GovernmentExecutive.com

The White House wants to repeal a new law that allows Customs and Border Protection officers to retire earlier, according to budget documents released Monday.

President Bush included in his fiscal 2009 budget a proposal to scrap recently enacted law enforcement benefits for CBP officers. The administration previously has said that granting such status could endanger national security. The retirement benefits provision was included in the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, which Bush signed in late December.

The new law places CBP officers in line for the retirement benefits many law enforcement officers receive, allowing them to retire at age 50 after 20 years of service, or at any age after 25 years of service. Formerly, CBP officers were placed in the same category as regular federal employees, who are not eligible for retirement until they have 30 years or more of service and are at least 55 years old.

Congress appropriated an additional $50 million in the omnibus package to CBP to install the new retirement program, which becomes effective July 6, 2008. But language in Bush's latest budget request slashes those funds from the agency's fiscal 2009 budget.

"This is an outrageous attempt to undercut the bipartisan will of Congress," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which led a years-long fight to extend law enforcement retirement status to CBP officers.

The bureau has touted the enhanced retirement benefits as a potential tool in boosting recruitment and retention at the agency, which is plagued with low morale and high attrition. In fiscal 2007, for example, the agency aimed to hire an additional 646 CBP officers, but actually hired a total of 2,327 to offset attrition.

Several lawmakers from Washington area congressional delegations also support the new retirement classification. Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators sent Bush a letter, urging him to include additional funding for CBP's retirement program in his 2009 budget request.

"On a daily basis, CBP officers perform as front-line law enforcement officers in support of our homeland security mission that is critical to our nation's safety and security," the lawmakers wrote. "These enhanced retirement benefits have the bipartisan and bicameral support of Congress and will greatly aid CBP's continued recruitment and retention of the best and brightest CBP officers, build a vigorous workforce for the future and enhance vital border security at our nation's ports of entry."

Kelley vowed to work to defeat any efforts to repeal the retirement program or eliminate its funding. "There can be no longer any real debate over the importance of LEO status and enhanced retirement benefits to the successful accomplishment of this agency's mission," she said.

On Jan. 17, Robert Hosenfeld, an assistant commissioner at CBP, sent a memo to CBP employees praising the passage of the legislation and pledging to work diligently to implement its provisions. The agency already is working with Homeland Security, its parent department, and the Office of Personnel Management on a detailed schedule and implementation plan, he said.

"This is a momentous occasion for our CBPOs, who have now been formerly recognized for the essential work that they perform," Hosenfeld said. "This recognition and retirement compensation package is well deserved and long overdue."

Meanwhile, the president's budget request also seeks to lift a ban on Homeland Security's use of fiscal 2008 appropriated funds to implement any portion of its new personnel system -- the Human Capital Operational Plan. The fiscal 2008 omnibus act placed a ban on funding for the system until pending litigation is resolved.

"CBP and its parent, DHS, are faced with a litany of well known, highly visible problems," Kelley said. "This administration needs to be taking positive steps for these agencies and their employees, and full funding for the enhanced retirement program is one of the most important. Backing away from an unworkable personnel system is another."

COMMENTS

• CBPOS have gotten the LEO coverage. It goes into effect on 7/06/08. Congrats guys, you deserve it. joe Posted July 3, 2008 8:22 AM
• Hey, I feel your pain. We drive police cars, look like police, why we even act like police. matter of fact, we even deal with crimes, we arrest, we deal with Domestic Violence, Gang, drugs, DUI's, etc.... yet we are not given so much as Law Enforcement status, much less covered status. So I sympathize with all of you. If you carry a gun and enforce laws and affect arrests, you should be recognized. DOD Police Officer Posted June 7, 2008 8:18 PM
• Every Law Enforcement agency has roles for employees that are not necessarily exposed to the daily risk typically associated with law enforcement duties; very few law enforcement officers are continuously exposed to real danger on minute by minute basis. The risks are intrinsic to the position. I agree with comments that some CBP Officers are not in positions that are traditionally identified with law enforcement, but many are, and all may be potentially exposed to risk at any time. Need one be reminded of the desk officer shot to death in Calexico several years ago by an elderly man? At any given moment, the risk level escalates and deascalates, usually with liitle or no warning. Other quote historic incompetence of our employees, but to that I say people make mistakes, some more seriouss than others. An entire class of employee or job series can not be typified by the limited errors of others. I challenge anyone to be on their game 24/7, and also keep in mind that professional criminals and terrorists work very hard at looking normal when they cross our borders. In effect, that is their job. Personally, I have been dragged by a car and injured, suffered numerous broken bones throughout several incidents, and effected hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand arrests in my career with CBP, even as a supervisor. I know and work with others who rival and exceed my own stats. Does our agency have employees that do the bare minimum just to earn a paycheck? What agency doesn't? I am always amazed how the workforce as a whole is judged by those few non-performers. 6c-like coverage may help, because it pave the way to introduce higher standards of service, and recruit and retain from a higher qualified, more motivated pool, but let us not expect immediate improvement. Systemic changes such as these produce results that can be measured years down the road. Certainly, morale will improve in the short-term, and perhaps this gives our tired senior community an opportunity to exit gracefully. I see a great deal of benefit with the enhanced retirement coverage overall, and hope that it remains intact, moreso that it matched true 6c coverage down the road. DS Posted April 5, 2008 3:46 PM