[House Report 105-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-541
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                     DRUG FREE BORDERS ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

  May 18, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Archer, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3809]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3809) to authorize appropriations for the United 
States Customs Service for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Introduction.....................................................7
        A. Purpose and Summary...................................     7
        B. Background and Need for Legislation...................     7
        C. Legislative History...................................     9
 II. Explanation of the Bill.........................................11
        A. Title I--Authorization of Appropriations for U.S. 
            Customs Service......................................    11
            1. Authorization of Appropriations...................    11
            2. Narcotics Detection Equipment for the United 
                States-Mexico Border, United States-Canada 
                Border, and Florida and the Gulf Coast Seaports..    12
            3. Peak Hours and Investigative Resource Enhancement 
                for the United States-Mexico and United States-
                Canada Borders...................................    13
            4. Compliance with Performance Plan Requirements.....    13
        B. Title II--Overtime and Premium Pay of Officers of the 
            United States Customs Service; Miscellaneous 
            Provisions...........................................    13
            1. Subtitle A--Overtime Pay and Premium Pay of 
                Officers of the United States Customs Service....    13
                a. Fiscal Year Cap...............................    13
                b. Restriction on Payment of Overtime Pay to 
                    Hours Actually Worked........................    15
                c. Premium Pay...................................    16
                  i. Restriction on Payment of Premium Pay to 
                      Hours Actually Worked......................    16
                  ii. Revision of Night Work Differential 
                      Provisions.................................    17
                d. Use of Amounts for Additional Overtime 
                    Enforcement Activities of the Customs Service 
                    Resulting from Savings from Payment of 
                    Overtime and Premium Pay.....................    19
            2. Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions..............    19
                a. Rotation of Duty Stations and Temporary Duty 
                    Assignments of Officers of the U.S. Customs 
                    Service for Integrity and Drug Interdiction 
                    Purposes.....................................    19
                b. Effect of Collective Bargaining Agreements on 
                    Ability of U.S. Customs Service to Interdict 
                    Contraband...................................    20
III. Vote of the Committee...........................................22
 IV. Budget Effects of the Bill......................................23
        A. Committee Estimates of Budgetary Effects..............    23
        B. Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures.................    23
        C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget 
            Office...............................................    23
  V. Other Matters To Be Discussed Under the Rules of the House......25
        A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations......    25
        B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the 
            Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.........    25
        C. Constitutional Authority Statement....................    25
 VI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Amended............25
VII. Additional Views................................................31

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

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

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.
                  (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.

                  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) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this 
        subsection, including any regulations established by the 
        Secretary to carry out this subsection, are not subject to 
        collective bargaining.
          ``(4) Availability of amounts.--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)), not more than $25,000,000 for such fiscal year 
        shall be available to carry out this subsection. Amounts made 
        available under the preceding sentence are authorized to remain 
        available until expended.''.
  (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.''.

                            I. INTRODUCTION

                         A. Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3809 would better enable the U.S. Customs Service to 
interdict drugs along the U.S. borders by increasing Custom's 
authorization by 31% for drug enforcement over the President's 
request for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and give the Customs 
Service the ability to rotate Customs officers to different 
assignments, in emergency cases, to help fight the war on 
drugs. H.R. 3809 would also revise Customs overtime and premium 
pay to reflect the original Congressional intent where Customs 
officers are paid only for overtime and premium time worked and 
clarify that officers are only paid premium pay between the 
hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and would devote any savings to fund 
additional drug enforcement related overtime pay. It would also 
relax the manner in which the fiscal-year $30,000 cap for 
overtime pay is calculated by removing premium pay from the 
cap. Finally, the bill would allow the Commissioner of Customs 
to require Customs and its unions to bargain on any issue or 
agreement which would have an adverse impact on the 
interdiction of contraband. The parties would have 90 days to 
resolve the problem. If no agreement is reached, the 
Commissioner of Customs would then be able to implement 
Customs' last offer, and either party could then pursue the 
impasse to the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

                 B. Background and Need for Legislation

    Drug use among teenagers is now skyrocketing. According to 
official statistics, more children are using marijuana, 
cocaine, and heroin. More children are dying as a result. This 
legislation is designed to help keep drugs out of our nation's 
children's hands by stopping drugs from coming across U.S. 
borders. The various provisions of the bill are each aimed at 
accomplishing this essential national goal.
    H.R. 3809 would provide a two-year authorization of 
appropriations for Customs. The statutory basis for the 
authorizations of appropriations for Customs is section 301(b) 
of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 
(19 U.S.C. 2075(b)). The most recent authorizations of 
appropriations for Customs were included in the Customs and 
Trade Act of 1990 [P.L. 101-382]. These authorizations expired 
at the end of FY92. Legislation is necessary to authorize 
subsequent appropriations to fund the operations of Customs for 
FY 1999 and FY 2000.
    The Committee on Ways and Means has adopted a two-year 
authorization process to provide Customs with predictable 
guidance as they plan their budgets as well as guidance from 
the Committees for the appropriations process. In preparation 
for consideration of the H.R. 3809, the Subcommittee on Trade 
considered the President's budget for FY 1999 and requested 
projected budget summaries for FY 2000. Customs was able to 
provide the Subcommittee with unofficial projections for FY 
2000, reflecting the funding levels which these agencies 
anticipate submitting to OMB. However, in prior years, the 
Committee has had considerable difficulty in obtaining a budget 
summary for the second year.
    The Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, known as the 
``1911 Act,'' created the original overtime pay system for 
Customs inspectors. The Act authorized Customs to compensate 
officers at a rate of two days of basic hourly pay for Sundays, 
and a rate of two days of basic hourly pay plus the basic 
hourly rate for holidays. Minimum compensation for nighttime 
pay--5 p.m to 8 a.m.--was 4 to 12 hours of pay.
    Section 13811 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1993, known as the Customs 
Officer Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA), amended the 1911 Act 
with regard to the overtime and premium pay system for Customs 
inspectors and canine enforcement officers, effective January 
1, 1994. Only inspectors and canine officers are covered by the 
reforms, and only when performing inspections. Clerical and 
support staff are no longer eligible for double time and are 
covered--as are most other Federal employees--under the Federal 
Employees Pay Act (FEPA), at 1\1/2\ regular pay. The FEPA 
overtime rate is not to exceed $25.07 per hour, or 1\1/2\ times 
the basic hourly rate of a GS-10, Step 1 employee.
    The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) 
of 1993 also amended overtime compensation paid to Customs 
officers as part of the basic pay for the Civil Service 
Retirement System. Compensation may not exceed 50 percent of 
the statutory maximum in overtime pay for Customs officers 
(i.e., $15,000 or 50 percent of $30,000).
    Because of a number of arbitration rulings, Customs has 
been required to pay both overtime and night pay to Customs 
officers for work not performed. Further, the changes Congress 
made to the night pay system for Customs in 1993 has resulted 
in an unforseen circumstance where Customs officers can receive 
night pay for working at 12:00 noon. These situations have cost 
Customs in excess of $6 million annually. The Treasury 
Inspector General has called for a legislative change to 
correct the night pay system.
    Customs has also entered into agreements with its unions 
which prevent it from making permanent changes of duty stations 
for its Customs officers, affecting its ability to ensure 
Customs officers' integrity. Customs has also given up its 
right, through union agreements, to respond effectively to 
significant problems at various locations by transferring 
Customs officers on a temporary basis to locations needing 
additional resources, especially for drug interdiction efforts. 
Finally, there is a need to ensure that Customs is not 
prevented from implementing needed interdiction activities 
because of collective bargaining agreements with the union that 
adversely affect the ability of Customs to fight the war on 
drugs.

                         C. Legislative History

Legislative hearing

    The Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and 
Means held public hearings on March 11, 1997, May 15, 1998 and 
April 30, 1998 on Customs, including budget authorizations and 
oversight issues.
    On March 11, 1997, both the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) provided 
testimony before the Subcommittee on Trade. GAO's testimony, 
given by Norman J. Rabkin, Director, Administration of Justice 
Issues, General Government Division, focused on the labor-
management activities within the U.S. Customs Service. NTEU's 
testimony, given by Robert M. Tobias, National President, 
focused on improving benefits for Customs officers.
    GAO testified that Executive Order 12871, issued October 1, 
1993, required the head of each agency to create labor-
management councils at appropriate levels to help involve 
employees and their union representatives as full partners with 
management representatives to identify problems and craft 
solutions to better serve the agency's customers and accomplish 
its mission. The Order further required agencies to bargain 
with unions on issues formerly bargained on only at the 
agency's discretion. These issues include ``numbers, types and 
grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational 
subdivision, work project, or tour of duty, or on the 
technology, methods, and means of performing work.''
    GAO further testified that some Customs management and 
union officials believed that partnership between Customs and 
the union was working well. Other managers believed that the 
process took too long, that management had to bargain even on 
small issues, and that managers remained accountable for 
actions and results but that there was no union accountability. 
Union officials also expressed concern that management did not 
understand and was not fully trained on the concept of 
partnership, that managers did not want to involve union 
representatives in the decision making process, and that 
managers continued to make unilateral decisions.
    NTEU testified that it supported the funding needed to 
support the rapidly increasing demands placed on the Customs 
Service for illegal narcotics and drug interdiction, trade law 
enforcement, revenue collection, and export enhancement. 
NTEUfurther testified as to the need for improved retirement benefits 
for Customs officers, an increase in the overtime earnings cap, and the 
restoration of Sunday and night premium pay while Treasury Department 
employees were on sick or annual leave.
    On May 15, 1997, the Trade Subcommittee held an oversight 
hearing on Customs issues. GAO again testified on Customs drug 
interdiction efforts, labor-management relations, and overtime 
issues. GAO identified problems with the night and premium pay 
provisions of the Customs officers pay system and cited a study 
by the Treasury Inspector General (IG) which identified 
additional concerns regarding night and Sunday premium pay.
    On April 30, 1998, the Trade Subcommittee held a budget 
authorization and oversight hearing on the Customs Service. 
Both the Treasury IG and NTEU provided testimony at the 
hearing. The Treasury IG gave testimony expressing concern that 
Customs officers could earn night pay at noon or for almost any 
hour of the day or night depending on when a particular shift 
began. The IG testified that when Congress changed night pay 
for Customs officers in 1993, its intention was that savings 
would occur. However, instead of producing any savings, night 
pay provisions resulted in an increase from $51,000 per year in 
fiscal year 1993 to $8.9 million a year in fiscal year 1995. 
The IG testified, ``Clearly, this was not the expected result 
when COPRA (Customs officer pay reform amendments) was passed 
in 1993.''
    NTEU President, Robert M. Tobias, testified that by working 
with the union, Customs has been able to implement Operation 
Brass Ring, a highly successful drug interdiction operation. 
Mr. Tobias also testified that NTEU supported some of the 
provisions of H.R. 2262 (now subtitle A of Title II of H.R. 
3809). However, the NTEU believed that other parts of the bill 
were counterproductive to an effective Customs Service. NTEU 
was very firm in its opposition to the provisions establishing 
no overtime pay for work not performed and no premium pay for 
work not performed.

Subcommittee bill

    On May 7, 1998, Mr. Crane introduced H.R. 3809, the ``Drug 
Free Borders Act of 1998.'' The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
    The Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and 
Means marked up the bill on May 12, 1998, and ordered it to be 
favorably reported by a roll call vote of 12 ayes and 3 nays, 
as amended.
    On May 14, 1998, the Committee met to consider H.R. 3809, 
as reported by the Subcommittee on Trade. At that time, 
Chairman Crane offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3809. The amendment was agreed to by voice 
vote. The Committee then ordered the bill favorably reported, 
as amended, by a roll call vote of 29 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 
present.

                      II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

  A. Title I--Authorization of Appropriations for U.S. Customs Service

              1. Sec. 101. Authorization of Appropriations

    Present law.--The Customs Procedural Reform and 
Simplification Act of 1978 [P.L. 95-110] provides for a two-
year authorization of appropriations for the U.S. Customs 
Service. That law, as amended by section 8102 of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 [P.L. 99-509], first outlined 
separate amounts for commercial and noncommercial operations 
for the salaries and expenses portion of the Customs 
authorizations.
    The most recent authorization of appropriations for Customs 
(under section 101 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 [P.L. 
101-382]) provided $1,247,884,000 for salaries and expenses and 
$150,199,000 for operations and maintenance of the air 
interdiction program in FY 1992.
    Appropriations for Customs for FY 1998 were included in 
P.L. 105-61 and totaled $1,522,165,000 for salaries and 
expenses and $92,758,000 for operations and maintenance of the 
air and marine interdiction programs.
    On May 6, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1463, providing for 
authorization of appropriations for the Customs Service for 
noncommercial operations ($668,397,000 for FY 1998; 
$684,018,000 for FY 1999), commercial operations ($901,441,000 
for FY 1998; $930,447,000 for FY 1999), and air and marine 
interdiction ($95,258,000 for FY 1998; $98,226,000 for FY 
1999). The Senate has not acted on this legislation.
    Separate minimum and maximum amounts for commercial and 
noncommercial operations for the salaries and expenses portion 
of Customs authorization, and maximum amounts for the air and 
marine interdiction programs, are intended to provide guidance 
to Customs in the allocation of resources.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 101 of H.R. 3809 would 
amend section 301(b)(1) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
Simplification Act of 1978 to authorize appropriations for 
Customs, not to exceed $964,587,584 in FY 1999 and 
$1,072,928,328 in FY 2000 for salaries and expenses incurred in 
drug enforcement and other noncommercial operations, and not 
less than $970,838,000 in FY 1999 and $999,963,000 for FY 2000 
for salaries and expenses incurred in commercial operations. 
For operation and maintenance of the air and marine 
interdiction programs, H.R. 3809 would authorize appropriations 
not to exceed $98,488,000 in FY 1999 and $101,443,000 in FY 
2000.
    Section 101 would also require out-year budget projections 
such that, no later than the date on which the President 
submits the budget to the Congress for a fiscal year, Customs 
would be required to submit to the Committee on Ways and Means 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
the Senate projected amounts of funds necessary for the 
succeeding fiscal year. In addition, Customs would be required 
to provide projections for minimum amounts requested to be 
authorized for commercial operations under the salaries and 
expenses account; maximum amounts to be authorized for drug 
enforcement and other noncommercial operations under the 
salaries and expenses account; and maximum amounts to be 
appropriated for the operation of Customs air and marine 
interdiction programs.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the efforts of 
the U.S. Customs Service in reorganizing and modernizing its 
operations. The significant changes in culture and process 
underway at Customs promise to improve the delivery of services 
to the trade community and benefit American taxpayers in cost 
savings. The Committee supports Customs'' reorganization and 
modernization efforts and will continue to follow these plans 
closely as they unfold.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned about the need for 
Customs to increase the overall level of Customs officers and 
special agents dedicated to counter-narcotics and anti-money 
laundering activities. The Committee is also concerned that 
Customs has the necessary resources for drug and other 
enforcement activities. The authorization of both fiscal year 
1999 and 2000 is substantially larger than the President's 
request, providing the Customs Service with the needed 
resources to stop drugs from entering this country while at the 
same time expediting the entry of legitimate of persons and 
cargo.

2. Sec. 102. Narcotics Detection Equipment for the United States-Mexico 
  Border, United States-Canada Border, and Florida and the Gulf Coast 
                               Seaports.

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 102 of H.R. 3809 would 
require that $90,244,000 of the FY 1999 appropriations 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, andFlorida and the Gulf seaports. 
The equipment would include vehicle and container inspection systems, 
mobile truck x-rays, upgrades to fixed-site truck x-rays, pallet x-
rays, busters, contraband detection kits, ultrasonic container 
inspection units, automated targeting systems, rapid tire deflator 
systems, portable Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems 
terminals, remote surveillance camera systems, weigh-in-motion sensors, 
vehicle counters, spotter camera systems, inbound commercial truck 
transponders, narcotics vapor and particle detectors, and license plate 
reader automatic targeting software. It would also provide funding to 
test a high-energy relocatable rail car inspection system.
    The provision would further require that $8,924,500 of the 
FY 2000 appropriations be used for the maintenance of equipment 
described above. This section would also provide the 
Commissioner of Customs with some flexibility in using these 
funds and would allow for the acquisition of new updated 
technology not anticipated when this bill was drafted.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the needs of 
the Customs Service to effectively interdict drugs entering 
this country. Customs currently lacks sufficient equipment 
along the Canada, Mexico and Gulf areas to effectively 
interdict the drugs entering this country while at the same 
time ensuring that trade flows in a timely manner. This section 
provides the necessary equipment to improve the facilitation of 
trade and passengers entering this country, while at the same 
time increasing its narcotics interdiction efforts.

3. Sec. 103--Peak Hours and Investigative Resource Enhancement for the 
         United States-Mexico and United States-Canada Borders

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 103 of H.R. 3809 would 
require that $117.6 million of funds authorized for FY 1999 and 
$184.1 million for FY 2000 be made available for a net increase 
of 1745 inspectors, canine enforcement officers, special 
agents, intelligence analysts, and internal affairs agents to 
increase inspectional and investigative resources and to 
improve inspection times and effectiveness during peak crossing 
hours.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the need of 
the Customs Service to quickly facilitate the entry of persons 
and goods entering this country while at the same time 
preventing contraband, including drugs, from entering the 
United States. Customs currently lacks sufficient personnel 
along the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders as well as sea 
ports in southeast Florida and major narcotics distribution and 
money laundering centers around the country. This section 
provides the necessary personnel to improve the facilitation of 
cargo and persons entering this country, while at the same time 
increasing its narcotics interdiction efforts.

       4. Sec. 104--Compliance with Performance Plan Requirements

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 104 of H.R. 3809 would 
require Customs to specifically measure the effectiveness of 
the resources dedicated in sections 102 and 103 as part to its 
annual performance plan.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the needs of 
the Customs Service to assess and measure the effectiveness of 
its limited resources. This provision ensures that Customs 
evaluates how it used these additional resources to achieve the 
goals of Congress.

B. Title II--Overtime and Premium Pay of Officers of the United States 
               Customs Service; Miscellaneous Provisions

 1. Subtitle A--Overtime Pay and Premium Pay of Officers of the United 
                         States Customs Service

a. Sec. 201--Fiscal year cap

    Current law.--Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) states that the aggregate amount of 
a Customs officer's overtime pay, including commuting 
compensation and premium pay, is $30,000. 1 A 
Customs officer who receives overtime or premium pay (holidays, 
Sundays, or night work) for time worked is prohibited from 
receiving compensation for that work under any other provision 
of law. The Commissioner may grant waivers to prevent excessive 
costs or to meet emergency requirements of the Customs Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The fiscal year cap was increased as of October 1, 1997, from 
$25,000 to $30,000 by P.L. 105-61 (the FY 98 Treasury appropriations 
act) over the objections of the Committee on Ways and Means because it 
did not comprehensively address overtime and premium pay issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
267(a)(1)) outlines the general overtime pay system for Customs 
officers. Basic overtime compensation for work not regularly 
scheduled is provided as follows:
          a. Work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per 
        week at twice the basic hourly rate of basic pay;
          b. ``Callback'' pay at twice the basic hourly rate. 
        An officer will receive at least two hours of callback 
        pay for any call back of two hours of work or less, if 
        the work begins at least one hour after the end of any 
        previously scheduled work and ends at least one hour 
        before the beginning of regularly scheduled work.
          c. Compensation for the commute, in addition to 
        callback time, at three times the basic hourly rate. 
        Compensation for the commute is not payable if the work 
        does not begin within 16 hours of the Customs officer's 
        last regularly scheduled work assignment, or if the 
        work begins within two hours of the officers's next 
        regularly scheduled work assignment.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 201 of H.R. 3809 would 
amend section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 
U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) to remove premium pay from the calculation of 
the $30,000 fiscal-year cap, thus increasing the amount of 
overtime pay a Customs officer may receive, with no annual 
limit on the amount of premium pay. The provision also would 
allow the Commissioner the authority to waive the $30,000 
fiscal-year cap to prevent excessive costs or to meet 
emergencies, and to pay a Customs officer for one work 
assignment that would result in the overtime pay of that 
officer exceeding the $30,000 fiscal-year cap. This authority 
would be granted only upon certification to the Chairmen of the 
Committee on Ways and Means in the House and the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate that Customs has in operation a system 
that provides accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on 
overtime and premium pay being paid to Customs officers.
    Reason for change.--Administration of the fiscal-year cap 
has posed a considerable challenge for Customs, which has been 
generally scrupulous in its observance of the statute. 
Eliminating premium pay from the calculation of the fiscal-year 
cap will facilitate Customs administration as fewer Customs 
officers will approach the level of the cap by working overtime 
alone.
    Should an officer reach the fiscal-year cap, the provision 
would allow the Commissioner to pay that officer for one 
additional work assignment that would result in the overtime 
pay of the officer exceeding the cap. Thereafter, no additional 
overtime would be assigned to that officer, except to meet 
emergency requirements of the Customs Service. Under the 
National Inspectional Assignment Policy (NIAP) contracts 
negotiated with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), 
Customs has agreed to assign overtime to Customs officers based 
on daily tracking of each officers overtime- and premium-pay 
earnings. Section 201 therefore also requires that authority to 
exceed thecap by one assignment will be granted to the 
Commissioner only upon certification to the Chairmen of the Committee 
on Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance of the Senate that 
Customs 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 
each Customs officer. As such, the Committee urges Customs to complete 
the development and implementation of a system such as the Customs 
Overtime Scheduling System (COSS), an automated system intended to 
provide accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on overtime and 
premium pay that is being paid to each Customs officer. The current 
manual administration of overtime costs is inefficient and wasteful, 
costing more than $4.5 million in FY 1997, which corresponds to 125 
inspectors working full time at an average GS-10, Step 1 level. An 
accurate and reliable system would permit these expenses to be used to 
perform more appropriate functions, including drug interdiction.

b. Sec. 202--Restriction on payment of overtime pay to hours actually 
        worked

    Present law.--No applicable statutory provision. On October 
30, 1997, an arbitration ruling required the Customs Service to 
pay overtime to a Customs officer for work not performed if 
that officer was not permitted to work that time due to an 
administrative error. An earlier arbitration ruling required 
Customs to pay overtime to a Customs officer for work not 
performed if Customs had prevented that officer from working 
right up to the fiscal year salary cap, a practice Customs has 
in place to prevent an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 202 of H.R. 3809 would 
prevent Customs from paying overtime pay to Customs officers 
for work not actually performed. However, as described above, 
section 201 would allow the Commissioner the authority to pay a 
Customs officer for one work assignment that would result in 
the overtime pay of that officer exceeding the fiscal-year cap.
    Reason for change.--The Committee is greatly concerned that 
three arbitral decisions require Customs to pay overtime for 
work not performed. Specifically, as a result of a decision by 
a labor arbitrator in August 1982, Customs is required to pay 
overtime plus interest for hours not actually worked to 
officers denied overtime assignments because they have reached 
the level set by the port directors. The amount paid by Customs 
pursuant to the arbitral decision equals the difference between 
the fiscal-year cap and the level which the officer had reached 
at the time the port director stopped assigning additional 
overtime to that officer. As a result of a decision by a labor 
arbitrator in November 1993, Customs is required to pay for 
overtime not actually worked to officers whose overtime is 
inappropriately assigned to part-time employees. In yet another 
decision by a labor arbitrator in October 1997, Customs is now 
required to pay overtime to Customs officers for work not 
performed when the officer was not assigned an overtime 
assignment due to an inadvertent administrative error. The 
current practice of paying overtime for work not performed 
replaces the practice of providing the next comparable overtime 
assignment to the officer who was inadvertently skipped over.
    The provision would clarify Congressional intent with 
regard to overtime for Customs officers by preventing Customs 
from paying overtime to officers for hours not actually worked. 
Specifically, this section would exclude payment to Customs 
officers who do not perform work due to: (1) administrative 
error that can be remedied by an alternative work assignment; 
(2) Customs administration of the statutory overtime cap; and 
(3) an employee on any leave status. This section would not 
prevent overtime awards where there has been a violation of 
Title V or Title VI, including EEOC. Specifically, settlements 
made due to arbitrator rulings, including on such issues as EEO 
or other discrimination violations are considered settlements 
and are paid out of the Customs Salaries and Expenses account. 
Customs inspectional overtime as defined by H.R. 3809 is only 
paid for inspectional work (as defined by P.L. 103-66). Thus, 
limitations preventing premium pay and overtime for work not 
performed would not apply to violations of other provisions of 
law because funding comes out of an unaffected account.
    Customs would achieve savings by prohibiting these payments 
which it has been required to make since the 1982 arbitral 
decision. Between fiscal years 1994 and 1996, Customs paid in 
excess of $350,000 pursuant to the requirements of the first 
two arbitral decision cited above, and it is unclear yet what 
the third arbitral decision will cost the taxpayers. 
Accordingly, Customs would achieve considerable savings in 
prohibiting these payments--savings which can pay for hours 
actually worked.

c. Sec. 203--Premium pay

            i. (a) Restriction on payment of premium pay to hours 
                    actually worked
    Current law.--An arbitration ruling required Customs to 
grant premium pay to officers for regularly scheduled premium 
pay hours even if the officer subsequently takes sick or annual 
leave and does not actually work those hours. P.L. 105-61, 
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, 
and certain Independent Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, restricts Customs for fiscal year 1998 from 
paying Sunday premium pay to an employee if the employee has 
not actually performed work on a Sunday.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 203(a) of H.R. 3809 
would make permanent the current appropriation restriction for 
fiscal year 1998 and would also include night and holiday 
premium pay by amending section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 
13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(4)) to prohibit Customs from paying 
premium pay to an employee if the employee has not actually 
performed work during the time corresponding to such premium 
pay.
    Reason for change.--The Committee is greatly concerned that 
an arbitral decision requires Customs to pay premium pay for 
hours not actually worked. Specifically, due to the decision by 
a labor arbitrator in September 1996, Customs is required to 
pay premium pay to officers for regularly-scheduled premium pay 
hours even if the officer subsequently fails to work those 
hours due to annual leave, sick leave, or National Guard duty 
leave.
    As with the restriction on payment of overtime pay outlined 
in section 201, this provision would clarify Congressional 
intent with regard to premium pay for Customs officers by 
preventing Customs from paying premium pay to officers for 
hours not actually worked. The provision would make permanent 
the Congressional intent expressed in the current appropriation 
restriction for fiscal year 1997 outlined in P.L. 104-208, the 
bill making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1997.
    The provision would clarify Congressional intent with 
regard to the requirement that Customs officers actually 
perform work during the time corresponding to overtime and 
premium pay. The provision would clarify Congressional intent 
with regard to premium pay for Customs officers by preventing 
Customs from paying premium pay to officers for hours not 
actually worked. Specifically, this section would exclude 
payment to Customs officers who do not perform work due to: (1) 
administrative error that can be remedied by an alternative 
work assignment; (2) Customs administration of the statutory 
overtime cap; and (3) an employee on any leave status, except 
for an employee who is on leave pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 6322 or 
6323. Further, this section would not prevent premium pay 
awards where there has been a violation of Title V or Title VI, 
including EEOC.
    As with section 202, settlements made due to arbitral 
rulings are paid out of the Customs Salaries and Expenses 
account and are thus unaffected by this provision limiting 
premium pay, which is paid out of the user fee account.
    Between fiscal years 1994 and 1996, Customs paid in excess 
of $2.9 million pursuant to the requirements of the arbitral 
decision cited above. It is the view of the Committee that 
these resources would be better utilized by Customs in other 
areas.
            ii. (b) Revision of night work differential provisions
    Current law.--Section 5(b)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1))provides that, if an officer works 
the majority of his or her hours between 3 p.m. and midnight, 
compensation equals the basic hourly rate plus 15 percent of the basic 
hourly rate for the entire eight hour shift. If an officer works the 
majority of his or her hours between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m., compensation 
equals the basic hourly rate plus 20 percent for the entire eight hour 
shift. If the officer's regularly scheduled work assignment falls 
between 7:30 p.m. and 3:30 a.m., compensation equals the basic hourly 
rate plus 15 percent for the period from 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and 
the basic hourly rate plus 20 percent for the period from 11:30 p.m. to 
3:30 a.m.
    For example, if a Customs officer is scheduled to work a 
shift that starts at 12:00 noon and ends at 8 p.m., five of the 
eight hours of that shift, or the majority of hours, occur 
during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. night premium pay hours. Thus, the 
Customs officer is paid night pay (an additional 15 percent) 
for all eight hours of the shift that starts at noon.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 203(b) of H.R. 3809 
would amend section 5(b)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 
U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) to provide that, if any hour of an officer's 
regularly scheduled work hours occur between 6 p.m. and 
midnight, compensation would equal the basic hourly rate plus 
15 percent for those hours only. If any work hours occur 
between midnight and 6 a.m., compensation would equal the basic 
hourly rate plus 20 percent for those hours only. The remaining 
hours would be compensated at regular pay. The bill also would 
allow for a Customs officer regularly scheduled to work the 
shift from 12:00 midnight to 8 a.m. to be paid at a premium 
rate of 20 percent over his or her base salary for the entire 
shift.
    In the example given above, a Customs officer working noon 
to 8 p.m. would earn night premium pay only between the hours 
of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
    Reason for change.--The COPRA greatly increased the number 
of available hours in which a Customs Officer can earn premium 
pay for night work. COPRA also increased the 10 percent night 
differential compensation to 15 percent and 20 percent, 
depending on the time of day that the assignment is worked. 
Among Federal employees, only Customs officers are compensated 
at a premium pay rate of 15 percent or 20 percent (depending on 
the hours of the shift) of basic hourly pay for night work. 
Furthermore, only Customs officers are compensated at the 15 
percent premium pay rate during the entire period for a shift 
running from noon to 8 p.m. In fact COPRA allows Customs to pay 
night differential premium payments for 23 hours of the day (12 
p.m. to 11 a.m.), rather than 12 hours of the day (6 p.m. to 6 
a.m.) as was previously the case under FEPA. Premium pay for 
night work by most other Federal employees is provided at a 
rate of 10 percent for the hours from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and is 
available only for those hours worked during that period, not 
the entire shift.
    The Congressional intent of the COPRA was to ensure that 
Customs officers' schedules met customer demand. A recent 
report by the Treasury Inspector General concluded that Customs 
schedules do correspond to its workload and to its customers' 
needs and that Customs did not change their schedules 
specifically in order to earn night differential. ``Customs 
Officer Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA),'' OIG-96-094 (September 
13, 1996). Instead, the report concluded, the COPRA itself has 
caused the increase in night differential spending. The report 
suggested that

          The Assistant Secretary (Enforcement) should direct 
        Customs to seek legislation that would lessen the 
        number of hours available for Customs officers to earn 
        night differential and reduce the night work 
        differentials to a 10 percent premium on base pay. The 
        change to the COPRA should create a night differential 
        payment package that would more accurately reimburse 
        Customs officers for hours actually worked at night, as 
        was done previously under FEPA (p. 9).

    Testimony by the General Accounting Office (GAO) before the 
Subcommittee on Trade supported the principle behind the 
Treasury Inspector General's position by stating: ``Although we 
believed that inspectors should be paid extra for working 
overtime, we recommend that (1) the 1911 Act be amended so that 
inspector overtime would be more directly linked to actual 
hours worked, and (2) Customs management focus on achieving a 
more efficient use of overtime.'' ``U.S. Customs Service: 
Oversight Issues,'' GAO/T-GGD-97-107 (May 15, 1997).
    However, the Committee believes that the Inspector 
General's recommendation that the night differential premium be 
reduced to 10 percent of basic hourly pay does not provide 
sufficient compensation for these officers. Instead, the 
Committee believes that the current 15 percent or 20 percent 
premiums, depending on the actual hours worked, should be 
continued but that they be limited to the hours actually worked 
during the premium period. The Committee recognized the 
additional hardship that the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift places 
on Customs officers and provided for that with a provision that 
would grant premium pay of 20 percent for all 8 hours of that 
shift.
    In fiscal year 1997, Customs paid more than $2.5 million 
pursuant to the requirement to pay night differential premiums 
outside the FEPA hours of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. It is the view of 
the Committee that Customs officers should be afforded 
treatment similar to that of other Federal employees with 
regard to pay for hours actually worked, while recognizing the 
original intent of COPRA that the unique nature of Customs 
inspectional work may require higher premiums.

d. Sec. 204--Use of amounts for additional overtime enforcement 
        activities of the customs service resulting from savings from 
        payment of overtime and premium pay

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 204 of H.R. 3809 would 
require the Secretary of the Treasury to calculate any savings 
created as a result of sections 202 and 203 of this bill. 
Customs would be required to use the savings to provide 
additional overtime for enforcement purposes.
    Reason for change.--The Committee wants to ensure that 
savings from sections 202 and 203 from this bill are used for 
additional overtime enforcement activities at the ports where 
the savings occurred.

Sec. 205--Effective date

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 205 of H.R. 3809 
provides that the effective date of subtitle A to be the first 
pay period beginning on or after 15 days after the date of 
enactment.

                2. Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions

a. Sec. 211--Rotation of duty stations and temporary duty assignments 
        of officers of the United States Customs Service for integrity 
        and drug interdiction purposes

    Present law.--No applicable section. Currently, Customs 
cannot rotate a Customs officer permanently or for temporary 
duty unless the officer agrees to the change, as per the 
current bargaining agreement.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 211 of H.R. 3809 would 
grant authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 
permanently up to five percent of the number of Customs 
officers employed at the beginning of each fiscal year. The 
Secretary also may transfer Customs officers to temporary duty 
assignments for not more than 90 days. This section would 
become effective on October 1, 1999. Of the amount authorized 
for the Customs Service in section 101, $25 million would be 
earmarked in fiscal year 2000 to carry out this subsection and 
would remain available until expended. The authoritywould not 
be subject to collective bargaining.
    Reason for change.--The Committee believes that the Customs 
Service should be able to ensure the integrity of its workforce 
and address critical problems in a timely manner. By granting 
authority to rotate Customs officers the Committee is enhancing 
the integrity of the Customs Service. Transferring Customs 
officers to temporary duty assignments allows Customs the 
ability to react to the changing drug smuggling threat.
    The Committee believes that specifically granting the 
Secretary of the Treasury the authority to permanently relocate 
Customs officers for integrity purposes and to temporarily 
assign Customs officers for drug interdiction purposes would 
limit Customs from negotiating away that authority during 
future union negotiations. However, the Committee believes that 
the effective date of this provision should be on October 1, 
1999 to allow for the current national contract between the 
National Treasury Employees Union and the Customs Service to 
expire. With this effective date, the Committee believes that 
it cannot be argued that H.R. 3809 abrogates the national 
contract with the NTEU. To achieve the purpose of this 
subsection, the Committee would authorize $25 million in fiscal 
year 2000 and remain available until expended.

b. Sec. 212--Effect of collective bargaining agreements on ability of 
        United States Customs Service to interdict contraband

    Present law.--No applicable section. Currently, there is no 
time limit to the collective bargaining process.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 212 of H.R. 3809 
expresses the sense of the Congress that collective bargaining 
agreements should not have any adverse impact on the ability of 
Customs to interdict contraband, including controlled 
substances. The provision further provides that if the Customs 
Commissioner determines that any collective bargaining 
agreement has an adverse impact upon the interdiction of 
contraband, the parties shall meet to eliminate the provision 
causing the adverse impact from the agreement. If the parties 
cannot reach agreement within 90 days, the Commissioner of 
Customs may implement Customs' last offer. Either party may 
then bring the impasse to the Federal Service Impasses Panel 
for ultimate resolution. The Commissioner of Customs may 
implement immediately any proposed changes without waiting 90 
days if exigent circumstances warrant such immediate 
implementation or if an impasse is reached in fewer than 90 
days.
    Reason for change.--The Committee strongly believes that 
Congress should ensure that union agreements do not prevent or 
interfere with the ability of the Customs Service to interdict 
contraband. There are too many examples in which negotiations 
between Customs and its union have been unreasonably extended 
to the detriment of the interdiction of contraband, including 
narcotics. For example, since early 1995 in El Paso, Texas, 
Customs and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) local 
have been negotiating over work conditions at the three bridges 
between Mexico and El Paso. One of the most significant 
problems that has occurred involves the use of a very 
successful drug interdiction approach called pre-primary roving 
for Canine Enforcement Officers (CEO) and Inspectors. This 
approach, used in almost every other location along the 
Southwest border, involves sending a team of CEOs (with at 
least one drug dog) and inspectors working traffic in front of 
the primary entry booths to ``pre screen'' vehicles. The 
vehicles continue moving towards the primary booths while the 
screening takes place. Thus, traffic is not halted but instead 
facilitated while Customs has a much improved opportunity to 
detect drugs entering the United States. In locations such as 
San Ysidro, California, more than 50 percent of all drug 
seizures occur due to this technique.
    However, in El Paso, the Committee understands that the 
union has been unwilling to allow this technique. Instead, the 
union insists that only ten vehicles per lane be allowed in 
front of the primary booths with all other traffic stopped. The 
cars in these lanes are then turned off while traffic behind 
them waits. Finally, only when all traffic is stopped and the 
ten cars per lane are shut off will the CEOs come out and run 
their dogs on these vehicles. This practice insisted upon by 
the union does not effectively add the element of surprise to 
pre primary inspections and does not improve facilitation of 
legitimate traffic.
    The Committee is concerned about other instances of union 
delays which affect the ability of Customs to interdict 
contraband. For example, at the Miami, Florida international 
airport, Customs management sought to ensure better use of 
overtime for drug interdiction purposes and to align the work 
force with the work load. A large number of international 
flights arrive, primarily from South America, between the hours 
of 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. during a period of time which 
Customs does not currently have a regularly scheduled shift 
established. These flights are currently handled exclusively by 
Customs officers working overtime. To address the workload 
issue and to free this overtime for even higher priority drug 
interdiction work, Customs has been attempting to negotiate 
with the union representatives in Miami to create a 4:00 a.m. 
to 12:00 noon shift at Miami International Airport. However, 
these negotiations have been ongoing for nearly four years 
without success. A brief outline of negotiations is listed 
below:
    December 1994--Negotiations begin to address local 
assignment policy issues as required by the National 
Inspectional Assignment Policy (NIAP).
    March 26, 1996--Discussion on shift issues.
    August 5-8, 1996--Peer Facilitation Team composed of union 
and management members of the NIAP negotiating team work with 
local parties to attempt to resolve issues. Unable to achieve 
progress.
    February 10, 1997--Parties formed new negotiating teams.
    June 18, 1997--Customs management believes impasse is again 
reached.
    September 16, 1997--Parties jointly request assistance of 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
    December 11-12, 1997--Mediator meets with parties, but no 
progress made. Mediator recommends parties resume negotiations 
without assistance six more times.
    Jan.-Feb. 1998--Parties meet three more times. No progress 
made. Additional meetings canceled by the union.
    March 24, 1998--Management persuades mediator to return. 
After meeting with both sides, mediator declares that there has 
been no progress and said that there was nothing more that he 
could do.
    March 26, 1998--Management informed union that it would 
implement last offer on April 20, 1998.
    March 27, 1998--Union states intent to file a request for 
assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP).
    April 2, 1998--Union filed with FSIP and indicated its 
belief that the FSIP should decline jurisdiction because 
parties are not at impasse.
    May 4, 1998--In response to request by FSIP for Customs' 
position regarding impasse, Customs responded that it believes 
an impasse exists.
    Almost four years later, the parties are still bargaining 
over issues without implementation of the needed shift and as 
of May 14, 1998, the FSIP has not yet accepted the case for 
settlement. The Committee strongly believes that this situation 
is untenable.
    There are more examples at other Customs locations. The 
Committee believes that these examples show how the union may 
intentionally or unintentionally thwart drug interdiction 
efforts through bargaining, or the unwillingness to bargain. It 
further demonstrates the need for greater cooperation between 
Customs management and employees in negotiating and 
implementing collective bargaining agreements in order to 
ensure the most effective drug interdiction efforts.
    Effective date.--Upon date of enactment.

                       III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements 
are made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means 
in its consideration of the bill H.R. 3809:

                       Motion To Report the Bill

    The bill, H.R. 3809, as amended, was ordered favorably 
reported by a rollcall vote of 29 yeas to 0 nays, and 1 voting 
present (with a quorum being present). The vote was as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Representatives             Yea       Nay     Present    Representatives      Yea       Nay     Present 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Rangel.......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Crane......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Stark........        X   ........  .........
Mr. Thomas.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Matsui.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Shaw.......................        X   ........  .........  Mrs. Kennelly....        X   ........  .........
Mrs. Johnson...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Coyne........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Bunning....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr Levin.........        X   ........  .........
Mr. Houghton...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Cardin.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Herger.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. McDermott....        X   ........  .........
Mr. McCrery....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Kleczka......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Camp.......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Lewis........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Ramstad....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Neal.........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Nussle.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. McNulty......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Johnson....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Jefferson....        X   ........  .........
Ms. Dunn.......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Tanner.......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Collins....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Becerra......  ........  ........         X 
Mr. Portman....................  ........  ........  .........  Mrs Thurman......        X   ........  .........
Mr. English....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Ensign.....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Christensen................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Watkins....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Hayworth...................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Weller.....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Hulshof....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    XIV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

               A. Committee Estimates of Budgetary Effect

    In compliance with clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made 
concerning the effects on the budget of the bill H.R. 3809, as 
reported: The Committee agrees with the cost estimate furnished 
by the Congressional Budget Office set forth below.

                B. Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states 
that the bill would affect direct spending by less than 
$500,000 per year, and contains no new tax expenditures, or 
change in revenues.

      C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the 
following report prepared by CBO is provided:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 18, 1998.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3809, the Drug 
Free Borders Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3809--Drug Free Borders Act of 1998

    Summary: H.R. 3809 would authorize appropriations for 1999 
and 2000 for the U.S. Customs Service, including funds for 
salaries and expenses, acquisitions, and the air interdiction 
program. In addition, the bill would make several changes to 
the current laws relating to overtime and premium pay for 
Customs officers.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 3809 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of about $4.2 billion over the 1999-2003 
period. H.R. 3809 could affect direct spending; therefore pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply. However, we estimate that any 
increases in direct spending would be less than $500,000 per 
year. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) and would have no impact on the budgets of state, local, 
or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3809 is shown in the following table. 
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts 
authorized by the bill will be appropriated by the start of 
each fiscal year and that outlays generally will follow the 
historical spending rates for the authorized activities. We 
expect that some funds will be spent more slowly than the 
historical rates because the bill would provide substantial 
increases in authorizations relative to 1998 funding levels. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 
(administration of justice).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--     
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending Under Current Law:                                                                                     
    Budget Authority \1\..................................    1,715        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    1,712      190        0        0        0        0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level...................................        0    2,034    2,174        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0    1,673    2,171      364        0        0
Spending Under H.R. 3809:                                                                                       
    Authorization Level \1\...............................    1,715    2,034    2,174        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    1,712    1,863    2,171      364        0       0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Customs Service's salaries and expenses and 
  air interdiction accounts.                                                                                    

    The provisions of H.R. 3809 that modify overtime and 
premium pay for Customs officers could affect direct spending 
since such costs are paid out of a direct spending account 
(that is, from funds not subject to annual appropriation). Some 
of the bill's provisions could increase these personnel costs, 
while other provisions probably would yield small savings. CBO 
estimates that the net effect of H.R. 3809 on direct spending 
would be less than $500,000 annually.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-
as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending 
or receipts. Enacting H.R. 3809 could affect direct spending, 
but CBO estimates that the net changes would be less than 
$500,000 a year.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3809 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would have no impact on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Mark Grabowicz.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

     V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

          A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to subdivision (A) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to 
oversight findings), the Committee concludes that the actions 
taken in this legislation are appropriate given its oversight 
of the U.S. Customs Service.

    B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    With respect to subdivision (D) of clause 2(l)(4) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to 
oversight findings), the Committee advises that no oversight 
findings or recommendations have been submitted to this 
Committee by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
with respect to the provisions contained in H.R. 3809.

                 C. Constitutional Authority Statement

    With respect to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, relating to Constitutional 
Authority, the Committee states that the Committee's action in 
reporting the bill is derived from Article 1 of the 
Constitution, Section 8 (``The Congress shall have power to lay 
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the 
debts and to provide for * * * the general Welfare of the 
United States * * *), and the 16th amendment to the 
Constitution.

       VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

SECTION 301 OF THE CUSTOMS PROCEDURAL REFORM AND SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 
                                  1978

  Sec. 301. (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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).
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) For noncommercial operations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and 
        expenses of the Customs Service that are incurred in 
        noncommercial operations not to exceed the following:
                  [(A) $516,217,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(B) $542,091,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (A) $964,587,584 for fiscal year 1999.
                  (B) $1,072,928,328 for fiscal year 2000.
          (2) For commercial operations.--(A) There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and 
        expenses of the Customs Service that are incurred in 
        commercial operations not less than the following:
                  [(i) $672,021,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(ii) $705,793,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (i) $970,838,000 for fiscal year 1999.
                  (ii) $999,963,000 for fiscal year 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) For air interdiction.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated for the operation (including salaries and 
        expenses) and maintenance of the air interdiction 
        program of the Customs Service not to exceed the 
        following:
                  [(A) $143,047,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(B) $150,199,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (A) $98,488,000 for fiscal year 1999.
                  (B) $101,443,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                              ----------                              


                      THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911

  An ACT To diminish the expense of proceedings on appeal and writ of 
error or of certiorari.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5. OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY FOR CUSTOMS OFFICERS.

  (a) Overtime Pay.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and 
        subsection (c), a customs officer who is officially 
        assigned to perform work in excess of 40 hours in the 
        administrative workweek of the officer or in excess of 
        8 hours in a day shall be compensated for that work at 
        an hourly rate of pay that is equal to 2 times the 
        hourly rate of the basic pay of the officer. 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. For purposes of this paragraph, the 
        hourly rate of basic pay for a customs officer does not 
        include any premium pay provided for under subsection 
        (b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Premium Pay for Customs Officers.--
          [(1) Night work differential.--
                  [(A) 3 p.m. to midnight shiftwork.--If the 
                majority of the hours of regularly scheduled 
                work of a customs officer occurs during the 
                period beginning at 3 p.m. and ending at 12 
                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 15 percent of that basic rate.
                  [(B) 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. shiftwork.--If the 
                majority of the hours of regularly scheduled 
                work of a customs officer occurs during the 
                period beginning at 11 p.m. and ending at 8 
                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.
                  [(C) 7:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. shiftwork.--If 
                the regularly scheduled work assignment of a 
                customs officer is 7:30 p.m. to 3:30 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 15 
                percent of that basic rate for the period from 
                7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. and at the officer's 
                hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay 
                amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate for 
                the period from 11:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m.]
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Treatment of premium pay.--Premium pay provided 
        for under this subsection may not be treated as being 
        overtime pay or compensation for any purpose. 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.
  (c) Limitations.--
          [(1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay 
        under subsection (a) (including commuting compensation 
        under subsection (a)(2)(B)) and premium pay under 
        subsection (b) that a customs officer may be paid in 
        any fiscal year may not exceed $25,000; except that the 
        Commissioner of Customs or his designee may waive this 
        limitation in individual cases in order to prevent 
        excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of 
        the Customs Service.]
          (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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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.
  (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) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this 
        subsection, including any regulations established by 
        the Secretary to carry out this subsection, are not 
        subject to collective bargaining.
          (4) Availability of amounts.--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)), 
        not more than $25,000,000 for such fiscal year shall be 
        available to carry out this subsection. Amounts made 
        available under the preceding sentence are authorized 
        to remain available until expended.
  (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.
  [(e)] (h) Definitions.--As used in this section:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We strongly support the authorizations of appropriations in 
Title I of H.R. 3608 to provide additional resources needed by 
the U.S. Customs Service to combat illegal drug traffic across 
our borders. The interdiction efforts of the Customs Service 
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service represent an 
integral component of the National Drug Control Strategy issued 
by the Clinton Administration in February. Additional 
equipment, the latest technology, and increased numbers of 
inspectors and other personnel are essential for more effective 
anti-drug enforcement, as well as to facilitate entry of 
legitimate cargo. The war against drugs is not a partisan 
issue. Rather, it is a national priority with strong bipartisan 
support.
    We also support provisions in Title II to prevent ``pay for 
no work.'' Our concerns focus on the proposed changes in labor-
management relations of the Customs Service and the potential 
impact of these changes on the war against drugs.
    We are concerned about two provisions in H.R. 3809 which 
would authorize the Customs Service to negate the effects of 
collective bargaining agreements entered into by Customs 
management and Customs employees, as relates to the transfer 
and temporary assignment of Customs inspectors and to the 
interdiction of contraband.
    Specifically, sections 211 and 212 of the bill authorize 
the Customs Service to negate the status and importance of the 
collective bargaining process with its employees. These two 
sections would allow Customs managers to abrogate unilaterally 
certain collective bargaining and partnership agreements which 
were developed, as recently as a year and a half ago, to 
coordinate joint efforts by Customs managers and employees to 
interdict drugs effectively.
    Section 211 authorizes the Customs Service to reassign 
Customs employees without regard to any existing law, or 
collective bargaining agreement. While this reassignment may be 
attractive to those who do not like unions, it is important to 
remember that the provision may well have a serious negative 
effect and demoralize the very workforce we are asking to fight 
our war on drugs.
    Section 212 authorizes the Customs Service to determine 
whether a collective bargaining agreement has ``an adverse 
impact on the interdiction of contraband'' and, if so, to 
implement a management action and talk to the union later.
    These provisions are clearly an attempt by some to attack 
our Federal employees, in this case Customs union members, 
under the guise of supporting drug interdiction. The two 
provisions about which we are concerned are just plain ``anti-
union'' text with a ``drug interdiction'' cover.
    It would seem that Customs management has an upfront 
obligation to negotiate an agreement with its employees in good 
faith. Even so, it is clear that these two provisions will set 
the unacceptable precedent of making Federal employee 
bargaining contracts essentially a useless exercise.
    Abrogation of a contract is a serious matter under the rule 
of law. This bill provides the power to abrogate contracts--
alone a dangerous precedent--without any standards to determine 
when that power can be exercised.
    We do not agree with insulting Customs employees by telling 
them that the Congress wants Customs management to ignore the 
agreements they have reached with their employees. These 
provisions do not make sense when the Congress, in another 
breath, is telling Customs inspectors to put their lives on the 
line and do whatever it takes to stop drugs.
    Maybe Customs management needs to better identify its 
priorities and negotiate accordingly. The solution is not to 
give Customs the power to negotiate with its employees and then 
allow management to say ``we changed our mind.'' Customs 
collective bargaining agreements are unique in the Federal 
Government in that the agreements are ``open'' to changes at 
any time, at the request of either party. We are not confident 
that Customs has utilized all the authorities it has under 
current law, or under the terms of the bargaining agreement, to 
address whatever management problems may exist.
    It is important to remember that legislation in 1993 to 
reform the pay structure and responsibilities of the Customs 
inspectors was approved by this Committee on a bipartisan basis 
and was supported by both Customs management and the employees' 
union. This is not the case with H.R. 3809. Sections 211 and 
212 have not been agreed to by the Committee on a bipartisan 
basis, and the provisions have not been agreed to by Customs 
management and employees. Nor did the Committee hold hearings 
on these particular provisions and the issues they raise. And, 
it is not clear what the Administration's views are on these 
provisions.
    We have applauded the Customs Service for having one of the 
most effective, if not be the best, partnership arrangements in 
Government. We are concerned that sections 211 and 212 imply 
that the commitment by Customs employees to drug interdiction 
is less than sincere. This is not the message we wish to send 
to those putting their lives on the line each day at our 
borders, in our airports, and on our docks.
    These provisions were put together and considered hastily. 
Consequently, their potential effect on the workforce is 
unknown. The last thing any of us want to do is promote 
legislation which would undercut the morale, commitment, and 
enforcement efforts of the Customs inspectors from whom we 
expect so much.

                                   Robert T. Matsui.
                                   Karen L. Thurman.
                                   Wm. J. Jefferson.
                                   Barbara B. Kennelly.
                                   Charles B. Rangel.
                                   William J. Coyne.
                                   Jim McDermott.
                                   Jerry Kleczka.
                                   Xavier Becerra.
                                   John Lewis.
                                   Pete Stark.
                                   Benjamin J. Cardin.
                                   Michael R. McNulty.
                                   Richard E. Neal.
                                   Sander Levin.