```

[House Report 106-161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-161

======================================================================

 
 TRADE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS, DRUG FREE BORDERS, AND PREVENTION OF ON-
                   LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

  May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1833]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1833) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 
2000 and 2001 for the United States Customs Service for drug 
interdiction and other operations, for the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative, for the United States 
International Trade Commission, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Agency Authorizations, Drug Free 
Borders, and Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                 TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

  Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial 
                               Operations

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations for noncommercial operations, 
commercial operations, and air and marine interdiction.
Sec. 102. Illicit narcotics detection equipment for the United States-
Mexico border, United States-Canada border, and Florida and the Gulf 
Coast seaports.
Sec. 103. Peak hours and investigative resource enhancement for the 
United States-Mexico and United States-Canada borders.
Sec. 104. Compliance with performance plan requirements.

    Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service

Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations for program to prevent child 
pornography/child sexual exploitation.

                    Subtitle C--Personnel Provisions

 Chapter 1--Overtime And Premium Pay of Officers of the Customs Service

Sec. 121. Correction relating to fiscal year cap.
Sec. 122. Correction relating to overtime pay.
Sec. 123. Correction relating to premium pay.
Sec. 124. Use of savings from payment of overtime and premium pay for 
additional overtime enforcement activities of the Customs Service.
Sec. 125. Effective date.

                  Chapter 2--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 131. Study and report relating to personnel practices of the 
Customs Service.
Sec. 132. Pay of Commissioner of Customs.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

                 TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

  Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial 
                               Operations

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, 
                    COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, AND AIR AND MARINE 
                    INTERDICTION.

  (a) Noncommercial Operations.--Section 301(b)(1) of the Customs 
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)) 
is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
                  ``(A) $999,563,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
                  ``(B) $996,464,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
  (b) Commercial Operations.--
          (1) In general.--Section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Customs 
        Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
        2075(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
                  (A) in clause (i) to read as follows:
                  ``(i) $1,154,359,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
                  (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
                  ``(ii) $1,194,534,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
          (2) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, and not later than each subsequent 90-
        day period, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and 
        submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
        report demonstrating that the development and establishment of 
        the automated commercial environment computer system is being 
        carried out in a cost-effective manner and meets the 
        modernization requirements of title VI of the North American 
        Free Trade Agreements Implementation Act.
  (c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Section 301(b)(3) of the Customs 
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)) 
is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
                  ``(A) $109,413,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
                  ``(B) $113,789,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
  (d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 301(a) of the 
Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
2075(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(3) By no later than the date on which the President submits to the 
Congress the budget of the United States Government for a fiscal year, 
the Commissioner of Customs shall submit to the Committee on Ways and 
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
the Senate the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year 
that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs Service as 
provided for in subsection (b).''.

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

  (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal year 
2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by 
section 101(a) of this Act, $90,244,000 shall be available until 
expended for acquisition and other expenses associated with 
implementation and deployment of illicit narcotics detection equipment 
along the United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border, 
and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
          (1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
        Mexico border, the following:
                  (A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
                Systems (VACIS).
                  (B) $11,200,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with 
                transmission and backscatter imaging.
                  (C) $13,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck 
                x-rays from the present energy level of 450,000 
                electron volts to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
                  (D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
                  (E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors 
                (busters) to be distributed among ports where the 
                current allocations are inadequate.
                  (F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be 
                distributed among all southwest border ports based on 
                traffic volume.
                  (G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection 
                units to be distributed among all ports receiving 
                liquid-filled cargo and to ports with a hazardous 
                material inspection facility.
                  (H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
                  (I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be 
                distributed to those ports where port runners are a 
                threat.
                  (J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
                Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved 
                among ports as needed.
                  (K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance 
                camera systems at ports where there are suspicious 
                activities at loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary 
                inspection lanes, or areas where visual surveillance or 
                observation is obscured.
                  (L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be 
                distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of 
                outbound traffic.
                  (M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio 
                stations, with 1 station to be located at each border 
                crossing.
                  (N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be 
                installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
                  (O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter 
                the surveillance of customs inspection activities by 
                persons outside the boundaries of ports where such 
                surveillance activities are occurring.
                  (P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck 
                transponders to be distributed to all ports of entry.
                  (Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
                detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
                  (R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic 
                targeting software to be installed at each port to 
                target inbound vehicles.
          (2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
        Canada border, the following:
                  (A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
                Systems (VACIS).
                  (B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with 
                transmission and backscatter imaging.
                  (C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
                  (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors 
                (busters) to be distributed among ports where the 
                current allocations are inadequate.
                  (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
                distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
                  (F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
                Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved 
                among ports as needed.
                  (G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle 
                detectors to be distributed to each border crossing 
                based on traffic volume.
          (3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the 
        Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
                  (A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
                Systems (VACIS).
                  (B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with 
                transmission and backscatter imaging.
                  (C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
                  (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors 
                (busters) to be distributed among ports where the 
                current allocations are inadequate.
                  (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
                distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
  (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal year 
2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by 
section 101(a) of this Act, $8,924,500 shall be available until 
expended for the maintenance and support of the equipment and training 
of personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in 
subsection (a).
  (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; Transfer of 
Funds.--
          (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use amounts 
        made available for fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) 
        of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 
        (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this 
        Act, for the acquisition of equipment other than the equipment 
        described in subsection (a) if such other equipment--
                  (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
                described in subsection (a); and
                  (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost 
                that is the same or less than the equipment described 
                in subsection (a); or
                  (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the 
                equipment described in subsection (a).
          (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate an 
        amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
                  (A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
                through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment 
                specified in any other of such subparagraphs (A) 
                through (R);
                  (B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
                through (G) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment 
                specified in any other of such subparagraphs (A) 
                through (G); and
                  (C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
                through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment 
                specified in any other of such subparagraphs (A) 
                through (E).

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

  Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 under 
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs 
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
$127,644,584 for fiscal year 2000 and $184,110,928 for fiscal year 2001 
shall be available for the following:
          (1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents, and 
        10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico border 
        and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada border, in 
        order to open all primary lanes on such borders during peak 
        hours and enhance investigative resources.
          (2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement 
        officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as needed 
        to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and reduce 
        commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico border.
          (3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in southeast 
        Florida to process and screen cargo.
          (4) A net increase of 300 special agents, 30 intelligence 
        analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among 
        offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug or 
        narcotics distribution and transportation centers for 
        intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-
        laundering organizations.
          (5) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources 
        to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative 
        resources for anticorruption efforts.
          (6) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in 
        personnel hired pursuant to this section.

SEC. 104. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

  As part of the annual performance plan for each of the fiscal years 
2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set forth in the budget of 
the United States Customs Service, as required under section 1115 of 
title 31, United States Code, the Commissioner of the Customs Service 
shall establish performance goals, performance indicators, and comply 
with all other requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of 
subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the activities 
to be carried out pursuant to sections 111 and 112 of this Act.

    Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service

SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROGRAM TO PREVENT CHILD 
                    PORNOGRAPHY/CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Customs Service $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to 
carry out the program to prevent child pornography/child sexual 
exploitation established by the Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the 
Customs Service.
  (b) Use of Amounts for Child Pornography Cyber Tipline.--Of the 
amount appropriated under subsection (a), the Customs Service shall 
provide 3.75 percent of such amount to the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children for the operation of the child pornography cyber 
tipline of the Center and for increased public awareness of the 
tipline.

                    Subtitle C--Personnel Provisions

 CHAPTER 1--OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE

SEC. 121. CORRECTION RELATING TO FISCAL YEAR CAP.

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

SEC. 122. CORRECTION RELATING TO OVERTIME PAY.

  Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
267(a)(1)), is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
following new sentences: ``Overtime pay provided under this subsection 
shall not be paid to any customs officer unless such officer actually 
performed work during the time corresponding to such overtime pay. The 
preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the payment of an 
award or settlement to a customs officer who was unable to perform 
overtime work as a result of a personnel action in violation of section 
5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 6(d) of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, or title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''.

SEC. 123. CORRECTION RELATING TO PREMIUM PAY.

  (a) In General.--Section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 
U.S.C. 267(b)(4)), is amended by adding after the first sentence the 
following new sentences: ``Premium pay provided under this subsection 
shall not be paid to any customs officer unless such officer actually 
performed work during the time corresponding to such premium pay. The 
preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the payment of an 
award or settlement to a customs officer who was unable to perform work 
during the time described in the preceding sentence as a result of a 
personnel action in violation of section 5596 of title 5, United States 
Code, section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''.
  (b) Corrections Relating to Night Work Differential Pay.--Section 
5(b)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) is amended to read as 
follows:
          ``(1) Night work differential.--
                  ``(A) 6 p.m. to midnight.--If any hours of regularly 
                scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the 
                hours of 6 p.m. and 12 a.m., the officer is entitled to 
                pay for such hours of work (except for work to which 
                paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly 
                rate of basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 15 
                percent of that basic rate.
                  ``(B) Midnight to 6 a.m.--If any hours of regularly 
                scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the 
                hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m., the officer is entitled to 
                pay for such hours of work (except for work to which 
                paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly 
                rate of basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 20 
                percent of that basic rate.
                  ``(C) Midnight to 8 a.m.--If the regularly scheduled 
                work of a customs officer is 12 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., the 
                officer is entitled to pay for work during such period 
                (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) applies) 
                at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus premium 
                pay amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.''.

SEC. 124. USE OF SAVINGS FROM PAYMENT OF OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY FOR 
                    ADDITIONAL OVERTIME ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE 
                    CUSTOMS SERVICE.

  Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267), is 
amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
  ``(e) Use of Savings From Payment of Overtime and Premium Pay for 
Additional Overtime Enforcement Activities.--
          ``(1) Use of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999 and each 
        subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury--
                  ``(A) shall determine under paragraph (2) the amount 
                of savings from the payment of overtime and premium pay 
                to customs officers; and
                  ``(B) shall use an amount from the Customs User Fee 
                Account equal to such amount determined under paragraph 
                (2) for additional overtime enforcement activities of 
                the Customs Service.
          ``(2) Determination of savings amount.--For each fiscal year, 
        the Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to the difference 
        between--
                  ``(A) the estimated cost for overtime and premium pay 
                that would have been incurred during that fiscal year 
                if this section, as in effect on the day before the 
                date of the enactment of sections 122 and 123 of the 
                Trade Agency Authorization, Drug Free Borders, and 
                Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999, 
                had governed such costs; and
                  ``(B) the actual cost for overtime and premium pay 
                that is incurred during that fiscal year under this 
                section, as amended by sections 122 and 123 of the 
                Trade Agency Authorization, Drug Free Borders, and 
                Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999.''.

SEC. 125. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

                  CHAPTER 2--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 131. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO PERSONNEL PRACTICES OF THE 
                    CUSTOMS SERVICE.

  (a) Study.--The Commissioner of Customs shall conduct a study of 
current personnel practices of the Customs Service, including an 
overview of performance standards and the effect and impact of the 
collective bargaining process on drug interdiction efforts of the 
Customs Service and a comparison of duty rotation policies of the 
Customs Service and other Federal agencies that employ similarly-
situated personnel.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall submit to the Committee 
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate a report containing the results of the study 
conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 132. PAY OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.

  Subchapter II of chapter 53 of subpart D of part III of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended--
          (1) in section 5315, by striking the following:
          ``Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury.''; and
          (2) in section 5314, by inserting at the end the following:
          ``Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury.''.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 141(g)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                  (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
                ``not to exceed the following'' and inserting ``as 
                follows'';
                  (B) in clause (i) to read as follows:
          ``(i) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
                  (C) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
          ``(ii) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2001.''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                  (A) in clause (i), by adding ``and'' at the end;
                  (B) by striking clause (ii); and
                  (C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
  (b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 141(g) of the 
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(3) By no later than the date on which the President submits to the 
Congress the budget of the United States Government for a fiscal year, 
the United States Trade Representative shall submit to the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate the projected amount of funds for the succeeding 
fiscal year that will be necessary for the Office to carry out its 
functions.''.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is amended--
          (1) in clause (i) to read as follows:
          ``(i) $47,200,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
          (2) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
          ``(ii) $49,750,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
  (b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 330(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(4) By no later than the date on which the President submits to the 
Congress the budget of the United States Government for a fiscal year, 
the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate the 
projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year that will be 
necessary for the Commission to carry out its functions.''.

                            I. INTRODUCTION

                         A. Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1833, as amended, would authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year FY 2000 and FY 2001 for the U.S. Customs Service, 
including specific authorization for drug interdiction and the 
prevention of child pornography beyond the President's budget 
request. H.R. 1833 would also authorize funding for the Customs 
Automated Commercial Environment, also beyond the President's 
request. Finally, H.R. 1833 would authorize appropriations for 
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and 
the International Trade Commission (ITC), as requested by the 
President.
    H.R. 1833, as amended, would make corrections to the 
overtime and premium pay system for Customs Officers and devote 
any savings to fund additional drug enforcement related 
overtime pay. It would also relax the manner in which the 
fiscal-year $30,000 cap for overtime pay is calculated by 
removing premium pay from the cap.
    H.R. 1833, as amended, would require Customs to conduct a 
study of current personnel practices including performance 
standards, the effect and impact of the collective bargaining 
process on Customs drug interdiction efforts, and a comparison 
of the duty rotation policies of Customs and other federal 
agencies employing similarly situated personnel. Customs would 
be required to submit a report of the study to the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and the Committee on Finance no later than 120 
days after enactment of this Act.
    H.R. 1833, as amended, would also change current law to 
give the Commissioner of Customs pay in parity with that of 
other Treasury agency heads.

                 B. Background and Need for Legislation

                   1. Authorization of Appropriations

    The Committee on Ways and Means has adopted a two-year 
authorization process to provide Customs, USTR, and the ITC 
with predictable guidance as they plan their budgets, as well 
as guidance from the Committee for the appropriations process. 
Although each agency submitted a projection for FY 2001 
together with its FY 2000 budget request, the Committee has 
faced considerable difficulties in the past in obtaining 
projected budgets from these three agencies for the second year 
of the authorization. Accordingly, this legislation would 
provide that, no later than the date on which the President 
submits the budget to the Congress for a fiscal year, each of 
these agencies would be required to submit to the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
projected amounts of funds necessary for the succeeding fiscal 
year.
    In preparing H.R. 1833, the Committee considered the 
President's budget for FY 2000 and requested projected budget 
summaries for FY 2001. Customs, USTR, and the ITC provided the 
Committee with unofficial projections for FY 2001.
    The statutory basis for the authorizations of 
appropriations for Customs is as follows: section 301(b) of the 
Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 
U.S.C. 2075(b)); for USTR, section 141(g)(1) of the Trade Act 
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)); and for the ITC, section 
330(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1330(e)(2)(A)). The most recent authorizations of 
appropriations for Customs, USTR, and the ITC that became law 
were included in the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 [P.L. 101-
382]. These authorizations expired at the end of FY 1992. 
Legislation is necessary to authorize appropriations to fund 
the operations of these agencies for FY 2000 and FY 2001.

                   2. Customs Cyber-smuggling Center

    Customs enforces laws against international trafficking of 
child pornography the laws at its Cyber-smuggling Center. This 
legislation is needed for additional funding for Customs to 
expand its efforts in preventing on-line child pornography.

                         3. Customs Automation

    Customs' current automation system, the Automated 
Commercial System (ACS), is an aging 16-year-old system which 
has experienced several ``brownouts'' since last fall. In 
addition, under the Customs Modernization Act (Mod Act) that 
was part of the North American Free Trade Agreements Act (title 
VI), Customs is required to provide increased electronic 
processing for entries, informed compliance, and record 
keeping. ACS does not have the capacity to meet these 
modernization requirements. Customs plans to replace ACS with 
the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).

                      4. Customs Personnel Issues

    The Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, known as the 
``1911 Act,'' created the original overtime pay system for 
Customs inspectors. The Act authorized Customs to compensate 
officers at a rate of two days of basic hourly pay for Sundays, 
and a rate of two days of basic hourly pay plus the basic 
hourly rate for holidays. Minimum compensation for nighttime 
pay--5 p.m to 8 a.m.--was 4 to 12 hours of pay.
    Section 13811 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1993, known as the Customs 
Officer Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA), amended the 1911 Act 
with regard to the overtime and premium pay system for Customs 
inspectors and canine enforcement officers, effective January 
1, 1994. Only inspectors and canine officers are covered by the 
reforms, and only when performing inspections. Clerical and 
support staff are no longer eligible for double time and are 
covered--as are most other Federal employees--under the Federal 
Employees Pay Act (FEPA), at 1\1/2\ regular pay. The COBRA of 
1993 also amended overtime compensation paid to Customs 
officers as part of the basic pay for the Civil Service 
Retirement System. Compensation may not exceed 50 percent of 
the statutory maximum in overtime pay for Customs officers 
(i.e., $15,000, that is, 50 percent of $30,000).
    Due to a number of arbitration rulings, Customs has been 
required to pay both overtime and premium pay to Customs 
officers for work not performed. Further, the changes Congress 
made to the night pay system for Customs in 1993 has resulted 
in an unforeseen circumstance where Customs officers can 
receive night pay for working at 12:00 noon in certain 
instances. These situations have cost Customs in excess of $6 
million annually. The Treasury Inspector General has called for 
a legislative change to correct the night pay system.
    Customs has also entered into partnership agreements with 
its union that prevent it from permanently reassigning Customs 
officers without the affected employees' consent. Customs' 
ability to temporarily reassign officers without officers' 
consent is also limited under the partnership agreement with 
the union. Concern has been raised that the requirement that 
Customs officers and inspectors agree to such rotations may 
affect Customs drug interdiction efforts and the integrity of 
the border workforce.
    In addition, there have been a number of incidents in which 
implementation of certain inspection procedures were delayed 
because of union objections to the procedures. While these 
particular incidents have been resolved, there have been 
questions raised as to whether drug interdiction efforts were 
compromised.

                5. salary of the commissioner of customs

    The Commissioner's current salary is lower than that of 
other Treasury agency heads. Legislation is needed to put the 
Commissioner's salary in parity with that of other Treasury 
agency heads.

                         C. Legislative History

    The Committee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means 
held a public hearing on April 13, 1999, on Customs, USTR, and 
the ITC budget authorizations for FY 2000 and 2001 as well as 
other Customs issues, including compensation for Customs 
officers, funding for Customs Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS), Customs 
user fees under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1985 (COBRA), user fees for use in Customs automation, 
and labor/management issues.
    Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Mr. Randolph Hite of 
the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and representatives 
of the various sectors of the trade industry testified on ACE. 
Commissioner Kelly stressed the need for ACE and detailed steps 
Customs has taken to improve ACE project management. Mr. Hite, 
who had recently authored a report that found serious 
management and technical weaknesses in Customs' development of 
ACE, acknowledged that Customs has begun to implement the 
recommendations made in the GAO report. Representatives of the 
trade industry were unified in their opinion that ACE is 
desperately needed and that Customs could effectively manage a 
project the size of ACE. However, representatives of both the 
trade and transportation industries flatly opposed the 
President's proposed user fees to fund both the base resources 
and ACE.
    On Customs labor issues, testimony was received from Mr. 
Dennis S. Schindel, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, 
Office of the Inspector General, and from Mr. Robert Tobias, 
President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). In 
his testimony, Mr. Schindel stated that although the Customs 
Officers Pay Reform Act (COPRA) was intended to reduce Customs 
overtime costs for inspectional services, COPRA instead has 
resulted in an increase in Customs premium pay costs.

Subcommittee bill

    On May 18, 1998, Mr. Crane introduced H.R. 1833, and the 
Subcommittee held a mark-up of the bill on that same day. Three 
amendments were offered at the mark-up: Chairman Crane offered 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute that passed the 
Committee by a voice vote. Mr. Rangel offered an amendment to 
strike section 123(b) of H.R. 1833, the effect of which would 
maintain the current night differential pay rate schedule for 
Customs officers. Mr. Rangel's amendment was defeated by a 
recorded vote of 6 ayes to 9 nays. Mr. Shaw offered an 
amendment to bring the Commissioner's pay in parity with that 
of other heads of agencies of the Department of the Treasury. 
Mr. Shaw's amendment passed the Subcommittee by voice vote. The 
bill, as amended, then passed by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 6 
nays.
    On May 20, 1999, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1883, 
as reported by the Subcommittee on Trade. Chairman Crane 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
1833. Chairman Crane's amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 
Mr. Rangel offered an amendment to strike section 123(b) from 
the bill. That amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 12 
ayes to 21 nays. The Committee then ordered the bill favorably 
reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 36-0.

                      II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

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

  subtitle a--drug enforcement and other noncommercial and commercial 
                               operations

1. Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations

    Present law.--The Customs Procedural Reform and 
Simplification Act of 1978 [P.L. 95-110] provides for a two-
year authorization of appropriations for the U.S. Customs 
Service. That law, as amended by section 8102 of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 [P.L. 99-509], first outlined 
separate amounts for commercial and non-commercial operations 
for the salaries and expenses portion of the Customs 
authorizations.
    Separate minimum and maximum amounts for commercial and 
non-commercial operations for the salaries and expenses portion 
of Customs authorization, and maximum amounts for the air and 
marine interdiction programs, are intended to provide guidance 
to Customs in the allocation of resources.
    The most recent authorization of appropriations for Customs 
(under section 101 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 [P.L. 
101-382]) provided $118,238,000 for salaries and expenses and 
$143,047,000 for air and marine interdiction program for FY 
1991, and $1,247,884,000 for salaries and expenses and 
$150,199,000 for air and marine interdiction program in FY 
1992.
    On May 7, 1998, the House passed H.R. 3809, providing for 
authorization of appropriations for FY 1999: $964,857,584 for 
drug enforcement and other noncommercial operations, 
$970,838,000 for commercial operations, and $98,488,000 for air 
interdiction; for FY 2000, $1,072,928,328 for drug enforcement 
and other non-commercial operations, $999,963,000 for 
commercial operations, and $101,443,000 for air interdiction. 
Because the House and Senate could not reconcile their 
differences, this authorization did not become law.
    Appropriations for Customs for FY 1999 were included in 
P.L. 105-277 and totaled $1,642,565,000 for salaries and 
expenses. In addition, Customs was appropriated $106,300,000 in 
Emergency Supplemental funding for salaries and expenses [P.L. 
105-277].
            a. Section 101(a)--Authorization of appropriations: non-
                    commercial operations
    Present law.--See Sec. 101 above.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 101(a) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would authorize $999,563,000 for non-commercial, drug 
and other enforcement activities, including a specific increase 
amount of $227.1 million or 18.4 percent for drug interdiction 
resources over the President's request for FY 2000. For FY 
2001, the bill would authorize $996,464,000 for non-commercial, 
drug, and other enforcement activities, including a specific 
increase amount of $193 million or 15.7 percent for drug 
interdiction resources over the President's request.
    Reason for change.--The Committee is committed to giving 
Customs the resources needed to increase the overall level of 
Customs officers and Special Agents dedicated to counter-
narcotics and anti-money laundering activities. Accordingly, 
the authorization for non-commercial operations for both fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 is substantially larger than the 
President's request, providing Customs with the needed 
resources to stop drugs from entering this country while at the 
same time expediting the entry of legitimate persons and cargo.
    Drug use among teenagers has been skyrocketing. According 
to official statistics, more children and teens are using 
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Statistics show that the use of 
drugs doubled among 10th graders between 1991 and 1997, 
increasing 80 percent among high school seniors since 1982. The 
purpose of this legislation is to fight the scourge of illegal 
drugs by preventing them from coming across the U.S. borders 
and keeping them out of children's hands.
            b. Sec. 101(b)--Authorization of appropriations: commercial 
                    operations
    Present law.--See Sec. 101 above.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 101(b) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would authorize an additional amount of $150 million 
for ACE development over the President's budget request of 
$772,563,000 for commercial operations, for a total amount of 
$1,154,359,000 for FY 2000. For FY 2001, the legislation would 
authorize an additional amount of $150 million for ACE funding 
over the President's commercial operations budget request 
amount of $1,194,534,000 for a total amount of $953,464,000. 
Further, the provision would require that Customs demonstrate 
to the Committees on Ways and Means and Finance, report every 
90 days, that the development and establishment of ACE is cost 
effective and meets the modernization requirements under the 
Customs Modernization Act under title VI of the North American 
Free Trade Agreements Act.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes Customs' 
efforts to modernize its operations to meet both its drug 
enforcement and trade facilitation missions. Customs collects 
revenues of approximately $22 billion annually while processing 
about 19.7 million import entries and 450 million passengers. 
By 2005, import volume is expected to double, and it is 
critical that Customs' commercial operations deliver service 
that meets the demanding needs of increased trade volume.
    Customs' current automation system, the Automated 
Commercial System (ACS), is an aging 16-year-old system which 
has experienced several ``brownouts'' since last fall. ACS is 
operating on the average at 90 percent to 95 percent of its 
capacity, which is above its design specifications. Many 
observers, including Customs, have said that ACS is headed for 
a major system crash which will likely have an adverse impact 
on trade. They also believe that any serious failure of ACS 
could have widespread economic effect on U.S. businesses all 
along the supply chain including manufacturers, suppliers, 
brokers, and retailers.
    Between August 1998, and March 1999, ACS experienced a 
number of significant slow downs in processing (``brownouts'', 
which in turn adversely affected the ability of the trade 
community to process entries quickly and efficiently. Although 
Customs continues to make costly investments to ACS to 
alleviate this problem on a short-term basis, Customs and the 
trade community expect a recurrence of these problems, 
including possible shutdowns of ACS.
    Some of the main differences between ACS and the Automated 
Commercial Environment (ACE) are that ACE reportedly will use a 
single integrated system, modern standards, processes, 
techniques and language, and will be compatible with commercial 
software. By contrast, ACS does not have an integrated system, 
uses outdated techniques and languages, and cannot use 
commercially compatible software.
    Customs plans to replace ACS with ACE and has spent 
approximately $65 million on ACE development to date. The 
Committee agrees with Customs and the trade community that ACE 
is needed to cope with the increased growth of trade, and 
equally importantly, to meet the legislativerequirements for 
Customs automation modernization mandated under the Mod Act. Therefore, 
in its authorization for commercial operations for both FY 2000 and FY 
2001, the Committee has included funding to provide the Customs Service 
with the crucial resources it needs to continue developing ACE. 
However, the Committee underscores the need to assure that Customs 
manage and develop ACE cost effectively, while meeting the legislative 
automation modernization mandate of the Mod Act. Therefore, as a 
safeguard, the legislation would require Customs to demonstrate that it 
is meeting these requirements through extensive reporting and 
consultations with the Committees on Ways and Means and Finance before 
funding is released.
    The Committee expresses its deep disappointment that the 
President's budget did not request any funding for ACE for FY 
2000, but instead proposed an access fee, with the proceeds not 
to be available until FY 2001. The Committee strongly believes 
that the President's proposal is highly inadequate in this 
regard. The fee proposed by the President would amount to $1.80 
per 1,000 bytes of information processed by Customs for 
commercial users. Under the President's proposal, this fee 
would generate an estimated $163 million in revenue per year, 
with $150 million to be used as an offset for ACE and $13 
million as an offset for the International Trade Data System 
(ITDS). The Committee has not authorized this user fee because 
the Administration has been unable to justify the basis for the 
fee, how it would apply, and how Customs would retain 
discipline over the fee. Accordingly, the Committee has 
approved funding for both FY 2000 and 2001 without the fee.
    The President's budget also requested in an increase of the 
COBRA passenger processing fee from $5 to $6.40 and removal of 
the existing exemption from passengers arriving from Canada, 
Mexico, and the Caribbean. The increased fee would generate 
$312.4 million, which the President proposes be used to offset 
Customs base resources instead of being dedicated to the COBRA 
account for inspectional services. The Administration has been 
unable to justify the reasons for increasing the fee. Nor can 
it demonstrate a relationship between the fee and the cost of 
processing passengers, or that the fee will be used in any way 
to offset the cost for processing arriving passengers. The 
Committee believes that fees must bear such a relationship to 
the services provided to those paying the fee, and offsetting 
general expenditures is not sufficient justification. For this 
reason, the Committee has not authorized this fee increase and 
exemption removal, and has instead included the $312.4 million 
in its budget authorization. In addition, the Committee has 
requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a study on 
Customs user fees, including the relationship between the fee 
and the actual cost of the service provided, to be completed by 
September 1999.
    At the Subcommittee legislative hearing on April 13, 1999, 
representatives of both the trade and transportation industries 
flatly opposed the President's proposed user fees.
            c. Sec. 101(c)--Authorization of appropriations: air and 
                    marine interdiction
    Present law.--See Sec. 101 above.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 101(c) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would authorize $109,413,000 for air and marine 
interdiction for FY 2000, and $113,789,000 in FY 2001.
    Reason for change.--The legislation authorizes the full 
amount of the President's budget request for Air and Marine 
Interdiction for FY 2000 and FY 2001.
            d. Sec. 101(d)--Submission of out-year budget projections
    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 101(d) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would require out-year budget projections such that, 
no later than the date on which the President submits the 
budget to the Congress for a fiscal year, Customs would be 
required to submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
Senate projected amounts of funds necessary for the succeeding 
fiscal year. In addition, Customs would be required to provide 
projections for minimum amounts requested to be authorized for 
commercial operations under the salaries and expenses account; 
maximum amounts to be authorized for drug enforcement and other 
non-commercial operations under the salaries and expenses 
account; and maximum amounts to be appropriated for the 
operation of Customs air and marine interdiction programs.
    Reason for change.--The Committee requires these estimates, 
including the breakdown for non-commercial, commercial, and air 
and marine interdiction, to provide guidance in making its 
authorization for the second year of the two-year 
authorization. The Committee also believes that such 
information is useful to the agency in its planning.

2. Sec. 102--Narcotics detection equipment for the United States-Mexico 
        border, United States-Canada border, and Florida and the Gulf 
        coast seaports

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 102 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would require that $90,244,000 of the FY 2000 
appropriations be available until expended for acquisition and 
other expenses associated with implementation and deployment of 
narcotics detection equipment along the United States-Mexico 
border, the United States-Canada border, and Florida and the 
Gulf seaports. The equipment would include vehicle and 
container inspection systems, mobile truck x-rays, upgrades to 
fixed-site truck x-rays, pallet x-rays, busters, contraband 
detection kits, ultrasonic container inspection units, 
automated targeting systems, rapid tire deflator systems, 
portable Treasury Enforcement Communications Systems terminals, 
remote surveillance camera systems, weigh-in-motion sensors, 
vehicle counters, spotter camera systems, inbound commercial 
truck transponders, narcotics vapor and particle detectors, and 
license plate reader automatic targeting software.
    The provision would further require that $8,924,500 of the 
FY 2001 appropriations be used for the maintenance of equipment 
described above. This section would also provide the 
Commissioner of Customs with some flexibility in using these 
funds and would allow for the acquisition of new, updated 
technology not anticipated when this bill was drafted.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the needs of 
the Customs Service to effectively interdict drugs entering the 
United States. Customs currently lacks sufficient equipment 
along the Canada, Mexico, and Gulf borders to effectively 
interdict the drugs entering the United States while at the 
same time ensuring that trade flows in a timely manner. The 
Committee believes that the President's budget does not provide 
sufficient funding for this purpose. Accordingly, this section 
would provide the necessary equipment to improve the 
facilitation of trade and passengers entering the United States 
and to increase its narcotics interdiction efforts.

3. Sec. 103--Peak hours and investigative resource enhancement for the 
        United States-Mexico and United States-Canada borders

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 103 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would require that $127.1 million of funds authorized 
for FY 2000 and $184 million for FY 2001 be made available for 
a net increase of 1,745 inspectors, canine enforcement 
officers, special agents, intelligence analysts, and internal 
affairs agents to increase inspectional and investigative 
resources and to improve inspection times and effectiveness 
during peak crossing hours.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes the need of 
the Customs Service to quickly facilitate the entry of persons 
and goods entering the United States while at the same time 
preventing contraband, including drugs, from entering. Customs 
currently lacks sufficient personnel along the U.S.-Canada and 
U.S.-Mexico borders, and at major narcotics distribution and 
money laundering centers around the country. This section 
provides the necessary personnel to improve the facilitation of 
cargo and persons entering this country and to increase Customs 
narcotics interdiction efforts.

4. Sec. 104--Compliance with performance plan requirements

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 104 of H.R. 1833 would 
require Customs to measure the effectiveness of the resources 
dedicated in sections 102 and 103 as part of its annual 
performance plan.
    Reason for change.--The Committee believes Customs must be 
accountable to the taxpayer in assessing and measuring the 
effectiveness of its limited resources. This provision ensures 
that Customs evaluates how it used these additional resources 
to achieve the goals of Congress.

     Subtitle B--CYBER-SMUGGLING CENTER OF THE U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

1. Sec. 111--Authorization of appropriations for programs to protect 
        children from on-line predators

    Present law.--Customs enforcement responsibilities include 
enforcement of U.S. laws to prevent border trafficking relating 
to child pornography, intellectual property rights violations, 
money laundering, and illegal arms. Funding for these 
activities has been included in the Customs general account. In 
1998, Customs was appropriated $2.4 million from this account 
to establish its Cyber-smuggling Center to combat these illegal 
activities.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 111 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would authorize $10 million for Customs to carry out 
its program to combat on-line child sex predators. Of that 
amount, $375,000 would be dedicated to the National Center for 
Missing Children for the operation of its child pornography 
cyber tipline.
    Reason for change.--With about 12 million children using 
the Internet unsupervised by their parents, the Internet has 
provided fertile ground for sexual predators to lure children 
into exploitive and abusive relationships and to trade in child 
pornography. This legislation would provide Customs with 
resources for the tools, technology, and manpower it needs in 
its efforts to prevent child pornography and sexual 
exploitation. The Committee expects that these efforts will 
include out-reach programs to educate parents, children, and 
teachers.
    The Committee applauds Customs for establishing the Cyber-
smuggling Center and fully supports Customs in its efforts to 
protect children from on-line predators.

                         SUBTITLE C--PERSONNEL

 CHAPTER 1: OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE

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

1. Sec. 121--Fiscal year cap

    Current law--Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) states that the aggregate amount of 
a Customs officer's overtime pay, including commuting 
compensation and premium pay, is $30,000.\1\ A Customs officer 
who receives overtime or premium pay (holidays and night work) 
for time worked is prohibited from receiving compensation for 
that work under any other provision of law. The Commissioner 
may grant waivers to prevent excessive costs or to meet 
emergency requirements of the Customs Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The fiscal year cap was increased as of October 1, 1997, from 
$25,000 to $30,000 by P.L. 105-61 (the FY 98 Treasury Appropriations 
Act) over the objections of the Committee on Ways and Means because it 
did not address overtime and premium pay reforms included in H.R. 1833, 
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
267(a)(1)) outlines the general overtime pay system for Customs 
officers. Basic overtime compensation for work not regularly 
scheduled is provided as follows:
          a. Work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per 
        week at twice the basic hourly rate of basic pay;
          b. ``Callback'' pay at twice the basic hourly rate. 
        An officer will receive at least two hours of callback 
        pay for any call back of two hours of work or less, if 
        the work begins at least one hour after the end of any 
        previously scheduled work and ends at least one hour 
        before the beginning of regularly scheduled work.
          c. Compensation for the commute, in addition to 
        callback time, at three times the basic hourly rate. 
        Compensation for the commute is not payable if the work 
        does not begin within 16 hours of the Customs officer's 
        last regularly scheduled work assignment, or if the 
        work begins within two hours of the officers's next 
        regularly scheduled work assignment.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 121 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would amend section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) to remove premium pay from the 
calculation of the $30,000 fiscal-year cap, thus increasing the 
amount of overtime pay a Customs officer may receive, with no 
annual limit on the amount of premium pay. The provision would 
also allow the Commissioner the authority to waive the $30,000 
fiscal-year cap to prevent excessive costs or to meet 
emergencies, and to pay a Customs officer for one work 
assignment that would result in the overtime pay of that 
officer exceeding the $30,000 fiscal-year cap. This authority 
would be granted only upon certification to the Chairmen of the 
House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on 
Finance that Customs has in operation a system that provides 
accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on overtime and 
premium pay being paid to Customs officers.
    Reason for change.--Administration of the fiscal-year cap 
has posed a considerable challenge for Customs. Eliminating 
premium pay from the calculation of the fiscal-year cap will 
facilitate Customs administration, as fewer Customs officers 
will approach the level of the cap by working overtime alone.
    If an officer reaches the fiscal-year cap, the provision 
would allow the Commissioner to pay that officer for one 
additional work assignment that would result in the overtime 
pay of the officer exceeding the cap. Thereafter, no additional 
overtime would be assigned to that officer, except to meet 
emergency requirements of the Customs Service. Under the 
National Inspectional Assignment Policy (NIAP), and contracts 
negotiated with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), 
Customs hasagreed to assign overtime to Customs officers based 
on daily tracking of each officers overtime- and premium-pay earnings. 
Section 121 also requires that authority to exceed the cap by one 
assignment will be granted to the Commissioner only upon certification 
to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
Committee on Finance that Customs has in operation a system that 
provides accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on overtime and 
premium pay that is being paid to each Customs officer.

2. Sec. 122--Correction relating to payment of overtime pay to hours 
        actually worked

    Present law.--No applicable statutory provision. On October 
30, 1997, an arbitration ruling required the Customs Service to 
pay overtime to a Customs officer for work not performed if 
that officer was not permitted to work that time due to an 
administrative error. An earlier arbitration ruling required 
Customs to pay overtime to a Customs officer for work not 
performed if Customs had prevented that officer from working 
right up to the fiscal year salary cap, a practice Customs has 
in place to prevent an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 122 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would prevent Customs from paying overtime pay to 
Customs officers for work not actually performed. However, this 
provision would not apply to payment of an award or settlement 
under section 5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 6(d) 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
    Reason for change.--The Committee is greatly concerned that 
three arbitral decisions require Customs to pay overtime for 
work not performed. Specifically, as a result of a decision by 
a labor arbitrator in August 1982, Customs is required to pay 
overtime plus interest for hours not actually worked to 
officers denied overtime assignments because they have reached 
the level set by the port directors. The amount paid by Customs 
pursuant to the arbitral decision equals the difference between 
the fiscal-year cap and the level which the officer had reached 
at the time the port director stopped assigning additional 
overtime to that officer. As a result of a decision by a labor 
arbitrator in November 1993, Customs is required to pay for 
overtime not actually worked to officers whose overtime is 
inappropriately assigned to part-time employees. In yet another 
decision by a labor arbitrator in October 1997, Customs is now 
required to pay overtime to Customs officers for work not 
performed when the officer was not assigned an overtime 
assignment due to an inadvertent administrative error. The 
current practice of paying overtime for work not performed 
replaces the practice of providing the next comparable overtime 
assignment to the officer who was inadvertently skipped over.
    In addition, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Trade 
in May 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) stated: 
``Although we believed that inspectors should be paid extra for 
working overtime, we recommend that (1) the 1911 Act be amended 
so that inspector overtime would be more directly linked to 
actual hours worked, and (2) Customs management focus on 
achieving a more efficient use of overtime.'' U.S. Customs 
Service: Oversight Issues, GAO/T-GGD-97-107 (May 15, 1997).
    The provision would clarify Congressional intent with 
regard to overtime for Customs officers by preventing Customs 
from paying overtime to officers for hours not actually worked. 
Customs would achieve savings by prohibiting these payments 
which it has been required to make since the 1982 arbitral 
decisions. Between FY 1994 and FY 1996, Customs paid in excess 
of $2.9 million pursuant to the requirements of the arbitral 
decisions relating to overtime and premium pay. It is the view 
of the Committee that Customs would achieve considerable 
savings in prohibiting these payments, and these resources 
would be better utilized by Customs in other areas.
    The Committee does not expect that this requirement will 
have a significant impact on Customs' management of overtime or 
on Customs officers' ability to earn overtime pay. Customs has 
taken steps to alleviate this problem by recently implementing 
the Customs Overtime and Scheduling System (COSS), which 
currently tracks and monitors all scheduling, assignment of 
regular hours, overtime, and premium hours for Customs 
officers. Under this tracking system, Customs will be better 
able to monitor overtime and premium hours to prevent 
situations that gave rise to officers receiving overtime and 
premium pay for no work. However, the Committee believes that 
this legislation is necessary to clarify that the appropriate 
policy is to provide an additional assignment instead of 
overtime.
    Finally, this reform is not intended to prevent awards or 
settlements under the provisions of laws cited in this section.

3. Section 123--Premium pay and night shift differential

            a. Section 123(a)--Correction relating to payment of 
                    premium pay to hours actually worked
    Current law.--An arbitration ruling requires Customs to pay 
officers for regularly scheduled premium pay hours even if the 
officer subsequently takes sick or annual leave and does not 
actually work those hours. P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 
1999, permanently restricts Customs from paying premium pay on 
Sundays to an employee if the employee has not actually 
performed work on a Sunday.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 123(a) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would amend section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(4)) to prohibit Customs from paying 
night and holiday premium pay to an employee if the employee 
has not actually performed work during the time corresponding 
to such premium pay. However, this provision would not apply to 
payment of an award or settlement under section 5596 of title 
5, United States Code, section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, or title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Reason for change.--The Committee is greatly concerned that 
an arbitral decision requires Customs to pay premium pay for 
hours not actually worked. Specifically, due to the decision by 
a labor arbitrator in September 1996, Customs is required to 
pay premium pay to officers for regularly-scheduled premium pay 
hours even if the officer subsequently fails to work those 
hours due to annual leave, sick leave, or National Guard duty 
leave. Similar to the reform on payment of overtime payoutlined 
in section 122, this provision would clarify Congressional intent with 
regard to premium pay for Customs officers by preventing Customs from 
paying premium pay to officers for hours not actually worked.
    Finally, this reform is not intended to prevent awards or 
settlements under the provisions of laws cited in this section.
            b. Section 123(b)--Correction relating to night work 
                    differential pay
    Current law.--Section 5(b)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) provides that, if an officer works 
the majority of his or her hours between 3 p.m. and midnight, 
compensation equals the basic hourly rate plus 15 percent of 
the basic hourly rate for the entire eight hour shift. If an 
officer works the majority of his or her hours between 11 p.m. 
and 8 a.m., compensation equals the basic hourly rate plus 20 
percent for the entire eight hour shift. If the officer's 
regularly scheduled work assignment falls between 7:30 p.m. and 
3:30 a.m., compensation equals the basic hourly rate plus 15 
percent for the period from 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and the 
basic hourly rate plus 20 percent for the period from 11:30 
p.m. to 3:30 a.m.
    For example, if a Customs officer is scheduled to work a 
shift that starts at 12:00 noon and ends at 8 p.m., five of the 
eight hours of that shift, or the majority of hours, occur 
during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. night premium pay hours. Thus, the 
Customs officer is paid night pay (an additional 15 percent) 
for all eight hours of the shift that starts at noon.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 123(b) of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would amend section 5(b)(1) of the Act of February 13, 
1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) to provide that a Customs officer is 
paid differential shift pay only for differential hours worked.
    Under this legislation, if any hour of an officer's 
regularly scheduled work hours occur between 6 p.m. and 
midnight, compensation would equal the basic hourly rate plus 
15 percent for those hours only. If any work hours occur 
between midnight and 6 a.m., compensation would equal the basic 
hourly rate plus 20 percent for those hours only. The remaining 
hours would be compensated at regular pay. The bill also would 
allow for a Customs officer regularly scheduled to work the 
shift from 12:00 midnight to 8 a.m. to be paid at a premium 
rate of 20 percent over his or her base salary for the entire 
shift. For example, a Customs officer working noon to 8 p.m. 
would earn night differential pay only between the hours of 6 
p.m. and 8 p.m.
    Reason for change.--The Customs Officer Pay Reform 
Amendments (``COPRA''), which was part of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66), greatly increased the 
number of available hours in which a Customs Officer can earn 
premium pay for night work. COPRA also increased the 10 percent 
night differential compensation to 15 percent and 20 percent, 
depending on the time of day that the assignment is worked. 
Among Federal employees, only Customs officers are compensated 
at a premium pay rate of 15 percent or 20 percent of basic 
hourly pay for night work. In fact, COPRA allows Customs to pay 
night differential premium payments for 23 hours of the day (12 
p.m. to 11 a.m.), rather than 12 hours of the day (6 p.m. to 6 
a.m.) as was previously the case under FEPA. Premium pay for 
night work by most other Federal employees is provided at a 
rate of 10 percent for the hours from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and is 
available only for those hours worked during that period, not 
the entire shift.
    At the Subcommittee's legislative hearing on April 13, 
1999, Mr. Schindel testified that ``premium pay expenses for 
Customs, specifically the work differential, substantially 
increased under COPRA.'' In fact night shift differential 
increased from $51,000 in FY 1993 to $11.9 million in FY 1998. 
A major reason for this dramatic increase in premium pay for 
shift differential is that COPRA increased the number of 
available hours where a Customs officer could earn night 
differential.
    The Congressional intent of the COPRA was to ensure that 
Customs officers' schedules met customer demand. A Treasury 
Inspector General report concluded that Customs schedules do 
correspond to its workload and to its customers' needs. Customs 
Officer Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA), OIG-96-094 (September 
13, 1996). However, the report concluded that COPRA had caused 
a significant increase in night differential spending, 
amounting to at least $6 million per year. The report 
recommended:

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

    The provision would clarify Congressional intent that night 
premiums be awarded only for night work, correcting the anomaly 
that an officer can receive a night premium for working at 
noon. However, the Committee believes that the Inspector 
General's recommendation that the night differential premium be 
reduced to 10 percent of basic hourly pay does not provide 
sufficient compensation for these officers. Instead, the 
Committee believes that the current 15 percent or 20 percent 
premiums, depending on the actual hours worked, should be 
continued but that they be limited to the hours worked during 
the premium period.

4. Sec. 124--Use of amounts for additional overtime enforcement 
        activities of the customs service resulting from savings from 
        payment of overtime and premium pay

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 124 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to 
calculate any savings created as a result of sections 122 and 
123 of this bill. Customs would be required to use the savings 
to provide additional overtime for enforcement purposes.
    Reason for change.--The Committee wants to ensure that 
savings from sections 122 and 123 from this bill are used for 
additional overtime enforcement activities at the ports where 
the savings occurred.

5. Sec. 125--Effective date

    Present law.--Effective the first pay period after 
enactment.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 125 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, provides that the effective date of subtitle C would 
be the first pay period after enactment.

                  CHAPTER 2--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. Sec. 131--Study and report relating to personnel practices of the 
        Customs Service

    Present law.--No applicable section.
    Explanation of provision.--Section 131 of H.R. 1833, as 
amended, requires Customs to conduct a study of current 
personnel practices including: performance standards; the 
effect and impact of the collective bargaining process on 
Customs drug interdiction efforts; and a comparison of duty 
rotations policies of Customs and other federal agencies 
employing similarly situated personnel.
    Reason for change.--Under the collective bargaining 
agreement between Customs and the National Treasury Employees' 
Union (NTEU), Customs cannot rotate a Customs officer 
permanently or for temporary duty unless the officer agrees to 
the change. In addition, the agreement specifies that the union 
may bring to grievance any issue relating to the impact and 
management of any management changes, including a management 
change relating to drug enforcement, and any issues not 
included in the collective bargaining agreement.
    The Committee has been concerned that the union is able to 
effectively thwart Customs drug interdiction efforts through 
bargaining, or the unwillingness to bargain. There have been a 
number of examples in which the NTEU was able to delay 
negotiations on work conditions, to the detriment of the 
interdiction of contraband, including narcotics. These examples 
included: (1) negotiations between the National Treasury 
Employees Union (NTEU) and Customs since early 1995 in El Paso, 
Texas, over work conditions at the three bridges between Mexico 
and El Paso relating to the use of a very successful drug 
interdiction approach called pre-primary roving for Canine 
Enforcement Officers (CEO) and Inspectors; (2) implementing 
certain shift work in Miami; and (3) the percent of officers 
regularly scheduled to work weekend shifts at the John F. 
Kennedy airport (JFK).
    Shortly after the Subcommittee and Committee discussed 
these issues at the 1998 mark-ups, Customs and the Union 
settled their differences on the weekend shifts issues at JFK 
and El Paso. In addition, the Impasse Panel issued a decision 
on the shift issue in Miami. As a result of these developments, 
the Committee believes that many of the issues that have 
adversely impacted Customs drug interdiction efforts have been 
favorably resolved. However, the Committee believes that a 
study of the effect and impact of the collective bargaining 
process on Customs drug interdiction efforts is necessary to 
keep a watchful eye on this issue.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned that Customs' lack 
of authority to rotate and temporarily assign officers may 
adversely impact its drug interdiction efforts. Therefore, the 
Committee is requiring that Customs conduct a comparison study 
of rotation policies with similarly situated federal personnel 
which would enable both the Committee and Customs to assess 
Customs rotation practices.

2. Sec. 132--Pay of Commissioner of Customs

    Present law.--The law applicable to the Commissioner's 
salary is title 5, section 5315, of the United States Code, 
which provides salaries for ``Positions at Level IV.''
    Explanation of provision.--This provision would amend title 
5, section 5314 of the United States Code to include the 
Commissioner of Customs under ``Positions at Level III.''
    Reason for change.--The Commissioner's current salary is 
$7,500 less than other Department of the Treasury 
(``Treasury'') agency heads. This change would bring the 
Commissioner's salary in parity with other agency heads at 
Treasury. Other than the Internal Revenue Service, the 
Commissioner's responsibilities include managing a larger 
budget and more employees than all other agency heads of 
Treasury. The Commissioner is also responsible for the 
efficient enforcement of over 600 laws for 60 different federal 
agencies. These laws include interdicting drugs, enforcing U.S. 
trade laws, protecting children from cyber crime, and 
collecting tariffs. Considering all the responsibilities the 
Commissioner has, the Committee believes that the Commissioner 
should have pay parity with other Treasury agency heads.

     B. Title II--Office of the United States Trade Representative

1. Sec. 201(a)--Authorization of appropriations

    Present law.--The statutory authority for budget 
authorization for the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, section 141(g)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)). The most recent authorization of 
appropriations for USTR (under section 101 of the Customs and 
Trade Act of 1990 [P.L. 101-382]) provided $20,000,000 for 
FY91, and $20,400,000 for FY92. Appropriations for USTR for FY 
1999 were included in P.L. 205-277 in the amount of 
$24,698,000.
    Explanation of provision.--This provision authorizes 
$26,501,000 for FY 2000 and $26,501,000 for FY 2001.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes that USTR 
needs increased budget authorization to meet its expenses and 
hire new employees. The legislation authorizes the full amount 
of the President's budget request for USTR. The Committee wants 
to be sure that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Seattle 
Ministerial is adequately funded. USTR has assured the 
Committee that it requires no additional funding, and that it 
will use funds appropriated to the Department of State for this 
meeting.

2. Sec. 202(b)--Out-year budget projections

    Present law.--The Committee on Ways and Means has adopted a 
two-year authorization process to provide USTR with predicable 
guidance as it plans its budget as well as guidance from the 
Committees for the appropriation process.
    Explanation of provision.--H.R. 1833, as amended, would 
require the USTR to submit to Congress its budget to the 
Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Finance the 
projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year that 
will be necessary for the Office to carry out its function.
    Reason for change.--The Committee requires these estimates 
to provide guidance in making its authorization for the second 
year of the two-year authorization. The Committee also believes 
that such information is useful to the agency in its planning.

     C. Title III--The United States International Trade Commission

1. Sec. 301(a)--Authorization of appropriations

    Present law.--The statutory authority for budget 
authorization for the International Trade Commission is section 
330(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1330(e)(2)(A)). The most recent authorization of appropriations 
for ITC (under section 101 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 
[P.L. 101-382]) provided $41,170,000 for FY91, and $44,052,000 
for FY92. Appropriations for ITC for FY 1999 were included in 
P.L. 105-277 in the amount of $44,495,000.
    Explanation of provision.--H.R. 1833, as amended, would 
authorize $47,200,000 for FY 2000 and $47,750,000 for FY 2001.
    Reason for change.--The Committee recognizes that the ITC 
needs increased budget authorization to meet the increased 
workload. The legislation authorizes the full amount of the 
President's budget request for the ITC.

2. Sec. 301(b)--Out-year budget projections

    Present law.--The Committee on Ways and Means has adopted a 
two-year authorization process to provide the ITC with 
predicable guidance as it plans its budget as well as guidance 
from the Committees for the appropriation process.
    Explanation of provision.--H.R. 1833, as amended, requires 
the ITC to submit to Congress its budget to the Committee on 
Ways and Means and Committee on Finance the projected amount of 
funds for the succeeding fiscal year that will be necessary for 
the Office to carry out its function.
    Reason for change.--The Committee requires these estimates 
to provide guidance in making its authorization for the second 
year of the two-year authorization. The Committee also believes 
that such information is useful to the agency in its planning.

                      III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Means in its 
consideration of the bill H.R. 1833, as amended.

                       Motion to Report the Bill

    The bill, H.R. 1833, as amended, was ordered favorably 
reported by a rollcall vote of 36 yeas to 0 nays (with a quorum 
being present). The vote was as follows:

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

                          Votes on Amendments

    A rollcall vote was conducted on the following amendment to 
Mr. Crane's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    An amendment by Mr. Rangel that would strike section 123(b) 
was defeated by a rollcall vote of 12 yeas to 21 nays. The vote 
was as follows:

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

                     IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

               A. Committee Estimates of Budgetary Effect

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the following statement is 
made concerning the effects on the budget of the bill H.R. 
1833, as reported: The Committee agrees with the cost estimate 
furnished by the Congressional Budget Office set forth below.

                B. Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

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

      C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

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

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1833, the Trade 
Agency Authorizations, Drug Free Borders, and Prevention of On-
Line Pornography Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1833--Trade Agency Authorizations, Drug Free Borders, and 
        Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1833 would authorize appropriations for 2000 
and 2001 for the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative, and the International Trade 
Commission. The authorizations for the Customs Service would 
include funds for salaries and expenses, acquisitions, air and 
marine interdiction, and a program to prevent child 
pornography. In addition, the bill would make several changes 
to the current laws relating to overtime and premium pay for 
Customs officers.
    CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts 
would result in additional discretionary spending of about $4.7 
billion over the 2000-2004 period. (About $4.6 billion of this 
total would be outlays of the Customs Service.) H.R. 1833 could 
affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 
would apply. However, we estimate that any increases in direct 
spending would be less than $500,000 a year. The bill contains 
no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would have no 
impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For the purposes 
of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized by 
the bill will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year 
and that outlays generally will follow historical spending 
rates for the authorized activities or for similar programs. We 
expect that funds for Customs Service salaries and expenses 
will be spent more slowly than the historical rates because the 
bill would provide substantial increases in authorizations 
relative to the funding levels for 1999. The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1833 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 150 
(international affairs), 750 (administration of justice), and 
800 (general government).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal years in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS

Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority\1\.......................      2,186          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................      2,043        290          0          0          0          0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.......................          0      2,347      2,381          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................          0      1,943      2,289        385        110          0
Spending Under H.R. 1833:
    Authorization Level \1\...................      2,186      2,347      2,381          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................      2.043      2,233      2,289        385        110          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the salaries and expenses account and the
  interdiction program of the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and
  the International Trade Commission.

    The provisions of H.R. 1833 that modify overtime and 
premium pay for Customs officers could effect direct spending 
since such costs are paid out of a direct spending account 
(that is, from funds not subject to annual appropriation). Some 
of the bill's provisions could increase these personnel costs, 
while other provisions would probably yield small savings. CBO 
estimates that the net effect of H.R. 1833 on direct spending 
would be less than $500,000 a year.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Enacting 
H.R. 1833 could affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that 
the net changes would be less than $500,000 a year.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1833 
contains no intergovernmental or private-section mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would have no impact on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Mark Grabowicz.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

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

          A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), 
the Committee concludes that the actions taken in this 
legislation are appropriate given its oversight of the U.S. 
Customs Service.

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

    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), 
the Committee advises that no oversight findings or 
recommendations have been submitted to this Committee by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with respect to 
the provisions contained in H.R. 1833, as amended.

                 C. Constitutional Authority Statement

    With respect to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, relating to Constitutional 
Authority, the Committee states that the Committee's action in 
reporting the bill is derived from Article 1 of the 
Constitution, Section 8 (``The Congress shall have power to lay 
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the 
debts and to provide for * * * the general Welfare of the 
United States * * * ).

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

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) By no later than the date on which the President submits 
to the Congress the budget of the United States Government for 
a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs shall submit to the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Finance of the Senate the projected amount of 
funds for the succeeding fiscal year that will be necessary for 
the operations of the Customs Service as provided for in 
subsection (b).
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) For noncommercial operations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and 
        expenses of the Customs Service that are incurred in 
        noncommercial operations not to exceed the following:
                  [(A) $516,217,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(B) $542,091,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (A) $999,563,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  (B) $996,464,000 for fiscal year 2001.
          (2) For commercial operations.--(A) There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and 
        expenses of the Customs Service that are incurred in 
        commercial operations not less than the following:
                  [(i) $672,021,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(ii) $705,793,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (i) $1,154,359,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  (ii) $1,194,534,000 for fiscal year 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) For air interdiction.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated for the operation (including salaries and 
        expenses) and maintenance of the air interdiction 
        program of the Customs Service not to exceed the 
        following:
                  [(A) $143,047,000 for fiscal year 1991.
                  [(B) $150,199,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
                  (A) $109,413,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  (B) $113,789,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                              ----------                              

                        ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

  (a) Overtime Pay.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and 
        subsection (c), a customs officer who is officially 
        assigned to perform work in excess of 40 hours in the 
        administrative workweek of the officer or in excess of 
        8 hours in a day shall be compensated for that work at 
        an hourly rate of pay that is equal to 2 times the 
        hourly rate of the basic pay of the officer. Overtime 
        pay provided under this subsection shall not be paid to 
        any customs officer unless such officer actually 
        performed work during the time corresponding to such 
        overtime pay. The preceding sentence shall not apply 
        with respect to the payment of an award or settlement 
        to a customs officer who was unable to perform overtime 
        work as a result of a personnel action in violation of 
        section 5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 
        6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or title 
        VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For purposes of 
        this paragraph, the hourly rate of basic pay for a 
        customs officer does not include any premium pay 
        provided for under subsection (b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Premium Pay for Customs Officers.--
          [(1) Night work differential.--
                  [(A) 3 p.m. to midnight shiftwork.--If the 
                majority of the hours of regularly scheduled 
                work of a customs officer occurs during the 
                period beginning at 3 p.m. and ending at 12 
                a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for work 
                during such period (except for work to which 
                paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's 
                hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay 
                amounting to 15 percent of that basic rate.
                  [(B) 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. shiftwork.--If the 
                majority of the hours of regularly scheduled 
                work of a customs officer occurs during the 
                period beginning at 11 p.m. and ending at 8 
                a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for work 
                during such period (except for work to which 
                paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's 
                hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay 
                amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.
                  [(C) 7:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. shiftwork.--If 
                the regularly scheduled work assignment of a 
                customs officer is 7:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m., the 
                officer is entitled to pay for work during such 
                period (except for work to which paragraph (2) 
                or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly rate of 
                basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 15 
                percent of that basic rate for the period from 
                7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. and at the officer's 
                hourly rate of basic pay plus premium pay 
                amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate for 
                the period from 11:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m.]
          (1) Night work differential.--
                  (A) 6 p.m. to midnight.--If any hours of 
                regularly scheduled work of a customs officer 
                occur during the hours of 6 p.m. and 12 a.m., 
                the officer is entitled to pay for such hours 
                of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) 
                or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly rate of 
                basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 15 
                percent of that basic rate.
                  (B) Midnight to 6 a.m.--If any hours of 
                regularly scheduled work of a customs officer 
                occur during the hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m., 
                the officer is entitled to pay for such hours 
                of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) 
                or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly rate of 
                basic pay plus premium pay amounting to 20 
                percent of that basic rate.
                  (C) Midnight to 8 a.m.--If the regularly 
                scheduled work of a customs officer is 12 a.m. 
                to 8:00 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay 
                for work during such period (except for work to 
                which paragraph (2) or (3) applies) at the 
                officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus premium 
                pay amounting to 20 percent of that basic rate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Treatment of premium pay.--Premium pay provided 
        for under this subsection may not be treated as being 
        overtime pay or compensation for any purpose. Premium 
        pay provided under this subsection shall not be paid to 
        any customs officer unless such officer actually 
        performed work during the time corresponding to such 
        premium pay. The preceding sentence shall not apply 
        with respect to the payment of an award or settlement 
        to a customs officer who was unable to perform work 
        during the time described in the preceding sentence as 
        a result of a personnel action in violation of section 
        5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 6(d) of 
        the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or title VII of 
        the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  (c) Limitations.--
          [(1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay 
        under subsection (a) (including commuting compensation 
        under subsection (a)(2)(B)) and premium pay under 
        subsection (b) that a customs officer may be paid in 
        any fiscal year may not exceed $25,000; except that the 
        Commissioner of Customs or his designee may waive this 
        limitation in individual cases in order to prevent 
        excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of 
        the Customs Service.]
          (1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay 
        under subsection (a) (including commuting compensation 
        under subsection (a)(2)(B)) that a customs officer may 
        be paid in any fiscal year may not exceed $30,000, 
        except that--
                  (A) the Commissioner of Customs or his or her 
                designee may waive this limitation in 
                individual cases in order to prevent excessive 
                costs or to meet emergency requirements of the 
                Customs Service; and
                  (B) upon certification by the Commissioner of 
                Customs to the Chairmen of the Committee on 
                Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
                and the Committee on Finance of the Senate that 
                the Customs Service has in operation a system 
                that provides accurate and reliable data on a 
                daily basis on overtime and premium pay that is 
                being paid to customs officers, the 
                Commissioner is authorized to pay any customs 
                officer for one work assignment that would 
                result in the overtime pay of that officer 
                exceeding the $30,000 limitation imposed by 
                this paragraph, in addition to any overtime pay 
                that may be received pursuant to a waiver under 
                subparagraph (A).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Use of Savings From Payment of Overtime and Premium Pay 
for Additional Overtime Enforcement Activities.--
          (1) Use of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999 and each 
        subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury--
                  (A) shall determine under paragraph (2) the 
                amount of savings from the payment of overtime 
                and premium pay to customs officers; and
                  (B) shall use an amount from the Customs User 
                Fee Account equal to such amount determined 
                under paragraph (2) for additional overtime 
                enforcement activities of the Customs Service.
          (2) Determination of savings amount.--For each fiscal 
        year, the Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to 
        the difference between--
                  (A) the estimated cost for overtime and 
                premium pay that would have been incurred 
                during that fiscal year if this section, as in 
                effect on the day before the date of the 
                enactment of sections 122 and 123 of the Trade 
                Agency Authorization, Drug Free Borders, and 
                Prevention of On-Line Child Pornography Act of 
                1999, had governed such costs; and
                  (B) the actual cost for overtime and premium 
                pay that is incurred during that fiscal year 
                under this section, as amended by sections 122 
                and 123 of the Trade Agency Authorization, Drug 
                Free Borders, and Prevention of On-Line Child 
                Pornography Act of 1999.
  [(e)] (f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

               CHAPTER 53 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

                   CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5314. Positions at level III

  Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the following 
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the 
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of 
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
          Solicitor General of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office 
        of National Drug Control Policy.
          Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury.

Sec. 5315. Positions at level IV

  Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following 
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the 
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of 
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
          Deputy Administrator of General Services.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury.
          Director of the Office of Educational Technology.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  SECTION 141 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974

SEC. 141. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g)(1)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Office for the purposes of carrying out its functions [not to 
exceed the following] as follows:
          [(i) $23,250,000 for fiscal year 1991.
          [(ii) $21,077,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
          (i) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2000.
          (ii) $26,501,000 for fiscal year 2001.
  (B) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year--
          (i) not to exceed $98,000 may be used for 
        entertainment and representation expenses of the 
        Office; and
          [(ii) not to exceed $2,050,000 may be used to pay the 
        United States share of the expenses of binational 
        panels and extraordinary challenge committees convened 
        pursuant to chapter 19 of the United States-Canada 
        Free-Trade Agreement; and]
          [(iii)] (ii) not to exceed $1,000,000 shall remain 
        available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) By no later than the date on which the President submits 
to the Congress the budget of the United States Government for 
a fiscal year, the United States Trade Representative shall 
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate the 
projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year that 
will be necessary for the Office to carry out its functions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                 SECTION 330 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930

SEC. 330. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) For the fiscal year 
beginning October 1, 1976, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
there are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission only 
such sums as may hereafter be provided by law.
  (2)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Commission for necessary expenses (including the rental of 
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere) not 
to exceed the following:
          [(i) $41,170,000 for fiscal year 1991.
          [(ii) $44,052,000 for fiscal year 1992.]
          (i) $47,200,000 for fiscal year 2000.
          (ii) $49,750,000 for fiscal year 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) By no later than the date on which the President submits 
to the Congress the budget of the United States Government for 
a fiscal year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Finance of the Senate the projected amount of 
funds for the succeeding fiscal year that will be necessary for 
the Commission to carry out its functions.

                         VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We strongly support the authorizations of appropriations in 
H.R. 1833 to provide additional resources needed by the U.S. 
Customs Service to combat illegal drug traffic across our 
borders. The interdiction efforts of the Customs Service 
represent an integral component of U.S. efforts to stop the 
flow of illegal drugs into this country. Additional equipment, 
the latest technology, and increased numbers of inspectors and 
other personnel are essential for more effective anti-drug 
enforcement, as well as to facilitate the entry of legitimate 
cargo. We also strongly support the authorization of additional 
funding for the Child Cyber-smuggling Center to assist in the 
effort to prevent child pornography and child sexual 
exploitation. These issues--drug interdiction and the 
prevention of child pornography--are issues of national 
importance with strong bipartisan support.
    We are, however, very concerned about a provision in the 
bill relating to the pay of Customs officers and inspectors, 
and are disappointed that the provision, section 123(b), has 
been included in the bill reported out of Committee. Section 
123(b) amends existing law governing the payment of night shift 
differential pay by greatly restricting the hours eligible for 
such pay. That provision (as well as the other labor provisions 
in the bill) is opposed by the Administration.
    We join the Administration in their opposition. First, the 
existing provision governing night shift differential pay takes 
a balanced approach toward compensating Customs officers for 
working odd hour shifts. Under existing law, Customs officers 
are compensated at a night shift differential rate only if a 
majority of their shift falls within the qualifying hours. 
Customs officers do not receive premium night shift 
differential pay wages for any portion of a shift if less than 
a majority of the shift falls outside the prescribed hours. 
This compensation system was developed in 1993 as a part of 
comprehensive package of Customs pay reforms, and was designed 
specifically to ensure that Customs officers receive additional 
pay for working odd hour shifts. Second, the Majority does not 
offer any legitimate justification for making the proposed 
changes. The 1996 Office of Inspector General report on which 
proponents of the measure rely is narrowly focused, and 
incomplete in its analysis. We would propose that prior to 
making this change, a more complete analysis be undertaken, as 
is being done on two other Customs employee issues. Third, 
Customs officers and inspectors often perform law enforcement-
type activities, but do not receive the base pay or pension 
benefits that other federal law enforcement officers receive. 
Accordingly, the current compensation structure was designed to 
provide Customs inspectors with other wage benefits to ensure 
adequate remuneration for the risks they are exposed to and the 
unpredictable hours they must work. These reasons form the 
basis of our opposition to this provision.
    The current law governing night shift differential pay was 
passed by Congress in 1993, as part of a comprehensive package 
of Customs compensation reforms, the Customs Officers' Pay 
Reform Amendments (``COPRA''), (P.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 670). 
The purpose of the reforms was to rationalize the method of 
paying Customs officers for overtime, while also ensuring that 
Customs officers received pay commensurate with the important 
work they perform. To achieve this balance, Congress, on a 
bipartisan basis, altered Customs officers' entire compensation 
structure, including the amendment to the hours eligible for 
and the wage rate applied to night shift differential pay. By 
considering and amending compensation on aggregate basis, 
Congress ensured that the correction of certain payment abuses 
did not result in Customs officers receiving an unwarranted cut 
in pay.
    On night shift differential pay, the 1993 reforms provided 
that
           if a majority of hours worked by a Customs 
        officer in a shift fell between 3 p.m., and midnight, 
        all hours in the shift were paid at the hourly rate + 
        15%;
           if a majority of hours worked by a Customs 
        officer in a shift fell between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m., all 
        hours in the shift were paid at the hourly rate + 20%; 
        and
           however, if a majority of the hours worked 
        by a Customs officer in a shift did not fall within the 
        3 p.m. to 8 a.m. period, the employee was paid at the 
        hourly rate only.
    The purpose of this premium is to compensate Customs 
officers for working shifts that begin or end outside a normal 
work day (i.e., 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., midnight to 8 a.m.). As 
stated in the 1993 Committee report, the Committee found that 
these odd hour shifts, which were assigned by management (and 
not the employee), had ``an adverse impact on the quality of 
life of Customs officials who are required to work regularly 
scheduled shifts at night or on Sundays and holidays.'' H. Rep. 
No. 103-11, at 573, 574 (May 25, 1993). Recognizing this 
problem, the Committee amended the hours eligible for and the 
wage rate applied to the night shift differential specifically 
to provide for ``shift differential compensation at levels 
substantially greater than applied generally to other Federal 
employees for such regularly scheduled work.'' H. Rep. No. 103-
11, at 573, 574 (May 25, 1993).
    Section 123(b) of the bill alters the balanced approach 
crafted in 1993 in two ways. First, the provision restricts the 
hours that qualify for the night shift differential to hours 
between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Second, the provision compensates 
Customs officers at the differential rate only for those hours 
that occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. (with one limited 
exception), and not the entire shift. Effectively, these 
changes will mean that a Customs officer who works a shift 
starting at 3 a.m. and ending at 11 a.m. will receive the shift 
differential for only 3 hours of that shift.
    To offset some of the loss in pay likely to occur, section 
121 of the bill adjusts the overtime cap that, under current 
law, restricts the amount of overtime pay a Customs officer may 
earn in one year. In effect, this adjustment would allow 
Customs officers to work more overtime to compensate for lost 
wages, or put another way, Customs officers will have to work 
more to get the same pay. Such a result is unfair. It is not 
even clear that the officers whose pay is reduced will be able 
to work the additional hours to make up for the loss in pay. 
Moreover, only a small percentage of officers currently reach 
the overtime cap, and therefore would even benefit from the new 
provision.
    A single report, done in 1996 by the Office of Inspector 
General (OIG), has been offered to support this change to night 
shift differential pay. That report purportedly reviews the 
operation of the night pay differential and the overtime cap 
since COPRA. The report, which concludes that the COPRA 
resulted in an increase in overall premium night shift 
differential payments, is, however, seriously flawed and 
certainly incomplete.
    First, the OIG report merely calculated the absolute 
increase in night differential pay over a three year period. 
The report did not investigate the cause of the increase. The 
OIG's report did not investigate whether the increase was due 
to an overall increase in the number of hours being worked, 
whether there was an increase in the number of late shifts 
being worked due to increased trade, or whether the increase in 
cost was attributable to an increase in base wages. Rather, the 
OIG report merely concludes that the increase was due to COPRA 
without investigating, entertaining or otherwise considering 
any other possible reasons for the increase.
    Second, the OIG report did not assess the impact of any 
change in the law on Customs employees' salaries. As discussed 
above, the 1993 changes to the method of calculating premium 
night shift differential payments were part of a comprehensive 
package of reforms intended to ensure that Customs officers 
would receive adequate compensation for the hard, and often 
dangerous, work they perform. Altering the carefully crafted 
package Congress created in 1993 without assessing the impact 
on Customs officers' overall pay is irresponsible, and could 
result in an unwarranted pay cut for many of these officers. 
Third, OIG did not find any evidence of abuse in this system. 
In fact, to the contrary, the OIG report specifically states 
that Customs management did not change work schedules to allow 
employees to earn more shift differential pay. Rather, Customs 
management continued to schedule shifts to fit customers' 
demand.
    We are not opposed to considering amendments to Customs 
officers pay, if a credible study evaluates and recommends that 
legislative changes be made. We have indicated that we would 
support a study, as the Majority has decided to do on two other 
Customs employee issues. However, we are opposed to cutting 
someone's wages based on a report that shows nothing. The men 
and women of the U.S. Customs Service perform vital functions 
with respect to both law enforcement--keeping drugs and other 
contraband from crossing our borders--and preserving the 
integrity of U.S. trade with foreign nations. Their current 
compensation structure was designed to take account of the 
unusual stresses of their job--both the on-the-job safety risks 
and the irregular hours. We do not believe that

there is clear evidence that those aspects of a Customs 
officer's job have changed in a way that would justify reducing 
their pay, which is precisely what H.R. 1833 will do.

                                   Sandy Levin.
                                   John Lewis.
                                   William J. Coyne.
                                   Richard E. Neal.
                                   Xavier Becerra
                                   Michael R. McNulty.
                                   Robert T. Matsui.
                                   C.B. Rangel.
                                   Pete Stark.
                                   Wm. J. Jefferson.
                                   Ben Cardin.
                                   John Tanner.
                                   Jerry Kleczka.
                                   Karen L. Thurman.
                                   Jim McDermott.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.

         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL R. McNULTY

    I feel that the following three items warrant action by the 
Office of the United Trade Representative (USTR).
    The USTR would investigate the differences in plastic 
packaging pricing in the European Union and the United States 
and possible violations of the GATT trade agreement resulting 
from such pricing differences. The USTR should also pursue 
remedies for any violations of the GATT agreement to ensure the 
continuation of free and fair trade.
    The USTR should also examine unfair subsidies by the 
Canadian government to Canadian steel and aluminum above-ground 
pool manufacturers. Canadian manufacturers of above-ground 
pools have doubled their U.S. market in the last three years 
and are currently selling their product at 25 percent below 
cost compared to American manufacturers. The USTR should 
investigate and pursue remedies if necessary.
    Local and provincial Canadian law and statute mandate the 
use of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards for 
electrical components, which differ from the United States' 
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) standards. This situation creates 
an obstacle to free and fair trade between Canada and the 
United States in all facets of the electrical components 
industry. I encourage the USTR to pursue harmonization of 
electrical industry standards between all NAFTA nations.

                                

```