    Customs Service: Effects of Proposed Legislation on Officers' Pay (Letter
    Report, 01/31/2001, GAO/GAO-01-304).

    GAO reviewed the effects of proposed legislation H.R. 1833 on U.S.
    Customs Service officers' pay. The proposal would amend the 1911 Act
    governing Customs officers' overtime and premium pay, and it would more
    closely align Customs differential pay with that of other federal
    agencies. Should the provisions be enacted, Customs officers would be
    limited to the amount and times for which they would be eligible for
    night differential pay. In addition, another section of the proposed law
    would remove premium pay from the calculation of the $30,000 fiscal year
    overtime and premium pay cap that Customs officers may not exceed. GAO's
    analysis of Customs data showed that had the provisions of H.R. 1833
    been in effect during fiscal year 1999, many officers would have
    experienced significant pay decreases. Managers and supervisors asked to
    analyze the proposal had mixed reviews, but those not in favor of the
    proposal were concerned that less eligibility for night differential pay
    would lead to low morale and staffing problems.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-304
         TITLE:  Customs Service: Effects of Proposed Legislation on
    	     Officers' Pay
          DATE:  01/31/2001
       SUBJECT:  Officer personnel
    	     Proposed legislation
    	     Differential pay
    	     Overtime compensation
    IDENTIFIER:  Customs Service Overtime and Scheduling System
    	     John F. Kennedy International Airport (NY)
    	     Baltimore-Washington International Airport (Baltimore, MD)
    	     San Ysidro (CA)
    	     Los Angeles International Airport (CA)
    	     Miami International Airport (FL)

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-304

    Report to the Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control, U. S.
    Senate

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO CUSTOMS SERVICE Effects of Proposed Legislation on Officers' Pay

    Page i GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay Letter 1

    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

    Appendix II Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at JFK 30

    Appendix III Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at LAX 33

    Appendix IV Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Miami International Airport 36

    Appendix V Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Baltimore- Washington International Airport and Seaport 39

    Appendix VI Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing 42

    Appendix VII Comments From the Department of the Treasury 46

    Appendix VIII Comments From the U. S. Customs Service 47 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay Appendix
    IX Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury

    Employees Union 48

    Appendix X GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53

    Tables

    Table 1: Customs Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1995-
    99 6 Table 2: Customs Officers' Overtime and Night Differential and

    Hours Worked, Fiscal Years 1995- 99 8 Table 3: Comparison of Current Law to
    Proposed Changes for

    Certain Overtime and Premium Pay Issues, Including Those Relating to Night
    Differential Pay 9 Table 4: Comparison of the Number of Night Differential
    Hours

    Currently Available and as Proposed 11 Table 5: Number and Percent of
    Customs Officers That Would

    Have Received Less Pay Had Sections 123 (a) and (b) Been in Effect During
    Fiscal Year 1999 at Five Selected Ports 13 Table 6: Potential Night
    Differential Pay Reductions Had Sections

    123 (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 Been in Effect in Fiscal Year 1999 at Five
    Selected Ports 14 Table 7: Night Differential Pay Under Current Law and
    Proposed

    Law for the Six Top “Differential Earning” Shifts Nationwide
    During Fiscal Year 1999 15 Table 8: Decreased Pay That Would Have Occurred
    Had Proposed

    Changes Been in Effect at Five Selected Ports During Fiscal Year 1999 16
    Table 9: Amount of Night Differential Paid at Top 100 Ports

    Nationwide for Fiscal Year 1999 24 Table 10: Total and Average per Officer
    Amount of Night

    Differential Pay Under Current Law and Under H. R. 1833 Sections 123 (a) and
    (b) for the Six Top “Differential

    Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999 26 Table 11: Night
    Differential Pay at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 30 Table 12: Decreased Night
    Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

    Had Been in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 30 Table 13: Decreased
    Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

    Had Been in Effect at JKF During Fiscal Year 1999 31 Table 14: Decreased
    Night Differential Pay and Amounts of

    Decreased Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been in Effect at JFK
    During Fiscal Year 1999 32

    Page iii GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 15: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Four Night Shifts at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 32 Table 16: Night
    Differential Pay at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 33 Table 17: Decreased Night
    Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

    Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 33 Table 18: Decreased
    Night Differential Pay if Section 123 (b) Only

    Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 34 Table 19: Decreased
    Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

    and (b) Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 35 Table 20:
    Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

    Proposed Law for Top Five Night Shifts at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 35
    Table 21: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

    Proposed Law for Early Morning Shifts at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 35
    Table 22: Night Differential Pay at Miami International Airport

    During Fiscal Year 1999 36 Table 23: Decreased Night Differential Pay If
    Section 123 (a) Only

    Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999 36
    Table 24: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

    Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999 37
    Table 25: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

    and (b) Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year
    1999 38 Table 26: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

    Proposed Law for Top Four Night Shifts at Miami International Airport During
    Fiscal Year 1999 38 Table 27: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting
    From

    Proposed Law for the Early Morning Shift at Miami International Airport
    During Fiscal Year 1999 38 Table 28: Night Differential Pay at Baltimore-
    Washington

    International Airport and Seaport During Fiscal Year 1999 39 Table 29:
    Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

    Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999 39 Table
    30: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

    Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999 40 Table
    31: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

    and (b) Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999 41

    Page iv GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 32: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Three Night Shifts at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999 41
    Table 33: Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro Land Border

    Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999 42 Table 34: Decreased Night Differential
    Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

    Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year
    1999 43 Table 35: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

    Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year
    1999 43 Table 36: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

    and (b) Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal
    Year 1999 44 Table 37: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

    Proposed Law for Top Five Night Shifts at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing
    During Fiscal Year 1999 45 Table 38: Increased Night Differential Pay
    Resulting From

    Proposed Law for Early Morning Shifts at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing
    During Fiscal Year 1999 45

    Figures

    Figure 1: Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1999 7
    Figure 2: Night Differential Hours and Rates Under Current and

    Proposed Legislation 10

    Abbreviations

    CMC Customs Management Center COPRA Customs Officers Pay Reform Amendments
    COSS Customs Overtime and Scheduling System JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    International Airport LAX Los Angeles International Airport NTEU National
    Treasury Employees Union OMB Office of Management and Budget

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    January 31, 2001 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman, Caucus on
    International Narcotics Control United States Senate

    Dear Mr. Chairman: This report responds to your request that we review the
    effects of proposed legislation on U. S. Customs Service officers' pay. 1 As
    agreed with your staff, we primarily focused on the provisions in H. R.
    1833, 2 introduced in the 106th Congress, that would affect Customs
    officers' night differential pay. In May 1999, the House of Representatives
    passed H. R. 1833, which contained these pay amendments. In August 1999, the
    Senate passed another version of H. R. 1833, which did not contain the pay
    provisions. Similar provisions were introduced, but not passed, in the 105th
    Congress, and such provisions may be reintroduced in the 107th Congress. The
    pay provisions in H. R. 1833 would amend the 1911 Act, as amended, 3
    governing Customs officers' overtime and premium pay, 4 and they are
    intended to more closely align night differential pay for Customs officers
    with that of other federal agencies. A primary issue of concern is the
    extent to which the pay provisions in H. R. 1833 would reduce Customs
    officers' night differential pay.

    Our objectives were to (1) compare current law to proposed legislative
    changes in H. R. 1833 dealing with Customs officers' pay, (2) determine the

    1 Throughout this report, when we use the term “Customs
    officers,” as defined under current law (19 U. S. C. 267 (e)), we are
    referring to both Customs inspectors and canine enforcement officers.

    2 An Act to authorize appropriations for the United States Customs Service,
    and for other purposes. 3 Act of February 13, 1911, 36 Stat. 899, 901
    (current version at 19 U. S. C. 267 (b)). In a 1991 report, we recommended
    that Congress reevaluate the basis for computing premium pay, including
    night differential pay for Customs officers and that Customs improve its
    administration of overtime. See Customs Service: 1911 Act Governing Overtime
    Is Outdated (GAO/ GGD- 91- 96, June 14, 1991). The law was subsequently
    amended, as discussed later.

    4 The term “premium pay” means differential pay for regularly
    scheduled work on Sundays, holidays, and at night as authorized under
    current law (19 U. S. C. 267 (b)).

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    extent to which Customs officers' pay would increase or decrease if proposed
    changes were enacted, and (3) obtain Customs and the National Treasury
    Employees Union's (NTEU) views on the proposed changes. Our review focused
    primarily on analyzing the effects of sections 123 (a) and (b) of subtitle C
    of H. R. 1833 dealing with night differential pay. In addition to our
    analysis, we also obtained views on sections 123 (a) and (b) and section
    121, which addresses Customs officers' annual overtime and premium pay cap.

    To address our first objective, we compared current law and related federal
    regulations along with a pertinent arbitration ruling to the proposed
    changes in H. R. 1833 to identify differences and determine how the changes
    would potentially affect Customs officers' night differential pay. To
    address our second objective, we analyzed the Customs Overtime and
    Scheduling System (COSS) database- which contains detailed information on
    officers' overtime and premium pay (Sunday, holiday, and night
    differential)- to capture officers' night differential pay earnings for
    fiscal year 1999. We analyzed data nationwide and then more specifically on
    five judgmentally selected Customs ports of entry. 5 We then determined what
    the officers' night differential earnings would have been if sections 123
    (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 had been in effect during fiscal year 1999.

    Although the patterns of hours worked in future years may change, and our
    five selected ports are not representative of all ports, our analysis is an
    indicator of the changes that could occur in pay if provisions such as 123
    (a) and (b) were enacted. To address our third objective, we obtained
    documentation from the Commissioner of Customs and written comments from the
    NTEU national president. We also interviewed Customs managers, supervisors,
    and officers, and NTEU chapter presidents at the five selected ports. More
    specific information on our objectives, scope, and methodology is discussed
    in appendix I.

    Our comparison of current law and related implementing regulations and
    rulings to proposed legislative changes in H. R. 1833 showed how Customs
    officers' night differential pay would be affected by the proposed changes.

    5 We judgmentally selected, based on the number of air and land passengers
    processed, three large airports, one medium airport/ seaport, and one large
    land border crossing. The ports selected were John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    International Airport (JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Miami
    International Airport, Baltimore- Washington International Airport and
    Seaport, and San Ysidro land border crossing near San Diego, CA. Results in
    Brief

    Page 3 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Section 123 (a) would override a 1995 arbitration ruling that interpreted
    current law and would prohibit Customs officers from receiving night
    differential pay when they take annual, sick, or other leave from regularly
    scheduled night differential work. Section 123 (b) would change the times
    and reduce the number of hours in a day that Customs officers could earn
    night differential pay. Night differential pay would be limited to hours
    worked between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. and also to hours worked on a midnight-
    to- 8 a. m. shift. Section 121, a related section, would remove premium pay,
    including night differential pay, from the calculation of the $30,000 fiscal
    year overtime and premium pay cap that Customs officers may not exceed.

    Our analysis of Customs data showed the extent to which sections 123 (a) and
    (b) of H. R. 1833 would affect Customs officers' pay. Nationwide, our
    analysis of the COSS database showed that 6,510 Customs officers received
    about $13.5 million in night differential pay in fiscal year 1999. Over 80
    percent of the $13.5 million in night differential pay was concentrated in
    six shifts, which generated $11 million in night differential pay. Had
    sections 123 (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 been in effect for these six shifts
    during fiscal year 1999, Customs officers would have received about $6
    million in night differential pay, about $5 million less than what they
    actually received that year. In addition, of the 332 ports (including
    subports and headquarters offices) accumulating COSS data, 10 had night
    differential pay of $400,000 or more, while 106 had no night differential
    pay for fiscal year 1999.

    Our analysis of the COSS database for five selected ports showed that nearly
    all (97 percent) of the 1,377 Customs officers receiving night differential
    pay would have received less night differential pay had sections 123 (a) and
    (b) of H. R. 1833 been in effect during fiscal year 1999. Section 123 (b),
    which would reduce the number of hours for which night differential pay
    could be earned, had the greater impact on pay. Customs officers working at
    ports with shifts starting in the early afternoon, such as those at JFK,
    would have had the largest pay decreases.

    The amount of pay decreases and number of Customs officers affected varied
    across the five ports we analyzed. For example, of the 464 Customs officers
    who received night differential pay at JFK during fiscal year 1999, 148 (32
    percent) would have had their night differential pay decreased by over
    $3,000 had sections 123 (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 been in effect. In
    contrast, the proposed changes would not have had as much of an impact on
    Customs officers working at the Baltimore- Washington International Airport
    and Seaport, a smaller port with fewer officers earning night

    Page 4 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    differential pay. Of the 53 Customs officers who received night differential
    pay at the Baltimore- Washington International Airport and Seaport, 44 (83
    percent) would have had their pay decreased by $500 or less if the pay
    provisions in H. R. 1833 had been enacted.

    In the aggregate, 1,331 of the 1,377 Customs officers receiving night
    differential pay at the five ports would have received about $1.7 million
    less pay during fiscal year 1999. The amount of decreased night differential
    pay had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect ranged from a low of about
    $18,000 for officers at the Baltimore- Washington International Airport and
    Seaport to a high of about $1 million at JFK.

    In contrast, but to a lesser extent, 122 officers at four of the five
    selected ports would have received net increases in night differential pay
    totaling $16,943 by the end of fiscal year 1999 had the proposed changes
    been in effect. The net increases primarily would have resulted from early
    morning shifts. Under section 123 (b), Customs officers working shifts
    starting at 4 a. m. and 5 a. m. would receive night differential pay for
    hours worked between 4 a. m. and 6 a. m., which they do not receive under
    current law.

    The views we obtained on the pay provisions in H. R. 1833 from affected
    parties- Customs and NTEU officials, along with managers, supervisors, and
    officers- provided positions and insights on the provisions. The
    Commissioner of Customs and the NTEU national president, along with Customs
    supervisors and officers and NTEU chapter presidents at the five ports,
    commented that they generally opposed sections 123 (a) and (b) of H. R.
    1833. These provisions would provide Customs with the authority to eliminate
    Customs officers' night differential pay while on leave and reduce the
    number of hours in a day that officers could earn night differential pay. In
    contrast, Customs field managers at the five ports had varying views on
    these two provisions; some Customs managers supported the sections, while
    others opposed them. In addition, many of the Customs managers, supervisors,
    and officers and NTEU officials said that because section 123 (b), in
    particular, would decrease officers' night differential pay significantly,
    its implementation would lower morale and create problems in staffing night
    shifts at Customs ports.

    NTEU's national president, along with Customs field managers, supervisors,
    and officers and NTEU chapter presidents we interviewed at the five ports,
    generally supported section 121 of H. R. 1833. For the most part, they
    viewed this section as an opportunity for Customs officers to potentially
    earn more overtime because premium pay, including night differential pay,
    would not count toward the annual pay cap. Customs

    Page 5 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    headquarters officials, however, did not provide us with their views on
    section 121. In commenting on this report, Customs said that the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) was the appropriate agency for providing the
    administration's position on legislative matters. OMB opposed section 121
    because it believed this section should be considered in the context of
    achieving overall consistency in pay between Customs and other similarly
    situated inspection service agencies.

    The U. S. Customs Service has a diverse mission spanning a large geographic
    area. Customs responsibilities include (1) collecting revenue from imports
    and enforcing Customs and other U. S. laws and regulations, (2) preventing
    the smuggling of drugs into the country, and (3) overseeing export
    compliance and money- laundering issues. At the close of fiscal year 1999,
    Customs had a full- time permanent workforce of about 19,000
    employees– including about 8,000 Customs officers (inspectors and
    canine enforcement officers). These employees carry out Customs mission at
    its headquarters, 20 Customs Management Centers, 20 Special Agent- inCharge
    offices, 301 U. S. ports of entry, 5 Strategic Trade Centers, and over 25
    international offices. Customs officers processed over 21 million import
    entries, with a value of $977 billion; 137 million conveyances; 6 and 480
    million land, sea, and air passengers in fiscal year 1999.

    Although our review focused on night differential pay, which is part of
    premium pay, we are also providing some background information on all
    premium pay components (Sunday, holiday, and night pay) and data on overtime
    pay because these items are often reviewed collectively for oversight
    purposes. In addition to base and overtime pay, Customs officers can earn
    additional compensation through a premium pay (Sunday, holiday, and night
    differential pay) system. This system is governed by pay amendments in the
    Customs Officers Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA), which was part of the
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P. L. 103- 66; 107 Stat. 312,
    668). 7

    6 Conveyances include aircraft, trucks, trains, buses, privately- owned
    vehicles, and ocean vessels. 7 In 1993, Congress made major changes to
    Customs officers' pay by enacting COPRA, which amended the 1911 Act
    governing officers' overtime and premium pay. Background

    Premium Pay Process

    Page 6 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Customs officers earn pay (base pay plus premium pay) for regularly
    scheduled work on Sundays, holidays, and nights as follows:

    ? Sunday pay is 1.5 times the basic hourly rate (50- percent premium);

    ? holiday pay is 2 times the basic hourly rate (100- percent premium); and

    ? night pay is 1.15 or 1.20 times the basic hourly rate (15- or 20- percent
    differential); that is

    ? 1.15 if the majority of hours worked were between 3 p. m. and midnight and

    ? 1.20 if the majority of hours worked were between 11 p. m. and 8 a. m. As
    shown in table 1, according to Customs, its overtime and premium pay
    expenditures for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 ranged from a total of
    $106.3 million to $143.1 million, with night differential pay ranging from
    $8.9 million to $13.6 million. By law, combined overtime and premium pay
    currently cannot exceed a fiscal year cap of $30,000 for each Customs
    officer. 8

    Table 1: Customs Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1995-
    99

    Dollars in millions

    Premium pay Fiscal year Overtime Night

    differential Holiday and Sunday Total

    1995 $91.4 $8.9 $6.0 $106.3

    1996 99.8 9. 5 8.8 118.1

    1997 107.3 9. 1 8.4 124.8

    1998 113.6 12.1 10.5 136.2

    1999 118.3 13.6 a 11.2 143.1

    a Our analysis of COSS data, subsequently discussed in this report, showed
    $13.5 million in night differential pay for fiscal year 1999. This table
    shows $13.6 million. The difference may be due to rounding, or the data in
    this table may originate from a Customs data source other than COSS.

    Source: U. S. Customs Service.

    Figure 1, below, illustrates fiscal year 1999 expenditures for overtime and
    premium pay, including those for night differential pay.

    8 Although 19 U. S. C. 267( c)( 1) sets the cap at $25, 000, the annual
    Treasury appropriation laws for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 have
    increased the cap to $30,000. For example, for fiscal year 1999, see P. L.
    105- 277, 112 Stat. 2681- 480, 486 (1998).

    Page 7 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Figure 1: Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1999

    Source: U. S. Customs Service.

    In addition, as shown in table 2, from fiscal years 1995 through 1999, total
    hours of overtime and night differential worked by Customs officers ranged
    from approximately 2.5 million to 3.1 million overtime hours and from
    approximately 3.3 million to 4.5 million night differential hours.

    Page 8 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 2: Customs Officers' Overtime and Night Differential and Hours Worked,
    Fiscal Years 1995- 99

    Overtime Night differential Fiscal year Total

    officers a Officers Hours Officers Hours

    1995 8,158 7,314 2,497,752 5,678 3,252,481 1996 8,425 7,597 2,784,915 5,846
    3,462,484 1997 9,006 8,247 2,973,571 6,247 3,321,258 1998 9,092 8,442
    3,093,429 6,600 4,261,718 1999 9,137 8,489 3,088,450 6,545 b 4,484,076 a
    Total officers represents the number of officers that worked sometime during
    the year. It does not represent the number at the close of the fiscal year.
    b Our analysis of COSS, subsequently discussed in this report, showed 6,510
    officers receiving night differential pay during fiscal year 1999. The
    source for the data for this table is Customs Premium Overtime Pay Inquiry
    Systems. The difference of 35 officers is not significant and may be
    attributable to the different sources of the data.

    Source: U. S. Customs Service data.

    Section 123 (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 proposed changing the way that night
    differential pay is earned and calculated. Section 123 (a) would override a
    1995 arbitration ruling that interpreted law and would provide Customs with
    the authority to prohibit Customs officers from receiving night differential
    pay when they take annual, sick, or other leave from regularly scheduled
    night work. Section 123 (b) would change the times and reduce the number of
    hours in a day that Customs officers could earn night differential pay. This
    section, as discussed in more detail in table 3 below, would replace the
    current “majority of hours” provision, which allows night
    differential pay for shifts starting as early as 12 noon and as late as 3 a.
    m. Instead, section 123 (b) would limit night differential pay to hours
    worked between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. and on a 12 midnight- to- 8 a. m. shift.

    Section 121 would change the way the annual overtime and premium pay
    (Sunday, holiday, and night differential pay) cap is calculated. It would
    remove premium pay, including night differential pay, from the annual pay
    cap that Customs officers cannot exceed. Table 3 describes and compares
    current law with proposed changes to night differential pay and the annual
    pay cap. 9 As noted in table 3, section 123 (b) would eliminate the
    “majority

    of hours” provision for night differential pay. Instead, night
    differential pay 9 In a 1996 report, the Department of the Treasury, Office
    of Inspector General issued a report recommending that Customs seek
    legislative changes to officers' night differential pay. See Customs
    Officers Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA) (OIG- 96- 094, Sept. 13, 1996).
    Comparison of

    Current Law to Proposed Night Differential Pay Changes

    Page 9 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    would be limited to actual hours worked between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. and for
    actual hours worked on a 12 midnight- to- 8 a. m. shift.

    Table 3: Comparison of Current Law to Proposed Changes for Certain Overtime
    and Premium Pay Issues, Including Those Relating to Night Differential Pay

    Issue Current law and practice Proposed Subtitle C of H. R. 1833

    Payment of premium pay, including night differential pay, when a Customs
    officer is on annual or sick leave

    A 1995 arbitration ruling interpreting current law requires Customs to pay
    officers night differential pay when they are on annual, sick, or other
    leave from regularly scheduled night differential work. P. L. 105- 277 (112
    Stat. 2861- 518) permanently restricts Customs from paying Sunday premium
    pay to an employee if the employee has not actually performed work on
    Sunday. In addition, Customs officers are not paid holiday premium pay when
    they are on leave and do not actually work the holiday.

    Section 123 (a) would provide Customs with authority to prohibit Customs
    officers from receiving any premium pay, including night differential pay,
    when on leave from regularly scheduled work that entitled them to premium
    pay. As such, the section would override the arbitration ruling and prohibit
    Customs officers from receiving night differential pay while on leave.

    Current law (19 U. S. C. 267( b)( 1)) provides that a Customs officer can
    receive night differential pay at rates above base pay for an entire 8- hour
    shift when the “majority of hours” worked falls within certain
    prescribed hours as follows.

    Section 123 (b) would eliminate the “majority of hours”
    provision. This section would limit night differential pay to hours actually
    worked between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. and to hours actually worked on a 12
    midnight- to- 8 a. m. shift.

    ? When the majority of hours worked occurs between 3 p. m. and 12 midnight,
    the rate of night differential pay is 15 percent of the base hourly rate for
    the entire 8- hour shift. As such, shifts starting as early as 12 noon can
    receive night differential pay for an entire 8- hour shift.

    ? No majority of hours provision. The rate of night differential pay would
    remain at 15 percent of the base hourly rate but only for actual hours
    worked between 6 p. m. and 12 midnight. It would reduce the number of hours
    that night differential can be earned.

    ? When the majority of hours worked occurs between 11 p. m. and 8 a. m., the
    rate of night differential pay is 20 percent of the base hourly rate for the
    entire 8- hour shift. As such, shifts starting as late as 3 a. m. can
    receive night differential pay for an entire 8- hour shift.

    ? No majority of hours provision. The rate of night differential pay would
    remain at 20 percent of the base hourly rate but only for actual hours
    worked between 12 midnight and 6 a. m. and for actual hours worked on a 12
    midnight- to- 8 a. m. shift. It would reduce the number of hours that night
    differential can be earned. Times and number of

    hours in a day that night differential pay can be earned

    ? For a 7: 30 p. m.- to- 3: 30 a. m. shift, the rate of night differential
    pay is 15 percent of the base hourly rate for 4 hours and 20 percent of the
    base hourly rate for 4 hours. (This provision addresses a split shift in
    which the majority of hours worked falls within prescribed hours for both
    15- and 20- percent night differential pay.)

    ? While not specifically addressed in the proposed changes, the rate of
    night differential for this shift (7: 30 p. m. to 3: 30 a. m.) would be 15
    percent for actual hours worked up to 12 midnight, and 20 percent for hours
    worked after 12 midnight. It would not affect the number of hours available
    for night differential pay. Fiscal year annual overtime and premium (Sunday,
    holiday, and night differential) pay cap

    Current law (19 U. S. C. 267 (c) (10) and the annual Treasury appropriation
    laws for FYs 1998 through 2001) state that the aggregate amount of overtime
    and premium pay, including night differential pay, that a Customs officer
    may be paid in any fiscal year may not exceed $30,000.

    Section 121 would remove premium pay from the calculation of the $30,000
    fiscal year cap. As such, the pay cap would be solely an overtime cap.

    Source: H. R. Rep. No. 106- 161 (1999) and a December 9, 1995, Arbitration
    Ruling.

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Figure 2 illustrates the information discussed in table 3 on the hours
    officers can earn night differential pay and the percent of night
    differential earned under current law and proposed legislation.

    Figure 2: Night Differential Hours and Rates Under Current and Proposed
    Legislation

    Note: As discussed more specifically in table 3, under current law with the
    majority of hours provision, officers can earn night differential pay for an
    entire shift for shifts starting as early as 12 noon through shifts starting
    as late as 3 a. m. Under proposed legislation, officers earn night
    differential for actual hours worked from 6 p. m. to 6 a. m. and on a 12
    midnight- to- 8- a. m. shift.

    Source: H. R. Rep. No. 106- 161 (1999).

    As shown in table 4, elimination of the “majority of hours”
    provision would decrease the number of available hours that Customs officers
    could earn night differential pay. However, to a lesser extent, it would
    also increase

    10 6

    7 8 9 11 12 11 10

    9 8 7 6

    5 4

    3 2

    1 6pm

    12am

    15% differential 12am

    6am

    20% differential 12am

    8am

    shift 20%

    differential Noon

    Midnight 10

    6 7 8 9 11 12 11 10

    9 8

    7 6

    5 4

    3 2

    1 11pm- 8am

    20% differential

    3pm- 12am 15%

    differential Noon

    Midnight Current Proposed

    Majority of hours

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    the number of night differential hours available for a few morning shifts.
    Generally, eliminating the “majority of hours” provision would
    have the effect of reducing Customs officers' pay.

    Table 4: Comparison of the Number of Night Differential Hours Currently
    Available and as Proposed Night differential hours 8- hour shift starting
    and ending time Current law Proposed

    changes Increase under proposed changes Decrease under

    proposed changes

    12 noon to 8 p. m. 8 2 6 1 p. m. to 9 p. m. 8 3 5 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. 8 4 4
    3 p. m. to 11 p. m. 8 5 3 4 p. m. to 12 midnight 8 6 2 5 p. m. to 1 a. m. 8
    7 1 6 p. m. to 2 a. m. 8 8 7 p. m. to 3 a. m. 8 8 8 p. m. to 4 a. m. 8 8 9
    p. m. to 5 a. m. 8 8 10 p. m. to 6 a. m. 8 8 11 p. m. to 7 a. m. 8 7 1 12
    midnight to 8 a. m. 8 8 1 a. m. to 9 a. m. 8 5 3 2 a. m. to 10 a. m. 8 4 4 3
    a. m. to 11 a. m. 8 3 5 4 a. m. to 12 Noon 0 2 2 5 a. m. to 1 p. m. 0 1 1 6
    a. m. to 2 p. m. 0 0 7 a. m. to 3 p. m. 0 0 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. 0 0 9 a. m.
    to 5 p. m. 0 0 10 a. m. to 6 p. m. 0 0 11 a. m. to 7 p. m. 0 1 1

    Source: GAO analysis of current law- U. S. C. 267 (b) (1)- and proposed
    changes- section 123 (b) of H. R. 1833.

    An example of how the elimination of the majority of hours provision would
    decrease the number of available night differential hours is as follows: If
    a Customs officer is scheduled to work a shift that starts at 12 noon and
    ends at 8 p. m., 5 of the 8 hours of that shift (the majority of hours)
    occur between 3 p. m. and 12 midnight. As such, because the majority of
    hours worked falls within the prescribed hours (3 p. m. to 12 midnight)
    under current law, the Customs officer would earn night differential pay at
    15 percent of the base hourly rate for the entire 8- hour shift. Under
    proposed pay changes in H. R. 1833, the officer working the 12

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    noon- to- 8 p. m. shift would earn night differential pay at 15 percent of
    the base hourly rate only for the 2 hours worked between 6 p. m. and 8 p. m.
    In short, the Customs officer would have 6 fewer hours subject to night
    differential pay under the proposed changes.

    The majority of hours provision and the 15- and 20- percent night
    differential pay rates were included in COPRA, effective January 1, 1994.
    The rationale for including the majority of hours provision in COPRA is not
    specifically addressed in the legislative history. House Report No. 103- 111
    sheds some light on the rationale for increasing Customs officers' night
    differential pay rates, but it is silent on the majority of hours provision.
    It states

    “Finally, the Committee recognizes the adverse impact on the quality
    of life of Customs officials [officers] who are required to work regularly
    scheduled shifts at night or on Sundays and holidays. Accordingly, the bill
    provides for shift differential compensation at levels substantially greater
    than applied generally to other Federal employees for such regularly
    scheduled work.” (H. R. Rep. No. 103- 111, at 1233 (1993))

    Our analysis of the COSS database nationwide showed that had sections 123
    (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 been in effect on the six most frequently used
    night shifts during fiscal year 1999, Customs officers would have received
    about $6 million in night differential pay- about $5 million less than what
    they actually received that year. These six shifts accounted for 82 percent
    of the night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 (see table 10 in app. I).
    Similarly, our analysis of the COSS database for the five selected ports
    showed that 1,331 officers (97 percent) would have received less night
    differential pay had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect. These sections
    would prevent Customs from paying officers night differential pay when on
    leave and would reduce the number of available hours in a day that Customs
    officers could earn night differential pay. In particular, our analysis
    showed that section 123 (b) would cause the greater amount of pay decreases
    and that the amounts of potential pay decreases and number of Customs
    officers affected varied by port. For example, officers working shifts
    starting in the early afternoon, such as those at JFK, would have been most
    affected by pay decreases if the proposed changes were implemented primarily
    because the hours worked before 6 p. m. would no longer qualify for night
    differential pay. Most Customs

    Officers Would Receive Less Night Differential Pay Under Proposed Changes

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Our analysis of Customs night differential pay nationally showed that of the
    332 ports (including subports, such as courier facilities) accumulating COSS
    data during fiscal year 1999, 106 had no night differential pay, 59 paid out
    less than $1,000, and 112 paid out over $10,000. Ten of the ports had night
    differential payments of $400,000 or more. JFK topped the list with night
    differential pay of about $1.8 million in fiscal year 1999. The top 100
    ports and the amount of night differential pay officers at these ports
    received in fiscal year 1999 are shown in table 9 of appendix I.

    During fiscal year 1999, 2,011 Customs officers worked at the five ports we
    analyzed. Of these officers, 1,377 (68 percent) received night differential
    pay sometime during the year. As shown in the table below, 1,331 (97
    percent) of these officers receiving night differential pay at these five
    ports would have received less pay had the proposed changes been in effect
    during fiscal year 1999. By contrast, to a much lesser extent, 122 officers
    at four of the five ports would have received increased night differential
    pay had the provisions been in effect.

    Table 5: Number and Percent of Customs Officers That Would Have Received
    Less Pay Had Sections 123 (a) and (b) Been in Effect During Fiscal Year 1999
    at Five Selected Ports

    Total who received night differential pay Total who would have received

    less night differential pay Port Total officers receiving

    compensation No. % No. %

    JFK 679 464 68 464 100 LAX 423 238 56 237 99 Miami International Airport 537
    391 73 363 93 Balto.- Wash. Int. Airport and Seaport 62 53 85 53 100 San
    Ysidro land border crossing 310 231 75 214 93

    Total 2,011 1,377 68 1,331 97

    Source: GAO analysis of Customs data.

    The amounts of reduced night differential pay that the 1,331 Customs
    officers would have received had the proposed changes been in effect varied
    by port, as shown in table 6. The potentially decreased pay was affected by
    how frequently officers worked night differential shifts, how many hours of
    night differential pay would be reduced as a result of proposed changes, and
    the officers' basic hourly rates of pay. Extent of Night

    Differential Pay Reductions Varied by Port

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 6: Potential Night Differential Pay Reductions Had Sections 123 (a)
    and (b) of H. R. 1833 Been in Effect in Fiscal Year 1999 at Five Selected
    Ports

    Officers at each port JFK LAX Miami Balto.- Wash. San Ysidro border
    Potential pay reductions No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

    $500 or less 97 21 99 42 186 51 44 83 93 43 $501 to $1, 000 41 9 41 17 89 25
    3 6 34 16 $1,001 to $2,000 87 19 63 27 74 20 5 9 55 26 $2,001 to $3,000 91
    20 19 8 12 3 1 2 22 10 $3,001 to $4,000 83 18 11 5 21008 4 $4,001 to $5,000
    48 10 3 1 00001< 1 $5,001 and over 17 4 1 <100001 <1

    Total 464 237 363 53 214

    Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO analysis
    of Customs data.

    As shown in the shaded areas in the above table, 148 (32 percent) of the
    Customs officers receiving night differential pay during fiscal year 1999 at
    JFK would have had reductions of over $3,000 in night differential pay. In
    addition, JFK had more officers with higher pay reductions than the other
    ports because many of its officers worked the 1 p. m.- to- 9 p. m. shift. Of
    the 464 Customs officers who received night differential pay at JFK during
    fiscal year 1999, 452 (97 percent) worked the 1 p. m.- to- 9 p. m. shift
    sometime during the year. Had H. R. 1833 been in effect, these officers
    would not have received night differential pay for 5 of the hours they
    worked that shift.

    In contrast, the proposed changes would not have had as much of an impact on
    Customs officers working at the Baltimore- Washington International Airport
    and Seaport, a smaller port with fewer officers earning night differential
    pay. The officers from the Baltimore- Washington International Airport and
    Seaport who worked night shifts at the airport (there are no night shifts at
    the seaport) would have had smaller night differential pay reductions than
    those at JFK. In addition to having fewer officers, the primary reason that
    44 (83 percent) of them would have had pay decreases of $500 or less is that
    most officers only worked a limited number of night shifts at the airport on
    a periodic, rotating basis. Generally the officers work at the airport for a
    1- week period, every 24 weeks.

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    As part of our analysis, we also determined the total amount of pay
    reductions that would have occurred had section 123 (a) and section 123 (b)
    been in effect during fiscal year 1999 nationally for six frequently worked
    night shifts and at the five selected ports we analyzed in detail.
    Nationally, according to COSS, 6,510 Customs officers received about $13.5
    million in night differential pay in fiscal year 1999. About $11 million (82
    percent) of the $13.5 million was concentrated on six frequently worked
    night shifts, such as the 4 p. m.- to- 12 midnight shift. As shown in table
    7, had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect, Customs officers would have
    received about $6 million for working those six shifts, about $5 million
    less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 7: Night Differential Pay Under Current Law and Proposed Law for the
    Six Top

    “Differential Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999
    Total night differential pay amounts Shift hours Current law (actual) H. R.
    1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease)

    Midnight to 8 a. m. a $1,956,775 $1,706,846 $249,929 Noon to 8 p. m.
    1,310,974 276,381 1, 034,593 1 p. m. to 9 p. m. 2,059,029 643,686 1, 415,343
    2 p. m. to 10 p. m. 972,762 410,872 561,890 3 p. m. to 11 p. m. 654,615
    346,833 307,782 4 p. m. to 12 a. m. 4,087,828 2,584,188 1,503,640

    Total $11,041,983 $5,968,806 $5,073,177

    a This shift is preserved in H. R. 1833, so that officers working it would
    continue to earn 8 hours of night differential pay. Therefore, any reduction
    would be attributable to section 123 (a), which eliminates payment of night
    differential while officers are on leave.

    Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.

    At the five ports we analyzed, 1,331 officers would have received $1,693,061
    less night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 had the sections 123 (a) and
    (b) been in effect. These officers represent 20 percent of the total
    officers who received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999. Section
    123 (b) would have resulted in the larger amounts of pay reductions for
    Customs officers, as shown in table 8. Potential Total Night

    Differential Pay Reductions Under Proposed Changes

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 8: Decreased Pay That Would Have Occurred Had Proposed Changes Been in
    Effect at Five Selected Ports During Fiscal Year 1999

    Decreased night differential pay under proposed changes Port Total night

    differential paid a Amount of

    decrease under 123 (a)

    Amount of decrease under

    123 (b) Amount of

    decrease under both 123 (a) and (b)

    JFK $1,742,224 $305,588 $845,791 $1,002,264 LAX 489,816 83,406 186,936
    237,720 Miami 553,856 95,182 170,783 233,080 Baltimore- Washington 32,412 4,
    643 15,489 17,924 San Ysidro border 495,121 88,037 145,098 202,073

    Total $3,313,429 $576,856 $1,364,097 $1,693,061

    Note: The effects of section 123 (a) and section 123 (b) are interrelated,
    therefore, the amounts in the last column are not the sum of the amounts of
    sections 123 (a) and (b). This interrelationship is explained in appendix.
    I. a In our detailed analyses for each of the five ports, some records were
    excluded because of apparent

    inconsistencies in the data which are further discussed in appendix. I.
    Accordingly, the amounts of night differential pay for each port in the
    above table are slightly less than the amounts shown in appendix I, table 9.

    Source: GAO analysis of Customs data.

    The above amounts of decreased pay or “savings” that would have
    occurred as a result of implementation of H. R. 1833 sections 123 (a) and
    (b) would remain with Customs for additional enforcement purposes. Section
    124 of H. R. 1833 would require the Secretary of the Treasury to calculate
    the savings from section 123, as we did in the above table. Customs, in
    turn, would be required to use the savings for additional enforcement
    overtime activities at the ports where the savings occurred. More detailed
    tables showing the effects of proposed changes at each of the five ports are
    shown in appendixes II- VI.

    While table 5 shows that many Customs officers working at the five selected
    ports would receive less night differential pay, some officers working early
    morning shifts (e. g., 4 a. m. to 12 noon and 5 a. m. to 1 p. m.) would
    receive increased night differential pay. Officers working early morning
    shifts starting as early as 4 a. m. do not receive any night differential
    pay under current law. However, under section 123 (b), officers working
    these early morning shifts would receive night differential pay for hours
    worked between 4 a. m. and 6 a. m. Had both sections 123 (a) and (b) been in
    effect during fiscal year 1999, 122 officers at four of the five ports would
    have received net increases in night differential pay totaling $16,943. For
    example, at the San Ysidro land border crossing, 50 Some Officers Would

    Receive Additional Night Differential Pay Under the Proposed Changes

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    officers would have received net increases totaling $10,818, while 10
    officers at LAX would have received net increases totaling $221.

    The Commissioner of Customs position 10 and the NTEU national president's
    written comments to us, 11 along with our limited interviewing at Customs
    and NTEU headquarters, five Customs Management Centers (CMCs), five ports of
    entry, and five NTEU chapters, revealed a variety of opinions on the three
    proposed changes to Customs officers' pay. Both the Commissioner of Customs
    and the NTEU national president opposed sections 123 (a) and (b). Section
    123 (a) would prohibit Customs from paying night differential pay when an
    officer is on leave. Section 123 (b) would shorten the number of hours for
    which night differential pay could be earned. The Commissioner of Customs
    stated that while Customs is aware of concerns raised about increases in
    overtime and premium pay costs, there are numerous contributory factors
    (other than night differential pay) that could increase such costs. These
    other factors include

    “ increases in Federal pay rates, the doubling in commercial workloads
    without commensurate increases in staff, and increases in locations and
    hours of service requested by the trade community and Congress.”

    The NTEU national president opposed section 123 (a) because, among other
    reasons,

    “ pay systems for other federal law enforcement officers include
    sometimes 25% higher pay for officers on an annual basis, including while
    they are on leave or during weeks that they do not work irregular hours.
    Unlike many of these law enforcement officers, Customs inspectors [officers]
    do not receive the added incentive of a twenty- year retirement.”

    NTEU's comments on the H. R. 1833 premium pay provisions are reproduced in
    appendix IX.

    Similarly, several Customs and NTEU field representatives we interviewed
    said that they opposed section 123 (a). For example, an acting Customs
    airport director said that if officers regularly work the night shift, they

    10 Written in a May 25, 1999, letter to the Ranking Member, House Ways and
    Means Committee, concerning provisions in H. R. 1833. 11 In a June 26, 2000,
    letter commenting on the provisions in H. R. 1833 (see app. IX). Varied
    Views on

    Proposed Changes to Customs Officers' Pay

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    should get paid at that rate when they take leave, and one supervisor said
    that officers should not have to worry about losing money if they take their
    families on a 1- week vacation. On the other hand, other Customs and NTEU
    field representatives we interviewed said that they supported section 123
    (a) because it is not appropriate to pay officers night differential pay
    when they are on leave.

    The Commissioner of Customs also opposed section 123 (b), for the same
    reason as stated above. The NTEU national president opposed section 123 (b)
    as well, because of her belief that this provision would negatively impact
    paychecks and morale among Customs officers nationwide. In her letter to us,
    she commented that at present, night shifts are popular and sought after by
    senior officers because the entire shift is paid at a premium rate. She
    stated that most of these senior officers would not bid for those shifts if
    the premium were drastically reduced. Rather, they would bid for the day
    shift, and the less senior, new recruits would be “forced” to
    work the night shifts.

    Similarly, at the field level, all but one of the Customs officers, all five
    NTEU chapter presidents, several supervisors, and one acting port director
    we interviewed also opposed section 123 (b). Many of them shared the NTEU
    national president's reasons for opposing section 123 (b). However, other
    Customs field managers and supervisors we interviewed supported this
    provision. One CMC director said that the current law is not fair because
    hours worked before 6: 00 p. m. are not inconvenient to Customs officers and
    therefore they should not receive night differential pay. In addition, one
    port director commented that officers who earn premium pay would not be
    severely impacted by this provision. He said that they could work more
    overtime to make up the difference in pay lost due to changes in the premium
    pay policy.

    Regardless of whether they expressed support or opposition, many of the
    Customs and NTEU officials and officers we interviewed commented that
    section 123 (b), in particular, would have a significantly adverse effect on
    morale and would cause problems in staffing their ports' night shifts
    because it would greatly decrease officers' night differential pay. Some of
    these believed there would be fewer volunteers for the shifts, and managers
    would then have to “force” officers to work them.

    Concerning section 121, which would eliminate premium pay, including night
    differential pay, from the $30,000 fiscal year overtime and premium pay cap,
    NTEU's national president offered qualified support for the provision
    “on its own,” not as a trade- off for enacting the other two
    night

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    differential pay provisions. NTEU also commented that, currently, only a
    small percentage of officers reach the $30, 000 annual pay cap, and only
    those would benefit from this provision. The Commissioner of Customs' May
    25, 1999, letter to the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Ways and
    Means did not address section 121, and Customs headquarters' officials were
    reluctant to provide us with their views on this and other sections of H. R.
    1833.

    In commenting on this report, Customs said that OMB is the appropriate
    agency to issue statements of the administration's position on legislative
    matters. In this regard, OMB issued a Statement of Administration Policy on
    May 25, 1999, on H. R. 1833 that, among other things, opposed certain
    provisions of H. R. 1833 that would amend the annual cap on overtime for
    Customs officers, (i. e., section 121). It stated that

    “These provisions should be considered in the context of achieving
    overall consistency in pay, including overtime and its treatment for
    retirement purposes, between the Customs Service and similarly situated
    Federal inspection agencies.”

    At the field level, the Customs and NTEU representatives we interviewed had
    a variety of views on section 121. They generally supported this provision
    because it would allow officers to earn more overtime by not counting
    premium pay against the fiscal year cap and would allow managers to more
    easily track and monitor officers' overtime earnings exclusively, as they
    approach the cap. Conversely, a reason given by two inspectors and one NTEU
    chapter president for opposing this provision was that it would primarily
    benefit supervisors, the only ones that they believed come close to earning
    the $30, 000 annually in overtime and premium pay.

    We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the
    Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs. We also requested comments from
    NTEU on a section of the draft report pertaining to information NTEU
    officials provided to us.

    On January 9, 2001, Customs provided written comments on the draft report
    (see app. VIII). Customs said that any concerns that it may have had
    regarding the audit were addressed through discussions with the audit team.
    Customs also said that its reluctance to officially comment on provisions in
    H. R. 1833, as noted in our report, is consistent with administration
    policy, which holds that OMB is the appropriate executive Agency Comments

    and Our Evaluation

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    branch entity to issue statements of the administration's position on
    legislative matters.

    While Customs identified OMB as the appropriate agency for providing
    comments on legislative matters, Customs has commented on H. R. 1833, but
    not directly to us. Instead, as noted in our report, Customs headquarters'
    officials gave us a copy of a letter dated May 25, 1999, from the
    Commissioner to the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means
    that addresses Customs positions on H. R. 1833. In that letter, as we stated
    earlier in the report, the Commissioner said that Customs is opposed to
    section 123, but did not address section 121. On May 25, 1999, OMB issued a
    Statement of Administration Policy that stated, in effect, that the
    administration opposed section 121 because it believed this section should
    be considered in the context of achieving overall consistency in pay between
    Customs and other similarly situated inspection service agencies.

    On January 16, 2001, the Department of the Treasury provided written
    comments on our draft report (see app. VII). The Department said it was in
    agreement with the comments submitted to us by the U. S. Customs Service.

    On January 10, 2001, NTEU's Director of Legislation informed us that NTEU
    had no comments on the draft report section dealing with views on the
    proposed legislative changes that we asked NTEU to review.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no additional distribution of this report until 30 days
    from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
    CoChairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; the
    Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance; the Chairman
    and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means; the
    Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, House Ways and Means Subcommittee
    on Trade; the Secretary of the Treasury; and the Commissioner of Customs. We
    will make copies available to others upon request.

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    The key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix X. If you
    or your staff have any questions, please contact Darryl Dutton on (213) 830-
    1000 or me on (202) 512- 8777.

    Sincerely yours, Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    We were requested to review selected aspects of the U. S. Customs Service
    officers' premium pay and determine how night differential pay, in
    particular, would be affected by proposed legislation introduced in the
    106th Congress. Specifically, we had three objectives: (1) compare current
    law to proposed legislative changes in H. R. 1833 dealing with Customs
    officers' pay, (2) determine the extent to which Customs officers' pay would
    increase or decrease if proposed changes were enacted, and (3) obtain
    Customs and the National Treasury Employees Union's (NTEU) views on the
    proposed changes. Our review focused primarily on analyzing the effects of
    sections 123 (a) and (b) of subtitle C of H. R. 1833 dealing with night
    differential pay. In addition to our analysis, we obtained views on sections
    123 (a) and (b) and section 121, a related section dealing with Customs
    officers' annual overtime and premium pay cap. We also compared these
    sections in H. R. 1833 to current law.

    Our review included the following sections of subtitle C of H. R. 1833:

    ? section 123 (a), which would prohibit Customs from paying night
    differential pay to officers when they take annual, sick, or other leave and
    do not actually work those premium pay hours;

    ? section 123 (b), which would reduce the number of available hours in a day
    for which night differential pay could be earned; and

    ? section 121, which would remove premium pay, including night differential
    pay, from the calculation of the $30, 000 fiscal year overtime and premium
    pay cap.

    To address our first objective, we reviewed current law, Customs
    regulations, and relevant arbitration decisions pertaining to Customs
    officers' premium pay. We also reviewed proposed changes to Customs
    officers' premium pay in subtitle C of H. R. 1833, the legislative history
    of the proposed changes, and Congressional Research Service reports on H. R.
    1833. We then compared the current law to the proposed changes in H. R. 1833
    to identify the differences and evaluate how the changes would potentially
    affect Customs officers' night differential pay.

    To address our second objective, we analyzed the fiscal year 1999 Customs
    Overtime and Scheduling System (COSS) database, which contains detailed
    information on officers' premium pay, including night differential pay. As
    discussed below, we analyzed information on officers' night differential pay
    earnings for fiscal year 1999, focusing our analysis to a limited extent on
    national data and then more specifically on five judgmentally selected
    Customs ports of entry. We calculated actual night differential earnings for
    fiscal year 1999 and then what the officers' night Appendix I: Objectives,
    Scope, and

    Methodology

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    differential earnings would have been if sections 123 (a) and (b) of H. R.
    1833 had been in effect during the year.

    To address our third objective, we obtained comments from the Commissioner
    of Customs and the national president of the National Treasury Employees
    Union (NTEU) and interviewed Customs managers, supervisors, and officers,
    and NTEU chapter presidents at five selected ports. More specific
    information on how we obtained views on pay provisions in H. R. 1833 is
    discussed below.

    To determine the extent to which Customs officers' pay would increase or
    decrease if provisions in H. R. 1833 affecting night differential pay were
    enacted, we analyzed all COSS data on regular shifts worked in fiscal year
    1999 nationally and then at five selected ports. COSS was designed to record
    information about each Customs officer's daily work, including the date the
    work was performed, the start and stop time, and the type of pay that was
    earned (regular, night differential, annual leave, etc.), which is indicated
    by a transaction code. With this information, we were able to determine the
    amount of night differential pay officers earned in fiscal year 1999, the
    amount they would have made if each of the relevant provisions of H. R. 1833
    were in effect, and the resulting increase or decrease.

    While COSS includes pay information on Customs officers and other employees,
    we limited the analysis to officers- Customs inspectors and canine
    enforcement officers- because the proposed legislative changes only applied
    to them. There are 332 unique port codes in the COSS data system, though
    some of them are office sites (such as headquarters) and subports (such as
    courier facilities), which are not actual ports. According to COSS, 106
    ports paid out no night differential pay in fiscal year 1999, and an
    additional 5 ports paid out less than $1,000 total for the fiscal year. Only
    112 ports paid out over $10,000 in total night differential pay. The amounts
    of differential paid at each port ranged from zero to $1,758,696, with an
    average of $59,782 and a median of $9,565. In total, according to COSS,
    6,510 Customs officers received about $13.5 million in night differential
    pay in fiscal year 1999. Table 9 shows the top 100 ports and the amount of
    night differential pay officers at these ports received in fiscal year 1999.
    Analysis of Proposed

    Changes on Customs Officers' Night Differential Pay

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 9: Amount of Night Differential Paid at Top 100 Ports Nationwide for
    Fiscal Year 1999

    Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

    1 JFK, NY $1,758,696.26 2 El Paso, TX 668,615.99 3 Laredo, TX 607,634.21 4
    Miami Intl Airport, FL 556,449.28 5 LAX, CA 501,388.46 6 San Ysidro, CA
    498,404.40 7 Buffalo- Niagara Falls, NY 495,105.89 8 Detroit, MI 485,413.77
    9 Newark, NJ 414,345.83 10 Chicago, IL 408,715.54 11 Brownsville, TX
    388,344.94 12 Calexico, CA 381,418.88 13 Hidalgo, TX 271,078.47 14 Nogales,
    AZ 252,504.71 15 Dallas/ Ft. Worth, TX 207,070.40 16 Port Huron, MI
    198,648.55 17 Champlain- Rouses Point, NY 190,462.49 18 Logan Airport, MA
    190,356.06 19 Atlanta, GA 169,368.91 20 Eagle Pass, TX 162,403.37 21 Blaine,
    WA 158,564.54 22 San Luis, AZ 154,365.34 23 San Francisco, CA 140,398.72 24
    San Diego, CA 127,562.84 25 Del Rio, TX 126,537.35 26 Philadelphia, PA
    125,827.40 27 Houston Intercontl, TX 123,670.30 28 Intl Airport, PR
    106,923.42 29 Highgate Springs/ Alburg, VT 106,331.35 30 Washington, DC
    104,237.16 31 Douglas, AZ 103,922.56 32 San Juan, PR 96,528.62 33 Orlando,
    FL 95,204.47 34 Roma, TX 88,101.13 35 Long Beach, CA 84,368.12 36 Derby
    Line, VT 82,640.66 37 Honolulu Intl Airport, HI 81,591.81 38 Presidio, TX
    78,895.20 39 Port Everglades, FL 77,608.81 40 Memphis, TN 77,423.64 41
    Pembina, ND 77,195.75

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

    42 Progreso, TX 74,399.25 43 Otay Mesa, CA 68,353.32 44 UPS Courier, KY
    65,875.22 45 Alexandria Bay, NY 60,808.76 46 Cincinnati, OH 59,108.45 47
    Sault Ste. Marie, MI 58,838.08 48 Houston, TX 55,716.36 49 Emery Courier, OH
    55,228.50 50 Houlton, ME 54,704.12 51 Sumas, WA 54,368.39 52 Federal Express
    Courier, TN 53,732.50 53 Columbus, NM 52,941.35 54 Federal Express Eccf, NJ
    50,991.89 55 Trout River, NY 50,901.53 56 Richford, VT 47,715.62 57 Fabens,
    TX 45,376.84 58 Toronto, Canada 43,905.63 59 Naco, AZ 43,290.93 60
    International Falls, MN 42,096.40 61 Calais, ME 41,605.21 62 Massena, NY
    36,077.46 63 Vancouver B. C. Preclear 35,454.94 64 Andrade, CA 35,386.73 65
    Nassau, Bahama Islands 33,716.44 66 Rio Grande City, TX 32,932.33 67
    Baltimore, MD 32,577.74 68 Tecate, CA 32,345.50 69 Sweetgrass, MT 32,214.23
    70 UPS, NJ 30,499.87 71 Oroville, WA 30,104.97 72 Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN
    29,775.04 73 Montreal, Canada 29,372.55 74 Beecher Falls, VT 28,213.76 75
    Jackman, ME 27,235.80 76 Roosville, MT 26,862.65 77 West Palm Beach, FL
    26,207.09 78 Federal Express Hub, IN 25,163.82 79 Denver, CO 24,894.44 80
    Norton, VT 24,178.17 81 Portal, ND 23,930.65 82 Santa Teresa, NM 23,294.88
    83 Raymond, MT 22,955.42 84 San Antonio, TX 22,851.35 85 Ogdensburg, NY
    22,225.24

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

    86 Warroad, MN 22,166.72 87 Eastport, ID 22,087.35 88 Freeport, Bahama
    Islands 21,642.04 89 Fort Kent, ME 20,507.86 90 Van Buren, ME 20,359.94 91
    Dunseith, ND 19,418.86 92 Madawaska, ME 18,779.70 93 Fort Fairfield, ME
    18,519.97 94 Baudette, MN 18,327.51 95 Airborne Hub, OH 17,734.90 96 Grand
    Portage, MN 17,675.46 97 Burlington Air Express, OH 17,368.51 98 Phoenix, AZ
    15,849.96 99 Lukeville, AZ 15,746.86 100 Lynden, WA 15,511.25

    Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.

    We were also able to identify the shifts that account for the highest
    amounts of night differential pay nationally and how the amount of night
    differential pay for these shifts would be different if the proposed
    legislation had been in effect. The six shifts shown in table 10 below
    account for $11,041,983 in night differential, 82 percent of the total
    $13,510,798 paid to Customs officers nationally in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 10: Total and Average per Officer Amount of Night Differential Pay
    Under Current Law and Under H. R. 1833 Sections 123 (a) and (b) for the Six
    Top “Differential Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Total Average per shift, per officer Shift hours Current law

    (actual) Proposed (estimate) Difference

    (decrease) Current law (actual) Proposed

    (estimate) Difference (decrease)

    4 p. m. to 12 a. m. $4,087,828.20 $2,584,187.84 $1,503,640.36 $22.25 $16.56
    $5.69 1 p. m. to 9 p. m. 2,059,028. 66 643,685.56 1,415,343. 10 23.87 8.89
    14.98 12 a. m. to 8 a. m. a 1,956,775. 40 1, 706,846. 00 249,929.40 29.80
    29.69 0.11 12 p. m. to 8 p. m. 1,310,973. 52 276,381.35 1,034,592. 17 23.18
    5.76 17.42 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. 972,762.30 410,871.70 561,890.60 22.66 11.27
    11.39 3 p. m. to 11 p. m. 654,615.14 346,832.62 307,782.52 22.69 14.07 8.62

    a This shift, 12 a. m. (midnight) until 8 a. m., is preserved in H. R. 1833
    so that officers working this shift would continue to earn 8 hours of night
    differential. Therefore, any reduction because of the proposed legislation
    is attributable to section 123 (a) eliminating payment of night differential
    while officers are on leave.

    Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    To understand the effect of the proposed changes on Customs officers, we
    chose five ports as case studies for the specific analyses based on the
    number of air and land passengers processed: JFK, LAX, and Miami
    International Airport because they are three of the largest airports in the
    country; Baltimore- Washington International Airport and Seaport because it
    represents a medium- sized port; and San Ysidro because it is the largest
    land border crossing.

    We were able to extract information about how Customs officers were paid
    using transaction codes provided in COSS that indicate what kind of pay was
    given for that shift. If an officer worked a shift and was paid night
    differential for it, the transaction code would be different from another
    shift where, for example, the officer was on annual leave and received night
    differential pay.

    Using these transaction codes, we calculated the amount of night
    differential pay received for every shift that received it. Then, we
    estimated the amount of night differential pay that would have been received
    for these same shifts had sections 123 (a) or (b) of H. R. 1833 (or both)
    been in effect in fiscal year 1999, and we calculated the difference between
    them. These differences were totaled for all the officers at each port and
    aggregated by officer to determine how much each officer would have gained
    or lost over the entire fiscal year.

    Further, since night differential pay is given for certain shifts and the
    proposed legislation changes the rules for which shifts qualify to receive
    night differential pay, we also aggregated the existing night differential
    pay amounts and proposed night differential amounts by shift, to understand
    which shifts would be most affected by the proposed changes. A full
    discussion of the results of these analyses at each of the five ports can be
    found in appendixes II- VI.

    We determined how much increased or decreased night differential pay Customs
    officers would have received if section 123 (a) alone was in effect, if
    section 123 (b) alone was in effect, and if both sections were in effect. It
    is important to note, here, that the effect of these sections together is
    not just the sum of the effect of each section. For example, under current
    law, if an officer worked a regularly scheduled shift from 1 p. m. to 9 p.
    m., the officer would receive 8 hours of night differential pay for days on
    leave. If section 123 (a) alone was in effect, the officer would receive no
    night differential pay when taking leave, thus losing 8 hours of night
    differential pay on each leave day. However, if section 123 (b) alone was in
    effect, the officer on a leave day would receive 3 hours of night

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    differential pay for the hours between 6 p. m. and 9 p. m., losing 5 hours
    of night differential pay. In summary, under section 123 (a) alone, the
    officer would lose 8 hours of night differential pay on leave days. Under
    section 123 (b) alone the officer would lose 5 hours of night differential
    pay on leave days. However, if both sections (a) and (b) were in effect, the
    officer would only lose 8 hours of night differential pay while on leave,
    not 13 hours. Section 123 (b) would not have an effect on leave days if
    section 123 (a) was in effect. Therefore, the sum of the effects of each
    section alone may be larger than the effect of both sections being in
    effect.

    To assess the general reliability of COSS, we reviewed the data for shifts
    that officers worked and the amount of night differential pay they earned.
    With few exceptions, the start and stop times and the amount of night
    differential pay earned were consistent with existing requirements. 12 We
    also obtained information from Customs about COSS internal controls and data
    reliability. On the basis of responses to a list of our questions about data
    reliability, Customs seems to have a number of steps and quality control
    procedures in place to ensure the reliability of COSS data.

    Finally, while patterns of hours worked in future years may change, and our
    five selected ports are not representative of all ports, our analysis is an
    indicator of the changes that could occur in pay if provisions such as 123
    (a) and (b) were enacted. However, if scheduling patterns at the ports
    changed or if the proposed legislation would change the way ports scheduled
    shifts, the effects could be very different from the data presented here.

    12 In the detailed port analyses, we excluded some records because there
    appeared to be inconsistencies in the records. For example, COSS data for
    JFK showed several shifts that appeared qualified to receive night
    differential pay, but according to the transaction code, were not paid the
    differential. Customs officials familiar with COSS explained that these
    employees may have been part time, and part- time officers do not receive
    night differential pay. Further, some of the excluded records were shifts
    that received night differential pay, but were not within the hours subject
    to night differential pay. For example, there were 11 such records excluded
    from our analysis of Miami International Airport. These excluded records
    accounted for less than 1 percent of the total records, and we excluded them
    to avoid overestimating or underestimating the losses by officers.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Customs headquarters' officials were reluctant to provide written comments
    on the premium pay provisions in H. R. 1833, including those pertaining to
    night differential pay, apparently in view of the sensitivity of the
    subject. In lieu of written comments, they directed us to a May 25, 1999,
    letter from the Commissioner to the Ranking Member of the House Ways and
    Means Committee, which addressed Customs position on section 123 of H. R.
    1833, but did not address section 121. We asked for and obtained written
    comments from the national president of NTEU about the proposed pay
    provisions in H. R. 1833. In addition, we interviewed officials from the
    Department of the Treasury, Office of Enforcement; Customs headquarters'
    officials; and NTEU headquarters' officials.

    At the field level, we interviewed 54 Customs and NTEU representatives that
    included 5 Customs Management Center (CMC) officials, 5 port directors, and
    5 NTEU chapter presidents to obtain their views on the proposed pay
    provisions. At the five ports, we also interviewed 17 supervisory officers
    who were selected by their port's management and 22 officers who were
    selected by their NTEU chapter presidents. The results from our limited
    interviewing at the five selected ports reflect only the views of the
    Customs and NTEU officials and selected supervisors and officers we
    interviewed at the CMCs and ports we visited. Therefore, these field results
    cannot be generalized to Customs nationwide.

    We conducted our work from March 2000 through November 2000 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. Customs provided
    comments on a draft of this report, which are summarized at the end of the
    letter and reproduced in appendix VIII. Determining Customs

    and NTEU's Views on Proposed Changes in Officers' Pay

    Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at JFK

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Of the five ports we used for analysis, Customs officers at JFK would have
    been the most affected by the changes in the proposed legislation. According
    to COSS, 679 Customs officers were on the payroll at JFK sometime during
    fiscal year 1999. Of these, 464 officers (68 percent) received a total of
    $1,742,224 in night differential pay. Table 11 shows that 181 of the 464
    officers (39 percent) earned a total of over $5,000 in night differential
    pay during the fiscal year.

    Table 11: Night Differential Pay at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 Amount
    received Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 76 16 $501 to $1, 000 23 5 $1,001 to $2,000 58 13 $2,001 to
    $3,000 28 6 $3,001 to $4,000 38 8 $4,001 to $5,000 60 13 Over $5,000 181 39

    Total 464 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from
    paying premium pay, including night differential pay to officers when they
    take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium pay
    hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 428 of the
    464 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would
    have made less night differential (see table 12), with most of the officers'
    pay reduced by over $500. If section 123 (a) only were in effect in fiscal
    year 1999, JFK Customs officers would have received $1,436,636 in night
    differential pay, $305,588 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 12: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been
    in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 167 39 $501 to $1, 000 143 33 $1,001 to $2,000 110 26 $2,001 to
    $3,000 7 2 $3,001 to $4,000 1 <1

    Total 428 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at JFK

    Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at JFK

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for
    which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the time
    period in which officers were eligible to earn night differential pay and
    eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had
    been in effect in fiscal year 1999, all 464 officers that earned night
    differential at JFK would have received less night differential pay overall
    (see table 13). While 35 percent of these officers would have had a $1,000
    or less overall reduction in night differential pay, most officers' pay
    would have been reduced by over $1, 000. If only section 123 (b) had been in
    effect, these officers would have earned an estimated total of $896,433 in
    night differential pay, $845,791 less than they received in fiscal year
    1999.

    Table 13: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been
    in Effect at JKF During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 110 24 $501 to $1, 000 50 11 $1,001 to $2,000 103 22 $2,001 to
    $3,000 103 22 $3,001 to $4,000 65 14 $4,001 to $5,000 31 7 Over $5,000 2 <1

    Total 464 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999,
    all 464 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of those
    464 officers, 326 (70 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 14
    below, would have received decreased night differential pay of more than
    $1,000 over the entire fiscal year. Overall, the officers would have earned
    a total of $739,960 in night differential pay, a reduction of $1,002,264
    from the actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the
    reduction would have come from the top four “night” 13 shifts
    regularly scheduled at JFK.

    13 The term “night” shifts as used in this report refers to any
    shifts qualifying for night differential pay.

    Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at JFK

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 14: Decreased Night Differential Pay and Amounts of Decreased Pay If
    Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 97 21 $501 to $1, 000 41 9 $1,001 to $2,000 87 19 $2,001 to
    $3,000 91 20 $3,001 to $4,000 83 18 $4,001 to $5,000 48 10 Over $5,000 17 4

    Total 464 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 15 shows how much of the decreased pay is accounted for by each of the
    shifts and, on average, the decrease in night differential pay per shift.
    The reduction of night differential pay for the 1 p. m.- to- 9 p. m. shift
    accounts for 76 percent of the total reduction in night differential at JFK.

    Table 15: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Four Night Shifts at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (decrease)

    1 p. m.- 9 p. m. 452 $1,102,641.89 $339,382.37 $763,259.52 $24.11 $7.42
    $16.69 3 p. m.- 11 p. m. 20 40,532.35 21,331.05 19,201.30 21.39 11.26 10.13
    4 p. m.- 12 a. m. 342 497,700.91 311,971.81 185,729.10 24.06 15.08 8.98 10
    p. m.- 6 a. m. 88 49,726.52 39,054.22 10,672.30 17.66 13.87 3.79

    Note: The fifth most common night shift at JFK is the 12 a. m.- to- 8 a. m.
    shift. The night differential earned for this shift is preserved in the
    legislation, however, so there is no change in night differential earned for
    this shift except when officers are on leave.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential
    Pay at LAX

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    According to COSS, 423 Customs officers were on the payroll at LAX sometime
    during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 238 officers (56 percent) earned $489,816
    in night differential pay. As shown in the shaded areas in table 16 below,
    95 (40 percent) of the 238 officers earned $1,000 or less in night
    differential pay over the fiscal year, and 11 percent earned over $5,000.

    Table 16: Night Differential Pay at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 Amount
    received Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 74 31 $501 to $1, 000 21 9 $1,001 to $2,000 43 18 $2,001 to
    $3,000 38 16 $3,001 to $4,000 18 8 $4,001 to $5,000 17 7 Over $5,000 27 11

    Total 238 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from
    paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they
    take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium pay
    hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 198 of the
    238 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would
    have made less night differential pay (see table 17). Two- thirds (67
    percent) of these officers would have received up to $500 less. If section
    123 (a) only were in effect in fiscal year 1999, LAX Customs officers would
    have received $406,410 in night differential pay, $83, 406 less than they
    received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 17: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been
    in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 132 67 $501 to $1, 000 46 23 $1,001 to $2,000 20 10

    Total 198 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential
    Pay at LAX

    Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential
    Pay at LAX

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for
    which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the time
    period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and
    eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had
    been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 237 of the 238 officers that earned
    night differential pay at LAX would have received less night differential
    pay. In addition, 10 officers would have ended the fiscal year with small
    net gains in night differential pay. Of these 237 officers, 162 (69
    percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 18, would have had a $1,000
    or less overall reduction in night differential pay. If only section 123 (b)
    was in effect, the officers would have made $302,880 in night differential
    pay, $186,936 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 18: Decreased Night Differential Pay if Section 123 (b) Only Had Been
    in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 113 48 $501 to $1, 000 49 21 $1,001 to $2,000 56 24 $2,001 to
    $3,000 12 5 $3,001 to $4,000 5 2 $4,001 to $5,000 1 <1 Over $5,000 1 <1

    Total 237 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999,
    237 of the 238 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of
    those 237 officers, 97 (41 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table
    19, would have received decreased night differential pay of more than $1,000
    over the entire fiscal year. Ten officers would have had a total net gain of
    $221 in night differential pay for the entire fiscal year. Overall, the
    officers would have earned a total of $252,097 in night differential pay, a
    reduction of $237,720 from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999.
    Most of the reductions would have come from five night 14 shifts regularly
    scheduled at LAX. Table 20 shows how much of the difference is accounted for
    by each of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night differential
    pay per

    14 The term night shifts as used in this report refers to any shifts
    qualifying for night differential pay.

    Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential
    Pay at LAX

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    shift. Likewise, table 21 shows which shifts account for a gain in night
    differential pay.

    Table 19: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b)
    Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 99 42 $501 to $1, 000 41 17 $1,001 to $2,000 63 27 $2,001 to
    $3,000 19 8 $3,001 to $4,000 11 5 $4,001 to $5,000 3 1 Over $5,000 1 <1

    Total 237 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 20: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Five Night Shifts at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (decrease)

    Noon- 8 p. m. 105 $48,616.70 $10,263.12 $38,353.58 $23.88 $5.04 $18.84 Noon-
    10 p. m. 26 47,271.24 15,636.92 31,634.32 27.81 9.20 18.61 1 p. m.- 9 p. m.
    137 37,340.68 12,284.68 25,056.00 24.50 8.06 16.44 3 p. m.- 11 p. m. 89
    89,351.23 46,091.52 43,259.71 23.20 11.97 11.23 4 p. m.- 12 a. m. 159
    190,162.30 118,679.29 71,483.01 23.72 14.81 8.91

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 21: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Early Morning Shifts at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (increase) Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (increase)

    5 a. m.- 1 p. m. 42 0 $999.58 $999.58 0 $3.98 $3.98 5: 30 a. m.- 1: 30 p. m.
    9 0 173.24 173.24 0 1. 90 1. 90

    Note: These gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While
    at least 42 officers worked these shifts at some time in fiscal year 1999,
    only 10 officers would have ended the fiscal year with a net gain in night
    differential pay.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Miami International Airport

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    According to COSS, 537 Customs officers were on the payroll at Miami
    International Airport during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 391 officers (73
    percent) earned a total of $553,856 in night differential pay. As shown in
    the shaded areas in table 22 below, nearly half (181) of these officers
    earned $1,000 or less in night differential pay over the fiscal year.

    Table 22: Night Differential Pay at Miami International Airport During
    Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 112 29 $501 to $1, 000 69 18 $1,001 to $2,000 94 24 $2,001 to
    $3,000 73 19 $3,001 to $4,000 27 7 $4,001 to $5,000 10 3 Over $5,000 6 2

    Total 391 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from
    paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they
    take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium pay
    hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 348 of the
    391 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would
    have earned less night differential pay (see table 23). Eighty- six percent
    of the officers would have received up to $500 or less. If section 123 (a)
    only had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, Miami Customs officers would
    have received a total of $458,675 in night differential pay, $95,182 less
    than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 23: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been
    in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 301 86 $501 to $1, 000 39 11 $1,001 to $2,000 8 2

    Total 348 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Miami International Airport

    Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Miami International Airport

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for
    which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the time
    period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and
    eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had
    been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 355 of the 391 officers that earned
    night differential pay at Miami International Airport in fiscal year 1999
    would have received less night differential pay. Sixty- nine officers would
    have ended the fiscal year with a net gain in night differential pay. Of
    these 355 officers (84 percent), as shown in the shaded areas of table 24
    below, would have had $1,000 or less overall reduction in night differential
    pay. If only section 123 (b) had been in effect, Miami Customs officers
    would have received a total of $383,072 in night differential pay, or
    $170,784 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 24: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been
    in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 225 63 $501 to $1, 000 73 21 $1,001 to $2,000 48 14 $2,001 to
    $3,000 8 2 $3,001 to $4,000 1 <1

    Total 355 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999,
    363 of the 391 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of
    those 363 officers, 88 (24 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table
    25 below, would have received decreased night differential pay of more than
    $1,000 over the entire fiscal year. Further, if both sections had been in
    effect, 61 officers would have gained a total of $5,900 in night
    differential pay for the entire fiscal year. Overall, Miami Customs officers
    would have earned a total of $320,776 in night differential pay, a reduction
    of $233,080 from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the
    reductions would have come from the top four night 15 shifts regularly
    scheduled at Miami International Airport. Table 26 shows how much of the
    difference is

    15 The term night shifts as used in this report refers to any shifts
    qualifying for night differential pay.

    Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at Miami International Airport

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    accounted for by each of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night
    differential pay per shift. Likewise, table 27 shows which shifts account
    for a gain in night differential pay.

    Table 25: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b)
    Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 186 51 $501 to $1, 000 89 25 $1,001 to $2,000 74 20 $2,001 to
    $3,000 12 3 $3,001 to $4,000 2 <1

    Total 363 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 26: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Four Night Shifts at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (decrease)

    12 p. m.- 8 p. m. 83 $30,138.32 $6,386.15 $23,752.17 $23.47 $4.97 $18.50 1
    p. m.- 9 p. m. 126 116,471.53 35,752.45 80,719.08 22.65 6.95 15.70 2 p. m.-
    10 p. m. 84 51,143.17 20,982.74 30,160.43 24.85 10.20 14.65 4 p. m.- 12 a.
    m. 253 210,987.93 133,874.83 77,113.10 20.63 13.09 7.54

    Note: The fifth most common night shift is the 12 a. m.- to- 8 a. m. shift.
    The night differential earned for this shift is preserved in the proposed
    legislation, however, so there is no change in night differential earned for
    this shift except when officers are on leave.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 27: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    the Early Morning Shift at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (increase) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (increase)

    4 a. m.- 12 p. m. 125 0 $16,359.80 $16,359.80 0 $7.44 $7.44 Note: These
    gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While 125 officers
    worked this shift sometime in fiscal year 1999, only 61 officers would have
    ended the fiscal year with a net gain in night differential pay if sections
    123 (a) and (b) of H. R. 1833 had been in effect.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and Seaport

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    According to COSS, 62 Customs officers were on the payroll at the Baltimore
    port sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 53 officers (85 percent)
    earned $32,412 in night differential pay. As shown in table 28 below, 41 (77
    percent) of the 53 officers earned $500 or less in night differential pay
    over the fiscal year, but none earned over $5,000.

    Table 28: Night Differential Pay at Baltimore- Washington International
    Airport and Seaport During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 41 77 $501 to $1, 000 3 6 $1,001 to $2,000 3 6 $2,001 to $3,000 4
    8 $3,001 to $4,000 1 2 $4,001 to $5,000 1 2

    Total 53 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from
    paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they
    take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium pay
    hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 38 of the 53
    officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would have
    made less night differential pay (see table 29). Officers would have
    received a total of $27,769 in night differential pay, $4,643 less than the
    actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 29: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been
    in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 36 95 $501 to $1, 000 1 3 $1,001 to $2,000 1 3

    Total 38 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for
    which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the time
    period that is eligible for premium pay and eliminating the majority of
    Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on

    Officers' Night Differential Pay at BaltimoreWashington International
    Airport and Seaport

    Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and Seaport

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had been in effect in fiscal year
    1999, all 53 officers that earned night differential pay in fiscal year 1999
    would have received less night differential pay (see table 30). One
    additional officer would have gained night differential pay. Most of these
    officers (83 percent) would have a $500 or less overall reduction in night
    differential pay. If only section 123 (b) were in effect, these officers
    would have made a total of $16,923 in night differential pay, $15,489 less
    than the actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 30: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been
    in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 44 83 $501 to $1, 000 3 6 $1,001 to $2,000 6 11

    Total 53 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999,
    all 53 officers would have received less night differential pay, while one
    officer would have gained a small amount (a net total of $4.21). Of those 53
    officers, 44 (83 percent), as shown in table 31, would have received
    decreased night differential pay of $500 or less over the entire fiscal
    year. Overall, the officers would have earned a total of $14,488 in night
    differential pay, a reduction of $17,924 from the amounts they received in
    fiscal year 1999. Most of the reductions would have come from the top three
    night shifts 16 regularly scheduled at Baltimore- Washington International
    Airport. Table 32 shows how much of the difference is accounted for by each
    of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night differential pay per
    shift.

    16 The term night shifts as used in this report refers to any shifts
    qualifying for night differential.

    Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and Seaport

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 31: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b)
    Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 44 83 $501 to $1, 000 3 6 $1,001 to $2,000 5 9 $2,001 to $3,000 1
    2

    Total 53 100

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 32: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Three Night Shifts at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (decrease)

    1 p. m.- 9 p. m. 4 $1,592.33 $562.13 $1,030.20 $23.77 $8.39 $15.38 2 p. m.-
    10 p. m. 44 24,465.59 10,714.87 13,750.72 20.75 9.09 11.66 3 p. m.- 11 p. m.
    2 5, 218.13 2,605.35 2,612.78 23.40 11.68 11.72

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    According to COSS, 310 Customs officers were on the payroll at San Ysidro
    land border crossing sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 231
    officers (75 percent) earned $495,121 in night differential pay. As shown in
    the shaded areas in table 33, 93 (40 percent) of these officers earned
    $1,000 or less in night differential pay over the fiscal year, and 11
    percent earned over $5,000.

    Table 33: Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During
    Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 56 24 $501 to $1, 000 37 16 $1,001 to $2,000 45 19 $2,001 to
    $3,000 24 10 $3,001 to $4,000 25 11 $4,001 to $5,000 18 8 Over $5,000 26 11

    Total 231 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from
    paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they
    take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium pay
    hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 202 of the
    231 officers that received night differential in fiscal year 1999 would have
    made less night differential pay (see table 34). Over two- thirds of these
    officers (69 percent) would have received up to $500 less. If section 123
    (a) only were in effect in fiscal year 1999, San Ysidro Customs officers
    would have received $407,084 in night differential pay, $88, 037 less than
    they received in fiscal year 1999. Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes
    on

    Officers' Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

    Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 34: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been
    in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 140 69 $501 to $1, 000 36 18 $1,001 to $2,000 25 12 $3,001 to
    $4,000 1 <1

    Total 202 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for
    which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the time
    period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and
    eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had
    been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 212 of the 231 officers that earned
    night differential at San Ysidro would have received less night differential
    pay. In addition, 50 officers would have ended the fiscal year with net
    gains in night differential pay. Of these 212 officers, 156 (73 percent), as
    shown in the shaded areas in table 35, would have had a $1,000 or less
    overall reduction in night differential pay. If only section 123 (b) had
    been in effect, the officers would have made $350,023 in night differential
    pay, $145,098 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

    Table 35: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been
    in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 111 52 $501 to $1, 000 45 21 $1,001 to $2,000 39 18 $2,001 to
    $3,000 12 6 $3,001 to $4,000 3 1 $4,001 to $5,000 1 <1 Over $5,000 1 <1

    Total 212 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999,
    214 of the 231 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of
    those 214 officers, 87 (41 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table
    36 below, would have received decreased night differential of more than
    $1,000 over the entire fiscal year. Further, 50 officers would have gained a
    net total of $10,818 in night differential pay. Overall, the officers would
    have earned a total of $293,047 in night differential pay, a reduction of
    $202,073 from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the
    reduction would have come from the top five night 17 shifts regularly
    scheduled at the San Ysidro Land Border Crossing. Table 37 shows how much of
    the difference is accounted for by each of the shifts and, on average, the
    decrease in night differential pay per shift. Likewise, table 38 shows which
    shifts account for a gain in night differential.

    Table 36: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b)
    Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

    $1 to $500 93 43 $501 to $1, 000 34 16 $1,001 to $2,000 55 26 $2,001 to
    $3,000 22 10 $3,001 to $4,000 8 4 $4,001 to $5,000 1 <1 Over $5,000 1 <1

    Total 214 100 a

    a Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    17 The term night shifts as used in this report refers to any shifts
    qualifying for night differential pay.

    Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers' Night Differential Pay
    at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Table 37: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Top Five Night Shifts at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (decrease) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (decrease)

    12 a. m.- 9 a. m. 97 $109,986.56 $83,368.10 $26,618.46 $31.93 $24.20 $7.73
    1: 30 p. m.- 10: 30 p. m. 54 85,682.42 36,718.99 48,963.43 24.14 10.34 13.80
    2 p. m.- 10 p. m. 82 31,154.47 12,901.39 18,253.08 24.36 10.09 14.27 3 p.
    m.- 12 a. m. 114 111,168.29 63,143.98 48,024.31 23.50 13.35 10.15 4 p. m.-
    12 a. m. 110 40,851.96 26,199.27 14,652.69 24.22 15.53 8.69

    Note: One of the most common night shifts is the 12 a. m.- to- 8 a. m.
    shift. The night differential earned for this shift is preserved in the
    proposed legislation, however, so there is no change in night differential
    earned for this shift except when officers are on leave.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Table 38: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for
    Early Morning Shifts at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year
    1999

    Total night differential pay Average night differential pay per shift, per
    officer

    Shift hours No. of officers Current law (actual) H. R. 1833

    (estimate) Difference (increase) Current law

    (actual) H. R. 1833 (estimate) Difference

    (increase)

    5 a. m.- 1 p. m. 52 0 $2,765.62 $2,765.62 0 $3.71 $3.71 5 a. m.- 2 p. m. 56
    0 5, 014.51 5,014.51 0 3. 73 3. 73 5: 30 a. m.- 1: 30 p. m. 70 0 4, 249.35
    4,249.35 0 2. 04 2. 04 5: 30 a. m.- 2: 30 p. m. 66 0 5, 942.40 5,942.40 0 1.
    96 1. 96

    Note: These gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While
    at least 70 officers worked these shifts sometime in fiscal year 1999, only
    50 officers would have ended the fiscal year with a net gain in night
    differential pay.

    Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

    Appendix VII: Comments From the Department of the Treasury

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix VII: Comments From the Department of the Treasury

    Appendix VIII: Comments From the U. S. Customs Service

    Page 47 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix VIII: Comments From the U. S. Customs Service

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Page 48 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Page 49 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Page 50 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Page 51 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix IX: Comments on H. R. 1833 From the National Treasury Employees
    Union

    Page 52 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 53 GAO- 01- 304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers' Pay

    Laurie Ekstrand, (202) 512- 8777 Darryl Dutton (213) 830- 1000

    In addition to those named above, Samuel Caldrone, Wendy Simkalo, Kathleen
    Ebert, James Russell, Wendy Ahmed, David Alexander, Nancy Finley, and
    Katherine Raheb made key contributions to this report. Appendix X: GAO
    Contacts and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

    (264461)

    The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
    $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

    Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
    discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail:

    U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

    Orders by visiting:

    Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
    20013

    Orders by phone:

    (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
    will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

    Orders by Internet

    For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
    message with “info” in the body to:

    Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    Contact one:

    ? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

    ? E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

    ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
    *** End of document. ***