you here, let us see if we cannot negotiate. He said, well, what is your price. I said the deal we have got is $4,000 a container, and he said, well, thanks a lot, Cass, but we just bought Canadian and we got it for $3,000 a container. I went back to my friend down in North Carolina who had offered me this great, wonderful deal, and I said, I am sorry but you got beat. He said, Cass, I hate to tell you this, but it is happening everywhere; we quote in competition with the Canadians. He said, first of all, you have got to realize that our dollar, as compared to their dollar, is worth sixty cents of our dollar. In other words, for $60 you can go out and buy $100 worth of Canadian dollars. Now, that is a wild and funny way to look at it, but in reality that is the way it works. So just lately I checked on woodchips. In North Carolina we used to clean our forests up and we would chew all the wood up into woodchips, carry it down to our coastline and ship it all over the world. I do not know whether Mother Nature greatly appreciated what we were doing, but we were chewing these chips up and shipping them out. Everybody in the world wanted them, and all of the sudden we find out that in Australia they have come up with a better way of doing it and their money is cheaper than our money, and so our woodchip business is gone. I do not know how many people have talked to the steel industry. The steel industry in this country is noncompetitive. They are getting dumped on, as they say, because of the inability to meet the costs that the other countries have for their manufacturing costs, but in reality, the whole thing hangs on a more expensive dollar, and let us be honest. The more we balance the budget, the more surplus we generate, the more popular our currency becomes to the rest of the world. So what do they do? They decide to come here and buy our bonds, and they buy more bonds and they buy more bonds, and pretty soon, the dollar becomes more valued. I do not know how many of you ever watch it in the market and so forth, but the dollar goes up, the yen goes down, the pound goes down, the mark goes down, and here we are becoming less and less competitive and laying more and more people off because of it. I would like to give an example. About 2 months ago, a group of us traveled from Brazil to Argentina to Chile. In Brazil, business was pretty good. We did not know specifically why. We went to Argentina after that, and Argentina had dollarized their currency. They tied their currency to the value of the dollar, and this was a great and wonderful idea to stop inflation, and they did. But the Brazilians devalued their currency and killed whatever industry that they had in Argentina. This is exactly the way the system works. It is great if you are a tourist and can go anywhere in the world and buy everything you know cheaper, but in reality, somewhere along the line we have got to see what we can do. This is kind of a strange request that I am making, but I think probably the best thing we can do is spend more of the surplus and then people would say, hey, they are not quite as chancy with their money as we thought. So maybe we ought to buy some German marks or some British pounds and so forth and quit investing in American dollars. This may sound weird, but most of the folks in this room do not know any better. So I would like to sound weird and hope that we can influence somebody.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today is another day that will live in infamy Americans are not used to attacks on our citizens, especially on our own soil. And America will not stand for it. Today's cowardly attacks were made by those who despise freedom. Well, I have news for them: freedom will prevail, and they will pay the highest price for their actions. This was an act of war. Some of my friends who are World War II veterans compare this to Pearl Harbor. But in World War II, we knew who--and where--the enemy was. As yet, we don't know the answer to that question, but be assured that we will find out. Our thoughts and prayers today are with the innocent victims and their families. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to those rescue workers who continue to put public safety above their own. They are true American heroes, and we are deeply saddened that many of those public servants lost their lives. But while we grieve, we must also harden our resolve to protect this wonderful country. I have great confidence in the men and women who serve in our military and will be called upon to respond on behalf of our nation. I also have great confidence in our civilians, who will willingly make whatever sacrifices might be needed. I encourage our citizens to donate blood, which is critically needed at this time. I also encourage you to go to your house of worship and join in prayer. America will rebound from this tragedy. The terrorists took their best shot, and now it's time that we take ours.