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. ***