GAO-01-304

Report to the Chairman, Caucus on

International Narcotics Control, U.S.

Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

CUSTOMS SERVICE

Effects of Proposed

Legislation on

Officers’ Pay
Page i GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Letter 1

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers’ Night

Differential Pay at JFK 30

Appendix III Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers’ Night

Differential Pay at LAX 33

Appendix IV Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers’ Night

Differential Pay at Miami International Airport 36

Appendix V Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers’ Night

Differential Pay at Baltimore-Washington International

Airport and Seaport 39

Appendix VI Effects of Proposed Changes on Officers’ Night

Differential Pay at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing 42

Appendix VII Comments From the Department of the Treasury 46

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

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

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

Employees Union 48

Appendix X GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: Customs Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures, Fiscal

Years 1995-99 6

Table 2: Customs Officers' Overtime and Night Differential and

Hours Worked, Fiscal Years 1995-99 8

Table 3: Comparison of Current Law to Proposed Changes for

Certain Overtime and Premium Pay Issues, Including

Those Relating to Night Differential Pay 9

Table 4: Comparison of the Number of Night Differential Hours

Currently Available and as Proposed 11

Table 5: Number and Percent of Customs Officers That Would

Have Received Less Pay Had Sections 123 (a) and (b) Been

in Effect During Fiscal Year 1999 at Five Selected Ports 13

Table 6: Potential Night Differential Pay Reductions Had Sections

123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 Been in Effect in Fiscal Year

1999 at Five Selected Ports 14

Table 7: Night Differential Pay Under Current Law and Proposed

Law for the Six Top “Differential Earning” Shifts

Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999 15

Table 8: Decreased Pay That Would Have Occurred Had Proposed

Changes Been in Effect at Five Selected Ports During

Fiscal Year 1999 16

Table 9: Amount of Night Differential Paid at Top 100 Ports

Nationwide for Fiscal Year 1999 24

Table 10: Total and Average per Officer Amount of Night

Differential Pay Under Current Law and Under H.R. 1833

Sections 123 (a) and (b) for the Six Top “Differential

Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999 26

Table 11: Night Differential Pay at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 30

Table 12: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

Had Been in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 30

Table 13: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

Had Been in Effect at JKF During Fiscal Year 1999 31

Table 14: Decreased Night Differential Pay and Amounts of

Decreased Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been

in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999 32
Page iii GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Table 15: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Top Four Night Shifts at JFK During

Fiscal Year 1999 32

Table 16: Night Differential Pay at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 33

Table 17: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 33

Table 18: Decreased Night Differential Pay if Section 123 (b) Only

Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 34

Table 19: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

and (b) Had Been in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999 35

Table 20: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Top Five Night Shifts at LAX During

Fiscal Year 1999 35

Table 21: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Early Morning Shifts at LAX During

Fiscal Year 1999 35

Table 22: Night Differential Pay at Miami International Airport

During Fiscal Year 1999 36

Table 23: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During

Fiscal Year 1999 36

Table 24: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport During

Fiscal Year 1999 37

Table 25: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

and (b) Had Been in Effect at Miami International Airport

During Fiscal Year 1999 38

Table 26: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Top Four Night Shifts at Miami

International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999 38

Table 27: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for the Early Morning Shift at Miami

International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999 38

Table 28: Night Differential Pay at Baltimore-Washington

International Airport and Seaport During Fiscal Year 1999 39

Table 29: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal

Year 1999 39

Table 30: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal

Year 1999 40

Table 31: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

and (b) Had Been in Effect at the Baltimore Port During

Fiscal Year 1999 41
Page iv GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Table 32: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Top Three Night Shifts at the Baltimore

Port During Fiscal Year 1999 41

Table 33: Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro Land Border

Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999 42

Table 34: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only

Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

During Fiscal Year 1999 43

Table 35: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only

Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing

During Fiscal Year 1999 43

Table 36: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a)

and (b) Had Been in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border

Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999 44

Table 37: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Top Five Night Shifts at San Ysidro Land

Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999 45

Table 38: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From

Proposed Law for Early Morning Shifts at San Ysidro Land

Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999 45

Figures

Figure 1: Overtime and Premium Pay Expenditures for Fiscal Year

1999 7

Figure 2: Night Differential Hours and Rates Under Current and

Proposed Legislation 10

Abbreviations

CMC Customs Management Center

COPRA Customs Officers Pay Reform Amendments

COSS Customs Overtime and Scheduling System

JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport

LAX Los Angeles International Airport

NTEU National Treasury Employees Union

OMB Office of Management and Budget
Page 1 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

January 31, 2001

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman, Caucus on International

Narcotics Control

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report responds to your request that we review the effects of

proposed legislation on U.S. Customs Service officers’ pay.1

 As agreed with

your staff, we primarily focused on the provisions in H.R. 1833,2

introduced in the 106th Congress, that would affect Customs officers’

night differential pay. In May 1999, the House of Representatives passed

H.R. 1833, which contained these pay amendments. In August 1999, the

Senate passed another version of H.R. 1833, which did not contain the pay

provisions. Similar provisions were introduced, but not passed, in the

105th Congress, and such provisions may be reintroduced in the 107th

Congress. The pay provisions in H.R. 1833 would amend the 1911 Act, as

amended,3

 governing Customs officers’ overtime and premium pay,4 and

they are intended to more closely align night differential pay for Customs

officers with that of other federal agencies. A primary issue of concern is

the extent to which the pay provisions in H.R. 1833 would reduce Customs

officers’ night differential pay.

Our objectives were to (1) compare current law to proposed legislative

changes in H.R. 1833 dealing with Customs officers’ pay, (2) determine the

 1

Throughout this report, when we use the term “Customs officers,” as defined under

current law (19 U.S.C. 267 (e)), we are referring to both Customs inspectors and canine

enforcement officers.

2

An Act to authorize appropriations for the United States Customs Service, and for other

purposes.

3

Act of February 13, 1911, 36 Stat. 899, 901 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 267 (b)). In a 1991

report, we recommended that Congress reevaluate the basis for computing premium pay,

including night differential pay for Customs officers and that Customs improve its

administration of overtime. See Customs Service: 1911 Act Governing Overtime Is Outdated

(GAO/GGD-91-96, June 14, 1991). The law was subsequently amended, as discussed later.

4

The term “premium pay” means differential pay for regularly scheduled work on Sundays,

holidays, and at night as authorized under current law (19 U.S.C. 267 (b)).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

extent to which Customs officers’ pay would increase or decrease if

proposed changes were enacted, and (3) obtain Customs and the National

Treasury Employees Union’s (NTEU) views on the proposed changes. Our

review focused primarily on analyzing the effects of sections 123 (a) and

(b) of subtitle C of H.R. 1833 dealing with night differential pay. In addition

to our analysis, we also obtained views on sections 123 (a) and (b) and

section 121, which addresses Customs officers’ annual overtime and

premium pay cap.

To address our first objective, we compared current law and related

federal regulations along with a pertinent arbitration ruling to the

proposed changes in H.R. 1833 to identify differences and determine how

the changes would potentially affect Customs officers’ night differential

pay. To address our second objective, we analyzed the Customs Overtime

and Scheduling System (COSS) database—which contains detailed

information on officers’ overtime and premium pay (Sunday, holiday, and

night differential)—to capture officers’ night differential pay earnings for

fiscal year 1999. We analyzed data nationwide and then more specifically

on five judgmentally selected Customs ports of entry.5

 We then determined

what the officers’ night differential earnings would have been if sections

123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 had been in effect during fiscal year 1999.

Although the patterns of hours worked in future years may change, and

our five selected ports are not representative of all ports, our analysis is an

indicator of the changes that could occur in pay if provisions such as 123

(a) and (b) were enacted. To address our third objective, we obtained

documentation from the Commissioner of Customs and written comments

from the NTEU national president. We also interviewed Customs

managers, supervisors, and officers, and NTEU chapter presidents at the

five selected ports. More specific information on our objectives, scope,

and methodology is discussed in appendix I.

Our comparison of current law and related implementing regulations and

rulings to proposed legislative changes in H.R. 1833 showed how Customs

officers’ night differential pay would be affected by the proposed changes.

 5

We judgmentally selected, based on the number of air and land passengers processed,

three large airports, one medium airport/seaport, and one large land border crossing. The

ports selected were John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Los Angeles

International Airport (LAX), Miami International Airport, Baltimore-Washington

International Airport and Seaport, and San Ysidro land border crossing near San Diego, CA.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Section 123 (a) would override a 1995 arbitration ruling that interpreted

current law and would prohibit Customs officers from receiving night

differential pay when they take annual, sick, or other leave from regularly

scheduled night differential work. Section 123 (b) would change the times

and reduce the number of hours in a day that Customs officers could earn

night differential pay. Night differential pay would be limited to hours

worked between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and also to hours worked on a

midnight-to-8 a.m. shift. Section 121, a related section, would remove

premium pay, including night differential pay, from the calculation of the

$30,000 fiscal year overtime and premium pay cap that Customs officers

may not exceed.

Our analysis of Customs data showed the extent to which sections 123 (a)

and (b) of H.R. 1833 would affect Customs officers’ pay. Nationwide, our

analysis of the COSS database showed that 6,510 Customs officers

received about $13.5 million in night differential pay in fiscal year 1999.

Over 80 percent of the $13.5 million in night differential pay was

concentrated in six shifts, which generated $11 million in night differential

pay. Had sections 123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 been in effect for these six

shifts during fiscal year 1999, Customs officers would have received about

$6 million in night differential pay, about $5 million less than what they

actually received that year. In addition, of the 332 ports (including

subports and headquarters offices) accumulating COSS data, 10 had night

differential pay of $400,000 or more, while 106 had no night differential

pay for fiscal year 1999.

Our analysis of the COSS database for five selected ports showed that

nearly all (97 percent) of the 1,377 Customs officers receiving night

differential pay would have received less night differential pay had

sections 123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 been in effect during fiscal year 1999.

Section 123 (b), which would reduce the number of hours for which night

differential pay could be earned, had the greater impact on pay. Customs

officers working at ports with shifts starting in the early afternoon, such as

those at JFK, would have had the largest pay decreases.

The amount of pay decreases and number of Customs officers affected

varied across the five ports we analyzed. For example, of the 464 Customs

officers who received night differential pay at JFK during fiscal year 1999,

148 (32 percent) would have had their night differential pay decreased by

over $3,000 had sections 123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 been in effect. In

contrast, the proposed changes would not have had as much of an impact

on Customs officers working at the Baltimore-Washington International

Airport and Seaport, a smaller port with fewer officers earning night
Page 4 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

differential pay. Of the 53 Customs officers who received night differential

pay at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Seaport, 44 (83

percent) would have had their pay decreased by $500 or less if the pay

provisions in H.R. 1833 had been enacted.

In the aggregate, 1,331 of the 1,377 Customs officers receiving night

differential pay at the five ports would have received about $1.7 million

less pay during fiscal year 1999. The amount of decreased night differential

pay had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect ranged from a low of about

$18,000 for officers at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and

Seaport to a high of about $1 million at JFK.

In contrast, but to a lesser extent, 122 officers at four of the five selected

ports would have received net increases in night differential pay totaling

$16,943 by the end of fiscal year 1999 had the proposed changes been in

effect. The net increases primarily would have resulted from early morning

shifts. Under section 123 (b), Customs officers working shifts starting at 4

a.m. and 5 a.m. would receive night differential pay for hours worked

between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., which they do not receive under current law.

The views we obtained on the pay provisions in H.R. 1833 from affected

parties—Customs and NTEU officials, along with managers, supervisors,

and officers—provided positions and insights on the provisions. The

Commissioner of Customs and the NTEU national president, along with

Customs supervisors and officers and NTEU chapter presidents at the five

ports, commented that they generally opposed sections 123 (a) and (b) of

H.R. 1833. These provisions would provide Customs with the authority to

eliminate Customs officers’ night differential pay while on leave and

reduce the number of hours in a day that officers could earn night

differential pay. In contrast, Customs field managers at the five ports had

varying views on these two provisions; some Customs managers supported

the sections, while others opposed them. In addition, many of the Customs

managers, supervisors, and officers and NTEU officials said that because

section 123 (b), in particular, would decrease officers’ night differential

pay significantly, its implementation would lower morale and create

problems in staffing night shifts at Customs ports.

NTEU’s national president, along with Customs field managers,

supervisors, and officers and NTEU chapter presidents we interviewed at

the five ports, generally supported section 121 of H.R. 1833. For the most

part, they viewed this section as an opportunity for Customs officers to

potentially earn more overtime because premium pay, including night

differential pay, would not count toward the annual pay cap. Customs
Page 5 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

headquarters officials, however, did not provide us with their views on

section 121. In commenting on this report, Customs said that the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) was the appropriate agency for providing

the administration’s position on legislative matters. OMB opposed section

121 because it believed this section should be considered in the context of

achieving overall consistency in pay between Customs and other similarly

situated inspection service agencies.

The U.S. Customs Service has a diverse mission spanning a large

geographic area. Customs responsibilities include (1) collecting revenue

from imports and enforcing Customs and other U.S. laws and regulations,

(2) preventing the smuggling of drugs into the country, and (3) overseeing

export compliance and money-laundering issues. At the close of fiscal year

1999, Customs had a full-time permanent workforce of about 19,000

employees–including about 8,000 Customs officers (inspectors and canine

enforcement officers). These employees carry out Customs mission at its

headquarters, 20 Customs Management Centers, 20 Special Agent-inCharge offices, 301 U.S. ports of entry, 5 Strategic Trade Centers, and over

25 international offices. Customs officers processed over 21 million import

entries, with a value of $977 billion; 137 million conveyances;6

 and 480

million land, sea, and air passengers in fiscal year 1999.

Although our review focused on night differential pay, which is part of

premium pay, we are also providing some background information on all

premium pay components (Sunday, holiday, and night pay) and data on

overtime pay because these items are often reviewed collectively for

oversight purposes. In addition to base and overtime pay, Customs officers

can earn additional compensation through a premium pay (Sunday,

holiday, and night differential pay) system. This system is governed by pay

amendments in the Customs Officers Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA),

which was part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L.

103-66; 107 Stat. 312, 668).7

 6

Conveyances include aircraft, trucks, trains, buses, privately-owned vehicles, and ocean

vessels.

7

In 1993, Congress made major changes to Customs officers’ pay by enacting COPRA,

which amended the 1911 Act governing officers’ overtime and premium pay.

Background

Premium Pay Process
Page 6 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Customs officers earn pay (base pay plus premium pay) for regularly

scheduled work on Sundays, holidays, and nights as follows:

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

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

• night pay is 1.15 or 1.20 times the basic hourly rate (15- or 20-percent

differential); that is

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

and

• 1.20 if the majority of hours worked were between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.

As shown in table 1, according to Customs, its overtime and premium pay

expenditures for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 ranged from a total of

$106.3 million to $143.1 million, with night differential pay ranging from

$8.9 million to $13.6 million. By law, combined overtime and premium pay

currently cannot exceed a fiscal year cap of $30,000 for each Customs

officer.8

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

Dollars in millions

Premium pay

Fiscal year Overtime

Night

differential

Holiday and

Sunday Total

1995 $91.4 $8.9 $6.0 $106.3

1996 99.8 9.5 8.8 118.1

1997 107.3 9.1 8.4 124.8

1998 113.6 12.1 10.5 136.2

1999 118.3 13.6a11.2 143.1

a

Our analysis of COSS data, subsequently discussed in this report, showed $13.5 million in night

differential pay for fiscal year 1999. This table shows $13.6 million. The difference may be due to

rounding, or the data in this table may originate from a Customs data source other than COSS.

Source: U.S. Customs Service.

Figure 1, below, illustrates fiscal year 1999 expenditures for overtime and

premium pay, including those for night differential pay.

 8

Although 19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1) sets the cap at $25,000, the annual Treasury appropriation

laws for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 have increased the cap to $30,000. For example, for

fiscal year 1999, see P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-480, 486 (1998).
Page 7 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

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

Source: U.S. Customs Service.

In addition, as shown in table 2, from fiscal years 1995 through 1999, total

hours of overtime and night differential worked by Customs officers

ranged from approximately 2.5 million to 3.1 million overtime hours and

from approximately 3.3 million to 4.5 million night differential hours.
Page 8 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Table 2: Customs Officers’ Overtime and Night Differential and Hours Worked,

Fiscal Years 1995-99

Overtime Night differential

Fiscal year

Total

officersa Officers Hours Officers Hours

1995 8,158 7,314 2,497,752 5,678 3,252,481

1996 8,425 7,597 2,784,915 5,846 3,462,484

1997 9,006 8,247 2,973,571 6,247 3,321,258

1998 9,092 8,442 3,093,429 6,600 4,261,718

1999 9,137 8,489 3,088,450 6,545b 4,484,076

a

Total officers represents the number of officers that worked sometime during the year. It does not

represent the number at the close of the fiscal year.

b

Our analysis of COSS, subsequently discussed in this report, showed 6,510 officers receiving night

differential pay during fiscal year 1999. The source for the data for this table is Customs Premium

Overtime Pay Inquiry Systems. The difference of 35 officers is not significant and may be attributable

to the different sources of the data.

Source: U.S. Customs Service data.

Section 123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 proposed changing the way that night

differential pay is earned and calculated. Section 123 (a) would override a

1995 arbitration ruling that interpreted law and would provide Customs

with the authority to prohibit Customs officers from receiving night

differential pay when they take annual, sick, or other leave from regularly

scheduled night work. Section 123 (b) would change the times and reduce

the number of hours in a day that Customs officers could earn night

differential pay. This section, as discussed in more detail in table 3 below,

would replace the current “majority of hours” provision, which allows

night differential pay for shifts starting as early as 12 noon and as late as 3

a.m. Instead, section 123 (b) would limit night differential pay to hours

worked between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and on a 12 midnight-to-8 a.m. shift.

Section 121 would change the way the annual overtime and premium pay

(Sunday, holiday, and night differential pay) cap is calculated. It would

remove premium pay, including night differential pay, from the annual pay

cap that Customs officers cannot exceed. Table 3 describes and compares

current law with proposed changes to night differential pay and the annual

pay cap.9

 As noted in table 3, section 123 (b) would eliminate the “majority

of hours” provision for night differential pay. Instead, night differential pay

 9

In a 1996 report, the Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General issued a

report recommending that Customs seek legislative changes to officers’ night differential

pay. See Customs Officers Pay Reform Amendments (COPRA) (OIG-96-094, Sept. 13, 1996).

Comparison of

Current Law to

Proposed Night

Differential Pay

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

would be limited to actual hours worked between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and for

actual hours worked on a 12 midnight-to-8 a.m. shift.

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

Relating to Night Differential Pay

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

Payment of premium

pay, including night

differential pay, when a

Customs officer is on

annual or sick leave

A 1995 arbitration ruling interpreting current law

requires Customs to pay officers night differential pay

when they are on annual, sick, or other leave from

regularly scheduled night differential work. P.L. 105-277

(112 Stat. 2861-518) permanently restricts Customs

from paying Sunday premium pay to an employee if the

employee has not actually performed work on Sunday.

In addition, Customs officers are not paid holiday

premium pay when they are on leave and do not

actually work the holiday.

Section 123 (a) would provide Customs with

authority to prohibit Customs officers from

receiving any premium pay, including night

differential pay, when on leave from regularly

scheduled work that entitled them to premium

pay. As such, the section would override the

arbitration ruling and prohibit Customs officers

from receiving night differential pay while on

leave.

Current law (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) provides that a

Customs officer can receive night differential pay at

rates above base pay for an entire 8-hour shift when the

“majority of hours” worked falls within certain prescribed

hours as follows.

Section 123 (b) would eliminate the “majority of

hours” provision. This section would limit night

differential pay to hours actually worked

between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and to hours actually

worked on a 12 midnight-to-8 a.m. shift.

• When the majority of hours worked occurs between

 3 p.m. and 12 midnight, the rate of night differential

pay is 15 percent of the base hourly rate for the

entire 8-hour shift. As such, shifts starting as early as

12 noon can receive night differential pay for an

entire 8-hour shift.

• No majority of hours provision. The rate of

night differential pay would remain at 15

percent of the base hourly rate but only for

actual hours worked between 6 p.m. and 12

midnight. It would reduce the number of hours

that night differential can be earned.

• When the majority of hours worked occurs between

11 p.m. and 8 a.m., the rate of night differential pay is

20 percent of the base hourly rate for the entire 8-

hour shift. As such, shifts starting as late as 3 a.m.

can receive night differential pay for an entire 8-hour

shift.

• No majority of hours provision. The rate of

night differential pay would remain at 20

percent of the base hourly rate but only for

actual hours worked between 12 midnight and

6 a.m. and for actual hours worked on a 12

midnight-to-8 a.m. shift. It would reduce the

number of hours that night differential can be

earned.

Times and number of

hours in a day that night

differential pay can be

earned

• For a 7:30 p.m.-to-3:30 a.m. shift, the rate of night

differential pay is 15 percent of the base hourly rate

for 4 hours and 20 percent of the base hourly rate for

4 hours. (This provision addresses a split shift in

which the majority of hours worked falls within

prescribed hours for both 15-and 20-percent night

differential pay.)

• While not specifically addressed in the

proposed changes, the rate of night

differential for this shift (7:30 p.m. to 3:30

a.m.) would be 15 percent for actual hours

worked up to 12 midnight, and 20 percent for

hours worked after 12 midnight. It would not

affect the number of hours available for night

differential pay.

Fiscal year annual

overtime and premium

(Sunday, holiday, and

night differential) pay cap

Current law (19 U.S.C. 267 (c) (10) and the annual

Treasury appropriation laws for FYs 1998 through 2001)

state that the aggregate amount of overtime and

premium pay, including night differential pay, that a

Customs officer may be paid in any fiscal year may not

exceed $30,000.

Section 121 would remove premium pay from

the calculation of the $30,000 fiscal year cap. As

such, the pay cap would be solely an overtime

cap.

Source: H.R. Rep. No. 106-161 (1999) and a December 9, 1995, Arbitration Ruling.
Page 10 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

Figure 2 illustrates the information discussed in table 3 on the hours

officers can earn night differential pay and the percent of night differential

earned under current law and proposed legislation.

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

Note: As discussed more specifically in table 3, under current law with the majority of hours provision,

officers can earn night differential pay for an entire shift for shifts starting as early as 12 noon through

shifts starting as late as 3 a.m. Under proposed legislation, officers earn night differential for actual

hours worked from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and on a 12 midnight-to-8-a.m. shift.

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

As shown in table 4, elimination of the “majority of hours” provision would

decrease the number of available hours that Customs officers could earn

night differential pay. However, to a lesser extent, it would also increase

10

6

7

8

9

11 12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

6pm - 12am 15% differential

12am - 6am 20% differential

12am - 8am shift 20% differential

Noon

Midnight

10

6

7

8

9

11 12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

11pm-8am

20% differential

3pm-12am 15%

differential

Noon

Midnight

Current Proposed

Majority of hours
Page 11 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

the number of night differential hours available for a few morning shifts.

Generally, eliminating the “majority of hours” provision would have the

effect of reducing Customs officers’ pay.

Table 4: Comparison of the Number of Night Differential Hours Currently Available and as Proposed

Night differential hours

8-hour shift starting and ending time Current law

Proposed

changes

Increase under

proposed changes

Decrease under

proposed changes

12 noon to 8 p.m. 8 2 6

1 p.m. to 9 p.m. 8 3 5

2 p.m. to 10 p.m. 8 4 4

3 p.m. to 11 p.m. 8 5 3

4 p.m. to 12 midnight 8 6 2

5 p.m. to 1 a.m. 8 7 1

6 p.m. to 2 a.m. 8 8

7 p.m. to 3 a.m. 8 8

8 p.m. to 4 a.m. 8 8

9 p.m. to 5 a.m. 8 8

10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 8 8

11 p.m. to 7 a.m. 8 7 1

12 midnight to 8 a.m. 8 8

1 a.m. to 9 a.m. 8 5 3

2 a.m. to 10 a.m. 8 4 4

3 a.m. to 11 a.m. 8 3 5

4 a.m. to 12 Noon 0 2 2

5 a.m. to 1 p.m. 0 1 1

6 a.m. to 2 p.m. 0 0

7 a.m. to 3 p.m. 0 0

8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 0 0

9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 0 0

10 a.m. to 6 p.m. 0 0

11 a.m. to 7 p.m. 0 1 1

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

H.R. 1833.

An example of how the elimination of the majority of hours provision

would decrease the number of available night differential hours is as

follows: If a Customs officer is scheduled to work a shift that starts at 12

noon and ends at 8 p.m., 5 of the 8 hours of that shift (the majority of

hours) occur between 3 p.m. and 12 midnight. As such, because the

majority of hours worked falls within the prescribed hours (3 p.m. to 12

midnight) under current law, the Customs officer would earn night

differential pay at 15 percent of the base hourly rate for the entire 8-hour

shift. Under proposed pay changes in H.R. 1833, the officer working the 12
Page 12 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

noon-to-8 p.m. shift would earn night differential pay at 15 percent of the

base hourly rate only for the 2 hours worked between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. In

short, the Customs officer would have 6 fewer hours subject to night

differential pay under the proposed changes.

The majority of hours provision and the 15- and 20-percent night

differential pay rates were included in COPRA, effective January 1, 1994.

The rationale for including the majority of hours provision in COPRA is

not specifically addressed in the legislative history. House Report No. 103-

111 sheds some light on the rationale for increasing Customs officers’

night differential pay rates, but it is silent on the majority of hours

provision. It states

“Finally, the Committee recognizes the adverse impact on the quality of life of Customs

officials [officers] who are required to work regularly scheduled shifts at night or on

Sundays and holidays. Accordingly, the bill provides for shift differential compensation at

levels substantially greater than applied generally to other Federal employees for such

regularly scheduled work.” (H.R. Rep. No. 103-111, at 1233 (1993))

Our analysis of the COSS database nationwide showed that had sections

123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 been in effect on the six most frequently used

night shifts during fiscal year 1999, Customs officers would have received

about $6 million in night differential pay—about $5 million less than what

they actually received that year. These six shifts accounted for 82 percent

of the night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 (see table 10 in app. I).

Similarly, our analysis of the COSS database for the five selected ports

showed that 1,331 officers (97 percent) would have received less night

differential pay had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect. These sections

would prevent Customs from paying officers night differential pay when

on leave and would reduce the number of available hours in a day that

Customs officers could earn night differential pay. In particular, our

analysis showed that section 123 (b) would cause the greater amount of

pay decreases and that the amounts of potential pay decreases and

number of Customs officers affected varied by port. For example, officers

working shifts starting in the early afternoon, such as those at JFK, would

have been most affected by pay decreases if the proposed changes were

implemented primarily because the hours worked before 6 p.m. would no

longer qualify for night differential pay.

Most Customs

Officers Would

Receive Less Night

Differential Pay

Under Proposed

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

Our analysis of Customs night differential pay nationally showed that of

the 332 ports (including subports, such as courier facilities) accumulating

COSS data during fiscal year 1999, 106 had no night differential pay, 59

paid out less than $1,000, and 112 paid out over $10,000. Ten of the ports

had night differential payments of $400,000 or more. JFK topped the list

with night differential pay of about $1.8 million in fiscal year 1999. The top

100 ports and the amount of night differential pay officers at these ports

received in fiscal year 1999 are shown in table 9 of appendix I.

During fiscal year 1999, 2,011 Customs officers worked at the five ports we

analyzed. Of these officers, 1,377 (68 percent) received night differential

pay sometime during the year. As shown in the table below, 1,331 (97

percent) of these officers receiving night differential pay at these five ports

would have received less pay had the proposed changes been in effect

during fiscal year 1999. By contrast, to a much lesser extent, 122 officers at

four of the five ports would have received increased night differential pay

had the provisions been in effect.

Table 5: Number and Percent of Customs Officers That Would Have Received Less Pay Had Sections 123 (a) and (b) Been in

Effect During Fiscal Year 1999 at Five Selected Ports

Total who received night

differential pay

Total who would have received

less night differential pay

Port

Total officers receiving

compensation No. % No. %

JFK 679 464 68 464 100

LAX 423 238 56 237 99

Miami International Airport 537 391 73 363 93

Balto.-Wash. Int. Airport and Seaport 62 53 85 53 100

San Ysidro land border crossing 310 231 75 214 93

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

Source: GAO analysis of Customs data.

The amounts of reduced night differential pay that the 1,331 Customs

officers would have received had the proposed changes been in effect

varied by port, as shown in table 6. The potentially decreased pay was

affected by how frequently officers worked night differential shifts, how

many hours of night differential pay would be reduced as a result of

proposed changes, and the officers’ basic hourly rates of pay.

Extent of Night

Differential Pay

Reductions Varied by Port
Page 14 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

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

1999 at Five Selected Ports

Officers at each port

Potential pay JFK LAX Miami Balto.-Wash. San Ysidro border

reductions No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

$500 or less 97 21 99 42 186 51 44 83 93 43

$501 to $1,000 41 9 41 17 89 25 3 6 34 16

$1,001 to $2,000 87 19 63 27 74 20 5 9 55 26

$2,001 to $3,000 91 20 19 8 12 3 1 2 22 10

$3,001 to $4,000 83 18 11 5 2 1 0 0 8 4

$4,001 to $5,000 48 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 <1

$5,001 and over 17 4 1 <1 0 0 0 0 1 <1

Total 464 237 363 53 214

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of Customs data.

As shown in the shaded areas in the above table, 148 (32 percent) of the

Customs officers receiving night differential pay during fiscal year 1999 at

JFK would have had reductions of over $3,000 in night differential pay. In

addition, JFK had more officers with higher pay reductions than the other

ports because many of its officers worked the 1 p.m.-to-9 p.m. shift. Of the

464 Customs officers who received night differential pay at JFK during

fiscal year 1999, 452 (97 percent) worked the 1 p.m.-to-9 p.m. shift

sometime during the year. Had H.R. 1833 been in effect, these officers

would not have received night differential pay for 5 of the hours they

worked that shift.

In contrast, the proposed changes would not have had as much of an

impact on Customs officers working at the Baltimore-Washington

International Airport and Seaport, a smaller port with fewer officers

earning night differential pay. The officers from the Baltimore-Washington

International Airport and Seaport who worked night shifts at the airport

(there are no night shifts at the seaport) would have had smaller night

differential pay reductions than those at JFK. In addition to having fewer

officers, the primary reason that 44 (83 percent) of them would have had

pay decreases of $500 or less is that most officers only worked a limited

number of night shifts at the airport on a periodic, rotating basis.

Generally the officers work at the airport for a 1-week period, every 24

weeks.
Page 15 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

As part of our analysis, we also determined the total amount of pay

reductions that would have occurred had section 123 (a) and section 123

(b) been in effect during fiscal year 1999 nationally for six frequently

worked night shifts and at the five selected ports we analyzed in detail.

Nationally, according to COSS, 6,510 Customs officers received about

$13.5 million in night differential pay in fiscal year 1999. About $11 million

(82 percent) of the $13.5 million was concentrated on six frequently

worked night shifts, such as the 4 p.m.-to-12 midnight shift. As shown in

table 7, had sections 123 (a) and (b) been in effect, Customs officers would

have received about $6 million for working those six shifts, about $5

million less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

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

“Differential Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay amounts

Shift hours Current law (actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Midnight to 8 a.m.a$1,956,775 $1,706,846 $249,929

Noon to 8 p.m. 1,310,974 276,381 1,034,593

1 p.m. to 9 p.m. 2,059,029 643,686 1,415,343

2 p.m. to 10 p.m. 972,762 410,872 561,890

3 p.m. to 11 p.m. 654,615 346,833 307,782

4 p.m. to 12 a.m. 4,087,828 2,584,188 1,503,640

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

a

This shift is preserved in H.R.1833, so that officers working it would continue to earn 8 hours of night

differential pay. Therefore, any reduction would be attributable to section 123 (a), which eliminates

payment of night differential while officers are on leave.

Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.

At the five ports we analyzed, 1,331 officers would have received

$1,693,061 less night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 had the sections

123 (a) and (b) been in effect. These officers represent 20 percent of the

total officers who received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999.

Section 123 (b) would have resulted in the larger amounts of pay

reductions for Customs officers, as shown in table 8.

Potential Total Night

Differential Pay

Reductions Under

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

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

Fiscal Year 1999

Decreased night differential pay under proposed changes

Port

Total night

differential paida

Amount of

decrease under

123 (a)

Amount of

decrease under

123 (b)

Amount of

decrease under

both 123 (a) and (b)

JFK $1,742,224 $305,588 $845,791 $1,002,264

LAX 489,816 83,406 186,936 237,720

Miami 553,856 95,182 170,783 233,080

Baltimore-Washington 32,412 4,643 15,489 17,924

San Ysidro border 495,121 88,037 145,098 202,073

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

Note: The effects of section 123 (a) and section 123 (b) are interrelated, therefore, the amounts in the

last column are not the sum of the amounts of sections 123 (a) and (b). This interrelationship is

explained in appendix. I.

a

In our detailed analyses for each of the five ports, some records were excluded because of apparent

inconsistencies in the data which are further discussed in appendix. I. Accordingly, the amounts of

night differential pay for each port in the above table are slightly less than the amounts shown in

appendix I, table 9.

Source: GAO analysis of Customs data.

The above amounts of decreased pay or “savings” that would have

occurred as a result of implementation of H.R. 1833 sections 123 (a) and

(b) would remain with Customs for additional enforcement purposes.

Section 124 of H.R. 1833 would require the Secretary of the Treasury to

calculate the savings from section 123, as we did in the above table.

Customs, in turn, would be required to use the savings for additional

enforcement overtime activities at the ports where the savings occurred.

More detailed tables showing the effects of proposed changes at each of

the five ports are shown in appendixes II-VI.

While table 5 shows that many Customs officers working at the five

selected ports would receive less night differential pay, some officers

working early morning shifts (e.g., 4 a.m. to 12 noon and 5 a.m. to 1 p.m.)

would receive increased night differential pay. Officers working early

morning shifts starting as early as 4 a.m. do not receive any night

differential pay under current law. However, under section 123 (b),

officers working these early morning shifts would receive night differential

pay for hours worked between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. Had both sections 123 (a)

and (b) been in effect during fiscal year 1999, 122 officers at four of the

five ports would have received net increases in night differential pay

totaling $16,943. For example, at the San Ysidro land border crossing, 50

Some Officers Would

Receive Additional Night

Differential Pay Under the

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

officers would have received net increases totaling $10,818, while 10

officers at LAX would have received net increases totaling $221.

The Commissioner of Customs position10 and the NTEU national

president’s written comments to us,11 along with our limited interviewing

at Customs and NTEU headquarters, five Customs Management Centers

(CMCs), five ports of entry, and five NTEU chapters, revealed a variety of

opinions on the three proposed changes to Customs officers’ pay. Both the

Commissioner of Customs and the NTEU national president opposed

sections 123 (a) and (b). Section 123 (a) would prohibit Customs from

paying night differential pay when an officer is on leave. Section 123 (b)

would shorten the number of hours for which night differential pay could

be earned. The Commissioner of Customs stated that while Customs is

aware of concerns raised about increases in overtime and premium pay

costs, there are numerous contributory factors (other than night

differential pay) that could increase such costs. These other factors

include

“... increases in Federal pay rates, the doubling in commercial workloads without

commensurate increases in staff, and increases in locations and hours of service requested

by the trade community and Congress.”

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

other reasons,

“... pay systems for other federal law enforcement officers include sometimes 25% higher

pay for officers on an annual basis, including while they are on leave or during weeks that

they do not work irregular hours. Unlike many of these law enforcement officers, Customs

inspectors [officers] do not receive the added incentive of a twenty-year retirement.”

NTEU’s comments on the H.R. 1833 premium pay provisions are

reproduced in appendix IX.

Similarly, several Customs and NTEU field representatives we interviewed

said that they opposed section 123 (a). For example, an acting Customs

airport director said that if officers regularly work the night shift, they

 10Written in a May 25, 1999, letter to the Ranking Member, House Ways and Means

Committee, concerning provisions in H.R. 1833.

11In a June 26, 2000, letter commenting on the provisions in H.R. 1833 (see app. IX).

Varied Views on

Proposed Changes to

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

should get paid at that rate when they take leave, and one supervisor said

that officers should not have to worry about losing money if they take

their families on a 1-week vacation. On the other hand, other Customs and

NTEU field representatives we interviewed said that they supported

section 123 (a) because it is not appropriate to pay officers night

differential pay when they are on leave.

The Commissioner of Customs also opposed section 123 (b), for the same

reason as stated above. The NTEU national president opposed section 123

(b) as well, because of her belief that this provision would negatively

impact paychecks and morale among Customs officers nationwide. In her

letter to us, she commented that at present, night shifts are popular and

sought after by senior officers because the entire shift is paid at a premium

rate. She stated that most of these senior officers would not bid for those

shifts if the premium were drastically reduced. Rather, they would bid for

the day shift, and the less senior, new recruits would be “forced” to work

the night shifts.

Similarly, at the field level, all but one of the Customs officers, all five

NTEU chapter presidents, several supervisors, and one acting port

director we interviewed also opposed section 123 (b). Many of them

shared the NTEU national president’s reasons for opposing section 123

(b). However, other Customs field managers and supervisors we

interviewed supported this provision. One CMC director said that the

current law is not fair because hours worked before 6:00 p.m. are not

inconvenient to Customs officers and therefore they should not receive

night differential pay. In addition, one port director commented that

officers who earn premium pay would not be severely impacted by this

provision. He said that they could work more overtime to make up the

difference in pay lost due to changes in the premium pay policy.

Regardless of whether they expressed support or opposition, many of the

Customs and NTEU officials and officers we interviewed commented that

section 123 (b), in particular, would have a significantly adverse effect on

morale and would cause problems in staffing their ports’ night shifts

because it would greatly decrease officers’ night differential pay. Some of

these believed there would be fewer volunteers for the shifts, and

managers would then have to “force” officers to work them.

Concerning section 121, which would eliminate premium pay, including

night differential pay, from the $30,000 fiscal year overtime and premium

pay cap, NTEU’s national president offered qualified support for the

provision “on its own,” not as a trade-off for enacting the other two night
Page 19 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

differential pay provisions. NTEU also commented that, currently, only a

small percentage of officers reach the $30,000 annual pay cap, and only

those would benefit from this provision. The Commissioner of Customs’

May 25, 1999, letter to the Ranking Member of the House Committee on

Ways and Means did not address section 121, and Customs headquarters’

officials were reluctant to provide us with their views on this and other

sections of H.R. 1833.

In commenting on this report, Customs said that OMB is the appropriate

agency to issue statements of the administration’s position on legislative

matters. In this regard, OMB issued a Statement of Administration Policy

on May 25, 1999, on H.R. 1833 that, among other things, opposed certain

provisions of H.R. 1833 that would amend the annual cap on overtime for

Customs officers, (i.e., section 121). It stated that

“These provisions should be considered in the context of achieving overall consistency in

pay, including overtime and its treatment for retirement purposes, between the Customs

Service and similarly situated Federal inspection agencies.”

At the field level, the Customs and NTEU representatives we interviewed

had a variety of views on section 121. They generally supported this

provision because it would allow officers to earn more overtime by not

counting premium pay against the fiscal year cap and would allow

managers to more easily track and monitor officers’ overtime earnings

exclusively, as they approach the cap. Conversely, a reason given by two

inspectors and one NTEU chapter president for opposing this provision

was that it would primarily benefit supervisors, the only ones that they

believed come close to earning the $30,000 annually in overtime and

premium pay.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the

Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs. We also requested comments

from NTEU on a section of the draft report pertaining to information

NTEU officials provided to us.

On January 9, 2001, Customs provided written comments on the draft

report (see app. VIII). Customs said that any concerns that it may have had

regarding the audit were addressed through discussions with the audit

team. Customs also said that its reluctance to officially comment on

provisions in H.R. 1833, as noted in our report, is consistent with

administration policy, which holds that OMB is the appropriate executive

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 20 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

branch entity to issue statements of the administration’s position on

legislative matters.

While Customs identified OMB as the appropriate agency for providing

comments on legislative matters, Customs has commented on H.R. 1833,

but not directly to us. Instead, as noted in our report, Customs

headquarters’ officials gave us a copy of a letter dated May 25, 1999, from

the Commissioner to the Ranking Member of the House Committee on

Ways and Means that addresses Customs positions on H.R. 1833. In that

letter, as we stated earlier in the report, the Commissioner said that

Customs is opposed to section 123, but did not address section 121. On

May 25, 1999, OMB issued a Statement of Administration Policy that

stated, in effect, that the administration opposed section 121 because it

believed this section should be considered in the context of achieving

overall consistency in pay between Customs and other similarly situated

inspection service agencies.

On January 16, 2001, the Department of the Treasury provided written

comments on our draft report (see app. VII). The Department said it was in

agreement with the comments submitted to us by the U.S. Customs

Service.

On January 10, 2001, NTEU’s Director of Legislation informed us that

NTEU had no comments on the draft report section dealing with views on

the proposed legislative changes that we asked NTEU to review.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no additional distribution of this report until 30 days from

its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the CoChairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; the

Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance; the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways

and Means; the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, House Ways

and Means Subcommittee on Trade; the Secretary of the Treasury; and the

Commissioner of Customs. We will make copies available to others upon

request.
Page 21 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay

The key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix X. If you

or your staff have any questions, please contact Darryl Dutton on (213)

830-1000 or me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Laurie E. Ekstrand

Director, Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

We were requested to review selected aspects of the U.S. Customs Service

officers’ premium pay and determine how night differential pay, in

particular, would be affected by proposed legislation introduced in the

106th Congress. Specifically, we had three objectives: (1) compare current

law to proposed legislative changes in H.R. 1833 dealing with Customs

officers’ pay, (2) determine the extent to which Customs officers’ pay

would increase or decrease if proposed changes were enacted, and (3)

obtain Customs and the National Treasury Employees Union’s (NTEU)

views on the proposed changes. Our review focused primarily on analyzing

the effects of sections 123 (a) and (b) of subtitle C of H.R. 1833 dealing

with night differential pay. In addition to our analysis, we obtained views

on sections 123 (a) and (b) and section 121, a related section dealing with

Customs officers’ annual overtime and premium pay cap. We also

compared these sections in H.R. 1833 to current law.

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

• section 123 (a), which would prohibit Customs from paying night

differential pay to officers when they take annual, sick, or other leave and

do not actually work those premium pay hours;

• section 123 (b), which would reduce the number of available hours in a

day for which night differential pay could be earned; and

• section 121, which would remove premium pay, including night differential

pay, from the calculation of the $30,000 fiscal year overtime and premium

pay cap.

To address our first objective, we reviewed current law, Customs

regulations, and relevant arbitration decisions pertaining to Customs

officers’ premium pay. We also reviewed proposed changes to Customs

officers’ premium pay in subtitle C of H.R. 1833, the legislative history of

the proposed changes, and Congressional Research Service reports on

H.R. 1833. We then compared the current law to the proposed changes in

H.R. 1833 to identify the differences and evaluate how the changes would

potentially affect Customs officers’ night differential pay.

To address our second objective, we analyzed the fiscal year 1999 Customs

Overtime and Scheduling System (COSS) database, which contains

detailed information on officers’ premium pay, including night differential

pay. As discussed below, we analyzed information on officers’ night

differential pay earnings for fiscal year 1999, focusing our analysis to a

limited extent on national data and then more specifically on five

judgmentally selected Customs ports of entry. We calculated actual night

differential earnings for fiscal year 1999 and then what the officers’ night

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

differential earnings would have been if sections 123 (a) and (b) of H.R.

1833 had been in effect during the year.

To address our third objective, we obtained comments from the

Commissioner of Customs and the national president of the National

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and interviewed Customs managers,

supervisors, and officers, and NTEU chapter presidents at five selected

ports. More specific information on how we obtained views on pay

provisions in H.R. 1833 is discussed below.

To determine the extent to which Customs officers’ pay would increase or

decrease if provisions in H.R. 1833 affecting night differential pay were

enacted, we analyzed all COSS data on regular shifts worked in fiscal year

1999 nationally and then at five selected ports. COSS was designed to

record information about each Customs officer’s daily work, including the

date the work was performed, the start and stop time, and the type of pay

that was earned (regular, night differential, annual leave, etc.), which is

indicated by a transaction code. With this information, we were able to

determine the amount of night differential pay officers earned in fiscal

year 1999, the amount they would have made if each of the relevant

provisions of H.R. 1833 were in effect, and the resulting increase or

decrease.

While COSS includes pay information on Customs officers and other

employees, we limited the analysis to officers—Customs inspectors and

canine enforcement officers—because the proposed legislative changes

only applied to them. There are 332 unique port codes in the COSS data

system, though some of them are office sites (such as headquarters) and

subports (such as courier facilities), which are not actual ports. According

to COSS, 106 ports paid out no night differential pay in fiscal year 1999,

and an additional 5 ports paid out less than $1,000 total for the fiscal year.

Only 112 ports paid out over $10,000 in total night differential pay. The

amounts of differential paid at each port ranged from zero to $1,758,696,

with an average of $59,782 and a median of $9,565. In total, according to

COSS, 6,510 Customs officers received about $13.5 million in night

differential pay in fiscal year 1999. Table 9 shows the top 100 ports and the

amount of night differential pay officers at these ports received in fiscal

year 1999.

Analysis of Proposed

Changes on Customs

Officers’ Night

Differential Pay
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

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

Year 1999

Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

1 JFK, NY $1,758,696.26

2 El Paso, TX 668,615.99

3 Laredo, TX 607,634.21

4 Miami Intl Airport, FL 556,449.28

5 LAX, CA 501,388.46

6 San Ysidro, CA 498,404.40

7 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 495,105.89

8 Detroit, MI 485,413.77

9 Newark, NJ 414,345.83

10 Chicago, IL 408,715.54

11 Brownsville, TX 388,344.94

12 Calexico, CA 381,418.88

13 Hidalgo, TX 271,078.47

14 Nogales, AZ 252,504.71

15 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 207,070.40

16 Port Huron, MI 198,648.55

17 Champlain-Rouses Point, NY 190,462.49

18 Logan Airport, MA 190,356.06

19 Atlanta, GA 169,368.91

20 Eagle Pass, TX 162,403.37

21 Blaine, WA 158,564.54

22 San Luis, AZ 154,365.34

23 San Francisco, CA 140,398.72

24 San Diego, CA 127,562.84

25 Del Rio, TX 126,537.35

26 Philadelphia, PA 125,827.40

27 Houston Intercontl, TX 123,670.30

28 Intl Airport, PR 106,923.42

29 Highgate Springs/Alburg, VT 106,331.35

30 Washington, DC 104,237.16

31 Douglas, AZ 103,922.56

32 San Juan, PR 96,528.62

33 Orlando, FL 95,204.47

34 Roma, TX 88,101.13

35 Long Beach, CA 84,368.12

36 Derby Line, VT 82,640.66

37 Honolulu Intl Airport, HI 81,591.81

38 Presidio, TX 78,895.20

39 Port Everglades, FL 77,608.81

40 Memphis, TN 77,423.64

41 Pembina, ND 77,195.75
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

42 Progreso, TX 74,399.25

43 Otay Mesa, CA 68,353.32

44 UPS Courier, KY 65,875.22

45 Alexandria Bay, NY 60,808.76

46 Cincinnati, OH 59,108.45

47 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 58,838.08

48 Houston, TX 55,716.36

49 Emery Courier, OH 55,228.50

50 Houlton, ME 54,704.12

51 Sumas, WA 54,368.39

52 Federal Express Courier, TN 53,732.50

53 Columbus, NM 52,941.35

54 Federal Express Eccf, NJ 50,991.89

55 Trout River, NY 50,901.53

56 Richford, VT 47,715.62

57 Fabens, TX 45,376.84

58 Toronto, Canada 43,905.63

59 Naco, AZ 43,290.93

60 International Falls, MN 42,096.40

61 Calais, ME 41,605.21

62 Massena, NY 36,077.46

63 Vancouver B.C. Preclear 35,454.94

64 Andrade, CA 35,386.73

65 Nassau, Bahama Islands 33,716.44

66 Rio Grande City, TX 32,932.33

67 Baltimore, MD 32,577.74

68 Tecate, CA 32,345.50

69 Sweetgrass, MT 32,214.23

70 UPS, NJ 30,499.87

71 Oroville, WA 30,104.97

72 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 29,775.04

73 Montreal, Canada 29,372.55

74 Beecher Falls, VT 28,213.76

75 Jackman, ME 27,235.80

76 Roosville, MT 26,862.65

77 West Palm Beach, FL 26,207.09

78 Federal Express Hub, IN 25,163.82

79 Denver, CO 24,894.44

80 Norton, VT 24,178.17

81 Portal, ND 23,930.65

82 Santa Teresa, NM 23,294.88

83 Raymond, MT 22,955.42

84 San Antonio, TX 22,851.35

85 Ogdensburg, NY 22,225.24
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

Rank Port name Total amount of night differential pay

86 Warroad, MN 22,166.72

87 Eastport, ID 22,087.35

88 Freeport, Bahama Islands 21,642.04

89 Fort Kent, ME 20,507.86

90 Van Buren, ME 20,359.94

91 Dunseith, ND 19,418.86

92 Madawaska, ME 18,779.70

93 Fort Fairfield, ME 18,519.97

94 Baudette, MN 18,327.51

95 Airborne Hub, OH 17,734.90

96 Grand Portage, MN 17,675.46

97 Burlington Air Express, OH 17,368.51

98 Phoenix, AZ 15,849.96

99 Lukeville, AZ 15,746.86

100 Lynden, WA 15,511.25

Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.

We were also able to identify the shifts that account for the highest

amounts of night differential pay nationally and how the amount of night

differential pay for these shifts would be different if the proposed

legislation had been in effect. The six shifts shown in table 10 below

account for $11,041,983 in night differential, 82 percent of the total

$13,510,798 paid to Customs officers nationally in fiscal year 1999.

Table 10: Total and Average per Officer Amount of Night Differential Pay Under Current Law and Under H.R. 1833 Sections

123 (a) and (b) for the Six Top “Differential Earning” Shifts Nationwide During Fiscal Year 1999

Total Average per shift, per officer

Shift hours

Current law

(actual)

Proposed

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

Proposed

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

4 p.m. to 12 a.m. $4,087,828.20 $2,584,187.84 $1,503,640.36 $22.25 $16.56 $5.69

1 p.m. to 9 p.m. 2,059,028.66 643,685.56 1,415,343.10 23.87 8.89 14.98

12 a.m. to 8 a.m.a1,956,775.40 1,706,846.00 249,929.40 29.80 29.69 0.11

12 p.m. to 8 p.m. 1,310,973.52 276,381.35 1,034,592.17 23.18 5.76 17.42

2 p.m. to 10 p.m. 972,762.30 410,871.70 561,890.60 22.66 11.27 11.39

3 p.m. to 11 p.m. 654,615.14 346,832.62 307,782.52 22.69 14.07 8.62

a

This shift, 12 a.m. (midnight) until 8 a.m., is preserved in H.R. 1833 so that officers working this shift

would continue to earn 8 hours of night differential. Therefore, any reduction because of the proposed

legislation is attributable to section 123 (a) eliminating payment of night differential while officers are

on leave.

Source: GAO analysis of COSS database.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

To understand the effect of the proposed changes on Customs officers, we

chose five ports as case studies for the specific analyses based on the

number of air and land passengers processed: JFK, LAX, and Miami

International Airport because they are three of the largest airports in the

country; Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Seaport because

it represents a medium-sized port; and San Ysidro because it is the largest

land border crossing.

We were able to extract information about how Customs officers were

paid using transaction codes provided in COSS that indicate what kind of

pay was given for that shift. If an officer worked a shift and was paid night

differential for it, the transaction code would be different from another

shift where, for example, the officer was on annual leave and received

night differential pay.

Using these transaction codes, we calculated the amount of night

differential pay received for every shift that received it. Then, we

estimated the amount of night differential pay that would have been

received for these same shifts had sections 123 (a) or (b) of H.R. 1833 (or

both) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, and we calculated the difference

between them. These differences were totaled for all the officers at each

port and aggregated by officer to determine how much each officer would

have gained or lost over the entire fiscal year.

Further, since night differential pay is given for certain shifts and the

proposed legislation changes the rules for which shifts qualify to receive

night differential pay, we also aggregated the existing night differential pay

amounts and proposed night differential amounts by shift, to understand

which shifts would be most affected by the proposed changes. A full

discussion of the results of these analyses at each of the five ports can be

found in appendixes II-VI.

We determined how much increased or decreased night differential pay

Customs officers would have received if section 123 (a) alone was in

effect, if section 123 (b) alone was in effect, and if both sections were in

effect. It is important to note, here, that the effect of these sections

together is not just the sum of the effect of each section. For example,

under current law, if an officer worked a regularly scheduled shift from 1

p.m. to 9 p.m., the officer would receive 8 hours of night differential pay

for days on leave. If section 123 (a) alone was in effect, the officer would

receive no night differential pay when taking leave, thus losing 8 hours of

night differential pay on each leave day. However, if section 123 (b) alone

was in effect, the officer on a leave day would receive 3 hours of night
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

differential pay for the hours between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., losing 5 hours of

night differential pay. In summary, under section 123 (a) alone, the officer

would lose 8 hours of night differential pay on leave days. Under section

123 (b) alone the officer would lose 5 hours of night differential pay on

leave days. However, if both sections (a) and (b) were in effect, the officer

would only lose 8 hours of night differential pay while on leave, not 13

hours. Section 123 (b) would not have an effect on leave days if section

123 (a) was in effect. Therefore, the sum of the effects of each section

alone may be larger than the effect of both sections being in effect.

To assess the general reliability of COSS, we reviewed the data for shifts

that officers worked and the amount of night differential pay they earned.

With few exceptions, the start and stop times and the amount of night

differential pay earned were consistent with existing requirements.12 We

also obtained information from Customs about COSS internal controls and

data reliability. On the basis of responses to a list of our questions about

data reliability, Customs seems to have a number of steps and quality

control procedures in place to ensure the reliability of COSS data.

Finally, while patterns of hours worked in future years may change, and

our five selected ports are not representative of all ports, our analysis is an

indicator of the changes that could occur in pay if provisions such as 123

(a) and (b) were enacted. However, if scheduling patterns at the ports

changed or if the proposed legislation would change the way ports

scheduled shifts, the effects could be very different from the data

presented here.

 12In the detailed port analyses, we excluded some records because there appeared to be

inconsistencies in the records. For example, COSS data for JFK showed several shifts that

appeared qualified to receive night differential pay, but according to the transaction code,

were not paid the differential. Customs officials familiar with COSS explained that these

employees may have been part time, and part-time officers do not receive night differential

pay. Further, some of the excluded records were shifts that received night differential pay,

but were not within the hours subject to night differential pay. For example, there were 11

such records excluded from our analysis of Miami International Airport. These excluded

records accounted for less than 1 percent of the total records, and we excluded them to

avoid overestimating or underestimating the losses by officers.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

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

Customs headquarters’ officials were reluctant to provide written

comments on the premium pay provisions in H.R. 1833, including those

pertaining to night differential pay, apparently in view of the sensitivity of

the subject. In lieu of written comments, they directed us to a May 25,

1999, letter from the Commissioner to the Ranking Member of the House

Ways and Means Committee, which addressed Customs position on

section 123 of H.R. 1833, but did not address section 121. We asked for and

obtained written comments from the national president of NTEU about the

proposed pay provisions in H.R. 1833. In addition, we interviewed officials

from the Department of the Treasury, Office of Enforcement; Customs

headquarters’ officials; and NTEU headquarters’ officials.

At the field level, we interviewed 54 Customs and NTEU representatives

that included 5 Customs Management Center (CMC) officials, 5 port

directors, and 5 NTEU chapter presidents to obtain their views on the

proposed pay provisions. At the five ports, we also interviewed 17

supervisory officers who were selected by their port’s management and 22

officers who were selected by their NTEU chapter presidents. The results

from our limited interviewing at the five selected ports reflect only the

views of the Customs and NTEU officials and selected supervisors and

officers we interviewed at the CMCs and ports we visited. Therefore, these

field results cannot be generalized to Customs nationwide.

We conducted our work from March 2000 through November 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Customs provided comments on a draft of this report, which are

summarized at the end of the letter and reproduced in appendix VIII.

Determining Customs

and NTEU’s Views on

Proposed Changes in

Officers’ Pay
Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at JFK

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

Of the five ports we used for analysis, Customs officers at JFK would have

been the most affected by the changes in the proposed legislation.

According to COSS, 679 Customs officers were on the payroll at JFK

sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 464 officers (68 percent)

received a total of $1,742,224 in night differential pay. Table 11 shows that

181 of the 464 officers (39 percent) earned a total of over $5,000 in night

differential pay during the fiscal year.

Table 11: Night Differential Pay at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 76 16

$501 to $1,000 23 5

$1,001 to $2,000 58 13

$2,001 to $3,000 28 6

$3,001 to $4,000 38 8

$4,001 to $5,000 60 13

Over $5,000 181 39

Total 464 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from

paying premium pay, including night differential pay to officers when they

take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium

pay hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 428 of the

464 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would

have made less night differential (see table 12), with most of the officers’

pay reduced by over $500. If section 123 (a) only were in effect in fiscal

year 1999, JFK Customs officers would have received $1,436,636 in night

differential pay, $305,588 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 12: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been in Effect

at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 167 39

$501 to $1,000 143 33

$1,001 to $2,000 110 26

$2,001 to $3,000 7 2

$3,001 to $4,000 1 <1

Total 428 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on

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

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at JFK

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

Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for

which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the

time period in which officers were eligible to earn night differential pay

and eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had

been in effect in fiscal year 1999, all 464 officers that earned night

differential at JFK would have received less night differential pay overall

(see table 13). While 35 percent of these officers would have had a $1,000

or less overall reduction in night differential pay, most officers’ pay would

have been reduced by over $1,000. If only section 123 (b) had been in

effect, these officers would have earned an estimated total of $896,433 in

night differential pay, $845,791 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 13: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been in

Effect at JKF During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 110 24

$501 to $1,000 50 11

$1,001 to $2,000 103 22

$2,001 to $3,000 103 22

$3,001 to $4,000 65 14

$4,001 to $5,000 31 7

Over $5,000 2 <1

Total 464 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, all

464 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of those 464

officers, 326 (70 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 14 below,

would have received decreased night differential pay of more than $1,000

over the entire fiscal year. Overall, the officers would have earned a total

of $739,960 in night differential pay, a reduction of $1,002,264 from the

actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the reduction

would have come from the top four “night”

13 shifts regularly scheduled at

JFK.

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

differential pay.
Appendix II: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at JFK

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

Table 14: Decreased Night Differential Pay and Amounts of Decreased Pay If Both

Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been in Effect at JFK During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 97 21

$501 to $1,000 41 9

$1,001 to $2,000 87 19

$2,001 to $3,000 91 20

$3,001 to $4,000 83 18

$4,001 to $5,000 48 10

Over $5,000 17 4

Total 464 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Table 15 shows how much of the decreased pay is accounted for by each

of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night differential pay per

shift. The reduction of night differential pay for the 1 p.m.-to-9 p.m. shift

accounts for 76 percent of the total reduction in night differential at JFK.

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

1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per shift,

per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

1 p.m.-9 p.m. 452 $1,102,641.89 $339,382.37 $763,259.52 $24.11 $7.42 $16.69

3 p.m.-11 p.m. 20 40,532.35 21,331.05 19,201.30 21.39 11.26 10.13

4 p.m.-12 a.m. 342 497,700.91 311,971.81 185,729.10 24.06 15.08 8.98

10 p.m.-6 a.m. 88 49,726.52 39,054.22 10,672.30 17.66 13.87 3.79

Note: The fifth most common night shift at JFK is the 12 a.m.-to-8 a.m. shift. The night differential

earned for this shift is preserved in the legislation, however, so there is no change in night differential

earned for this shift except when officers are on leave.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at LAX

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

According to COSS, 423 Customs officers were on the payroll at LAX

sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 238 officers (56 percent)

earned $489,816 in night differential pay. As shown in the shaded areas in

table 16 below, 95 (40 percent) of the 238 officers earned $1,000 or less in

night differential pay over the fiscal year, and 11 percent earned over

$5,000.

Table 16: Night Differential Pay at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 74 31

$501 to $1,000 21 9

$1,001 to $2,000 43 18

$2,001 to $3,000 38 16

$3,001 to $4,000 18 8

$4,001 to $5,000 17 7

Over $5,000 27 11

Total 238 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from

paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they

take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium

pay hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 198 of the

238 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would

have made less night differential pay (see table 17). Two-thirds (67

percent) of these officers would have received up to $500 less. If section

123 (a) only were in effect in fiscal year 1999, LAX Customs officers would

have received $406,410 in night differential pay, $83,406 less than they

received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 17: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been in Effect

at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 132 67

$501 to $1,000 46 23

$1,001 to $2,000 20 10

Total 198 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on

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

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at LAX

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

Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for

which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the

time period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and

eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had

been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 237 of the 238 officers that earned night

differential pay at LAX would have received less night differential pay. In

addition, 10 officers would have ended the fiscal year with small net gains

in night differential pay. Of these 237 officers, 162 (69 percent), as shown

in the shaded areas in table 18, would have had a $1,000 or less overall

reduction in night differential pay. If only section 123 (b) was in effect, the

officers would have made $302,880 in night differential pay, $186,936 less

than they received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 18: Decreased Night Differential Pay if Section 123 (b) Only Had Been in

Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 113 48

$501 to $1,000 49 21

$1,001 to $2,000 56 24

$2,001 to $3,000 12 5

$3,001 to $4,000 5 2

$4,001 to $5,000 1 <1

Over $5,000 1 <1

Total 237 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 237

of the 238 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of those

237 officers, 97 (41 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 19,

would have received decreased night differential pay of more than $1,000

over the entire fiscal year. Ten officers would have had a total net gain of

$221 in night differential pay for the entire fiscal year. Overall, the officers

would have earned a total of $252,097 in night differential pay, a reduction

of $237,720 from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the

reductions would have come from five night14 shifts regularly scheduled at

LAX. Table 20 shows how much of the difference is accounted for by each

of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night differential pay per

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

differential pay.
Appendix III: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at LAX

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

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

differential pay.

Table 19: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been

in Effect at LAX During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 99 42

$501 to $1,000 41 17

$1,001 to $2,000 63 27

$2,001 to $3,000 19 8

$3,001 to $4,000 11 5

$4,001 to $5,000 3 1

Over $5,000 1 <1

Total 237 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

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

1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per shift,

per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Noon-8 p.m. 105 $48,616.70 $10,263.12 $38,353.58 $23.88 $5.04 $18.84

Noon-10 p.m. 26 47,271.24 15,636.92 31,634.32 27.81 9.20 18.61

1 p.m.-9 p.m. 137 37,340.68 12,284.68 25,056.00 24.50 8.06 16.44

3 p.m.-11 p.m. 89 89,351.23 46,091.52 43,259.71 23.20 11.97 11.23

4 p.m.-12 a.m. 159 190,162.30 118,679.29 71,483.01 23.72 14.81 8.91

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

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

1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per shift,

per officer

Shift hours

No. of

officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

5 a.m.-1 p.m. 42 0 $999.58 $999.58 0 $3.98 $3.98

5:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. 9 0 173.24 173.24 0 1.90 1.90

Note: These gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While at least 42 officers worked

these shifts at some time in fiscal year 1999, only 10 officers would have ended the fiscal year with a

net gain in night differential pay.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at Miami

International Airport

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

According to COSS, 537 Customs officers were on the payroll at Miami

International Airport during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 391 officers (73

percent) earned a total of $553,856 in night differential pay. As shown in

the shaded areas in table 22 below, nearly half (181) of these officers

earned $1,000 or less in night differential pay over the fiscal year.

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

1999

Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 112 29

$501 to $1,000 69 18

$1,001 to $2,000 94 24

$2,001 to $3,000 73 19

$3,001 to $4,000 27 7

$4,001 to $5,000 10 3

Over $5,000 6 2

Total 391 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from

paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they

take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium

pay hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 348 of the

391 officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would

have earned less night differential pay (see table 23). Eighty-six percent of

the officers would have received up to $500 or less. If section 123 (a) only

had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, Miami Customs officers would have

received a total of $458,675 in night differential pay, $95,182 less than they

received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 23: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been in Effect

at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 301 86

$501 to $1,000 39 11

$1,001 to $2,000 8 2

Total 348 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at Miami

International Airport
Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at Miami

International Airport

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

Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for

which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the

time period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and

eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had

been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 355 of the 391 officers that earned night

differential pay at Miami International Airport in fiscal year 1999 would

have received less night differential pay. Sixty-nine officers would have

ended the fiscal year with a net gain in night differential pay. Of these 355

officers (84 percent), as shown in the shaded areas of table 24 below,

would have had $1,000 or less overall reduction in night differential pay. If

only section 123 (b) had been in effect, Miami Customs officers would

have received a total of $383,072 in night differential pay, or $170,784 less

than they received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 24: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been in

Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 225 63

$501 to $1,000 73 21

$1,001 to $2,000 48 14

$2,001 to $3,000 8 2

$3,001 to $4,000 1 <1

Total 355 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 363

of the 391 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of those

363 officers, 88 (24 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 25

below, would have received decreased night differential pay of more than

$1,000 over the entire fiscal year. Further, if both sections had been in

effect, 61 officers would have gained a total of $5,900 in night differential

pay for the entire fiscal year. Overall, Miami Customs officers would have

earned a total of $320,776 in night differential pay, a reduction of $233,080

from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the reductions

would have come from the top four night15 shifts regularly scheduled at

Miami International Airport. Table 26 shows how much of the difference is

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

differential pay.
Appendix IV: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at Miami

International Airport

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

accounted for by each of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night

differential pay per shift. Likewise, table 27 shows which shifts account for

a gain in night differential pay.

Table 25: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been

in Effect at Miami International Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 186 51

$501 to $1,000 89 25

$1,001 to $2,000 74 20

$2,001 to $3,000 12 3

$3,001 to $4,000 2 <1

Total 363 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source:GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Table 26: Decreased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for Top Four Night Shifts at Miami International

Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per

shift, per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

12 p.m.-8 p.m. 83 $30,138.32 $6,386.15 $23,752.17 $23.47 $4.97 $18.50

1 p.m.-9 p.m. 126 116,471.53 35,752.45 80,719.08 22.65 6.95 15.70

2 p.m.-10 p.m. 84 51,143.17 20,982.74 30,160.43 24.85 10.20 14.65

4 p.m.-12 a.m. 253 210,987.93 133,874.83 77,113.10 20.63 13.09 7.54

Note: The fifth most common night shift is the 12 a.m.-to-8 a.m. shift. The night differential earned for

this shift is preserved in the proposed legislation, however, so there is no change in night differential

earned for this shift except when officers are on leave.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Table 27: Increased Night Differential Pay Resulting From Proposed Law for the Early Morning Shift at Miami International

Airport During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per

shift, per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

4 a.m.-12 p.m. 125 0 $16,359.80 $16,359.80 0 $7.44 $7.44

Note: These gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While 125 officers worked this shift

sometime in fiscal year 1999, only 61 officers would have ended the fiscal year with a net gain in

night differential pay if sections 123 (a) and (b) of H.R. 1833 had been in effect.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and

Seaport

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

According to COSS, 62 Customs officers were on the payroll at the

Baltimore port sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 53 officers (85

percent) earned $32,412 in night differential pay. As shown in table 28

below, 41 (77 percent) of the 53 officers earned $500 or less in night

differential pay over the fiscal year, but none earned over $5,000.

Table 28: Night Differential Pay at Baltimore-Washington International Airport and

Seaport During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 41 77

$501 to $1,000 3 6

$1,001 to $2,000 3 6

$2,001 to $3,000 4 8

$3,001 to $4,000 1 2

$4,001 to $5,000 1 2

Total 53 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from

paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they

take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium

pay hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 38 of the 53

officers that received night differential pay in fiscal year 1999 would have

made less night differential pay (see table 29). Officers would have

received a total of $27,769 in night differential pay, $4,643 less than the

actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 29: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been in Effect

at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 36 95

$501 to $1,000 1 3

$1,001 to $2,000 1 3

Total 38 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for

which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the

time period that is eligible for premium pay and eliminating the majority of

Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on

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

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and

Seaport

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

hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had been in effect in fiscal year

1999, all 53 officers that earned night differential pay in fiscal year 1999

would have received less night differential pay (see table 30). One

additional officer would have gained night differential pay. Most of these

officers (83 percent) would have a $500 or less overall reduction in night

differential pay. If only section 123 (b) were in effect, these officers would

have made a total of $16,923 in night differential pay, $15,489 less than the

actual total amount received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 30: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been in

Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 44 83

$501 to $1,000 3 6

$1,001 to $2,000 6 11

Total 53 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, all

53 officers would have received less night differential pay, while one

officer would have gained a small amount (a net total of $4.21). Of those 53

officers, 44 (83 percent), as shown in table 31, would have received

decreased night differential pay of $500 or less over the entire fiscal year.

Overall, the officers would have earned a total of $14,488 in night

differential pay, a reduction of $17,924 from the amounts they received in

fiscal year 1999. Most of the reductions would have come from the top

three night shifts16 regularly scheduled at Baltimore-Washington

International Airport. Table 32 shows how much of the difference is

accounted for by each of the shifts and, on average, the decrease in night

differential pay per shift.

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

differential.
Appendix V: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at BaltimoreWashington International Airport and

Seaport

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

Table 31: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been

in Effect at the Baltimore Port During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 44 83

$501 to $1,000 3 6

$1,001 to $2,000 5 9

$2,001 to $3,000 1 2

Total 53 100

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

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

During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per shift,

per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

1 p.m.-9 p.m. 4 $1,592.33 $562.13 $1,030.20 $23.77 $8.39 $15.38

2 p.m.-10 p.m. 44 24,465.59 10,714.87 13,750.72 20.75 9.09 11.66

3 p.m.-11 p.m. 2 5,218.13 2,605.35 2,612.78 23.40 11.68 11.72

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro

Land Border Crossing

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

According to COSS, 310 Customs officers were on the payroll at San

Ysidro land border crossing sometime during fiscal year 1999. Of these,

231 officers (75 percent) earned $495,121 in night differential pay. As

shown in the shaded areas in table 33, 93 (40 percent) of these officers

earned $1,000 or less in night differential pay over the fiscal year, and 11

percent earned over $5,000.

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

Year 1999

Amount received Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 56 24

$501 to $1,000 37 16

$1,001 to $2,000 45 19

$2,001 to $3,000 24 10

$3,001 to $4,000 25 11

$4,001 to $5,000 18 8

Over $5,000 26 11

Total 231 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit Customs from

paying premium pay, including night differential pay, to officers when they

take annual, sick, or other leave and do not actually work those premium

pay hours. If that section had been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 202 of the

231 officers that received night differential in fiscal year 1999 would have

made less night differential pay (see table 34). Over two-thirds of these

officers (69 percent) would have received up to $500 less. If section 123 (a)

only were in effect in fiscal year 1999, San Ysidro Customs officers would

have received $407,084 in night differential pay, $88,037 less than they

received in fiscal year 1999.

Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro

Land Border Crossing
Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro

Land Border Crossing

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

Table 34: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (a) Only Had Been in Effect

at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 140 69

$501 to $1,000 36 18

$1,001 to $2,000 25 12

$3,001 to $4,000 1 <1

Total 202 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

Section 123 (b) would reduce the number of available hours in a day for

which night differential pay could be earned in two ways: reducing the

time period in which officers are eligible to earn night differential pay and

eliminating the majority of hours provision. If section 123 (b) only had

been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 212 of the 231 officers that earned night

differential at San Ysidro would have received less night differential pay.

In addition, 50 officers would have ended the fiscal year with net gains in

night differential pay. Of these 212 officers, 156 (73 percent), as shown in

the shaded areas in table 35, would have had a $1,000 or less overall

reduction in night differential pay. If only section 123 (b) had been in

effect, the officers would have made $350,023 in night differential pay,

$145,098 less than they received in fiscal year 1999.

Table 35: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Section 123 (b) Only Had Been in

Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 111 52

$501 to $1,000 45 21

$1,001 to $2,000 39 18

$2,001 to $3,000 12 6

$3,001 to $4,000 3 1

$4,001 to $5,000 1 <1

Over $5,000 1 <1

Total 212 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro

Land Border Crossing

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

Had both sections 123 (a) and 123 (b) been in effect in fiscal year 1999, 214

of the 231 officers would have received less night differential pay. Of those

214 officers, 87 (41 percent), as shown in the shaded areas in table 36

below, would have received decreased night differential of more than

$1,000 over the entire fiscal year. Further, 50 officers would have gained a

net total of $10,818 in night differential pay. Overall, the officers would

have earned a total of $293,047 in night differential pay, a reduction of

$202,073 from the amounts they received in fiscal year 1999. Most of the

reduction would have come from the top five night17 shifts regularly

scheduled at the San Ysidro Land Border Crossing. Table 37 shows how

much of the difference is accounted for by each of the shifts and, on

average, the decrease in night differential pay per shift. Likewise, table 38

shows which shifts account for a gain in night differential.

Table 36: Decreased Night Differential Pay If Both Sections 123 (a) and (b) Had Been

in Effect at San Ysidro Land Border Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

Amount of decrease Number of officers Percent of officers

$1 to $500 93 43

$501 to $1,000 34 16

$1,001 to $2,000 55 26

$2,001 to $3,000 22 10

$3,001 to $4,000 8 4

$4,001 to $5,000 1 <1

Over $5,000 1 <1

Total 214 100a

a

Percentages in this column do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

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

differential pay.
Appendix VI: Effects of Proposed Changes on

Officers’ Night Differential Pay at San Ysidro

Land Border Crossing

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

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

Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per

shift, per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(decrease)

12 a.m.-9 a.m. 97 $109,986.56 $83,368.10 $26,618.46 $31.93 $24.20 $7.73

1:30 p.m.-10:30 p.m. 54 85,682.42 36,718.99 48,963.43 24.14 10.34 13.80

2 p.m.-10 p.m. 82 31,154.47 12,901.39 18,253.08 24.36 10.09 14.27

3 p.m.-12 a.m. 114 111,168.29 63,143.98 48,024.31 23.50 13.35 10.15

4 p.m.-12 a.m. 110 40,851.96 26,199.27 14,652.69 24.22 15.53 8.69

Note: One of the most common night shifts is the 12 a.m.-to-8 a.m. shift. The night differential earned

for this shift is preserved in the proposed legislation, however, so there is no change in night

differential earned for this shift except when officers are on leave.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.

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

Crossing During Fiscal Year 1999

Total night differential pay

Average night differential pay per

shift, per officer

Shift hours No. of officers

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

Current law

(actual)

H.R. 1833

(estimate)

Difference

(increase)

5 a.m.-1 p.m. 52 0 $2,765.62 $2,765.62 0 $3.71 $3.71

5 a.m.-2 p.m. 56 0 5,014.51 5,014.51 0 3.73 3.73

5:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. 70 0 4,249.35 4,249.35 0 2.04 2.04

5:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. 66 0 5,942.40 5,942.40 0 1.96 1.96

Note: These gains in night differential pay are aggregated by shift. While at least 70 officers worked

these shifts sometime in fiscal year 1999, only 50 officers would have ended the fiscal year with a net

gain in night differential pay.

Source: GAO analysis of the COSS database.
Appendix VII: Comments From the

Department of the Treasury

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

Appendix VII: Comments From the

Department of the Treasury
Appendix VIII: Comments From the U.S.

Customs Service

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

Appendix VIII: Comments From the U.S.

Customs Service
Appendix IX: Comments on H.R. 1833 From

the National Treasury Employees Union

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

Appendix IX: Comments on H.R. 1833 From

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

the National Treasury Employees Union

Page 49 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay
Appendix IX: Comments on H.R. 1833 From

the National Treasury Employees Union

Page 50 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay
Appendix IX: Comments on H.R. 1833 From

the National Treasury Employees Union

Page 51 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay
Appendix IX: Comments on H.R. 1833 From

the National Treasury Employees Union

Page 52 GAO-01-304 Proposed Legislation on Customs Officers’ Pay
Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

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

Laurie Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777

Darryl Dutton (213) 830-1000

In addition to those named above, Samuel Caldrone, Wendy Simkalo,

Kathleen Ebert, James Russell, Wendy Ahmed, David Alexander, Nancy

Finley, and Katherine Raheb made key contributions to this report.

Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(264461)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

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

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

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

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs