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.
Bob Filner: “Yes, we must be relentless, Mr. Speaker, in our war on drugs, but not at the expense of the soldiers whom we must rely…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about H.R. 3809 and its impact on Customs employees in the war on drugs.
Share
More from Bob Filner
I certainly thank the members of the committee and Mr. Bilirakis for working in such a bipartisan manner to protect servicemembers and protect veterans. I think Mr. Bilirakis gave a very comprehensive overview of the bill. Let me just make…
On rollcall 557, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
On rollcall 601, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' The Acting CHAIR (Mr. West). The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as…
On rollcall 608, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation





