[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3407-H3416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DRUG FREE BORDERS ACT OF 1998

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3809) to authorize appropriations for the United States 
Customs Service for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and for other 
purposees, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3809

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Free Borders Act of 
     1998''.
  TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 
            SERVICE FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND OTHER PURPOSES

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial Operations.--
     Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) $964,587,584 for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(B) $1,072,928,328 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       (b) Commercial Operations.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     301(b)(2)(A) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)(i) and 
     (ii)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) $970,838,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(ii) $999,963,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       (c) Air Interdiction.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     301(b)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)(A) and (B)) are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) $98,488,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(B) $101,443,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       (d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 
     301(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) By no later than the date on which the President 
     submits to the Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs 
     shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year 
     that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs 
     Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 102. NARCOTICS DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR THE UNITED 
                   STATES-MEXICO BORDER, UNITED STATES-CANADA 
                   BORDER, AND FLORIDA AND THE GULF COAST 
                   SEAPORTS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 1999.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 1999 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
     $90,244,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition 
     and other expenses associated with implementation and 
     deployment of narcotics detection equipment along the United 
     States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border, and 
     Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
       (1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
     Mexico border, the following:
       (A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
     rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts 
     to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
       (D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors 
     (busters) to be distributed among ports where the current 
     allocations are inadequate.
       (F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic 
     volume.
       (G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled 
     cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection 
     facility.
       (H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
       (I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be 
     distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
       (J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at 
     loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or 
     areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
       (L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be 
     distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of 
     outbound traffic.
       (M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations, 
     with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
       (N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be 
     installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
       (O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the 
     surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons 
     outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance 
     activities are occurring.
       (P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders 
     to be distributed to all ports of entry.
       (Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
       (R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting 
     software to be installed at each port to target inbound 
     vehicles.
       (S) $1,000,000 for a demonstration site for a high-energy 
     relocatable rail car inspection system with an x-ray source 
     switchable from 2,000,000 electron volts (2-MeV) to 6,000,000 
     electron volts (6-MeV) at a shared Department of Defense 
     testing facility for a two-month testing period.
       (2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
     Canada border, the following:
       (A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.

[[Page H3408]]

       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors 
     to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic 
     volume.
       (3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the 
     Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
       (A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
     $8,924,500 shall be for the maintenance and support of the 
     equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support 
     the equipment described in subsection (a).
       (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; 
     Transfer of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 1999 under section 
     301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
     Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by section 101(a) of this Act, for the acquisition of 
     equipment other than the equipment described in subsection 
     (a) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment described in 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
       (A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
       (B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (G) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (G); and
       (C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).

     SEC. 103. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT 
                   FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO AND UNITED STATES-
                   CANADA BORDERS.

       Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 1999 and 
     2000 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of 
     the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 
     (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section 
     101(a) of this Act, $117,644,584 for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $184,110,928 for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for the 
     following:
       (1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents, 
     and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico 
     border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada 
     border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders 
     during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
       (2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement 
     officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as 
     needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and 
     reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico 
     border.
       (3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in 
     southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
       (4) A net increase of 300 special agents, 30 intelligence 
     analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among 
     offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug 
     or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
     intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
     laundering organizations.
       (5) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources 
     to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative 
     resources for anticorruption efforts.
       (6) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
     personnel hired pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 104. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       As part of the annual performance plan for each of the 
     fiscal years 1999 and 2000 covering each program activity set 
     forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as 
     required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the Commissioner of the Customs Service shall establish 
     performance goals, performance indicators, and comply with 
     all other requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) of subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of 
     the activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 102 and 
     103 of this Act.
  TITLE II--OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES 
               CUSTOMS SERVICE; MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
  Subtitle A--Overtime Pay and Premium Pay of Officers of the United 
                         States Customs Service

     SEC. 201. CORRECTION RELATING TO FISCAL YEAR CAP.

       Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     267(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay under 
     subsection (a) (including commuting compensation under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)) that a customs officer may be paid in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed $30,000, except that--
       ``(A) the Commissioner of Customs or his or her designee 
     may waive this limitation in individual cases in order to 
     prevent excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of 
     the Customs Service; and
       ``(B) upon certification by the Commissioner of Customs to 
     the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     that the Customs Service has in operation a system that 
     provides accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on 
     overtime and premium pay that is being paid to customs 
     officers, the Commissioner is authorized to pay any customs 
     officer for one work assignment that would result in the 
     overtime pay of that officer exceeding the $30,000 limitation 
     imposed by this paragraph, in addition to any overtime pay 
     that may be received pursuant to a waiver under subparagraph 
     (A).''.

     SEC. 202. CORRECTION RELATING TO OVERTIME PAY.

       Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     267(a)(1)), is amended by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following new sentence: ``Overtime pay provided under 
     this subsection shall not be paid to any customs officer 
     unless such officer actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such overtime pay.''.

     SEC. 203. CORRECTION RELATING TO PREMIUM PAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 13, 
     1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(4)), is amended by adding after the 
     first sentence the following new sentence: ``Premium pay 
     provided under this subsection shall not be paid to any 
     customs officer unless such officer actually performed work 
     during the time corresponding to such premium pay.''.
       (b) Corrections to Night Work Differential Provisions.--
     Section 5(b)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) Night work differential.--
       ``(A) 6 p.m. to midnight.--If any hours of regularly 
     scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of 
     6 p.m. and 12 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such 
     hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) 
     applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus 
     premium pay amounting to 15 percent of that basic rate.
       ``(B) Midnight to 6 a.m.--If any hours of regularly 
     scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of 
     12 a.m. and 6 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such 
     hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) 
     applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus 
     premium pay amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.
       ``(C) Midnight to 8 a.m.--If the regularly scheduled work 
     assignment of a customs officer is 12 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., the 
     officer is entitled to pay for work during such period 
     (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at 
     the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay 
     amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.''.

     SEC. 204. USE OF SAVINGS FROM PAYMENT OF OVERTIME AND PREMIUM 
                   PAY FOR ADDITIONAL OVERTIME ENFORCEMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267), 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Use of Savings From Payment of Overtime and Premium 
     Pay for Additional Overtime Enforcement Activities.--
       ``(1) Use of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury--
       ``(A) shall determine under paragraph (2) the amount of 
     savings from the payment of overtime and premium pay to 
     customs officers; and
       ``(B) shall use an amount from the Customs User Fee Account 
     equal to such amount determined under paragraph (2) for 
     additional overtime enforcement activities of the Customs 
     Service.
       ``(2) Determination of savings amount.--For each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to the 
     difference between--
       ``(A) the estimated cost for overtime and premium pay that 
     would have been incurred during that fiscal year if this 
     section, as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of sections 202 and 203 of the Drug Free Borders 
     Act of 1998, had governed such costs; and
       ``(B) the actual cost for overtime and premium pay that is 
     incurred during that fiscal year under this section, as 
     amended by sections 202 and 203 of the Drug Free Borders Act 
     of 1998.''.

     SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle, and the amendments made by this subtitle, 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after 
     15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H3409]]

                  Subtitle B--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 211. ROTATION OF DUTY STATIONS AND TEMPORARY DUTY 
                   ASSIGNMENTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   CUSTOMS SERVICE TO PROMOTE INTEGRITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 
     (19 U.S.C. 267), as amended by this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Rotation of Duty Stations and Temporary Duty 
     Assignments of Customs Officers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, bargaining agreement, or Executive order, in order to 
     ensure the integrity of the United States Customs Service, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury--
       ``(A) may transfer up to 5 percent of the customs officers 
     employed as of the beginning of each fiscal year to new duty 
     stations in that fiscal year on a permanent basis; and
       ``(B) may transfer customs officers to temporary duty 
     assignments for not more than 90 days.
       ``(2) Voluntary and other transfers.--A transfer of a 
     customs officer to a new duty station or a temporary duty 
     assignment under paragraph (1) is in addition to any 
     voluntary transfer or transfer for other reasons.
       ``(3) Additional requirement.--The requirements of this 
     subsection, including any regulations established by the 
     Secretary to carry out this subsection, are not subject to 
     collective bargaining.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2000 $25,000,000 to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Availability of amounts.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subparagraph (A) are authorized to remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(5) Rule of construction.--The authority provided by this 
     subsection may be exercised only to the extent that in the 
     applicable appropriations Act (or in the committee report or 
     joint statement of managers to such Act) an account is 
     specifically established for the authority provided by this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 5(f) of the Act of February 
     13, 1911, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 212. EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ON 
                   ABILITY OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE TO 
                   INTERDICT CONTRABAND.

       Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267), 
     as amended by this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Effect of Collective Bargaining Agreements on Ability 
     of Customs Service To Interdict Contraband.--
       ``(1) Sense of the congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that collective bargaining agreements should not 
     have any adverse impact on the ability of the United States 
     Customs Service to interdict contraband, including controlled 
     substances.
       ``(2) Provisions causing adverse impact to interdict 
     contraband.--
       ``(A) Requirement to meet.--If the Commissioner of the 
     Customs Service determines that any collective bargaining 
     agreement with the recognized bargaining representative of 
     its employees has an adverse impact upon the interdiction of 
     contraband, including controlled substances, the parties 
     shall meet to eliminate the provision causing the adverse 
     impact from the agreement.
       ``(B) Failure to reach agreement.--If the parties do not 
     reach agreement within 90 days of the date that the 
     Commissioner of Customs made the determination of adverse 
     impact, the negotiations shall be considered at impasse and 
     the Commissioner of Customs may immediately implement the 
     last offer of the Customs Service. Such implementation shall 
     not result in an unfair labor practice or, except as may be 
     provided under the following sentence, the imposition of any 
     status quo ante remedy against the Customs Service. Either 
     party may then pursue the impasse to the Federal Service 
     Impasses Panel pursuant to section 7119(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code, for ultimate resolution.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commissioner 
     of Customs to implement immediately any proposed changes 
     without waiting 90 days, if exigent circumstances warrant 
     such immediate implementation, or if an impasse is reached in 
     less than 90 days.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3809.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, drug use among teenagers is now 
skyrocketing. This Congress is dedicated to winning the war on drugs 
because our very children's lives are at stake.
  Last week Anthony Butler, a 17-year-old from Annapolis, Maryland, 
told the Congress that he started smoking marijuana when he was 12 
years old, age 12. At age 13 he was sentenced to juvenile life after 
being found guilty of several crimes. He said drugs were, and I quote, 
``* * * easy to get. They were everywhere.'' During those years they 
were available even in his juvenile detention center, Boys Village in 
Prince Georges County.
  This young man could be anyone's son, grandson, nephew, or little 
brother. The point is, we are losing the war on drugs, and the 
statistics are grim. More kids are using marijuana, more kids are using 
cocaine, more kids are using heroin, more kids are risking their lives, 
and more kids are dying.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help keep drugs out of our children's 
hands and out of their lives. We must stop drugs from coming across our 
borders. Last year the Customs Service seized 1 million pounds of 
narcotics, and impressive as that is, Anthony Butler still was able to 
get drugs at the drop of a hat, and that, Mr. Speaker, is frightening.
  Mr. Speaker, the reasons to step up the war on drugs are clear, yet 
the U.S. Customs service and the Clinton administration support for 
this bill has been anything but unwavering. Last Tuesday at the 
subcommittee markup of this legislation, the U.S. Customs Service said 
they supported each and every provision of this bill, including 
provisions that I expect will be heatedly debated today.
  But sadly, it appears as though Washington's labor bosses have 
tightened their grips on the Clinton administration, and even on its 
drug czar. Politics, unfortunately, has entered into the decision-
making process of the administration, because by last Thursday, U.S. 
Customs had reversed its position and no longer supports this bill to 
beef up our borders against drugs.
  Today the administration is backtracking. It now supports the bill, 
but opposes one of its most significant elements because of labor 
opposition, and an element, I must say, that was encouraged to be put 
in the bill by the Customs Department itself to enable it to do a 
better job.
  I am deeply disappointed in the administration's change of heart, 
driven by politics, to put the interests of Washington's labor bosses 
above the well-being of children like Anthony Butler from Annapolis, 
Maryland.
  Let me make clear the provisions do one thing and one thing only: 
They help win the war on drugs. One provision gives Customs the 
flexibility to deploy personnel where they are needed most. Drug 
smugglers do not work 9 to 5, and our Nation's front line of defense in 
the war on drugs cannot work 9 to 5, either.
  Another says if a group of employees under the collective bargaining 
agreement refuses to work with Customs on drug interdiction, thus 
undermanning the war on drugs, Customs must bring the matter to 
negotiations for 90 days. If there is no resolution, Customs may 
implement its last offer, so that Customs can stop drugs from crossing 
our border while the union pursues its remedies.

                              {time}  1415

  One procedure that is being blocked today by a local union is used 
everywhere else along the U.S.-Mexico border, resulting in 50 percent 
seizure of all drugs in one site, San Ysidro, California. We need to 
join together to protect our children from the scourge of drugs. This 
is not a time for partisan politics or for special interest influence 
in either party. We must put our children first.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 3809 poses an unfortunate dilemma for many Members. On the one 
hand, it authorizes additional resources needed by the United States 
Customs Service for antidrug enforcement. On the other hand, it 
contains provisions affecting Customs employees and their collective 
bargaining

[[Page H3410]]

rights in particular, which are controversial and do not have 
bipartisan support.
  Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations for the Customs Service 
for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, as requested by the President, plus 
additional funds authorized specifically for additional equipment and 
personnel to strengthen enforcement along our borders against illegal 
drugs and other contraband.
  The $90 million earmarked for the latest equipment and technology and 
the $301 million earmarked over 2 prior years for an additional 1,745 
Customs inspectors, special agents and other personnel are necessary 
for additional resources to detect and interdict illegal drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill, however, is two provisions 
in the bill which Democrats opposed in the Committee on Ways and Means, 
sections 211 and 212. These two sections would allow Customs managers 
to abrogate unilaterally collective bargaining agreements between 
Customs management and Customs employees and to regulate the collective 
bargaining process as it applies to the temporary reassignment of 
Customs inspectors and the interdiction of contraband.
  Specifically, section 211 authorized Customs management to reassign 
its employees without regard to any existing executive order, Federal 
law or collective bargaining agreement. Section 212 authorizes Customs 
to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement has an adverse 
impact on the interdiction of contraband and to implement a management 
action if agreement is not reached within 90 days with the union. Under 
exigent circumstances, whatever Customs basically determines them to 
be, management action may be implemented immediately.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, Customs is being authorized to ignore and 
abrogate collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith. 
That is the major problem with this legislation.
  I might just point out to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means that the administration is not opposing this provision because of 
special interests or because of labor. It is because the administration 
believes that contracts should not be abrogated.
  I think it is about time that the majority begin to stop considering 
it a conspiracy every time something that they disagree with happens. 
They should stop looking under the bed or opening up closets. Maybe 
they might then come to the realization that sometimes these decisions 
are made based upon good faith and certainly upon good policy and good 
judgment.
  Most of the Members on our committee did support this legislation. It 
is my hope that when this matter goes to the House-Senate conference 
that we can correct section 211 and section 212, which certainly need 
major revisions, if, in fact, this bill is eventually to get to the 
President and certainly before the President will sign this 
legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
certainly want to associate my comments with his.
  Section 203 also is of some concern in that it impacts on the premium 
pay that is earned by Customs employees. I would say to my friend from 
Florida, who is managing the bill, and my friend from California, I 
intend to vote for this bill when it comes up for a vote, voice vote or 
however it will be. But I will be watching very closely, as the 
gentleman from California indicates, what happens in conference.
  Very frankly, what was done as it relates to the employees and to the 
integrity of the contracts that they have negotiated and entered into 
gives me great concern. That is not the thrust of this bill, but it is 
one of the tangential impacts that I think should give everybody in 
this House concern. I hope that in conference these concerns will be 
addressed, this facet of it will be fixed, so that the very positive 
aspects of this bill can go forward.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is recognized to control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out to my friend from California that the vote in the 
Committee on Ways and Means was unanimous; all that were there voted 
for it with, I believe, one Member voting present. There were no 
negative votes. It is a very well-thought-out bill.
  I would also tell my friend from Maryland that we believe that we 
took care of the problem with regard to the existing contract in that 
the provision that was talked about as abrogating the rights of a 
contract does not take place until the existing contract expires in 
1999. Also, there is a provision within that contract that very 
specifically states that if the law should change during the period of 
the labor contract, that the law would certainly prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  This bill has been a long time coming. I have taken about four or 
five trips to the border myself to try to look at the problems, 
understand what is going on.
  If we go to Tijuana, the crossing there, if we go to Laramie, if we 
go to El Paso, if we go to Nogales, what they tell us time after time 
is, Congressman, we have a problem. Because if this lane of traffic has 
an INS inspector and this lane of traffic has a Customs inspector and, 
in fact, in El Paso they sit up on the bridge over in Mexico and they 
look with their binoculars and they say, with their telephones, go into 
lane 3 because an INS inspector is there and they cannot lift the trunk 
because that is in the contract. And we know that the drug smugglers 
know who these people are. They know what lane they are in. They said, 
we cannot get everything we should get because these union contracts 
stand in our way.
  When I talk about that to my folks back home, they say, well, that is 
a common-sense thing. Why do we not change things that should be 
changed?
  The other problem, part of this problem, if we have a Customs agent 
who has been on a job and, according to their contract, they can bid on 
a job and they can live on the border for 20 years, the same place, 
their brother-in-law can live across the border. It is common sense 
that maybe the potential for corruption happens when somebody is too 
long in one place and too close to situations. Maybe we ought to change 
that; and when the contract comes up to be renewed, maybe those are the 
things that ought to be renegotiated.
  So I take my hat off to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) for coming forward with a good, common-sense bill.
  That is not all this bill does. It also brings in 1700 new officers 
so that we can attack smuggling from Florida, the Gulf Coast and our 
southwest and Canadian borders. This bill puts some teeth into what we 
need to do.
  I support it and ask for Members' positive vote.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if there is any domestic issue that deserves 
action across party lines, this is it, drugs. My staff and I have 
worked actively in this fight against drugs as a number one priority in 
Washington and at home.
  At home, we have worked building antidrug coalitions, always 
nonpartisan, always across all kinds of lines involving parents and 
students and teachers, leaders in the business community, law 
enforcement and religious communities.
  The administration announced a 10-year national drug strategy, and it 
addresses supply and demand factors, both of them. The strategy calls 
for an enhanced border effort.
  When some of us were in Chile with the President at the summit of the 
Presidents of the Americas, we met with the President and discussed 
especially this border problem. And he said to us, a bipartisan group, 
will you work with me to enhance border efforts on a

[[Page H3411]]

bipartisan basis? And the answer from all of us on a bipartisan basis 
was yes.
  The main part of this bill embodies that spirit, an enhanced effort 
at the border. It was worked out on a bipartisan basis.
  That is not true of subtitle B of title II, so-called miscellaneous 
provisions. The gentleman from Illinois says this bill has been a long 
time in coming, but these provisions, abrogation of contract 
provisions, were sprung without a hearing at the last minute last 
Tuesday without any bipartisan discussion whatsoever. Those are the 
facts.
  The chairman of the committee has talked that we should not 
politicize drugs, and how true it is; but that is exactly what the 
majority does when they raise provisions without talking to us for one 
second, at the last minute, without any hearings on a bill that is a 
long time in coming.
  These provisions may not go into effect this year, but when they go 
into effect, they give a government agency the power to abrogate a 
collective bargaining agreement, a contract, without any standards; and 
it seems to me that those of us who believe in the contract provisions, 
who believe in the contract process in this country, that they would 
hesitate before setting this kind of a precedent.
  I am going to vote for this bill. I am hoping that the Senate will 
look at these provisions. They already have a bill that authorizes the 
Customs Department. It does not contain these contract abrogation 
provisions.
  Let us pass this along to the Senate, hoping that they will keep what 
is necessary here, the fight against drugs, and remove the political 
parts of this bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to reply to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  The provision that he is claiming that is politicized came from the 
administration. We did not jump this or spring this on the Democrats. 
This was requested by the Customs Department themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill today to tighten up 
the border and clamp down on drugs coming into this country, I think it 
is probably appropriate to pause and remember why we are here.
  We do have an increasing drug problem in this country. We have had a 
doubling of teenage drug use in the last 5 years in this country. 
Prices are down; volumes are up. We have a crisis.
  I have focused more on the demand side, on the prevention/education 
side, because I think that is ultimately how we are going to solve this 
problem. We also have to acknowledge that to the degree to which we 
have high volumes and low prices on the street, we are going to have an 
increasing problem on the demand side. So they are linked. That point 
has been made to me a lot by my colleagues, and I am a believer.
  Today, 70 percent of high school seniors tell us they can get drugs 
within 24 hours. Given where we are, given the situation, I think that 
this legislation is a good balance. I think it is a good way to be sure 
that we are doing a much better job on the border, which we have to do.
  There are a series of changes in here. It increases the number of 
inspectors and special agents. It increases resources at the border, 
something the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said the President is 
in favor of.
  We are doing this on a bipartisan basis. It enhances the technology 
available to them. Others are going to talk more about this, but it is 
amazing the degree to which these Customs officers are now asked to 
work with poor technology, dealing with thousands and thousands of 
drugs coming across busy border crossings made busier by NAFTA, which I 
supported and many other Members on both sides did. We need to give 
them the technology to check these trucks.

                              {time}  1430

  Finally, the flexibility to be able to deploy these resources where 
they are needed. If we are to have a real war on drugs, we have to 
fight it like a war. We have to give the Customs Service the 
flexibility to put personnel where they are needed, and that includes 
rotations, and that includes nighttime service, and that includes the 
ability to be flexible to respond to ever-changing border situations, 
because the smugglers will find a new way to come in every chance they 
get.
  So to me this is kind of a basic commonsense response. If we are 
serious about drugs, we have to do it. It is a reasonable response to a 
crisis situation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say to my friend from 
Florida that we discussed this in the Committee on Ways and Means and 
it was clear that the staff of the majority discussed this and helped 
initiate this. Maybe discussed it with the administration. We are 
waiting for the evidence. But there was not the full discussion with 
the minority. There was no discussion with us.
  And maybe this is part of what was described in the Washington Post, 
an effort by the Republicans to politicize this issue instead of coming 
together. So I urge we move ahead with this bill but look at the bad 
provisions in conference.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate he does not have a lot of time, and in 3\1/2\ 
minutes I cannot tell my colleagues the frustration of working in this 
body.
  The reason I rise in strong opposition to this bill, among many, is 
the information that we hear here about one agency being able to open 
trunks and the other agency not being able to open trunks. To suggest 
that a collective bargaining contract leads to corruption is 
ridiculous.
  I patrolled our border for more than 26 years with the Border Patrol 
and also served as an inspector at our ports of entry for 4 years. I 
know what the men and women of our borders are asked to do on a daily 
basis. I know the dedication they pour into their work each and every 
day to keep our communities safe.
  I do not understand how this body can vote on a bill which will send 
many of our customs inspectors home to their families with less pay and 
will take away their current negotiating rights. I do not understand 
how we can be so hypocritical as to ask our inspectors to do more but 
give up their rights while serving as a first line of defense on our 
borders.
  I think I do understand how we work in this House but I do not agree 
with it. The reason that our borders and our fight against drugs does 
not work is because too often in this House we make it a political 
issue. I make it a practice to act in the best interest of our border 
and do not politicize the needs of our border.
  I am a cosponsor of the bill offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter), which increases our Border Patrol presence and gives our 
agents more flexibility while doing their jobs because it is the right 
thing to do. He is a cosponsor of my bill to separate the enforcement 
functions of the INS and create a new agency, again because it is the 
right thing to do. It serves the needs of our communities, not the 
needs of our political agendas.
  I stand here today deeply disturbed with this body, because the 
legislation that is pending before us has nothing to do with the 
border, it has nothing to do with fighting drugs; it has everything to 
do with politics. When are we going to act in the best interest of our 
border communities and pass legislation which addresses the needs of 
our drug enforcement agencies?
  We should not use the issue to push political agendas. If this bill 
is designed to make some Members look bad and choose between much-
needed personnel and technology and the rights of our agents and 
inspectors who enforce our narcotics and immigration laws, then shame 
on us for politicizing the security and the integrity of our borders 
and misusing the trust and faith placed in us by our communities.
  No one in this body today should fall into this trap. I refuse to 
compromise the security of our Nation and the rights of our hard 
working and dedicated agents and inspectors. We all owe it to our men 
and women who stand on the border of this great country, keeping our 
families and our communities safe, and ask nothing in return except the 
fundamental right of fair treatment.

[[Page H3412]]

  I ask all my colleagues, based on 26\1/2\ years of experience in 
fighting drugs, in fighting illegal immigration on our borders, to 
oppose this bill. There were no hearings held. This is a mishmash and a 
missed opportunity to do what is right.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I listened with great interest to my friend from Texas and his very 
unique perspective, and he raises an interesting question that I think 
we should all take into account: workers' rights versus workers' 
responsibilities. I was intrigued to hear many Members of the minority 
even offering that predictable cacophony of complaints prompted by the 
Washington union bosses, and I have a couple of letters here urging 
opposition to this legislation.
  But I think it is a fair question to ask: Do workers' 
responsibilities ever rank preeminently as opposed to coexisting with 
workers' rights? Because what we have, my colleagues, is a full-fledged 
crisis. And even though our drug czar, General McCaffery, today would 
criticize us for using the term ``war on drugs,'' Mr. Speaker, that is 
exactly what we should be committed to do.
  If we are serious about stopping this flow of drugs, that means that 
all available personnel should be called into action to do their jobs. 
And when it comes to collective bargaining, though I am pleased to 
admit the JD in my name does not stand for Juris Doctor, I am not a 
lawyer and never played one on TV, and I consider that an asset, but it 
is a well-held legal fact that this body can change the terms of any 
agreement involving Federal workers and workers' agreements.
  What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a chance to go on record. What do we 
hold in higher esteem: A collective bargaining agreement or the future 
of our children and interdicting drugs? This should be all about drug 
interdiction and it has very little to do with workers' rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Yes, we must be relentless, Mr. Speaker, in our war on drugs, but not 
at the expense of the soldiers whom we must rely on to fight that 
battle. H.R. 3809 gives us tools in this tough battle but puts those 
who will use the tools into straightjackets.
  Provisions of this bill will rob Customs employees, who are the 
frontline drug enforcement personnel, of both their hazard pay to work 
essential nighttime shifts and their negotiating rights. This makes no 
sense at a time when we are asking these soldiers to work harder and 
smarter with new high-tech equipment.
  I say to the distinguished chairman of this committee and to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) that we are not 
talking here about union bosses, we are not talking about special 
interests, we are talking about the men and women who are fighting the 
war on drugs.
  This bill would allow Customs Service management to back out of 
agreements made with rank-and-file employees. And because armies are 
dependent on the loyalty and respect between soldiers and officers, 
we cannot win the war on drugs if management makes agreements with 
employees but then has the congressional approval to break them at 
will.

  Congress will waste taxpayers' money if it authorizes expensive 
cutting-edge equipment while at the same time undermining employee 
morale and labor standards. A drug interdiction program for the century 
depends on 21st century equipment and a 21st century work force. The 
Customs Service will not be able to retain or attract the high quality 
employees needed to operate upgraded equipment if it downgrades the 
labor standards.
  This bill should not be passed in its present form, Mr. Speaker. The 
aim of this bill is good, but it has not gone through the normal 
legislative process to fix the problems. Let us defeat this bill today, 
fix the problems, bring it back under regular order for a unanimous 
vote of support.
  Let us make this war on drugs, I say to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, unanimous. Let us not politicize it with this kind of 
bill that was brought with only a few days' notice, that undermines the 
men and women who are going to fight this war.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and 
the others who sponsored this bill. It is a terrific piece in the 
puzzle to get us back to the point where we are actually fighting a war 
against drugs; where we are putting the full energy of this country 
where it needs to be.
  With double the teenage drug use in the last six years in this 
country, it is very apparent we have a big time problem. We need 
education, we need training, we need drug treatment, but we also have 
to stop the flow of drugs coming into this country. This is one piece 
in that puzzle that deals with the Customs Service, and it is a very 
good piece in that puzzle.
  In order to stop the flow of drugs from coming in here, or at least 
to cut back about 80 percent, which is what is necessary for us to 
increase the price of drugs on the streets and reduce the amount that 
is available, that is flooding our streets, and make the job of demand 
easier, then we have to do things in the source countries to reduce the 
flow of drugs out of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, places like that, Mexico, 
and we have to stop the drugs when they are coming across our coastal 
waters, but we also have to stop them at our borders.
  That is where the Border Patrol comes in, the Coast Guard comes in, 
DOD, DEA, everybody, but Customs is a very important part of that. This 
bill would put $960 million of new money at this effort through 
Customs. It is a 31 percent increase over the President's request for 
Customs. It would mean 1,705 new personnel and all kinds of new 
equipment, including x-ray equipment at our borders, not only the 
borders with Mexico and the United States but Canada and the United 
States and along the coast of Florida, which is very important to our 
State in the region where I come from.
  This is a very, very important bill to beef up the Customs portion 
and to put us on track where we can actually have the right personnel, 
the right equipment at every level, in source countries, transit and at 
the border, to really fight a true war against drugs. And I urge the 
adoption of this drug border enforcement, Drug-Free Border Act that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) and others are sponsoring today.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to support 
U.S. Customs' interdiction efforts with the latest high-tech equipment 
for detecting narcotics coming through commercial trade, although I am 
going to work to remove the anti-worker provisions the Republican 
leadership has stuck in this bill.
  The eradication of illegal drugs in our society is a number one 
priority of the Congressional Black Caucus. We put it in our priority 
statement over two years ago and we have been working very hard. I am 
pleased that the Republican leadership has finally gotten around to 
calling for funding the sophisticated antidrug technology that we 
possess. I was calling for this during the debate over fast track, when 
I put out a major report on the effect of NAFTA and other trade 
treaties on the increase of drug trade through commercial trucks and 
ships.

[[Page H3413]]

  Unfortunately, neither the Republican leadership nor the drug czar 
wanted to address the drugs and trade then. I could not even get the 
Republican Members of this House to accept a copy of the report that I 
put together talking about what was going on.
  I also introduced my legislation January 27, 1998, that calls for 
funding sophisticated high energy container x-ray systems and automated 
targeting systems for inspection of cargo at major border checkpoints. 
I am pleased that this bill will authorize these inspection systems. 
Some would say the Republicans stole my legislation, but whether they 
did or not, I am glad that they finally caught up.
  I must say I do have reservations about some of the provisions that 
have been stuck in the bill. I think it was in there because it was 
supposed to scare away people who are friends to organized labor, but 
we are not running from this. We will straighten it out in conference. 
The Senate put it in. They did it right. This provision that my 
colleagues on the other side have put in is just a poison pill, but I 
will support the bill and work to take that out.
  I want my colleagues to know we must commend this administration for 
the big money-laundering bust that just took place. I am going to know 
my colleagues are serious when they join me on the money laundering 
bill that takes some of the American banks into the 21st century.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. By the way, that was bipartisanship. I am glad that there are at 
least some folks that are coming down here in a very bipartisan way 
talking about drugs but, unfortunately, that is not happening all the 
way across the board.
  Just to clear up a couple of things that have been discussed here 
today. I was at a meeting. It was not staff that had the meeting with 
Customs about whether or not to put these changes in in section B. I 
was at the meeting. They asked for it. They are part of the 
administration. It has been a bipartisan effort to make these changes 
from the beginning. If somebody did not happen to be at the meeting, 
that is not my fault.

                              {time}  1445

  That is not Customs' fault. But this has been going on for a long 
time. And I realize that there are a few people that have got their 
noses out of joint. But it is not because, I do not believe, they 
believe we should not be doing things about drugs. It is for other 
reasons.
  Let me just tell my colleagues a little bit about this bill that I 
think we need to consider. One is that there is no abrogation of 
contract. All right? There is no such thing as that in this bill. What 
there is is that there is a time limit, and it says, ``If you cannot 
get your ducks in order within 90 days,'' and we have had examples that 
have been pointed out that have been as long as 4 years and running 
where opportunities to make agreements between the union members and 
management have not been worked out, ``exigent circumstances can be 
grounds for making these changes.''
  Let me just give my colleagues an example of what exigent 
circumstance might be. Back this last year, in March of 1997, the FBI 
intelligence discovered that there was a drug smuggling ring on the 
border of California that was going to use extreme measures in 
retaliation for lost shipments of drugs; and, so, what the Customs 
Service did was they said to their workers, ``You are ordered to wear 
bullet-proof vests and body armor.'' And so what happened? Union 
representatives said, ``That is not in our contract. We don't have 
to.''
  Well, body armor and bullet-proof vests are not just there for the 
protection of the one person who wears it or a union member. It is 
there to protect the border. And it in that kind of exigent 
circumstance that the Customs Department needs to be able to suggest 
that current union contracts do not stand in the way of bullets flying 
at the border. Body armor stands in the way, possibly.
  So not contracts, not union organizations, but exigent circumstances 
in this instance needed to be the grounds for this extreme measure. It 
needs to be part of this bill. The Customs Service has asked for it. It 
has been bipartisan. Let us vote for this bill.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, like all working families in this country and Members of 
this body, I am committed to the fight against illegal drugs flowing 
into our country across our borders. We need to strengthen our efforts 
to halt the flood of drugs to our cities and suburbs and States. This 
is the context, Mr. Speaker, in which I rise to oppose H.R. 3809.
  I believe that the drug issue is too important to clot it with anti-
Customs Service worker provisions, wherever those provisions came from. 
This measure is far too controversial to be considered under the 
suspension calendar. It needs to be sent back to the Committee on Rules 
for full consideration.
  This bill has a number of laudable aspects. It increases funds 
authorized for Customs Service to use for drug interdiction activities, 
earmarks money for the hiring of more than 1,700 new Customs 
inspectors, special agents, K-9 enforcement officers, provides for a 
variety of new high-tech equipment.
  But illegal drugs will not be stopped by technology or money alone. 
Drugs will be halted by the motivated and dedicated people who work for 
the Customs Service. These civil servants are the first line of defense 
against the drugs flowing into our country. Why attack them? They did 
not create the drug problem. This is where H.R. 3809 becomes an extreme 
and radical measure.
  Customs agents have freely chosen to belong to a union, and they 
worked with Customs management to establish one of our Nation's most 
innovative labor-management partnerships. This bill would punish them 
for their efforts. This bill would allow the Commissioner of the 
Customs Service to unilaterally cancel any aspects of the collective 
bargaining agreement. The bill would destroy the collective bargaining 
process in the Customs Service.
  This is wrong. Government workers have rights. Why, in the name of 
the fight against drugs, do we have legislation in front of us which 
attacks the rights of working people? Mr. Speaker, I submit that there 
ought to be rehabilitation for those who want to knock down wages and 
benefits of workers in the name of fighting drugs.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time we have 
on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me begin by saying that I fully support the funding increases in 
this bill for drug interdiction. That should have and could have been 
the focus of this debate. Unfortunately, at the last moment, provisions 
were added to this bill which changes character and also made it an 
anti-worker bill. Why this bill takes a swipe at workers I do not 
understand, but it does.
  Sections 221 and 222 of title II of this bill would remove the 
negotiating rights for front-line drug enforcement personnel, the very 
people that we are asking to take on this risky task of stopping drugs 
from coming through.
  On one day in April of last year, two U.S. Customs Inspectors were 
shot. At the same time that same day, there was a bomb threat in a 
cross-border pedestrian tunnel, and there was a 100-mile pursuit of a 
truck filled with immigrants who had no right to be in this country, 
this truck barreling through a border checkpoint and almost running 
down a Border Patrol agent. Those are the kinds of things that happen.
  Those employees put their life on the line. They should have every 
right to decide under what conditions they would work.
  Now, management does not have to agree to everything; and that is 
what the collective bargaining process is for. If we allow the process 
to work, it would work very well. Unfortunately, even in this own 
House, we do not follow process.

[[Page H3414]]

  This bill was introduced on May 7. We had a hearing on April 20 on 
Customs' issues. So at the hearing itself on these issues, we never 
took up this bill nor those anti-worker provisions. May 12, this went 
before the subcommittee; May 14, it went before the subcommittee; and 
today it is on the floor.
  Never once have we had a chance to discuss these anti-worker 
provisions. We would all probably be standing supporting this bill if 
it were not for the fact that, at the last moment, anti-worker 
provisions were added. It is a way to cloak those ugly provisions and 
get this bill passed. We should really be voting no on this bill until 
those provisions are removed.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to those that said that there have not been 
hearings on this bill, there have been over the years. Last year, we 
had a hearing on it. We had a couple hearings this year.
  And I would like to also say to those and particularly the gentleman 
from Ohio, who spoke before the gentleman from California, in talking 
about a poison pill and the gentlewoman from California talking about a 
poison pill, the provisions that they are complaining about were 
written by the administration and given to us for insertion in the 
bill.
  I am pleased to speak today on the merits of H.R. 3809, the Drug Free 
Borders Act of 1998. H.R. 3809 was reported by the Committee on Ways 
and Means last Thursday, May 14, by a bipartisan vote of 29-0. We have 
heard so much about fighting the war on drugs, and I am here to tell my 
colleagues that H.R. 3809 is absolutely essential to this cause.
  This bill proposes an additional $232 million in Customs 
authorizations over the President's request for fiscal 1999. I can 
think of no better reason to support this bill than its ability to 
provide for 1,745 additional Customs officers and special agents to 
protect our borders. Yes, that is 1,745 additional Customs people. This 
authorization will specifically target those areas that have been 
identified as major drug smuggling and transportation and distribution 
networks in our country.
  I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an example of 
what these resources would add to the outstanding performance of our 
Customs officers. In what Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney 
General Janet Reno have referred to as the largest, most comprehensive 
drug money laundering case in the history of the United States law 
enforcement, Customs just this past weekend seized over four tons of 
cocaine and marijuana, conducted over 70 arrests, and made over $155 
million in illegal laundered drug money in Los Angeles.
  H.R. 3809 would also correct the problems with the overtime and 
nighttime pay of Customs officers that has proven to be disturbingly 
flawed. Overtime payment for work not even performed should stop. Who 
can argue with that? Night pay at noontime should stop. Who can argue 
with that? Any savings resulting from the elimination of these problems 
should fund additional drug enforcement efforts. Who can argue with 
that?
  To ensure the integrity of the United States Customs Service, H.R. 
3809 would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rotate up to 5 
percent of the Customs officers as of October 1, 1999. This provision 
would become effective after the conclusion of the current contract 
between Customs and its union to ensure that it does not abrogate the 
terms of a national contract, contrary to what has been argued here on 
this floor today.
  Finally, H.R. 3809 seeks to eliminate many of the factors that 
inhibit the Customs officers from performing their drug interdiction 
effort.
  Currently, labor negotiations have been cited as a major impediment 
to these vital efforts. In my state of Florida, for instance, one labor 
negotiation in Miami has dragged on for almost four years at one of the 
most critical ports in the country. This bill would allow the 
Commissioner of Customs to limit any additional negotiations to 90 
days.
  H.R. 3809 simply seeks to give Customs the tools it needs to fight 
the war on drugs without delay. We cannot afford delay in this war . . 
. for delay means more drugs getting into the hands of our children.
  The U.S. Customs Service deserves our praise, my colleagues, but most 
importantly today, they deserve our support by voting yes to H.R. 3809, 
in allowing them to do even more in fighting for our nation's future 
and the future of our children. We must join together to protect our 
children from the scourge of drugs, without partisanship or special 
interests. Vote Yes to put our Children first.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, our borders are the last line of defense 
between our Nation's cities and towns and the organized drug smugglers 
who market their poisons. We must make the United States border a 
perilous obstacle for those engaging in this destructive trade. That 
means stepping up border enforcement and keeping one pace ahead of the 
traffickers. The Drug Free Borders Act represents the first step toward 
that end by providing for new special agents and inspectors at the U.S. 
Department of Customs, as well as for the purchase of valuable new 
detection technologies.
  Troubling trends like an 85% drop in customs drug seizures in the 
past year, declining prices and increasing availability, clearly show 
we are losing the battle to stop these poisons at our borders. There 
are miles upon miles of American border which we actively encourage 
people to cross every day for trade and tourism and the criminals we 
are fighting have the deftness to exploit any weak link in our 
defenses. Therefore, in stopping the drug supply we must create a 
barrier that extends from our shores out to the original source of the 
drugs.
  Keeping ahead of the drug smugglers is a daunting task and requires 
reliance on the eyes and ears of a strong intelligence capability. To 
win this war we need to know where the traffickers are headed before 
they get there and the networks they use to move their contraband.
  This is doable if we make the commitment. The end result will be to 
make involvement with drug trade a dangerous occupation from the fields 
where the drugs are produced to the street corners of our cities and 
neighborhoods, and all points between.
  MR. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3809, 
the Drug Free Borders Act. This legislation provides a much needed 
increase in the authorization for the U.S. Customs Service to fight the 
entry of illegal drugs at our borders.
  The last four years have shown a steady increase in the number of 
drug users, particularly in adolescents. Teenage drug use has sharply 
risen every year since 1993, and shows no sign of abating soon.
  This rise in drug use has paralleled an emphasis on the part of the 
Federal Government with regard to interdiction and with regard to 
treatment. The end result today is a readily available supply of drugs 
that is both inexpensive and of the highest purity in history.
  If our Nation wants to successfully reduce teenage drug use, we need 
to adopt a bilateral approach of simultaneously reducing both supply 
and demand. This bill beefs up our interdiction efforts on our borders, 
particularly with Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for our Nation to get serious on the issue of 
reducing drug use. We have given treatment a chance over the last five 
years, and the results have shown that treatment alone is not enough. 
Unless our interdiction efforts are increased and improved, no 
treatment program will be able to avoid being overwhelmed in the deluge 
of cheap, highly pure drugs that currently exists.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile 
legislation.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Chairman Crane and Chairman 
Archer on a much needed piece of legislation. However, I would like to 
voice my concerns over two specific sections in the legislation.
  Section 211 and Section 212 of the legislation contain provisions 
that are of concern to me and my constituents who are employed as 
customs agents on the northern border, Mr. Speaker.
  The first concern I have is that the legislation allows for the 
involuntary transfer of up to 5% of the customs service personnel. This 
will potentially exacerbate the situation on the northern border that 
has left our customs agents out manned in their fight to prevent the 
importation of drugs as the Administration continually emphasizes the 
southern border by transferring agents south and not providing 
replacements.
  The second concern I have deals with the rights of the union. This 
legislation allows the customs service, when faced with provisions of a 
collective bargaining agreement that impede drug interdiction to 
eliminate the provision. While this is important, I question the method 
used in the bill to implement this.
  The provision allows the Customs Service to eliminate the provision 
after 90 days and implement their last offer. This gives the Customs 
Service very little motivation to negotiate in good faith when they 
know that if they hold out for 90 days their way will be the policy. I 
hope that this situation can be corrected in the conference on this 
legislation.

[[Page H3415]]

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does do many important things. It 
provides the necessary resources to purchase materials that will 
dramatically improve the ability of customs agents to utilize modern 
technology in their interdiction efforts. It authorizes new agents at 
the borders to address the dramatic shortfall that is present today. 
All of these things are necessary, vital and long overdue.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3809, the 
Drug Free Borders Act of 1998. I do so reluctantly, because this bill 
contains a significant funding increase for the Customs Service and 
their efforts to stop drugs from entering this country. Unfortunately, 
it does so at the expense of the men and women who are on the front 
line, the Customs agents themselves. Let me be clear, I fully support 
increasing funding for the Customs Service's counter-drug efforts. 
However, this bill would completely eliminate the worker rights and 
protections that I have supported and worked to protect throughout my 
service in the Congress.
  H.R. 3809 has the right idea, but unquestionably the wrong methods. 
The labor provisions of this bill void any and all collective 
bargaining agreements that have been crafted so carefully to keep 
Customs agents working at peak effectiveness. By allowing the 
unilateral suspension of these agreements, we jeopardize the morale of 
the very people we rely on to protect our children from drug smugglers 
and pushers.
  Mr. Speaker, I question the philosophy of this bill, which seems to 
increase the effort against drugs by punishing the people doing the 
work. I think this is a bad idea. Instead, we need to support our 
Customs agents, not demoralize them. Yes, increase funding. Yes, buy 
more equipment. Yes, put more agents along the border. But support 
these people. If we create an environment that demoralizes our Customs 
agents, how can we expect to attract and keep good agents?
  Again, I think the aim of this bill is good. But the way it treats 
the people on the front lines leaves me no alternative but to 
reluctantly oppose it. It is my hope that a new bill will come forward. 
A bill that contains the funding that Customs so desperately needs, but 
also supports the people who wear the uniform of the Customs Service.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise today 
to register my opposition to H.R. 3809, the ``Drug Free Borders Act.'' 
Once again, an important and well-intentioned piece of legislation has 
become a vehicle for an underhanded attack on working men and women, 
and I urge my colleagues to resist the majority's misguided effort and 
vote no on this bill.
  I strongly support increased authorization levels for drug 
interdiction activities of the U.S. Customs Service. I am sure that no 
member of this body would argue that the flow of drugs into this 
country is an urgent crisis which requires our unflagging attention. I 
applaud the efforts of my colleagues to recognize and combat this 
problem with increased funding, additional inspectors and new drug 
detection equipment.
  Unfortunately, I cannot ignore other provisions which seek to alter 
the fundamental labor rights of Customs Service employees. First, the 
bill would allow the Customs Service to break collective bargaining 
agreements already in place, stripping America's front-line drug 
enforcement personnel of their negotiating rights. In addition, H.R. 
3809 seeks to make major changes to the rules governing overtime pay to 
Customs employees, creating the likelihood of pay cuts for those who 
work non-traditional shifts. As troubling as the provisions themselves 
is the fact that, despite the seriousness of the issues involved, no 
hearings were held on this anti-worker language, no committee report 
was issued, and now the measure is brought up under suspension, 
limiting the time for debate and eliminating any possibility of 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to be able to cast a vote in 
support of increased drug interdiction efforts, and I will certainly do 
so if anti-worker provisions are removed from this bill during 
conference. However, I cannot stand by as the rights of America's 
Customs workers, who risk their lives to keep our borders free of 
drugs, are attacked. I will oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, there are many good 
provisions in H.R. 3809 that I strongly support, especially provisions 
in Title I that provide the U.S. Customs Service with significant 
resources to combat the flow of illegal drugs over our borders. 
However, I have serious concerns about other provisions of the bill 
which will deny Customs Service personnel their hard-earned rights and 
benefits.
  There are few activities which are more important to the health and 
safety of our nation, and to the future of our young people, than drug 
interdiction. The men and women of the Customs Service should be 
commended for their courage and tireless efforts to keep drugs from 
entering our country. In FY 1996 alone, the Customs Service seized over 
1 million pounds of narcotics, including 33,000 pounds of cocaine, 
545,000 pounds of marijuana and almost 460 pounds of heroin along the 
Southwest border. This has not been easy, and many Customs Service 
personnel have risked their lives and their safety to seize illegal 
drugs.
  Of course, we cannot stop these activities until we stop the flow of 
drugs into our country altogether. While Title I of H.R. 3809 moves us 
toward that goal, I am afraid that two provisions of Title II will 
actually move us backward. Section 203 of the bill would reduce or deny 
premium pay that many Customs Service personnel receive for working 
long shifts at off-hours. And Sections 211 and 212 could let the 
Customs Service undermine the collective bargaining agreement worked 
out between the Service and its personnel.
  If the goal of this legislation is to make the Customs Service more 
productive and efficient at stopping drugs, then it makes no sense to 
roll back the rights and benefits that attract the best people. Worse, 
we should not deny benefits to the very men and women who have 
sacrificed so much to keep our country safe. I am particularly 
concerned that these provisions are being voted on by the House with a 
minimum of debate and deliberation, and under a procedure that will not 
allow Members to strike these provisions. Nevertheless, we must remove 
these provisions from the bill.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues in the other body to 
pass a Customs Service authorization bill that strengthens the Service 
and helps its dedicated personnel stop illegal drugs.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the way the Drug 
Free Borders Act of 1998 came to the floor. Instead of fashioning a 
bipartisan bill to help the U.S. Customs Service protect our borders 
from contraband such as illicit drugs, child pornography, money 
laundering and counterfeit merchandise, a partisan group which clearly 
does not understand the dynamics of our nation's Southwest border has 
decided to attack the people on the front lines of the war on drugs.
  Outside the partisan efforts to cripple federal employees, I support 
this bill. I have three international ports in my district on the 
Texas-Mexico border. My constituents want those ports to have the best 
equipment and personnel possible to keep illegal drugs out and to 
facilitate legal trade. I have traveled the border with U.S. Customs 
employees and seen the challenges they face. I have also seen the pride 
Customs employees have for their jobs. I have shared the excitement 
they experience when a truck filled with drugs is caught. There are few 
things I want more than to end this nation's drug epidemic. But we 
cannot end the problem by busting labor agreements and demoralizing 
U.S. Customs agents and inspectors.
  The majority leadership is stooping to a familiar low by bringing 
this bill to the floor under a suspended rule. We have no opportunity 
for full debate; all amendments are prohibited. This bill is take it or 
leave it. The majority leadership wants this bill to fail and blame the 
Administration or pass without any input from the minority. The 
majority leaders should be ashamed of their partisan games at the 
expense of our Nation's war on drugs. If the majority leadership wanted 
to pass effective legislation they should have allowed Members of 
Congress the chance to amend the labor portions of this bill and pass 
effective drug fighting legislation. I am voting for this bill with 
strong objections and a hope that it will change before it reaches the 
President.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though, I rise today in 
support of the Drug Free Borders Act, H.R. 3809, I do believe that 
there are yet still unresolved difficulties in the language of the bill 
that must be addressed. In particular, sections 211 and 212 raise some 
serious labor issues and need to be explored further.
  These provisions nullify the collective bargaining process by 
authorizing Customs managers to abrogate unilaterally collective 
bargaining and partnership agreements. These agreements were developed 
to aid the efforts of Customs managers and employees in stopping the 
flow of drugs into our streets. I find it troubling to ask these men 
and women to put their lives on the line to fight in the war on drugs, 
when we allow their managers to ignore their collective voice. Sections 
211 and 212 have the potential to strip Customs employees of their 
morale.
  In addition, these provisions would establish a very dangerous 
precedent. The Customs collective bargaining agreement is no different 
from those of other Federal agencies; these provisions will render this 
process meaningless.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to voice concerns about sections 
211 and 212 and to reconsider the statement that these provisions make. 
If it is truly the primary goal of Congress to stop illegal drugs from 
invading our country, we must show support for these very important 
players in that fight.

[[Page H3416]]

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my reluctant support 
of H.R. 3809.
  There are many good provisions in the bill which mark an escalation 
in our war against drug smuggling and out fight against the use of 
illegal drugs in our society. I support the war against drugs. However, 
I am very concerned about the harmful provisions contained in this bill 
that can be counterproductive in that they erode the working conditions 
of the Customs employees who are on the front lines of this war.
  It is very unfortunate that this bill contains language that would 
permit the Customs Commissioner to abrogate the collective bargaining 
agreements his agency has reached with employees and which are 
currently in effect. Not only is the provision blatantly unfair to the 
employees of the Customs Service, but it is an attempt to set a 
precedent for undermining labor-management relations between the 
federal government and its unions. This can have a serious detrimental 
effect on the morale, and consequently the effectiveness, of the people 
who fight on the front lines of this war against drugs. Congress should 
not, except perhaps under the most extraordinary circumstances, enact 
legislation to alter collective bargaining agreements. Although wanting 
to make our borders more secure against illegal drug importation is a 
highly desirable goal, it should not be used to disguise a political 
attack on dedicated Customs Service personnel. If the Customs Service 
needs additional resources to successfully accomplish its mission, I am 
willing to help find additional funds for that purpose.
  If we are serious about curbing drug smuggling and illegal drug usage 
in this country, we must dedicate the necessary federal resources 
instead of undercutting the personnel we depend on to carry out these 
policies.
  I will support H.R. 3809 to move it along in the legislative process, 
but I strongly urge that the anti-collective bargaining provisions be 
dropped from this bill. Congress needs to get into the business of 
passing legislation that will keep drugs out of this country, not 
assault those who are the principal soldiers in the battle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 3809, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule 1 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________