U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–144 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–427

FOREST SERVICE WORKERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO

REVIEW THE ROLE OF THE FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER FEDERAL 

AGENCIES IN PROTECTING THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF FOREIGN 

GUEST WORKERS CARRYING OUT TREE PLANTING AND OTHER SERVICE CONTRACTS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS, AND TO CONSIDER RELATED FOREST SERVICE GUIDANCE AND CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS ISSUED IN RECENT WEEKS

MARCH 1, 2006

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

BRUCE M. EVANS, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 2

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

Dale, D. Michael, Executive Director, Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, 

Portland, OR ......................................................................................................... 24

Ellis, David M., President, Renewable Resources, Barnesville, GA .................... 48

Jungwirth, Lynn, Executive Director, The Watershed Research and Training 

Center, Hayfork, CA ............................................................................................ 35

Lipnic, Victoria A., Assistant Secretary of Labor Employment Standards Administration, Department of Labor .................................................................... 6

Moseley, Cassandra, Ph.D., Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon ..................................................... 28

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, 

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 2

Wood, Cindy, Chief Executive Officer, Wood’s Fire & Emergency Services, 

Inc., Portola, CA ................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 51

(1)

FOREST SERVICE WORKERS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to welcome you to the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee’s hearing 

on issues related to enforcement of labor, health and safety laws 

that are a part of all Forest Service planting and thinning contracts. Today, testimony will be provided by the Department of Agriculture’s Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment, Mark Rey. Mark, welcome to the committee again. You were 

here yesterday, weren’t you? That’s what I thought, deja vu all over 

again. Okay. And the Department of Labor’s Assistant Secretary 

for Employment Standards Administration, The Honorable Victoria 

Lipnic. 

Ms. LIPNIC. That’s correct. 

Senator CRAIG. Nice to have you here, Victoria. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. I see that each of you have a number of people 

who are accompanying you to help answer questions that the members might be asking, so please feel free to have them come up to 

the table if necessary. Or based on space, you can rotate according 

to the questions. Anyway, I want to welcome Senator Bingaman, 

who is not yet here, but will be. He is the Energy and Natural Resources ranking member, and has an expressed interest in this. I 

know Senator Bingaman is keenly aware of the problems and concerns and sees this as a unique problem. 

Congress has been forced to address this or similar issues about 

once a decade. And while we have made some progress, it is not 

sufficient or occurring quickly enough by most everyone’s opinion. 

I’m not going to belabor the issue that revolves around the use of 

migrant workers who do much of this type of work, other than to 

say that evidence suggests we continue to have great difficulty enforcing the health and safety, immigration and labor laws of this 

country when it comes to these contracts. I know that some 

progress has been made on the issue of undocumented workers 

2

over the last decade, but all evidence suggests that much more 

progress needs to be made on the enforcement of the health and 

safety laws and other labor laws and rules. I would hope the Federal agencies will find ways to do a much better job than they have 

managed over the last decade. 

At the same time, I think we all have to understand that these 

are not the only jobs that these migrant workers participate in, and 

our Federal agencies are stretched fairly thin when it comes to this 

type of employment work. Their job is further complicated by the 

isolated nature of the work. It is my hope that we can all work together to improve the situation rather than participating in finger 

pointing and the blame game. I would note that these problems 

have occurred during both Democrat and Republican administrations, and I would hope we can find ways to make improvements 

on a bipartisan basis. 

I will maintain the 5-minute clock on testimony and questions of 

the committee, and we’ll make both your written and oral testimonies a part of the hearing record. I urge each of you to resist 

the urge to read your testimony during today’s oral presentations 

because your full testimony will be a part of the record. When Senator Bingaman gets here, he’ll have the opportunity to make his 

opening remarks and offer any questions. 

So, let us move to our first panel. Again, Mark—and that’s Mark 

Rey, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment—

welcome before the committee. We’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY COLLINS 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the role of the Forest Service in protecting the health and welfare of foreign guest workers carrying 

out service contract work on National Forest land. If you want, I 

can suspend. 

Senator CRAIG. Why don’t you, if you would. Thank you very 

much. Senator Bingaman has just arrived. Jeff, I’ve made my opening comments. We’ll turn to you for that purpose, and then we’ll 

allow Mark to proceed with his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Chairman, thanks for having the hearing. I don’t really have anything earthshaking to add here. I do 

think it’s an important set of issues and one that I continue to hear 

about, and I know you do, and I appreciate the witnesses coming 

and talking to us about it. Thanks. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you much. Mark, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY SALLY COLLINS—

Continuing 

Mr. REY. The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service 

are committed to the safety and health of visitors and workers on 

3

national forests and will continue to act quickly to address any 

problems that may arise in these areas. 

Federal law allows foreign citizens to temporarily come to the 

United States to perform jobs where U.S. workers may be in short 

supply. The law establishes categories for temporary work visas, H2A for agricultural workers and H-2B for nonagricultural, nonprofessional workers. About 15,000 to 20,000 of the H-2B workers 

are forestry workers. 

Several Federal and State agencies have responsibilities for the 

many aspects of the temporary guest worker program. In order for 

employers, including potential Forest Service contractors, to hire 

foreign guest workers, they must get a certification from the Department of Labor stating that qualified workers are not available 

in the United States and that the foreign worker’s employment will 

not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. 

The Forest Service has an important role in implementing the 

laws that apply to H-2B workers because forestry service contractors often hire foreign guest workers to do the thinning, tree planting, brush clearing and other types of work on not only national 

forests, but on privately owned forests as well. 

On November 18, 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service issued a 

letter to Agency leadership stating his expectations on what Forest 

Service contracting officers and inspectors must do when they recognize health and safety violations which present an imminent 

threat to workers, such as not using appropriate safety apparel and 

equipment. When these situations occur, agency personnel must 

take action just as they would with Forest Service employees. If 

contractor employees do not have appropriate safety apparel or 

equipment, the inspectors are not to let them work. The Chief also 

instructed them to document and report observed violations in the 

areas of safety, housing, transportation and wages to the appropriate oversight agencies. He shared his expectation that documentation of violations should be a factor—and will be a factor—

in evaluating future bids and awarding future contracts. Violators 

can be banned from future awards by the oversight agencies in 

cases of repeat violations. 

Provisions and requirements developed by the oversight agencies 

within the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland 

Security to implement the guest worker protection laws were previously incorporated by general reference into the service contracts 

awarded by the Forest Service. 

On January 4, 2006, the Director of Acquisition Management at 

the Forest Service issued mandatory clauses for Forest Service contracts, expressly stating these provisions and requirements. These 

clauses include specific language regarding camp facilities and personal protective equipment requirements and specific oversight 

agency requirements that employers of foreign guest workers must 

fulfill, such as certification of adequate housing, proper documentation of legal status and properly registered and inspected vehicles 

for transportation. Adding the language directly to the service contracts will produce two major results: First, increase follow-up action by Forest Service contract inspectors when health and safety 

violations are observed will occur; and second, will have greater 

4

ability to hold contractors accountable by enforcing express language in our contracts. 

The Director of Acquisition Management also required regional 

foresters and station directors to assure every active tree planting 

and thinning contract was visited by the contracting officers onsite 

within 3 weeks of the commencement of work. If unacceptable conditions are observed, the work will be suspended and a report will 

be made to the appropriate regulatory agency. 

Additional coordination with the oversight agencies has also been 

very productive. The Forest Service has provided the Wage and 

Hour Division and OSHA with a list of this year’s projects that 

could involve foreign guest workers. Additionally, we will shortly 

sign, with the Department of Labor regulatory agencies, a memorandum of intent to outline our joint work in the coming season. 

And shortly, my counterpart from the Department of Labor will review the activities underway at the department. 

In addition to workers that are performing services under contract to the Forest Service, some of the incidents that have been 

publicized in the recent past have been people who are operating 

under special-use permits. We’re reviewing the Special-Use Permit 

Policy to see how and the best way to install additional protections 

there, although not all of the requirements, such as the Service 

Contract Act wage requirements, will apply to individuals working 

under special-use permits on the National Forest System. 

With that, I’d be happy to defer to the Department of Labor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today on the role of the Forest Service in protecting the health 

and welfare of foreign guest workers carrying out service contract work on national 

forest land. The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service are committed 

to the safety and health of visitors and workers on National Forests. We have and 

will continue to act quickly to address any problem that may arise in these areas. 

BACKGROUND

Federal law allows foreign citizens to temporarily come to the United States to 

perform jobs where U.S. workers may be in short supply. The law establishes categories for temporary work visas: H-2A for agricultural workers and H-2B for nonagricultural, nonprofessional jobs such as travel agents, restaurant workers, janitors 

and forestry workers. The focus of my testimony today is on the requirements applicable to the employment of H-2B workers. There is a 66,000 person per year limit 

on the number of foreign workers who may receive H-2B status and this limit is 

regularly reached early in the year. H-2B workers already working in this country 

do not count against the current year cap so the actual number of H-2B foreign 

guest workers in this country could be much higher. About 15,000 to 20,000 are forestry workers. 

Several federal and state agencies have responsibilities for the many aspects of 

the temporary guest worker program. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

and the Department of Labor (DOL) have primary oversight for the program. Other 

agencies, including the Forest Service, are involved where H-2B guest workers are 

employed by contractors. 

In order for employers—including potential Forest Service contractors—to hire 

foreign guest workers they must get a certification from DOL stating that qualified 

workers are not available in the U.S. and that the foreign worker’s employment will 

not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. The employer then petitions DHS to hire guest workers. 

Additionally, the employer seeking to hire foreign guest workers must offer at 

least the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment. 

5

* The letter has been retained in subcommittee files 

Worker protection provisions that apply to U.S. workers also cover foreign guest 

workers. Workers may file complaints under these worker protection laws with local 

DOL Wage and Hour Division offices. 

The Federal worker protection laws that apply to H-2B forestry workers are: 1) 

the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act provides requirements 

for housing, transportation and working conditions for migrant and seasonal workers; 2) the Service Contract Act provides for minimum wages and other benefits for 

those workers under federal service contracts; 3) the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act contains specific workplace safety requirements; and 4) the Fair Labor 

Standards Act provides minimum wage, overtime, and child labor requirements. 

DOL is responsible for enforcing these laws and has agreements with some states 

such as California to administer and enforce a state occupational safety and health 

program for the Department. In addition, states will enforce their own labor requirements if these offer greater protection to foreign guest workers than the federal requirements. 

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIONS TAKEN. 

The Forest Service has an important role in implementing these laws because forestry services contractors often hire foreign guest workers to do thinning, tree planting, brush clearing and other types of work on national forests. Safety and respectful treatment are core values in the way the Forest Service conducts day to day 

business, and the Forest Service is often the agency with the most direct contact 

with foreign guest workers. I commend the Sacramento Bee for bringing attention 

to the issues that some foreign guest workers face as they perform work in this 

country. It is important that these issues do not escape the attention of the various 

agencies responsible and we have already taken action to strengthen our respective 

agency roles. 

On November 18, 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, issued a 

letter* Agency leadership stating his expectations on what Forest Service Contracting Officers and inspectors must do when they recognize health and safety violations which present an imminent threat to workers such as not using appropriate 

safety apparel and equipment. When these situations occur, agency personnel must 

take action, just as they would with Forest Service employees. If contractor employees do not have appropriate safety apparel or equipment, the inspectors are not to 

let them work. The Chief also instructed them to document and report observed violations in the areas of safety, housing, transportation and wages to the appropriate 

oversight agency. He shared his expectation that documentation of violations should 

be a factor in evaluating future bids and awarding future contracts. Violators can 

be banned from future awards by the oversight agencies. 

Chief Bosworth designated the Director of Acquisition Management in the Washington Office as the Forest Service contact with the appropriate staff of oversight 

agencies, DOL, OSHA and United States Citizenship and Immigration Service 

(USCIS). The Director has already met with OSHA and with the DOL Wage and 

Hour Division’s Director of Enforcement Policy to discuss coordination and specific 

actions each agency can take to address the issues of health, safety, and wage payments concerning foreign guest workers. 

Provisions and requirements developed by the oversight agencies within DOL and 

DHS to implement guest worker protection laws (the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Service Contract Act, the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act) were previously incorporated by 

general reference into the service contracts awarded by the Forest Service. On January 4, 2006, the Director of Acquisition Management issued mandatory clauses for 

Forest Service contracts, expressly stating these provisions and requirements. These 

clauses include specific language regarding camp facilities and personal protective 

equipment requirements and specific oversight agency requirements that employers 

of foreign guest workers must fulfill such as certification of adequate housing, proper documentation of the legal status of foreign workers, and properly registered and 

inspected vehicles for transportation. Adding the language directly into the service 

contracts is expected to produce two major results: 1) increase follow-up actions by 

Forest Service contract inspectors when health and safety violations are observed; 

and 2) provide greater ability to hold contractors accountable by enforcing language 

in the contracts. 

The Director of Acquisition Management also required Regional Foresters and 

Station Directors to ensure every active tree planting and tree thinning contract 

was visited by the Contracting Officers on site within 3 weeks of the commencement 

6

of work. Based on these visits, the regions and stations will submit a report to the 

Washington Office regarding the status of housing, transportation and working conditions for employees of forestry contractors. If unacceptable conditions are observed 

the work will be suspended and a report will be made to the appropriate agency. 

Coordination with the oversight agencies has been very productive. The Forest 

Service has provided the Wage and Hour Division and OSHA with a list of this 

year’s projects that could involve foreign guest workers. The agencies have also exchanged point of contact information for our respective field organizations. As a result, for example, a Forest Service contract inspector in Oregon has the point of contact information for the OSHA and Wage and Hour Division in their area to report 

potential violations of the law. 

The Wage and Hour Division and CAL-OSHA have conducted training in California for Forest Service Contract Administrators and private sector contractors concerning legal requirements regarding the employment of H-2B workers. OSHA and 

Wage and Hour are developing training material to raise awareness of ‘‘red flags’’ 

that may indicate problems with the employment of H-2B workers. The Forest Service is also providing this training material to employees involved with foreign guest 

workers. 

SUMMARY

The Department-and the Forest Service are committed to the health and safety 

for all visitors and workers on the National Forests and Grasslands, and that includes foreign guest workers. We will continue to closely coordinate with the oversight agencies responsible for administering this program to ensure foreign guest 

workers will have safe and healthy working and living conditions. 

This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have.

Senator CRAIG. Again, Victoria, let me welcome you, Assistant 

Secretary, Employment Standards Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHEAL GINLEY 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

committee today as a member of this panel. You have invited us 

to testify on the role of the Department of Labor in protecting foreign guest workers employed on tree planting and other service 

contracts, often called reforestation contracts, on National Forest 

lands. And as you suggested, Senator, my written statement is submitted for the record, and I will do my best to summarize. 

Senator CRAIG. And I read it. I don’t always get to all written 

statements. Yours is a very thorough explanation of procedure and 

process. Thank you. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Thank you very much, and I want to credit my staff 

in the Wage and Hour Division for putting a lot of work into that. 

A complete picture of the Department of Labor’s role with these 

foreign guest workers involves mentioning two other agencies within the Department—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Employment and Training Administration. And 

there are representatives from those agencies here today. I am also 

accompanied by Michael Ginley, who is the Director of our Office 

of Enforcement Policy in the Wage and Hour Division, which is a 

part of the Employment Standards Administration. 

Although reforestation work is found in many national forests, 

the challenges of enforcement in the forestry industry as to labor 

standards are not confined to one area, but our testimony today 

7

will focus largely on our experiences in California. I would add that 

Mr. Ginley has first-hand field experience on this issue, having 

served as the District Director of our Wage and Hour Office in Sacramento during the 1990’s. 

The challenges of ensuring that the employment of workers on 

reforestation contracts complies with the applicable legal protections are many, but, as you certainly know, they are not new to the 

Department of Labor, and we share a strong commitment with the 

Forest Service to find a lasting solution to meeting the historical 

challenges of protecting these workers. 

Certainly, as was well documented in the Sacramento Bee series, 

reforestation work is often hard, dangerous and involves a significant amount of travel, and I think that series by and large reflects 

the experience of the Wage and Hour Division in the field. 

As you know, reforestation guest workers are admitted as temporary non-immigrants under the H-2B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As you alluded to, Senator, there are 

many issues related to immigrant workers. Certainly, among those 

that we find as to the forestation work and in other areas, particularly in low wage areas, there is a high dependence on the employers, and that often instills a strong reluctance on the part of the 

workers to complain to the Department of Labor, or to any other 

agency for that matter, about mistreatment, or in our case in particular, about the underpayment of wages. 

Federal reforestation contracts are primarily subject to the employee protections that are offered by a number of statutes within 

the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. They include, first and 

foremost, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the fundamental 

protection that provides wage protection to most U.S. workers; the 

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which 

requires, among other things, that workers are paid their wages 

when they are due, that there is compliance with Federal and State 

safety and health housing standards, and in compliance with vehicle safety standards. Under MSPA, the contractor must obtain a 

certificate of registration from the Department of Labor to operate 

as a farm labor contractor. 

The Service Contract Act applies to contracts for reforestation in 

excess of $2,500 with the Forest Service, and it requires the reforestation contractors to pay the reforestation workers the Service 

Contract Act prevailing wages and fringe benefits that are determined by the Department of Labor. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is administered 

by OSHA at the Department of Labor, regulates safety and health 

conditions in private industry or in the States through an OSHAapproved State plan, and certainly under Homeland Security regulations under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA requires employers filing petitions for H-2B non-immigrant workers 

with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to include a labor certification from the Secretary of Labor that qualified U.S. workers could not be found to fill the job. 

One thing I’ll mention in particular about OSHA, it’s important 

to involve the States in developing any of the safety and health 

plans to ensure enforcement and training assistance is coordinated 

among the Federal agencies and the States since a significant numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
8

ber of the identified national forests are in State Plan States, and 

OSHA works vigorously with the State Plan States to make sure 

that that happens. 

Wage and Hour is the enforcement agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the FLSA, with MSPA, with the field sanitation requirements under OSHA and with the prevailing wage and 

fringe benefit requirements of the Service Contract Act. 

I’ll just mention quickly that Wage and Hour generally conducts 

its investigations in two ways: One is if we receive complaints from 

workers, then we are required to do investigations; the other way 

that we achieve compliance and do everything we can to achieve 

compliance is through directed investigations. Wage and Hour has 

a very sophisticated operational plan every year that directs our 

enforcement resources, and we have a number of initiatives that 

have been in the planning stages over the last couple of years in 

the forestry area, and I can talk about those further in the questions and answers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lipnic follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today as a member of this panel. You have 

invited us to testify on the role of the Department of Labor (DOL) in protecting foreign guest workers employed on tree planting and other service contracts (often 

called ‘‘reforestation contracts’’) on national forest lands. A complete picture of the 

Department of Labor’s role with these foreign guest workers involves mentioning 

two other agencies within the Department—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Employment and Training Administration—and there are representatives from those agencies here today. I am also joined on the panel by Michael Ginley, the Director of the Office of Enforcement Policy of the Wage and Hour 

Division (WHD), which is part of the Employment Standards Administration within 

the Department of Labor. Although reforestation work is found in many national 

forests and the challenges of enforcement in the forestry industry are not confined 

to one area, our testimony today will focus on our experiences in the national forests 

of California. 

The challenges of ensuring that the employment of workers on reforestation contracts complies with applicable legal protections are many, but they are not new to 

the Department of Labor. We share a strong commitment with the USDA Forest 

Service (FS) to find a lasting solution to meeting the historical challenges of protecting these workers. 

Before explaining these challenges and detailing our responses I will first describe 

the:

• Nature of reforestation work in national forests; 

• Typical characteristics of reforestation guest workers; 

• Federal laws applicable to reforestation in national forests; and 

• The different agencies responsible for enforcing these laws. 

NATURE OF REFORESTATION WORK IN NATIONAL FORESTS

Reforestation work is hard, often dangerous work and involves a significant 

amount of travel. The duties are physically demanding, the pressure to work quickly 

is intense, the environment is often cold and wet, and the housing and eating arrangements are sometimes poor. 

The average reforestation contract on a unit of the National Forest System (NFS) 

involves small crews of approximately 15 workers who clear brush and undergrowth 

and/or plant seedlings on remote tracts of NFS land. The contracts usually last several weeks and require constant movement to new tracts of NFS land. Travel to the 

contract sites is time consuming and frequently occurs on unimproved roads early 

or late in the day. 

Reforestation contractors are typically small, and could very well be underfinanced businesses. They often struggle to make timely payment of payrolls, as 

they must wait for FS payment before paying their workers. Many of these contracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
9

tors are former reforestation workers. The contractors often pay their workers on 

piece rate, and do not keep the required accurate record of employee hours actually 

worked. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFORESTATION GUEST WORKERS

Reforestation guest workers are admitted as temporary nonimmigrants under the 

H-2B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

The H-2B workers’ continued presence in this country is entirely dependent on 

the willingness of the sponsoring employer to continue their employment. If this employment is lost, the workers must leave the country. The reforestation workers are 

typically dependent on their employer for all transportation and are left to their own 

devices to secure housing and food. This dependence instills a strong reluctance to 

complain to DOL—or any other agency—about mistreatment or underpayment of 

wages by their employer. 

The H-2B reforestation workers typically do not speak English, and are often illiterate in their native language. They are largely ignorant of the application of U.S. 

wage and hour and safety laws. The workers typically reside in remote locations 

with little if any access to community or government resources to assist them with 

work-related problems. 

FEDERAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO REFORESTATION WORK IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Federal reforestation contracts are primarily subject to the employee protections 

offered by a number of statutes within the jurisdiction of DOL. They are: 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

The FLSA requires the reforestation contractor to:

• Pay no less than the federal minimum wage ($5.15 per hour), free and clear, 

for all hours actually worked; 

• Pay time and one half the workers’ regular rate of pay for all hours actually 

worked over 40 in a seven day work week; 

• Limit the occupations and hours of employment for children under 18 years of 

age in accordance with federal child labor regulations; 

• Maintain an accurate record of hours worked and wages paid.

The FLSA does not typically treat time spent traveling to the first work site of 

the day, or back at the end of the day, as compensable hours of work. 

The FLSA requires that wages be paid free and clear. Employees may not be required to pay for the employer’s business expenses—such as providing tools, equipment or fuel—to the extent that such payment will reduce the employees’ wages 

below the minimum wage. 

Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) 

The MSPA requires the labor contractor to:

• Pay workers their wages when due, and give workers itemized, written statements of earnings for each pay period, including any amount deducted and the 

reasons for the deduction. 

• Comply with federal and State safety and health housing standards when the 

contractor owns or controls a facility or real property used for housing the reforestation workers. A written statement of the terms and conditions of occupancy 

must be posted at the housing site where it can be seen or be given to the workers. 

• Assure that vehicles they use or cause to be used to transport the reforestation 

workers are properly insured, operated by licensed drivers, and meet applicable 

federal and State safety standards. 

• Inform the workers in writing about the terms and conditions of employment, 

including the work to be performed, wages to be paid, the period of employment, 

and whether State workers’ compensation or State unemployment insurance 

will be provided. 

• Obtain a certificate of registration from DOL to operate as a Farm Labor Contractor (FLC). In addition, specific authorization must be obtained for all housing provided (if owned or controlled) and each vehicle used to transport the reforestation workers. The contractors must carry proof of this registration and 

show it to workers and any other person with whom they deal as contractors. 

• Display a poster where it can be seen at the job site which sets forth the rights 

and protections of the workers. 

• Keep complete and accurate payroll records for all workers.

10

An FLC’s registration status with DOL can be verified by calling the WHD’s toll 

free number 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243). 

MSPA posters are available by either calling the toll free number or by visiting 

the WHD home page http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/ and scrolling to the Quick 

Finder for Printed Publications. 

The Service Contract Act (SCA) 

The SCA applies to contracts for reforestation services in excess of $2,500 with 

the FS. It requires the reforestation contractors to:

• Pay the reforestation workers the SCA prevailing wages and fringe benefits determined by DOL to be prevailing in the locality for the class of service worker 

being employed; 

• Notify the reforestation workers of the prevailing wage and fringe benefit requirements applicable to their work.

The reforestation workers must be paid the SCA required prevailing wages and 

fringe benefits free and clear. The contractors may not require the workers to pay 

for the employers’ business expenses—such as providing tools, equipment or fuel—

to the extent that such payment will reduce the employees’ wages below the applicable SCA prevailing wage. 

Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSH Act) 

The OSH Act is administered by the Department’s Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA). Safety and health conditions in most private industries are regulated by OSHA or the States through an OSHA-approved State plan. 

Nearly every employee in the nation comes under OSHA’s authority with some exceptions such as miners, some transportation workers, certain public employees (except in some State Plan States), and the self-employed. In addition to the requirements to comply with the regulations and safety and health standards prescribed 

under the OSH Act, employers subject to the Act have a general duty requirement 

to provide work and a workplace free from recognized, serious hazards. 

OSHA’s mission is to help promote and assure workplace safety and health and 

reduce workplace fatalities, injuries and illnesses. OSHA, along with its State partners, achieves its mission through workplace enforcement of applicable laws, standards, and regulations, inspections, consultation services, compliance assistance, outreach, education, cooperative programs, and issuance of standards and guidance. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act encourages States to administer their 

own occupational safety and health programs under State plans approved by the 

Secretary. States with approved plans (referred to as ‘‘State plan States’’) operate 

under the authority of State law and are responsible for occupational safety and 

health protection in that State. State plan States adopt standards at least as effective as Federal OSHA’s, enforce these standards in a manner similar to Federal 

OSHA, provide on-site consultation services and conduct outreach and compliance 

assistance. 

Twenty-two States have received Secretarial approval to administer their own occupational safety and health program which covers most private sector employment 

in their States as well as State and local government employees. (Four additional 

States cover only public sector employees through their State plans.) California administers an approved State plan and the California Department of Industrial Relations is the agency responsible for addressing the work place safety and health 

issues of the guest workers employed on tree planting and other service contracts 

on the national forest lands in California. 

Field Sanitation 

The OSH Act field sanitation standards establish minimum standards for field 

sanitation in covered agricultural settings. Covered employers are required to provide:

• toilets; 

• potable drinking water; 

• and hand-washing facilities.

Further, employers must provide each employee reasonable use of the above. 

Authority for enforcing these field sanitation standards has been delegated to 

WHD in all States where Federal OSHA generally has authority, and in certain 

State plan States. 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Relevant Visa Category: H-2B 

Department of Homeland Security regulations implementing the INA require employers filing petitions for H-2B non-immigrant workers with the United States CitiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
11

zenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to include a labor certification from the 

Secretary of Labor that qualified United States workers could not be found to fill 

the job. In the case of reforestation activities, employers must file an application for 

labor certification with the State Workforce Agency serving the geographic area. A 

contractor planting or thinning trees in a California forest, for example, would file 

with the local office of the California Employment Development Department between 60 and 120 days before the work is scheduled to begin. 

In each case, the State agency follows guidance from DOL to determine the appropriate wage rate for the occupation listed, supervise and guide the employer’s recruitment of U.S. workers, and ensure completion of other requirements of the H2B program. The State forwards completed applications to the DOL Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA), which reviews the record in its entirety, including documentation from the State and the employer, to determine whether and 

when to issue a certification. The employer then uses ETA’s certification in support 

of its petition with USCIS for guest workers. 

The INA provides no authority to the DOL to enforce the wage rate identified for 

the H-2B workers. The INA was amended by the Save Our Small and Seasonal 

Businesses Act of 2005, which, among other things, provided the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security with authority to impose certain sanctions when 

sponsoring employers have committed a substantial failure to meet any of the conditions of the H-2B petition or made a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in 

such petition. 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(A). 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AGENCIES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT ROLES

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

Federal OSHA and its State plan partners are responsible for enforcing OSHA 

standards and providing compliance assistance and training to reforestation employers. Enforcement programs of both Federal OSHA and State agencies include 

planned inspections as well as unplanned inspections that are conducted in response 

to employee complaints, accidents, fatalities, and catastrophes. Planned inspections 

target serious workplace hazards or dangerous industries. Unplanned inspections 

are typically in response to an employee complaint, a referral from another government agency, or a fatality or catastrophe in the workplace. The nature of reforestation work and those typically performing it makes conducting either type of inspection difficult. Employees engaged in this work rarely complain to OSHA for a variety of reasons. Additionally, work is not performed at fixed workplaces and the 

length of a job is relatively short. Therefore, locating these employers is often difficult. 

The safety and health issues facing these workers depend on the task they are 

performing. For example, employees performing brush clearing operations are exposed to cuts and contusions from both the material they are removing, such as 

branch whip-back, and the equipment they are using. This necessitates the use of 

appropriate personal protective equipment, such as eye and face protection, hand 

protection, and appropriate footwear. Employees performing tree thinning are exposed to cut hazards created by chain saw use, overhead hazards from falling objects, such as felled trees and branches, and slips and falls from working on uneven 

terrain. These conditions also require adequate personal protective equipment, such 

as leg protection, head and face protection, and appropriate footwear. When performing these tasks it is critical that employees follow safe work practices. Employees who work in remote reforestation sites must have first aid available in the event 

of injury. 

Federal OSHA works closely with its State Plan partners to develop effective 

strategies to address the safety and health issues of guest workers. It is important 

to involve the States in developing those plans to ensure that enforcement, training 

and assistance is coordinated among the various federal agencies and the States 

since a significant number of the identified national forests are in State Plan States. 

OSHA’s State plan partners are well-positioned to address the conditions faced by 

reforestation workers. For example, California OSHA has recently participated with 

Federal and State Wage and Hour officials and the FS to present a series of three 

training sessions for FS contracting officers and forest service contractors. Oregon 

has promulgated a standard which specifically applies to forestry activities in addition to logging. Finally, many States have developed effective outreach materials designed for non-English speaking workers. 

In summary, this is a complex problem for OSHA and the affected State Plan 

States. The solutions require effective coordination and cooperation between the 

OSHA partners and with the WHD and the FS. 

12

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

Under the H-2B visa program, ETA is responsible for review of H-2B labor certification requests. DOL oversight of worksite enforcement is provided by WHD and 

OSHA. 

Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division (WHD) 

The WHD is the enforcement agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the 

minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA; the wage, registration disclosure, housing and transportation requirements of MSPA; the OSHA field sanitation standards in non-State plan States; and the prevailing wage and fringe benefit 

requirements of the SCA. The WHD seeks compliance with these requirements 

through a combination of enforcement and compliance assistance. There are some 

unique problems associated with enforcement regarding reforestation contractors. 

But first, let me explain the enforcement process generally, and some of the statutespecific differences. 

WHD Enforcement Process 

The WHD conducts investigations of employers on two bases:

• Receipt of a complaint alleging violations; • Directed investigations where there is no complaint but the potential for violations is high due to the nature of the work, the vulnerability of the workers, 

or the industry.

WHD investigators will identify themselves and present official credentials at the 

opening of an investigation. They will explain the investigation process and the 

types of records required during the review. 

A typical investigation consists of the following steps:

• Examination of records to determine which laws or exemptions apply. These 

records include, for example, those showing the employer’s annual dollar volume of business transactions, involvement in interstate commerce, MSPA registration status and work on government contracts. Information from an employer’s records will not be revealed to unauthorized persons. • Examination of payroll and time records, examination of employer-provided 

housing and transportation (MSPA) and taking notes or making transcriptions 

or photocopies essential to the investigation. • Interviews with certain employees in private. The purpose of these interviews 

is to verify the employer’s payroll and time records, to substantiate housing 

and/or transportation violations, to identify workers’ particular duties in sufficient detail to decide which exemptions apply, if any, and to confirm that minors are legally employed. Confidential interviews are normally conducted on 

the employer’s premises. In some instances, present and former employees may 

be interviewed away from the worksite to protect confidentiality and WHD 

takes aggressive action to correct any employer retribution under the anti-discrimination protections of FLSA Section 15(a)(3). 

• When all the fact-finding steps have been completed, the investigator will ask 

to meet with the employer and/or a representative of the firm who has authority 

to reach decisions and commit the employer to corrective actions if violations 

have occurred. If back wages are owed to employees because of minimum/prevailing wage or overtime violations, the investigator will request payment of 

back wages due; if housing and/or transportation violations have occurred, the 

investigator will note the violations and, depending on the severity of the violations, will seek appropriate corrective action. 

FLSA Enforcement 

Although the WHD makes every effort to resolve the issue of compliance and payment of back wages at an administrative level, the FLSA also provides for the following enforcement actions:

• An employee may file suit to recover back wages, and an equal amount in liquidated damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs. 

• The Secretary of Labor may file suit on behalf of employees for back wages and 

an equal amount in liquidated damages. 

• The Secretary may obtain a court injunction to restrain any person from violating the law, including unlawfully withholding proper minimum wage and 

overtime pay. 

• Civil money penalties may be assessed for child labor violations and for repeat 

and/or willful violations of FLSA minimum wage or overtime requirements; employers who have willfully violated the law may face criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. 

13

• Employees who have filed complaints or provided information during an investigation are protected under the law. They may not be discriminated against or 

discharged for having done so. If they are, they may file suit or the Secretary 

of Labor may file suit on their behalf for relief, including reinstatement to their 

jobs and payment of wages lost plus monetary damages. 

MSPA Enforcement 

MSPA provides for the assessment of civil money penalties, revocation of the contractor’s certificate (including authorization to house, transport or drive), criminal 

sanctions, fines and imprisonment. 

MSPA Transportation Enforcement 

Enforcement of MSPA transportation requirements is a critical element of WHD 

reforestation investigations, helping to prevent recurrence of recent horrific accidents involving the transportation of migrant workers. The enforcement of MSPA 

transportation requirements begins with the application for a Farm Labor Contractor (FLC) or Farm Labor Contractor Employee (FLCE) Certificate of Registration. On the application form, the applicant must indicate whether transportation 

will be provided to the workers and provide a Vehicle Identification and Mechanical 

Inspection Report for each vehicle to be used. The forms used for the vehicle inspection require identifying information on the person and establishment/garage making 

the inspection and the form must be ‘‘properly completed and signed, certifying that 

the vehicle meets’’ the applicable MSPA vehicle safety requirements. 

In addition, evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements and financial 

responsibility requirements of MSPA must be submitted. MPSA requires not less 

than $100,000 per seat in insurance coverage (maximum $5,000,000 per vehicle) or 

worker’s compensation coverage along with a $50,000 property damage policy or a 

vehicle liability certificate of coverage showing that passenger hazard is included. 

Further, any FLC or FLCE who drives a vehicle transporting workers must be 

listed on the application and provide driver license information and a copy of his 

or her driver’s license. The application package must include a Doctor’s Certificate 

form completed by a licensed doctor that indicates the applicant meets minimum 

physical requirements to drive a motor vehicle. 

An approved FLC or FLCE Certificate of Registration indicates if the contractor 

is authorized to drive. It will list each authorized vehicle by make, model and partial VIN (vehicle identification number); the number of authorized seats (as provided 

on the application); and the date the certificate expires. 

During an investigation of an FLC, the WHD investigator will determine if the 

FLC is involved with transporting the workers—the regulatory language looks to 

one who uses or causes a vehicle to be used. If the FLC is found to be using or causing a vehicle to be used, the investigator will check if the contractor is properly registered, is authorized to use the specific vehicle, and has the proper insurance in 

place. 

In addition, the WHD investigator will document by observation and interviews 

the number of workers being transported, the identity of the vehicle (make, model, 

and VIN) and the driver (and whether the driver is properly licensed and carrying 

the Doctor’s Certificate), current license tag, and whether the vehicle possesses a 

current State vehicle inspection sticker (if required in the State in which the vehicle 

is registered). The investigator will also perform a visual inspection of the vehicle—

looking for whether headlights are broken or missing; whether seating is broken, 

missing, or inadequate; whether windows are broken, missing or boarded up; whether tires are badly worn or defective; or whether windshields are cracked, broken or 

missing. 

Any serious violations posing imminent danger to the occupant are brought to the 

attention of the FLC and immediate correction is sought. WHD investigators do not 

have authority to stop vehicles and do not have authority to require a labor contractor to cease using a vehicle. In such circumstances, the WHD investigator would 

need to enlist the cooperation of the appropriate State or local authority, such as 

the highway patrol. WHD investigators are trained to contact the appropriate authorities to ensure the safety of the workers. 

In addition to seeking correction of the safety violations, WHD can assess civil 

monetary penalties and, if warranted, seek to revoke the labor contractor’s certificate of registration. 

SCA Enforcement 

When the WHD identifies monetary violations of the SCA, Federal contract funds 

may be withheld by the contracting agency to insure payment of SCA back wages. 

Employers who violate the SCA may also lose their Federal contracts and be deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
14

clared ineligible for future contracts for a specified period (debarment). The WHD 

has debarred 13 reforestation contractors in the last decade. 

REPRESENTATIVE WAGE AND HOUR ACTIVITIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

As I mentioned at the outset, the issues associated with enforcement of the worker protections for the temporary guest workers doing reforestation work are not new 

to the DOL, although some of the issues associated with enforcement are unique. 

For example, securing timely correction of significant reforestation safety, transportation and housing violations is only possible if DOL investigators are present when 

and where the workers are employed, housed and transported; further, special language skills are critical to securing evidence of the violations from the workers. 

Transportation enforcement raises particularly unique issues, given the limited authority vested in WHD investigators to intervene when unsafe transportation is 

found. Cooperation with State and local law enforcement officials, as is effectively 

done in California with the California Highway Patrol, is one means of resolving 

this issue. 

WHD offices in California and the Northwest have consistently worked with their 

counterparts in the FS in an effort to protect reforestation workers. For example, 

in February 2005, the WHD Sacramento District Office provided labor law training 

to 40 FS contracting officers representing the 17 national forests in California. The 

Seattle District Office regularly works with the FS offices in Idaho, Montana and 

Washington to ensure compliance with labor laws, and has effectively secured debarment of serious violators under the SCA. The Portland District Office has participated for several years in quarterly interagency ‘‘Farmer Forest’’ meetings with the 

federal and State Forest Service, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry, and Oregon OSHA to facilitate joint efforts in achieving compliance. 

Compliance Assistance 

The DOL educates employers on compliance responsibilities in addition to taking 

independent enforcement actions. This approach is based on the long-held agency 

belief that the vast majority of employers want to comply with worker protections 

laws, but many do not know all of the legal requirements. The best preventative 

approach for these employers is clear, pertinent, readily-available guidance in multiple media. DOL is constantly working to provide guidance to employers via the 

telephone (toll free numbers), internet, and hard copies. This guidance includes an 

interactive, Web-based tool, called elaws Advisors, which provides around-the-clock 

assistance on the application of many DOL laws. Active outreach programs also include numerous speeches, seminars and training sessions provided to employer 

groups and industry associations. 

The DOL also seeks to educate employees of their rights under federal laws in 

the language they understand, to provide tools that will help them protect their 

rights and to give the information needed to involve the agency in correcting violations. 

Finally, the DOL actively seeks partnerships with worker advocacy groups, industry associations, agencies at all levels of government, and other entities that will 

help us educate employers and employees on achieving compliance with wage and 

hour laws. 

CHALLENGES

Although there is an ongoing relationship on a regional level between the Department of Labor and the Forest Service, DOL agencies and the FS continue to work 

to reinvigorate the process by which we identify and overcome challenges to ensuring protection of guest workers employed in our national forests. These challenges 

and our current and planned solutions are:

Challenge: Educating reforestation contractors, who are largely ignorant of 

their responsibilities for compliance when they are awarded reforestation contracts. 

Solution: The FS, WHD, and the California occupational safety and health 

program (Cal-OSHA) have worked to develop a multi-prong approach to educating contractors before contract work begins. For example, WHD provided 

training for FS contractors in California in 2000. Planning began again in FY 

2005 for a renewed effort as part of a WHD reforestation initiative for implementation prior to the beginning of the 2006 planting season. This training was 

offered to all contractors who were awarded 2006 contracts in central and 

northern California national forests. The training seminars were sponsored by 

the FS, the WHD, Cal-OSHA and the California Highway Patrol and held in 

January, 2006. The majority of contractors attended the seminars, in no small 

15

part because they were advised of the enforcement agency plans to investigate 

approximately 50% of the contractors this season. 

The WHD and Cal-OSHA trained FS contracting officers in California in January, 2006. This training, which is being considered as a template for future 

training sessions in national forests across the country, provided contracting officers with the knowledge needed to educate contractors on site. 

Reforestation contractors are provided with a complete package of WHD guidance to facilitate their compliance with worker protection laws. 

Challenge: Finding reforestation workers while they are working on the reforestation contracts is critical to identifying and correcting violations, given the 

short duration of the contracts; the remote, constantly changing work sites; the 

temporary residence of the workers in this country; the typically poor/nonexistent recordkeeping practices of the contractors; and the need to personally 

inspect/document safety, housing and transportation violations when they occur. 

Solution: The FS is providing the WHD and Cal-OSHA with the identity of 

contractors who have been awarded reforestation contracts, the approximate 

start date and location of the contract, and contact information on the FS staff 

responsible for each contract. 

Challenge: Educating employees on their rights and how to contact the appropriate agencies, despite significant trust, language and literacy barriers, to correct violations. 

Solution: The WHD is developing ‘‘worker rights cards’’ specific to reforestation employment in English and Spanish; working with various entities to distribute these cards and facilitate the filing of timely complaints; has initiated 

plans with the Department of State to provide these cards to workers upon approval of their non-immigrant visa; and is pursuing a Spanish language Public 

Service Announcement and other methods to reach reforestation workers. 

The WHD, Cal-OSHA and the Forest Service will share the multilingual capabilities of each agency to better communicate with reforestation workers. 

Challenge: Lack of complaints from reforestation workers requires an effective 

targeting program that will facilitate effective enforcement. 

Solution: Establishing an effective investigation targeting program, such as is 

being done in California later this year when targeted investigations will be 

scheduled of approximately 50% of the reforestation contractors. 

Using the list of future contracts provided to DOL by the FS, along with prior 

WHD and FS experience with the contractors, to target investigations for maximum effectiveness. Provide training to FS Contracting Officers (as was done 

earlier this year in California), in identifying minor safety/health and wage/hour 

issues which can be corrected on-the-spot, and those more serious issues that 

must be referred to the WHD or Cal-OSHA for resolution. On-the-spot correction of minor labor law violations by contracting officers, as established in recently expanded FS contract language and field instructions, will significantly 

increase compliance with these laws. This new initiative will be covered in more 

detail in the FS testimony. 

Challenge: Improve timely communication between the FS, Cal-OSHA and 

the WHD to insure effective interventions. 

Solution: The FS, Cal-OSHA and the WHD are sharing updated nation-wide 

contact lists of appropriate agency contacts, encouraging regular, local/regional 

meetings when appropriate, and have established a national level working 

group to periodically coordinate and implement joint efforts to protect reforestation workers.

The dedicated men and women in the field who are charged with enforcing U.S. 

worker protection laws understand the challenges and difficulties of their assignment. On a national level, we are committed to working together and in the field 

we will work with any entities willing to help meet the enforcement challenges we 

have discussed today. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have.

Senator CRAIG. Victoria, thank you. 

Mark, this is the fourth or fifth time that Congress has held a 

hearing related to enforcements of laws, regulations, contract provisions for agencies’ planting and thinning contracts since 1980. 

While some progress has been made, and we’ve talked about that, 

I think there are still many questions to be looked at and to be concerned about. Both in 1993 and in the year 2005, the Sacramento 

16

Bee wrote articles basically saying that Forest Service representatives had pointed out that other agencies have the responsibility to 

enforce health and safety and wage law and regulations. Understanding these charges to your service contracts, why should Congress think that your employees are going to take this issue seriously at this time if the fairly standard answer in the past has 

been it’s somebody else’s responsibility? 

Mr. REY. I think this situation is analogous to the situation of 

certifying the safety of our large air tankers. We operated for a period of time under the assumption that the FAA certificate with 

those tankers assured their safety for aerial firefighting, and we 

learned that wasn’t the case. So, we adapted to do the certification 

ourselves. Here again, I think some of our contract officers were 

under the misapprehension that they didn’t have a specific responsibility. Now we know that, and they know that they have that specific responsibility. It’s been made express in the contract, made express in the direction that they’ve been given by the chief, and it 

will be express in their performance reviews. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Let’s take that a step further then. If one 

of your law enforcement officers, contracting officials or supervisors 

or line officers happened upon a Forest Service forest account crew 

of temporary employees working without the proper safety equipment or working in an unsafe manner, what would you expect 

them to do? 

Mr. REY. What they will do is terminate work on the contract 

until the safety problem is corrected. They’ll also indicate to the 

Department of Labor regulatory agencies that there’s been a safety 

violation so that that goes on the record of the contractor. 

Senator CRAIG. How would you expect the line officer to deal 

with a direct supervisor or crew boss or a crew found to be working 

in violation? You’ve just answered that maybe. Suspend the work? 

Stop the crew? 

Mr. REY. Our only regulatory instrument in terms of immediate 

effect is to stop work on the contract. Now that the contract has 

express terms of compliance with the various worker protection requirements, there should be no doubt in the contractor’s mind why 

he’s being told to stop work. 

Senator CRAIG. Is there any reason that the Forest Service 

couldn’t hire the H-2B-type workers to work on regional thinning, 

planting and brush or disposal crews to ensure the work is getting 

done in a safe and legal manner instead of the contract nature that 

we’ve had in the past? 

Mr. REY. Well, the reason we use contractors for this portion of 

this work is that the work is temporary in nature and widely distributed throughout the National Forest System, so it’s not the 

kind of work we would hire permanent employees to undertake. 

Senator CRAIG. You still believe that that’s, for the circumstances 

and the situation, the better approach? 

Mr. REY. We still believe that, but we still believe that we have 

a responsibility to assure the safety of these workers. One thing 

that is changing, though, is—well, two things that are changing 

that are worthy of note—one is we are moving much more heavily 

into best-value contracting, and we will be looking at the question 

of repeated worker safety violations as part of the criteria in evaluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
17

ating what the best value will be from a particular contractor. 

There’s been some view that doing low-bid contracts or competitivebid contracts has fostered a situation where these kinds of worker 

safety problems are more common. By moving more heavily into 

best-value contracting, I think we’re going to reduce the significance of that factor. The second thing that’s changing is that we’re 

doing this kind of work more and more commonly in long-term 

landscape scales, stewardship contracts. And I think with that, 

what we’ll have is longer-duration contracts with multiple tasks, 

which will probably encourage much more worker stability from 

the contract work force. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I was about to ask a similar question to 

what you are suggesting, some are temporaries, moving around as 

the season changes, not unlike fire crews that we know have to be 

mobile because of where fire seasons start and end up. I mean, 

there are some analogous situations that would suggest that maybe 

summer temporaries might fit that definition. 

Mr. REY. Except that this particular kind of work isn’t usually 

done in the height of summer, and most of our summer temporaries are people who have obligations during the balance of the 

year, either as students or faculty or teachers or that sort of thing. 

This is mostly a spring task because that’s the season we do most 

of our tree planting. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, with tree planting, that is the case, yes. 

Thank you. I’ve got some other questions. Let me turn to Senator 

Bingaman. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much. Let me give you a 

perspective on this, and you can react, Secretary Rey, or any or the 

rest of you. See if I’m right about this. The way I see it, we wrote 

these laws, the Congress wrote these laws and passed them before 

we got to the circumstance we’re now in. And the circumstance 

we’re now in, there’s a commitment by many of us in the Congress, 

and I think the administration and others, to do a multi year, 

maybe multi decade, effort at proper forest restoration or thinning 

work because that’s going to be required in order to deal with the 

fire risk that we see. 

I was in Ruidoso last week in my home state of New Mexico. And 

you go around there, and they’ve done a lot of thinning around that 

community, but there’s an awful lot more to be done. And you can 

almost plan a career working at that if you decided that that was 

what you were going to do. That is a different circumstance than 

used to exist where it was much more, you know, here’s a shortterm project, we need somebody to come in here and do something. 

My perspective is that a lot of this forestry contracting work is very 

local. I mean, they say all politics is local. Most forestry contracting 

work is local. There are some communities where there are people 

that are ready and willing to take that kind of work and pursue 

it, and there are others where there just isn’t anyone. 

The thing that confuses me is, as I understand it, many of these 

forestry contractors go ahead and apply for their H-2B workers. 

They go ahead and indicate that they need foreign guest workers 

and put in their application before they even know where they’re 

going to have contracts or if they’re going to have contracts. Isn’t 

that sort of crazy? I mean, shouldn’t we first at least know where 

18

we’re going to have the work done before we determine whether or 

not we need to go outside the country to bring people in to do the 

work? 

Mr. REY. Well, we’re not the only ones doing the contracting, so, 

you know, they’re doing this work on virtually all ownerships. And 

so, what our plans are as far as Federal land management are concern is only about 30 to 40 percent of their overall market. But 

with regard to our plans, I think you make a point that’s very accurate. At least in the thinning and forest restoration area, we’re 

moving to longer-term, larger-scale contracts, and that will result 

in, I think, more local hiring occurring because people can sort of 

build a program—a business plan that extends for several years on 

the basis of those longer-term contracts. I think that’s going to 

change the nature of the contract work force, both the length of the 

contract and the fact that the stewardship contracts often have 

multi tasks, often tasks that are done in different parts of the year, 

which lend a greater degree of stability to the enterprise than, say, 

a typical small-scale tree-planting contract that either we or some 

forest products company may be looking for a contractor to do. 

Senator BINGAMAN. And what are the requirements that we put 

on as—say we are going to let a contract out near Ruidoso or 

northern New Mexico or somewhere to do some work on the national forest, what do we require that contractor to show us by way 

of proof that he or she, whoever that contractor is, has genuinely 

tried to hire local people to do this work? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Senator, that largely falls within the Employment 

and Training Administration’s certification for the H-2B contractors, and there is a process by which the contractor applies to the 

Department of Labor. First, they submit an application through the 

State Workforce Agency. That application is put together, including 

the determination about the worker availability. Ultimately, that 

file is reviewed by the Employment and Training Administration at 

the Department of Labor. That is not my agency at the department, and I can certainly get more specifics, but we have someone 

here from ETA who could probably address it in greater detail. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I guess my concern—and I see my 

time’s up, Mr. Chairman, but my concern is that if, in fact, these 

contracts are local—and so you’ve got one in Ruidoso, New Mexico, 

on the outskirts of the town there, they want to do some thinning 

or some planting of trees, or whatever they want to do—or up by 

Truchas, New Mexico, or whatever, is there any kind of determination made by the Department of Labor or by the Forest Service or 

by anyone else that the contractor who they’re getting ready to hire 

to do that work has actually tried to hire local people to do that 

work? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Well, part of the requirement under the Employment 

and Training Administration regulations is that they have to have 

looked at the availability of U.S. workers. That is something that 

goes into the determination. 

Senator BINGAMAN. But for that contract, or is that just in a very 

general sense? 

Ms. LIPNIC. They have to recruit for the U.S. workers, and then 

there has to be a local labor market test. So, they actually would 

have to——

19

Senator BINGAMAN. Local labor market test, what does that 

mean? 

Ms. LIPNIC. As to the availability of the U.S. workers. 

Senator BINGAMAN. So, they have to determine that there is a 

shortage of people willing in that local community to do that work? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REY. And then, when it gets to us, one of the criteria that 

we use in determining best value is whether the contractor is going 

to produce some local employment, but it’s only one criteria of several that are used in best-value evaluations for best-value contracting. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Chairman, I’ve used more than my time. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Let me come right off from where the Senator is 

questioning as it relates to the test with the contractor. It’s my 

general understanding, in looking at contractor’s lists and where 

they work and all of that, that some are operated or home-officed 

in one State, but they’re doing work in another State. How diligent 

is the Department in determining that they actually made the test 

for labor availability in the labor environment in which they are 

working instead of contracting from? 

Ms. LIPNIC. My understanding, Senator, is that they actually 

have to look at that local labor market and look at the test there. 

Now ultimately, that’s reviewed by the State Workforce Agency and 

then reviewed by the Employment Training Administration. So, my 

understanding is that that is a requirement and that they have to 

look at that. Again, this is not my agency specifically at the Labor 

Department, so I can certainly double check on that. The labor 

market test is conducted locally even though the crews can certainly move around. 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. Well, I have a bit of familiarity with H-2B 

workers, and there are a variety of categories in Idaho beyond just 

this. Categories where H-2Bs are employed. It is my sense, in looking at that employment over time, that there grows a general belief 

that the type of worker they’re looking for doesn’t exist, and they 

become dependent upon the H-2B employee. And I’m just curious 

as to how thorough and rigorous the test is or if it simply becomes 

a process now to gain access to the H-2B worker. That’s not to suggest that they are available and untested at the local level because 

in most instances, it is my belief they are probably not. At the 

same time, observing several employers in my State who’ve become 

increasingly dependent on H-2B, it is that they are dependent upon 

them. It appears to me they are not seeking outside that particular 

category or market for an employee of the type that would fit that 

job description. 

Ms. LIPNIC. Senator, I couldn’t speak too specifically as to that. 

I can tell you that, again, the Employment and Training Administration would ultimately have to evaluate the work in the certification that was suggested by the State Workforce Agency. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, I’ll come back to you in a moment. 

Ms. Collins, I would like to ask you a couple of questions if I may. 

The Chief and Director of Acquisition Management, Ron Hooper, 

sent out memos to the field on the issue we’re addressing here 

today. The Chief’s November 18, 2005, memo said, amongst other 

20

things, ‘‘I expect expertise and immediate action. Contract administrators must be able to recognize health and safety violations. 

When these situations occur, they must take action, and don’t let 

them work.’’

Mr. Hooper’s January 4, 2005, memo said, ‘‘Please ensure that 

these provisions are included in all service contracts. Finally, 

please ensure that all service contract files within a written statement to the effect of the contracting officer, the contracting officer’s 

representative or the contract inspector, has reviewed these requirements on these provisions with the contractor and has conducted at least one inspection of existing and new service contracts 

to ensure compliance with these provisions when applicable.’’ And 

my question to you is how many contracts have your inspector or 

contracting officers reviewed, shut down or found to have failed to 

live up to the new service contract provisions since the reference 

memos went out? 

Ms. COLLINS. Well, we are in just the first part of March, and 

our contracting is just starting right now, so we don’t have any active contracts going on right now. 

Senator CRAIG. At this moment? 

Ms. COLLINS. At this moment. Now, we will start including these 

in the new contracts that are coming out this year. We have about 

240 contracts that will be part of our program this year. All of 

them will have those provisions in, and then at that point, we’ll—

when we have active contracts going on, all of that will start happening. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. You now have a significant amount of experience with best-value contracts or the stewardship contracting. 

Would we get better performance that better enforces health and 

safety and other labor laws if we shifted all service contracts to a 

best-value contract process? 

Ms. COLLINS. We have some great experience with best value, 

and stewardship contracting is a good example of that, that we 

have been doing for the last couple of years. And most of our service contracts use best value now already. What we are assuring 

through this process is that the kinds of issues we’re dealing with 

and the cases we’re talking about here today will be incorporated 

in those best-value determinations. So, it’s not just what’s the least 

cost contract or the low-bid contract, but its things like do they 

come in within budget, did they perform well, did they get the work 

done that we wanted done in a quality way, and were they meeting 

the provisions of the contract that you just laid out at the beginning of this question. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Victoria, I noted that like many large Federal departments, many times the right hand doesn’t know what 

the left hand is doing. Has the Department taken any steps to ensure that departments within your agency have access to each other’s data and that other agencies from other departments have access to the data to help them recognize the bad actors and to withhold contracts from those identified as continually violating to live 

up to the health and safety labor laws of our country? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Senator, first, as to the relationship between the 

Labor Department and the Forest Service, which is certainly critical to this issue, I’ll give you the example of our Sacramento, CaliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
21

fornia office, which has had a long-standing relationship with the 

Forest Service. On a regular basis, the Forest Service will contact 

our district office in Sacramento and ask for any history of violations that we may have, particularly as to MSPA violations, the 

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. We actually have a form that we will fax back to them with the violations, and that would include lists of ineligible farm labor contractors. 

Within the Department, we maintain, on the Department’s 

website for MSPA violations, all of the ineligible farm labor contractors and certainly any contractors that have been debarred, 

which is the ultimate sanction, particularly in the Service Contract 

Act. Those are maintained on the GSA website as to Service Contract Act debarments. That information is readily available from 

the Department. Also, we do have an exchange of information with 

the Forest Service. 

Senator CRAIG. When you identify a company that has repeated 

violations of health, safety and wage requirements, do you contact 

the land management agencies to let them know what your investigators are finding out? 

Ms. LIPNIC. To the best of my knowledge, as a general matter, 

I believe the answer to that is no. Now, that’s why it is critically 

important that we have the kind of relationships that we have with 

the contracting agencies, whether it’s the Forest Service or any 

other contracting agency for labor standards violations, that those 

relationships exist at a district-office level or at a regional-office 

level so that that kind of information can be shared. We do have 

that relationship in the Sacramento office with the Forest Service. 

And in other offices around the country, it’s probably not as good 

as it should be, but the Under Secretary and I have talked about 

this and have a commitment to have that kind of relationship, driven from the top down, to make sure that the practices in our Sacramento office will be incorporated nationwide. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator Bingaman. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me just try to sort out two issues here—

one is to what extent local contractors are hired to do this work. 

They’re contracted with by the Forest Service to do this work. Is 

it possible, in my State of New Mexico, to get a listing, say, of last 

year, how many contracts were let and how much of that went to 

local contractors versus out-of-State contractors to do Forest Service work? 

Mr. REY. Sure, we can get you that list. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. And the second issue is to—whether 

it’s a local contractor or a contractor from another State, the question is whether that work is actually being done by foreign guest 

workers or whether that work is being done by residents in that 

community that have been hired. And again, is that something we 

could get an indication? 

Mr. REY. Yes. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Because you would know, I mean, as to each 

of the contracts that you let, not only who the contractor is, but 

whether or not they’re doing the work with foreign guest workers. 

Mr. REY. That’s correct. 

22

Senator BINGAMAN. If I could get that for New Mexico, that 

would be helpful in determining whether there’s a serious problem 

or whether this is just sort of an anecdote that I hear about when 

I travel around and isn’t really based in a whole lot of fact. 

Mr. REY. We can get you those. 

Senator BINGAMAN. I hear complaints about both. I hear complaints by people saying our local contractors can’t get these jobs 

because people are coming in from Idaho or from wherever and taking these jobs, these contractors are. And then I also hear that 

local workers can’t get hired even though they like the jobs, because there are foreign guest workers that are brought in. So, if 

you could help with that, that would be great. I’m also curious how 

these prevailing wages are determined. Maybe that’s the Department of Labor’s job. How do you determine the prevailing wages? 

Ms. LIPNIC. Senator, there is an entire Wage Determination Office within the Wage and Hour Division that determines the prevailing wages through use of surveys, whether it’s the Davis-Bacon 

Act or Service Contract Act, and I think I’ll actually defer to Mr. 

Ginley, who is probably far more expert at this than I am. 

Senator BINGAMAN. But when you use prevailing wages in this 

context, it’s the same as you use in the Davis-Bacon context? Is 

that right? 

Mr. GINLEY. Yes, Senator, it is. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. 

Mr. GINLEY. We established the prevailing wage for the type of 

work in that vicinity for the classification of workers. Now, under 

the service contracts, it’s basically one classification of workers, unlike Davis-Bacon, which of course have multiple classifications. 

Also, we’ll set prevailing fringe benefit requirements that must be 

paid on this contract. 

Senator BINGAMAN. And what are those? I mean typically, what 

kind of fringe benefit? 

Mr. GINLEY. Typically, it will be something like $2.32 an hour toward health and welfare benefits. So, if a worker works 40 hours, 

that amount of money times $2.32 is contributed toward health and 

welfare benefits. Although all of this doesn’t typically happen in 

these temporary contracts. If they work for a sufficient period of 

time, they typically get paid vacation, a week after a year or something of that nature. But typically, these contracts are very short. 

Senator BINGAMAN. And you do monitoring to be sure that those 

wages are actually paid and that those benefits are actually provided? 

Mr. GINLEY. Yes, Senator, we do. When we do an investigation 

of one of these contractors, we do the investigation under both 

MSPA, the Migrant and Seasonal Agriculture Worker Protection 

Act, which has protections for housing, transportation, notification, 

and under the Service Contracts Act, for the prevailing wage requirements and for the fringe benefit requirements. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. Am I right that there are protections 

that the law puts in place for H-2A workers, agricultural guest 

workers, that do not apply in the case of H-2B workers? 

Mr. GINLEY. You’re correct, Senator. 

Senator BINGAMAN. And what are those distinctions? 

23

Mr. GINLEY. Well, the H-2A provisions require, for agricultural 

workers, and we’re not talking about agricultural workers here 

with the reforestation industry, H-2A agricultural workers must be 

paid a prevailing wage also. It has to be the higher of the two—

actually, the prevailing or the adverse effect wage rate. There are 

certain transportation guarantees. Housing must be provided and 

certain other conditions of employment that do not come with H2B status. There are no such requirements for H-2B workers. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I can certainly understand that it 

might make sense to not have the same requirements for H-2B 

workers in a lot of different fields. I’ve wondered, though, the kind 

of work we’re talking about here is pretty close to agricultural 

work. 

Mr. GINLEY. Yes, Senator, it obviously is. The definitions used 

follow the statutory definitions. H-2A work is all work considered 

agriculture, under either the IRS code definitions or the Fair Labor 

Standards Act definitions, which both exclude forestry work. Also, 

the application of MSPA, which is typically applied to agricultural 

workers, is required because of a national injunction placed on the 

Department by the 9th Circuit in the 1980’s, requiring that we 

apply MSPA, enforce MSPA, for the predominantly manual reforestation work done in the forests. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay, so am I understanding that your view 

is that the requirements for H-2A generally make sense in the case 

of H-2B forestry workers? 

Mr. GINLEY. It’s what the law requires, Senator. I’m not sure 

how to respond to what makes sense. We enforce the law as written. The H-2B provisions of the INA do not have those requirements, although the work, of course, has some similarity to the 

work done by traditional H-2A agricultural workers. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you all very much. We’ll stay tuned 

and watch with the new regulations in place from the Forest Service side. As you know, the Judiciary Committee is starting markup 

on a major immigration bill tomorrow. And we will focus on that 

intently as it relates to the impact on H-2As, H-2Bs and certainly 

others and what other adjustments will need to be made specific 

to the Forest Service and the kind of work that is—none of us dispute the critical nature of it and the importance of it, but we also 

want to make sure that proper hiring practices are utilized and 

people are being treated appropriately. Thank you all very much. 

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. We would like to introduce our second 

panel. Michael Dale, Northwest Workers’ Justice Project from Portland, Oregon; Lynn Jungwirth, Watershed Research and Training 

Center of Hayfork, California; Cassandra Moseley, Institute for 

Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene; and 

Cindy Wood, Wood’s Fire and Emergency Services of Portola, California. I thank all of you for being here. I can see by definition 

you’ve all traveled a bit. And Lynn, it’s good to see you again. Michael, we’ll start with you. Please proceed. 

24

STATEMENT OF D. MICHAEL DALE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST WORKERS’ JUSTICE PROJECT, PORTLAND,

OREGON 

Mr. DALE. Thank you, Senator, and thank you to the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. I am going to depart quite 

a bit from my written testimony and try to respond to some of the 

questions that were suggested by the earlier testimony today and 

then also summarize. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, your written testimony will be a part of the 

record, so please proceed as you see fit. 

Mr. DALE. I wanted to address a couple of the questions that 

came up earlier. From the perspective of a long time—first, migrant legal services, and then since, in a private nonprofit, I’ve 

been representing reforestation workers for nearly 30 years. On the 

question of the regulations of H-2B workers and H-2A workers and 

the relative requirements, actually, when it—at one point, there 

was only H-2. And in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986, the two programs were split with some of the regulations for 

H-2A written into the statutes, others to be developed by the Secretary, as part of an immigration reform bill that basically wanted 

to put the H-2A regulations in statute. The understanding at that 

point was that similar regulations for H-2B would be developed by 

the Department of Labor that would reflect the differences between 

other kinds of employment potentially possible under H-2B and agricultural employment. That’s quite appropriate. What the Department of Labor did, in fact, was they simply adopted about one page 

of regulations that says that they’ll follow the statute, and in following the statute, they’ll be guided by the H-2A regulations. And 

that’s it. There are no detailed regulations governing H-2A and H2B—I’m sorry, governing H-2B workers. And it would be appropriate—one of the suggestions I made in my testimony is to develop 

detailed recommendations with respect to regulations of H-2B 

workers now that the program has been in existence for nearly 20 

years. And they ought to include a number of the kinds of things, 

at least for forestry workers, that are included for agricultural 

workers. 

Second question, this question about where is recruitment done 

for H-2B workers. Actually, there is local recruitment, but the local 

recruitment where you have what’s called an itinerary application—this is an application that proposes to move a crew from 

place to place to place. The recruitment that’s required is fairly 

minimal, far less than is required of H-2A agricultural employers, 

and it is only in the local area where the itinerary begins. So, if 

you’re talking about—I first got involved in this in the late 1990’s 

because we were seeing H-2B workers brought to Oregon where the 

only recruitment was done in a small rural town in Mississippi because that’s where the itinerary started. We did get an agreement 

from the Department of Labor that they would only permit 

itineraries within one DOL region, but nonetheless, it would not be 

the case that there is recruitment of local people in each place that 

contracts occur, and I’m fairly certain that’s still the standard. 

Moving to my recommendations, I would start by prefacing it 

with this: I was going to read, actually, a section of a multi-part 

expose ́ of the forestry industry. That was not the Sacramento Bee, 

25

it was actually the Idaho Statesman Journal from 1980, but the 

lead could have been the lead to the Bee Series. Simply to say that 

these have been persistent, nagging problems, we have had occasional spasms of attention being given to them. And things improve 

for a period of time, and then the attention dies away. And there’s 

something in the institutional culture of these agencies that says 

I’m a forester, I deal with trees, I don’t deal with labor, and there’s 

quite a bit of insularity. So, my suggestions are made at trying to 

figure out how to institutionalize the obviously good faith and genuine intent of the leadership of the agencies now so that we don’t 

find ourselves back in the same position in another 5 years. 

First of all, it seems to me there needs to be more cooperation 

between the agencies. It has to be ongoing. It has to be institutionalized. And we’re suggesting that Congress ask the Department 

to create an interagency working group that periodically reports 

back to this committee or other appropriate committees so that you 

have some continuing focus and some reason for people to continue 

to pay attention to these questions. Many of the fatalities in forestry work come from vehicle crashes where we haven’t had seatbelts. The Department of Labor has authority to require seatbelts 

under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act. 

I would suggest that they do that or be urged to do that by Congress. Finally, one of the reasons that H-2B workers are exploited 

is that they don’t have access to very good remedies with respect 

to how to get to court. H-2B workers, even though they’re working 

legally in the United States, even though they are paying taxes, 

are not permitted to be represented by programs and legal services 

that receive any Federal funding. There’s really not any justification, and that change alone would have as much effect on this industry as anything that could be done. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dale follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D. MICHAEL DALE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHWEST WORKERS’ JUSTICE PROJECT, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. Chair, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today concerning the protection of reforestation workers on public lands. 

I spent twenty-five years as a migrant legal services lawyer, and directed the Oregon migrant program for most of that time. A key aspect of our work concerned 

the exploitation and abuse of workers on our national forests and BLM lands. Since 

its inception in 2003, the Northwest Workers’ Justice Project has been providing 

legal assistance to reforestation workers in Oregon, Idaho and elsewhere who have 

been struggling to enforce their right to decent conditions and fair pay. 

Although some progress has been made, I must say that, overall, the treatment 

of workers who replant, thin and maintain national forests has been shameful. I 

have represented workers who were not paid the required Service Contract Act rate, 

did not get paid overtime, were unlawfully charged exorbitant fees for recruitment, 

transportation, housing, food, and even for the chain saws needed for their work and 

the gasoline for the saws, or were not paid at all. My clients have slept in the cold 

of winter in the mountains in equipment trailers, or under a plastic tarp. Some were 

abandoned in the mountains without food or transportation by their employer. Saddest of all, I have represented the families of workers who died in vehicle accidents 

on icy mountain roads in unsafe vehicles. 

The latest attention focused on this work by articles in the Sacramento Bee has 

only begun to scratch the surface of the misery that some of those who contract with 

the United States inflict. I welcome the changes being made by the Forest Service 

in its contracting procedures. But with all due respect for obviously sincere good intentions, it is important to note that we have been here before. Every few years 

there have been similar exposes—a few years ago, it was a segment on Prime Time 

Live. These episodes have inevitably been followed by a flurry of activity, with reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
26

newed statements of intent to do better. However, as the focus of public attention 

faded, so, sadly did the focus of enforcement activity. To make a truly significant 

difference in the industry will require sustained, purposeful effort. In this light, I 

propose the following: 

PROPOSED REFORMS TO IMPROVE H-2B FORESTRY WORKER SAFETY

AND WORKING CONDITIONS

The Secretary of Labor should issue a regulation requiring seat belts and identification for vehicles transporting forestry workers and other migrant and seasonal 

agricultural workers 

On September 10, 2002,14 H-2B forestry workers were killed when the van in 

which their employer was transporting them to work toppled off a bridge in Maine. 

In two separate accidents in Washington state over the past two years, seven Guatemalan workers from the same tiny village were killed as they were driven over icy 

roads to pick brush on forest service lands. Motor vehicle accidents are the number 

one cause of fatal injuries among agricultural workers. These accidents have a common theme—they frequently involve exhausted drivers in overloaded, unsafe vans 

driving over long distances on foggy, icy, or windy mountain roads. In eight of the 

fourteen accidents reported in the Sacramento Bee series, ‘‘The Pineros,’’ five or 

more workers lost their lives in a single accident. 

Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Secretary of Labor is authorized to issue regulations to improve the safe transportation 

of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. 29 U.S.C. § 1841. (The Migrant and 

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act protects reforestation workers.) The act 

authorizes the Secretary to make reasonable regulations, considering the numbers 

of workers transported, the distance over which they are transported, the type of 

vehicle involved and the type of roads over which they are transported. In order to 

protect the health, safety and lives of these workers, the secretary should amend 

these regulations. 

Currently, federal law requires that vehicles meet a number of specific safety 

measures, including that there be a seat for each passenger. Nonetheless, these regulations do not require seat belts. Many forestry workers are killed in transportation accidents because they are ejected from the vehicle due to the lack of seat 

belts. In the most recent accident in Washington state, a worker was killed after 

being ejected from the van and run over by an oncoming truck. A particularly tragic 

accident involving 13 workers in California led the legislature in that state to pass 

a law in 1999 requiring seat belts. The Florida legislature is currently considering 

similar legislation. Under the California program, all vehicles used to transport 

farm workers are required to be labeled that they are ‘‘Farm Labor’’ vehicles so that 

the State Highway Patrol can specifically inspect them for compliance with the seat 

belt and other safety provisions. 

The Secretary’s regulations also leave a simple escape route for employers seeking 

to abdicate responsibility for the vans in which their workers are transported, by 

providing that transportation which is not ‘‘specifically directed or requested’’ by an 

agricultural employer is exempt. The California state ‘‘raitero’’ (driver) law is more 

specific in that it covers any vehicle used to transport workers ‘‘to render personal 

services in connection with the production of any farm products to, for, or under the 

direction of a third person.’’

We urge the Congress to recommend that the Secretary of Labor utilize her authority to issue a regulation under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 

Protection Act, requiring that: 1) vehicles used to transport forestry and other migrant and seasonal agricultural workers be equipped with a seat belt for each passenger; and 2) be identified on the outside of the vehicle as a ‘‘Agricultural Labor’’ 

vehicle. 

Creation of a joint task force between DOL and U.S. forest management agencies that 

reports to Congress 

One problem is that the DOL lacks the capacity really to monitor forestry contracts. Crews are in remote areas, hard to find, and hard to reach. BLM and USFS 

have contract compliance people that are regularly checking on the contracts and 

often encounter labor violations; however, they don’t have much training on wage 

and hour laws, and more importantly, they do not usually see enforcement of the 

labor standards aspects of Service Contract Act contracts as being a significant part 

of their jobs. What makes sense is to instill a sense of obligation for the workers 

in the forest management agencies, and to institutionalize collaboration with the 

Wage and Hour Division. To do that on an ongoing basis, Congress could call for 

creation of a joint task force with periodic reports back to Congress on progress 

27

made. As noted above, similar concerns have been raised in the past; however the 

higher standards were lost with the decline in public scrutiny. Accordingly, ongoing 

reporting on a periodic basis is important in order to maintain scrutiny. Further, 

the effort needs to be sufficiently sustained in order to break down an institutional 

culture that sees efficiency in getting the trees planted and thinned as being paramount over labor considerations. 

DOL should adopt regulations imposing H-2A-like standards in the H-2B program 

DOL could take some additional steps to strengthen enforcement. When the H2B program was created, DOL was supposed to develop regulations modeled after 

the H-2A regulations. This was never really done, and the result is a lack of standards for H-2B workers. DOL should be encouraged to fulfill this obligation now. For 

the most part, the H-2A regulations should be the model, with consideration for the 

special aspects of forestry. However, forestry workers should not be encompassed 

within the H-2A program, as this would destroy the protections that they have 

under the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act. 

DOL and the forestry agencies should hold repeat offenders responsible for their actions 

Both DOL and the forestry agencies need to be willing to take strong action 

against repeat offenders of labor standards. At one time, the Forest Service agreed 

to subject contract bids that were significantly below the agency’s estimate to special 

scrutiny to assure that the lowest bidder is a responsible one. It is unclear if they 

still do this, but blatant abusers of workers are awarded contracts year after year. 

They should be debarred by the DOL, and should not be viewed as being capable 

of performing the contract by the contracting agencies. One of the contractors in the 

Pineros series who had been sued for holding workers in peonage was still defended 

by a Forest Service official as being a great contractor because he produced quality 

results for the Forest Service. 

Further, the Forest Service and BLM need to take steps to change the culture of 

those agencies so that contract officers know that enforcing the service contract’s 

labor protections is just as important as getting the work done. Training, evaluation 

and promotion should take this factor into equal consideration, and the agencies’ expectations in this regard must be clearly and consistently communicated. The steps 

taken by the Forest Service are a good beginning, but the obligation of agency line 

staff to follow through must be reinforced over time. 

The DOL should ensure that the H-2B program is used as intended—only when there 

is a shortage of U.S. workers 

The H-2B program is abused in forestry in a number of ways that should be addressed by DOL. The program is supposed to be used to provide a way to obtain 

needed workers for existing jobs where an employer can’t find U.S. workers available at a time and place needed for a specific job. Many forestry contractors, though, 

apply for H-2B workers before they know what contracts they will have. The workers are recruited and brought here on speculation that contracts will be awarded. 

Then, it may turn out that expected work is not available. This leads to underemployment of the workers, and commonly, to use of the workers in other jobs 

which pay less than the forestry wage and which are not authorized work. Since 

forestry jobs are covered by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act, 

forestry contractors are required to give recruited workers a disclosure statement 

describing the particular work and pay arrangements they are offering. H-2B procedures require contractors to attempt to recruit U.S. workers for the work for which 

foreign workers are sought prior to admission of the visa workers. DOL could require that forestry contractors supply a copy of their recruitment disclosure statement detailing promised work with their H-2B application to help ensure that the 

contractor actually has a specific need for workers. 

Forestry Workers should be given access to legal services provided by the Legal Services Corporation 

Ultimately, agency enforcement of labor standards can only go so far. Workers 

need to have the ability to take steps to protect themselves, and often will need specialized legal assistance to do so. H-2B workers are working in the United States 

legally as ‘‘guest’’ workers at the invitation of the United States, under guarantees 

of labor protections designed to protect them, and importantly, to protect the wages 

and working conditions of U.S. workers. Yet, they are excluded from eligibility for 

representation by legal services programs that receive any funding from the Legal 

Services Corporation. Often, they find that there is no other legal representation 

available to them. There is no rational basis for this exclusion, and its elimination 

28

would do more to improve the conditions of H-2B forestry workers than any other 

step that Congress could take. 

A final recommendation concerns what DOL and the forestry agencies should not 

do. Some of the contractors on national forests use workers who are not properly 

authorized to work in the United States. In past efforts to clean up the reforestation 

industry much of the emphasis has been on turning such workers in to the immigration authorities. This practice has been highly counter productive. Ultimately, given 

the isolation of the work, enforcement of labor standards in the woods depends upon 

the cooperation of exploited workers. A policy that leads workers to conclude that 

the only response to complaints will be that they will be turned over to ICE will 

not foster the needed cooperation and openness; rather, it will only drive abuse farther underground and leave Pineros even more dependent on those who would exploit them. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Senator CRAIG. Michael, thank you. I would hope that we don’t 

register this hearing as an occasional spasm. 

Mr. DALE. No, this is the beginning of the real solution. 

Senator CRAIG. All right, thank you. That makes my day feel a 

bit better. 

Cassandra, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA MOSELEY, Ph.D., ECOSYSTEM 

WORKFORCE PROGRAM, INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE

ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 

Ms. MOSELEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to let me come today and share some of my thoughts 

on the working conditions of forest workers. 

I want to begin by commending Tom Knudson and the Sacramento Bee for what I think is outstanding reporting on the plight 

of forest workers, and I also want to applaud the Forest Service for 

its rapid response to the issues raised in the ‘‘Pineros’’ series. I 

would argue, however, that although the Forest Service is on the 

right track, the agency seems to be interpreting the problem too 

narrowly and therefore is at risk of failing to address some of the 

systemic problems that face forest workers and contractors. 

Over the past several years, I’ve been studying the working conditions of forest workers. And today, I want to share some of those 

results and offer some ideas about how things might be improved. 

The Sacramento Bee series focuses primarily on H-2B workers, and 

that’s been a lot of the discussion today, but forest workers can also 

be U.S. citizens, non-citizens with green cards, and they also are 

frequently people without permission to work in the United States. 

And all of these workers can suffer from labor law violations and 

poor job quality, and I want to suggest some of the problems that 

we found in our recent studies. 

According to data from the Oregon Employment Department, 

half of forestry services workers in Oregon earn less than $4,400 

a year, and more than 85 percent earned less than the Federal poverty level for a family of four in 2003. The wages that workers actually receive may well be less, particularly for undocumented 

workers. Undocumented workers are sometimes recruited by people 

who take part of their wages, something between $1 and $4 an 

hour in exchange for continued employment. Another practice is to 

pay workers for 8-hour workdays even if they work more. And although some workers are employed nearly all of the year, most 

work part time erratically and seasonally. And if you squish all 

29

their work into a period of time, they work about—the average forest worker in Oregon works the equivalent of about 3 full-time 

months. It’s tempting, then, to think that these might be the summer jobs of college students, but that’s not the case. Most are Hispanic workers, and half of the forestry services workers in Oregon 

also work in jobs outside of forestry. 

Our studies also suggest that many workers felt that they could 

not report on-the-job injuries for fear of being fired, and we also 

heard frequent reports of crew bosses who required forest workers 

to work all day without breaks for lunch or water. There are undoubtedly a number of causes of these working conditions in the 

various policies and practices of Federal procurement and labor 

law, but I want to highlight three major institutional causes of 

these working conditions that I think will have to be tackled if real 

progress is going to be made. Those are accomplishment targets 

and budget allocation processes in the Forest Service, de facto use 

of low-bid contracting, and the lack of labor law enforcement. Some 

of these themes have already come up today. 

The Forest Service’s budget and staff advancement has long been 

tied to accomplishment targets. Meeting targets in one’s area increases budgeting and staffing. It leads to promotions. Units that 

don’t meet targets or fail to do so or do so at too high of a cost suffered from budget cuts. This focus on maximizing natural resource 

accomplishments creates few institutional incentives for attending 

to job quality of contracted work forests or ensuring that contractors follow labor laws. 

The pressure of meeting targets is compounded by a history of 

low-bid contracting. Until the 1990’s, the Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management, as most Federal agencies, were required to award contracts to the lowest bidder. In the 1990’s, the 

Federal procurement laws changed, and the agencies, the Forest 

Service and the BLM, began to be able to negotiate a contract. This 

is what we’ve been referring to as best-value contracting. But our 

interview with contractors and workers found that many—and the 

Forest Service does use best-value contracts most of the time, but 

interviews with contractors and workers felt that—most felt that 

the most important criteria was still price. They felt that price was 

the most important factor and that in this environment, they had 

to compete against contractors who were willing to cut corners on 

quality and break the law in order to offer the lowest bid. 

The Forest Service has typically viewed enforcement as the responsibility of the Department of Labor, but this enforcement with 

the Department of Labor as the primary—maybe the only—actor is 

very difficult because of the remoteness of work sites. Of the roughly 85 forest workers we interviewed in Oregon, virtually no one had 

ever seen someone from the Department of Labor or the Oregon 

Bureau of Labor Industries when they were working in the woods, 

and contractors complain that they face unfair competition from 

businesses that are breaking the law. 

So, my written testimony presents several recommendations, but 

I’m just going to focus on one here, and that is that the system of 

enforcement and accountability needs to be overhauled. And I 

think today we’ve heard some of the beginning steps of that from 

the Forest Service’s perspective, but we need a system where the 

30

1Tom Knudson, ‘‘The Pineros: Men of the Pines,’’ Sacramento Bee , November 13, 2005. http:/

www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/pineros/. 2 Josh McDaniel and Vanessa Casanova, ‘‘Forest Management and the H2b Guest Worker Program in the Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Contractors and Their Crews,’’ JourForest Service and the Bureau of Land Management participate actively in enforcing labor law. Yes, they cannot issue citations, but 

they can play other vital roles because they are the ones who are 

regularly in contact with contractors and workers in the field. We 

need a system where Forest Service staff report and correct problems with working conditions as quickly as they address the land 

management components of contract compliance. The agency needs 

staff who understand that it’s their job to collect and report information about how the workers are being treated. The agency needs 

to provide staff with direction and training to ensure that they can 

identify labor law violations and know that they are responsible for 

reporting suspected problems to the Department of Labor. The 

agency needs bilingual inspectors and contracting officer representatives who can talk directly to workers. And to echo your recommendation, they need to have a mandated relationship with the 

Department of Labor. 

So, let me stop by saying 13 years ago, theSacramento Bee ran 

a series about the working conditions of forest workers. Then, the 

emphasis was on undocumented workers. Today, it’s on H-2B workers, but the working conditions were no different. My hope is that 

in 13 years, the Bee won’t have to run another series about forest 

workers because by then, high-quality jobs in our Nation’s forests 

will become commonplace. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moseley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA MOSELEY, PH.D., ECOSYSTEM WORKFORCE

PROGRAM, INSTITUTE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to be able 

to contribute to this timely issue. Tom Knudson’s ‘‘Pineros’’ series in the Sacramento 

Bee has brought to light troubling and all-too-common problems with the way the 

work of federal forest management is accomplished.1 Today’s hearing is particularly 

important because the working conditions in our nation’s forests affect not only the 

lives of workers and their families, but also the viability of small rural businesses 

and the integrity of forest ecosystems. It presents an important opportunity to discuss our current understanding and explore solutions to the challenges of creating 

quality jobs for forest workers and economic opportunities for public land communities. 

I am on the faculty of the University of Oregon, where I direct the Ecosystem 

Workforce Program in the Institute for a Sustainable Environment. Founded in 

1994, the Ecosystem Workforce Program seeks to help build a high-skill, high-wage 

forest and watershed restoration industry in the Pacific Northwest. The Ecosystem 

Workforce Program does this by providing technical assistance to rural communities 

and their agency partners, and by undertaking applied research and policy education related to community-based forestry and federal forest management. 

Over the past five years, I have undertaken a series of studies on how Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) restoration contracting creates 

rural community benefit, and on the working conditions of federal contract forest 

workers. As part of these studies, my collaborators and I have interviewed forest 

workers and contractors and analyzed federal contracting and state employment 

data. We have examined these issues in general terms as well as under specific programs including the National Fire Plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, and stewardship contracting. 

Much of my work has been focused on the Pacific Northwest, but the work of 

other scholars such as Josh McDaniel and Vanessa Casanova make clear the challenges are not limited to a single part of the country.2

31

nal of Forestry 103, no. 3 (2005); Josh McDaniel and Vanessa Casanova, ‘‘Pines in Lines: Tree 

Planting, H2b Guest Workers, and Rural Poverty in Alabama,’’ Southern Rural Sociology 19, no. 

1 (2003). 3Steverson Moffett et al., ‘‘Assessing Community Benefits from Land Management Activities 

on National Forests,’’ (Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation, forthcoming). 4 Cassandra Moseley and Stacey Shankle, ‘‘Who Gets the Work? National Forest Contracting 

in the Pacific Northwest,’’ Journal of Forestry 99, no. 9 (2001). Cassandra Moseley, ‘‘Procurement Contracting in the Affected Counties of the Northwest Forest Plan: Twelve Years of 

Change,’’ (Portland, OR: USDA Forest Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2005). 

A FOREST RESTORATION WORKFORCE

Our nation’s forests and watersheds have significant restoration and maintenance 

needs, including decaying forest roads, degraded stream and forest habitat, and 

overstocked stands in need of thinning to reduce wildfire risk and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. These needs present an opportunity to create high-skill, high quality 

jobs to benefit rural communities, small businesses, and forest workers. For over a 

decade, community forestry advocates and their federal agency partners have sought 

to combine the ecological need for high quality restoration with the economic need 

for high quality jobs to contribute to the well-being of public land communities. The 

hope has been that communities could replace lost logging and milling jobs with jobs 

restoring national forests and other public lands. 

The notion of creating community benefit through federal forest management 

dates back to the founding of the Forest Service. It can be found in Gifford Pinchot’s 

writings as well as in 20th century legislation including the New Deal, the Sustained Yield Management Act of 1944, and the National Forest Management Act of 

1976. Several times since 2000, Congress has encouraged the Forest Service to create community benefit through forest restoration as part of the National Fire Plan, 

Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self Determination Act, and through stewardship contracting authorities. In addition, Congress has enacted numerous labor 

laws, including the Service Contact Act, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 

Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, which were 

designed to create quality jobs for federal contract workers. 

CONTRACT FOREST WORK AND WORKERS

Forest restoration work involves a wide variety of tasks, from maintaining forest 

roads, restoring streams to create fish habitat, and collecting native grass seed, to 

planting trees after logging or wildfires, and thinning overstocked stands to improve 

habitat and reduce fire hazard. The primary way that restoration work is performed 

on national forest and other federal forest lands is through service contracts and, 

increasingly, stewardship contracts. The federal government awards restoration contracts to businesses that, in turn, hire workers to undertake restoration and maintenance activities. 

Labor-intensive forest workers those who plant trees, thin overstocked stands, pile 

brush, and fight fires—come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Typically, they 

are Hispanic and white and, to a lesser extent, Native American and African American. Although the Sacramento Bee ‘‘Pineros’’ series focused primarily on H2-B workers, forest workers can be U.S. citizens, non-citizens with resident alien papers, H2-

B guest workers, and those without permission to work. In the Southeastern U.S., 

contractors seem to make more use of H2-B workers, whereas contractors in the Pacific Northwest appear to rely more heavily on undocumented workers. 

CHALLENGES OF CREATING RURAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT

Despite the direction to create rural community benefit and to protect workers 

from exploitation, the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies 

have had difficulty systematically creating rural community benefit with their procurement contracting program. The main way that the agencies create community 

benefit in public lands communities is when they award contracts to local firms (as 

opposed to distant firms hiring local workers).3 In the Pacific Northwest, the Forest 

Service and BLM frequently award equipment intensive contracts such as forest 

road maintenance and stream restoration to local businesses. But contracts that involve labor-intensive activities such as thinning, tree planting, and brush piling 

tend to be awarded to urban-based businesses that have access to large pools of lowcost labor and are able to travel long distances inexpensively.4 The authority to consider local benefit as part of best value (such as with the National Fire Plan) can 

32

5 Cassandra Moseley and Nancy Toth, ‘‘Fire Hazard Reduction and Economic Opportunity: 

How Are the Benefits of the National Fire Plan Distributed?,’’ Society and Natural Resources

17, no. 8 (2004). 6Mark Baker, ‘‘Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Natural Resources Restoration System in 

Humboldt County: A Partial View,’’ (Taylersville, CA: Forest Community Research, 2004). 7By contrast, the median wage for loggers was $17,810 in 2003. 

8In 2003, the federal poverty rate for a family of four that included two children was $18,660. 

Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper #10, Job Quality in Logging and Forestry Services in Oregon, forthcoming. 

* Figures 1 and 2 have been retained in subcommittee files. 

9 In addition to the ‘‘Pineros’’ series see, Alex Pulaski, ‘‘Fire Crew Crackdown Proposed,’’ Oregonian, January 29, 2003; Alex Pulaski, ‘‘State Tightens Fire Crew Enforcement,’’ Oregonian, 

September 22 2002. 

have some positive impact, but it is unclear how frequently it is used.5 In addition, 

partnerships between local non-profit organizations and the BLM and Forest Service 

can be used to create local benefit from restoration work using grants and agreements authorities.6

POOR WORKING CONDITIONS FOR FOREST WORKERS

As recent news articles and academic research make clear, many forest workers, 

especially those that perform labor-intensive activities such as firefighting, tree 

planting, and thinning, face dangerous working conditions, irregular employment, 

low wages, exploitation, and inadequate training. Guest workers and undocumented 

workers are most vulnerable to exploitation, but studies also suggest that citizens 

and resident aliens can also suffer from labor law violations and poor job quality. 

For example, in 2003, the median wage among forestry services workers in Oregon was $11.97 per hour, but half of workers earned less than $4,355 all year.7

More than 85% of workers earned less than the federal poverty level for a family 

of four (see figure 1).8 Wages that workers actually receive may well be less, particularly for undocumented workers, because workers are sometimes hired through 

‘‘subcontractors’’ who recruit workers on behalf of contractors. These ‘‘subcontractors’’ may take part of workers wages ($1.00-$4.00 per hour) in exchange for continued employment. Our studies suggest that these workers are also paid for 8 hours 

of work per day even if they work more. Travel time is rarely paid except when firefighting. 

Labor-intensive forest work is also quite seasonal and erratic (figure 2).* The average worker was employed the equivalent of three months a year, compared to six 

months for loggers. But, this is not simply the work of college students with summer 

jobs. Most are Hispanic immigrants and half of forestry service workers in Oregon 

also work outside of forestry. They are commonly employed by temporary agencies, 

restaurants, and in agriculture, and typically earn even less than they do when 

working in the woods. 

Although official accident rates are lower for forest workers than for loggers, our 

studies also revealed that many workers felt that they could not report on-the-job 

injuries for fear of being fired. In addition, we heard frequent reports of crew bosses 

who push their employees to work very quickly and require that they work without 

stopping for breaks or lunch. Performing physically demanding, dangerous work 

under these circumstances only increases the likelihood of accidents. Crew van accidents are all too common and have resulted in fatalities because drivers were tired, 

under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or driving unsafe vehicles. 

Although many excellent contractors work for the federal government, others 

forge fire fighter qualification documents (red cards) and fail to pay workers legallymandated wages or overtime, supply safe vehicles, and provide medical care for onthe-job injuries.9 These working conditions harm workers, contractors, rural communities, and national forest ecosystems. 

INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

Although there are numerous labor laws in place to protect forest workers, they 

are not as effective as they could be because of the ways in which the Forest Service 

and the BLM structure and award contracts and oversee project implementation. 

Land management agencies face budget constraints, output-based accomplishment 

targets, and a culture of efficiency that encourages staff to minimize administrative 

costs and contract prices, sometimes to the detriment of other objectives, including 

job quality and community benefit. 

33

Accomplishment Targets and Budget Allocations 

The Forest Service’s budget and staff performance evaluations and advancement 

have long been tied to accomplishments targets. Meeting targets in one’s area of 

contracting means increased budget and staffing as well as promotion. Programs 

and management units that fail to meet their targets or do so at too high a cost 

have their budgets cut. The focus on maximizing natural resource accomplishments—e.g. volume, acres, miles—creates few institutional incentives for attending 

to the job quality of its contracted workforce or ensuring that its contractors strictly 

follow labor and immigration laws. When targets measure only the quantity of outputs, without consideration of the quality of those activities, community benefit, or 

treatment of workers, the incentives to accept the lowest-price bid are strong. With 

declining budgets for federal forests and national direction to do more with less, incentives to ignore impacts on communities, contractors, and workers become even 

stronger. 

Low-Bid Contracting 

The pressure of meeting targets is compounded by a history of a low-bid contracting system in the federal land management agencies. Until the mid-1990s, the 

Forest Service and BLM, as with most federal agencies, were required to award contracts to the lowest bidder almost regardless of the quality of they work that they 

performed. In the mid-1990s, federal procurement laws changed and the Forest 

Service and BLM became able to use negotiated contracts, which allows the agencies 

to consider best value to the government when awarding contracts. Now, they could 

consider factors such as past performance, technical capability, key personnel, and, 

under some circumstances, benefit to the local community. Best-value contracting 

has created an opportunity to ensure that restoration work would be high quality, 

workers would be treated well, and rural communities would benefit. 

Although best-value contracting has created an opportunity for federal agencies 

to consider factors other than price when awarding contracts, our interviews found 

that many contractors still felt that they were primarily operating in a low-bid contracting environment. That is, price was still the most important criterion in awarding contracts. 

Lack of Labor Law Enforcement 

Numerous laws including the Service Contract Act, Davis-Bacon Act, Migrant and 

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, and the Contract Work Hours and 

Safety Standards Act are in place to protect forest workers from exploitation; however little enforcement of these laws occurs. The Forest Service typically views enforcement as the responsibility of the Department of Labor or state labor agencies. 

But enforcement led by the U.S. Department of Labor or state labor departments 

can be difficult because of remote worksites. In our interviews with roughly 85 forest workers in Oregon, no one had seen staff from the U.S. Department of Labor 

or the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries while working in the woods. 

Consequences 

These pressures have created a system that rewards contractors who cut corners 

to offer the lowest prices. When contracts involve significant physical labor, contractors’ options for cutting costs lie primarily in increasing the speed at which people 

work and reducing wages. Strategies for cutting costs include not paying over time, 

paying below the required minimum wage, and paying some people under the table 

to reduce worker compensation and tax costs. At first blush, low-price contracting 

appears to save the government money. In reality, however, it costs the American 

taxpayer when poor quality work has to be redone, when taxes are underpaid, and 

when poorly paid workers have to apply for food stamps and other public assistance 

or seek medical care in emergency rooms without insurance. 

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE TO ‘‘PINEROS’’ SERIES

The Forest Service offered a rapid response to the ‘‘Pineros’’ series by directing 

its contracting officers to insert new clauses in their labor-intensive service contracts to clarify contractors’ obligations. This is helpful because it can make contractors more aware of relevant laws and shows that the Forest Service does want contractors to follow the law. However, it presumes that the major problem facing contract workers is ignorance of the law on the part of contractors. Although contractors may be ignorant of some issues, it is not the central cause of the problems facing forest workers. 

The Forest Service’s response does little to address larger systemic problems. In 

the words of one contractor, ‘‘the agencies, by their action and inaction have played 

a major role in the creation of an ‘underclass industry’ among service contract workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
34

10Statement of Celia Headley, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, To Conduct Oversight on the Administration’s National Fire Plan, 107th Congress, 1st Session, March 29, 2001. 

ers.’’ 10 These new contract clauses do little to address the lack of contractor and 

agency accountability because they do little to improve the lack of viable enforcement mechanisms. Nor, do they address the larger institutional issues such as accountability targets, direction to do more with less, and culture of efficiency that encourages the agency to practice low-bid contracting. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations for improving the working conditions of forest 

workers were developed in collaboration with community-based forestry and forest 

worker organizations, based on their experiences working in the woods, and my research of federal restoration contracting and the working conditions of federal contract forest workers. 

Systemic Change 

1. The Forest Service and BLM should participate actively in enforcing labor laws 

by involving inspectors, contracting officer representatives, and contracting officers 

in labor law compliance. Forest Service contracting officer’s representatives and inspectors already visit these sites, and are responsible for overseeing other components of project implementation. The agencies should provide staff with direction 

and training to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities. Inspectors and contracting officer representatives should be directed to report suspected 

problems to the Department of Labor for enforcement action. They should also report problems to agency contracting staff to ensure that these problems are taken 

into account when awarding future contracts. 

2. The Forest Service and BLM should make full use of best-value contracting authorities to reward contractors who perform high quality work, treat their workers 

well, train their workers, and provide rural community benefit. 

3. To reduce the pressure to accept below-cost bids and increase incentives for the 

agency to investigate potential labor law violations, the Forest Service and BLM 

should establish outcome-oriented accomplishments targets and performance measures that incorporate ecological and socioeconomic goals, including tracking progress 

towards creating durable, high-quality jobs. 

Short term steps—Congress 

1. Congress should strengthen the payroll reporting requirements under the Service Contract Act to be similar the reporting requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. 

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that contractors regularly file certified payroll with 

state labor departments. This effective and efficient process has provided clear, consistent information to settle wage complaints or undertake enforcement actions. 

2. Congress should direct the Forest Service and the BLM to end the practice of 

awarding contracts at prices that are lower than 20% below the government estimate. 

Short term steps—Forest Service and BLM 

1. The Forest Service’s National Partnership Office should convene a series of 

meetings between workers, contractors, rural community organizations, contracting 

officers, National Forest System managers, and other relevant federal staff to develop and implement concrete improvements in the Forest Service’s procurement 

system. 

2. The Forest Service should commission a study on how the agency uses bestvalue contracting. Although the Forest Service typically uses negotiated contracts 

that allow for consideration of best value, many of the contractors we interviewed 

felt that they were still operating in a low-bid contracting system. Further knowledge of how best value is actually being used could help the agency provide better 

direction and training. 

3. The Forest Service and BLM should create ombudsmen who can hear the concerns of workers, contractors, citizens, and agency staff about labor law and other 

contracting issues and act as an advocate to facilitate action when problems arise. 

Currently, it is difficult for many types of people to report suspected labor law violations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the difficult challenges facing the 

federal land management agencies, forest workers, and rural communities in creating quality jobs restoring our nations’ forests.

35

Senator CRAIG. Cassandra, thank you very much. Lynn, please 

proceed. But in opening your statement, how deep is the snow in 

Hayfork? 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. Actually, we have a lot of rain, but the snow is 

gone. 

Senator CRAIG. The snow is gone, okay. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE WATERSHED RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER, 

HAYFORK, CA 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. The snow is gone, so we’re good. Thank you for 

letting me come today and speak to these issues that are important 

to the forest communities and the forest workers. I think that my 

written testimony has a lot in it, and it’s going to be in the record, 

so I would really like to build upon the testimony and the discussion that I’ve heard here today. 

Senator CRAIG. Sure. 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. We can talk about enforcement, and the Forest 

Service is sincere in wanting to enforce these labor laws. And I’m 

sure the Department of Labor is sincere, but this problem’s been 

going on for 30 years, so I’m ready for a new model. So, I don’t 

want this to be one more spasm, I want this to be the start of a 

new solution. And I think we’re at a perfect juncture in history to 

look at a new model for contracting the work of stewarding the 

public’s lands. The old model was sort of built on that industrial 

forestry model, and you had specialized mobile crews that moved 

up and down the landscape. And they did a lot of regeneration harvest, and they needed a lot of reforestation. Well, that’s squeezed 

down now. A lot of that work is gone. And all of a sudden, you need 

a work force that is multi-skilled. You need a work force that can 

do reforestation and thinnings and can go out and do data surveys 

and can work with wildlife and can work as a partner to the Forest 

Service because the Forest Service on-the-ground troops are diminishing, and they are going to need those semiprofessional skills replaced and some of their professional skills. 

We have an opportunity now to engage in a discussion about if 

we can create quality jobs that have a career path, that have longevity, that can keep families healthy, and those communities 

healthy, and the Forest Service healthy. I think we can. I think 

some of those models were established during the early years of the 

Northwest Plan. On the Willamette National Forest, they packaged 

their service contract differently. They put multi-skills into a contract instead of single-skill, short-duration over a big landscape. 

They know how to do that. When they put the training programs 

and the training curricula together, those were project-based. They 

put those together so that people could work and be trained with 

these new skills 6 months at a time, a 6-month job for somebody 

who does this kind of work. Six months of not having to be laid off 

is a tremendous—it’s just a tremendous benefit, and it’s a gift. So, 

they knew how to do that. They figured out how to do that for 

those training programs. 

I think Senator Bingaman’s right. I think we can do this. I think 

we can make the change. You need different skills. You need different kinds of partners with your Forest Service. Their budgets 

36

are going down. And my recommendation is you work with the enforcement for the short-term. Don’t let them take bids—don’t let 

them accept bids that are more than 20 percent below their estimate. They know that the worker is paying for that work if it’s 

going that low. But then package these bids differently, package 

this work differently. Create a professional work force, and we’ll 

have good stewards for the public land forever. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jungwirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WATERSHED

RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER, HAYFORK, CA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide information to your hearing on these public land workforce issues. I believe these issues are of the utmost importance to the future of public land management, the future of public land communities, and the future of the United States 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

I’ve been asked to comment on two parts of the workforce issues before you today:

• Will the Forest Service response to the Pineros issues, as presented in the letter 

from the Chief, be sufficient to address the problem of exploitation of the workforce? • Will enforcement of the Service Contract Act wage provisions and the worker 

safety laws help local workers and contractors access service contract work on 

the public lands?

In addition to these two questions, I will also address how the business relationship between the land management agencies and local communities could be improved to protect workers from exploitation and increase local job opportunities. 

My organization, the Watershed Research and Training Center, sits in the small 

town of Hayfork, California in the middle of the Trinity National Forest. In 1994 

our Center began building local capacity to help make the shift from a timber driven 

economy to an economy accommodating ‘‘ecosystem management’’ and the Northwest Plan for the Recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl. In partnership with the 

Trinity National Forest and Shasta Community College, we developed and implemented a forest-worker training program to ensure that local workers could compete 

for jobs related to ecosystem management. Each graduate of the program earned 

certification as an Ecosystem Management Technician. Our training program also 

focused on providing technical assistance to workers and contractors interested in 

starting businesses focused on providing restoration-service work on public lands. 

This required providing training in business planning, financial management, and 

learning to navigate the federal bureaucracy related to competing for service contract work. 

The local businesses and workers we have trained and partnered with over the 

last decade have performed more than $8 million dollars worth of work doing forest 

restoration, fuels reduction, and small diameter thinning projects on the Trinity National Forest. Of that $8 million dollars approximately $2.4 million was raised from 

private philanthropic sources by my organization. Our efforts over the last decade 

to build community and business capacity made it possible for local enterprises to 

offer a workforce that is skilled and capable of providing the needed work to restore 

healthy forests and maintain biodiversity, clean water, clean air and fire risk reduction. 

The Watershed Center is a non-profit organization and does not contract with the 

federal agencies. We perform work through grants and agreements that usually 

have cost-share requirements ranging from 20 to 100 percent. Non-profits are not 

allowed to compete for Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management service contracts. We are, however, a worker-based organization, started by forest and sawmill 

workers who lost their livelihood when national policy shifted from commodity production to ecosystem management. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM

I applaud the agency’s quick response to the public outcry regarding the treatment of workers. As someone who collaborates and works closely with the Forest 

Service, I know there is a sincere desire to protect workers. However, the remedy 

proposed by the agency is not adequate. To simply attach copies of existing laws to 

contract documents and a promise that contracts will be broken if contractors are 

found to be breaking the law will not change the system that created this problem 

37

in the first place. The response is lacking in two ways: first, it fails to create a reliable system of accountability; and second, it does not address the main contributing 

factors to worker exploitation, which are low-bid contracting and contract packaging. 

In 2001, Celia Headley testified before this Subcommittee on a related topic. In 

her testimony she provided an example that so clearly illustrates the problem with 

the contracting system, that it bears repeating:

‘‘The Forest Service puts out a contract for thinning and 18 companies put 

in bids. Fourteen of the bids are at least 40% under the government estimate 

for the work. The Forest Service awards the contract to the lowest bidder. At 

this point, one of several things usually happens. In order to accomplish the 

work at such a low price, the contractor can:

1. Demand unreasonable production and unpaid overtime from the workers; 

2. Pay less than the stated contract minimum wage; or 

3. Declare only a percentage of the workers on the books, thereby avoiding worker’s compensation, unemployment, and state and federal tax payments.’’

Now, five years after that testimony, we are still in a situation where no one really knows what happens because the only entities in a position to monitor these 

issues are the agencies issuing the contracts, and they have no visible system in 

place to monitor wages or worker’s compensation compliance. I have been told several times that ‘‘it is the agency’s job to get the biggest bang for the buck for the 

American taxpayer,’’ and ‘‘it is not our problem if the contractor chooses to underbid; 

we have to cut costs per acre,’’ and ‘‘we can’t protect these contractors from themselves.’’

Congress must address the connections between output-based targets, demands 

for financial efficiency, and the creation of a contracting system that overlooks worker safety and wage issues. 

Creating systems for prevention and accountability 

The Forest Service should consider responses to the problem that are proactive 

and create clear systems of accountability. To prevent worker exploitation before it 

occurs, the agency might put into place the following safeguards:

• Disqualify bids that come in appreciably lower than the government estimate; 

• Notify contractors that a system of random inspections of wage and safety conditions will be put in place and make the system visible; 

• Package contracts in ways that diminish the need for a mobile workforce; and, 

• Provide internal incentives and rewards for structuring contracts that will help 

establish forest work as a high-skill profession and a workforce with a career 

path.

To create an effective accountability system, the Forest Service should consider 

the following steps:

• Set a goal of monitoring some percentage of the contracts awarded, such as no 

less than 10 percent; 

• Develop a system for Service Contract Act (SCA) wages that is similar to DavisBacon requirements with certified payroll; and, 

• Increase the number of Contracting Officer Representatives in the field and require them to match daily diary entries to actual wages paid.

CHANGING THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOREST SERVICE

AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

As to whether or not enforcement of wage and safety considerations will help the 

local workforce access work I have this response: yes, and no. Let me explain 

through an example. 

When we started our worker training program for forest and sawmill workers who 

lost their jobs, we looked at the kind of work the agency would need to do on the 

forest as its direction shifted to ecosystem management, and then we trained these 

workers to do it. They learned to do field work, fuels reduction, forest thinnings, 

habitat restoration, road surveys, fish surveys, habitat surveys, GPS, GIS, riparian 

protection, road upgrading and decommissioning, culvert replacement, etc. These 

skills should have positioned these workers to be competitive for forest management 

projects aimed at restoring and maintaining biodiversity, clean water, clean air and 

natural processes across the landscape. We also offered assistance in starting small 

contracting businesses. 

38

The first business we helped decided to compete for a reforestation contract. He 

had run crews before and had local people who wanted to work for him. We helped 

him get his workers compensation insurance and provided him technical assistance 

in preparing his offer to the federal government. He bid $311/per acre. The job went 

to an out of area contractor who bid $197/acre. The government estimate was $300. 

The contracting officer said he had to take the lowest bid. The next time this local 

contractor tried to bid on a local reforestation job he was told that the work was 

going to be given to an IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity) contract. This 

occurred even though the work was being offered under the requirements of a bestvalue contract where price is supposed to be only one of several evaluative criteria. 

Based on this experience, the business decided that trying to compete for reforestation contracts was not economically viable and decided to focus on competing for 

contracts related to fuels reduction and thinning. The good news was that the National Fire Plan required that best-value contracts consider benefits to local communities and the business was successful in capturing an initial fuels reduction contract. The bad news was that pressure on the agency to treat as many acres as possible at the lowest cost led to the agency packaging a similar contract into a large 

IDIQ format. This contract format gave a structural bias to a large, out-of-town company that was somehow able to bid $300 less per acre then the local contractor. It 

just so happened that these two projects were right next to each other. The local 

contractor kept a daily diary of both his crew and their crew. If the IDIQ contractor 

was paying the SCA wage and the required workers compensation and unemployment rate, he must have gone broke on that job. When we inquired about this with 

the Forest Service, they explained that maybe the IDIQ contractor lost a little on 

that job but made it up with another one and, anyway, it was not their job to police 

the contractors. 

So it was suggested we train our people for more technical work. We did. Our 

crews became very proficient at surveying for the snails, lichens, and plants required in the survey and manage requirements of the Northwest Plan. They worked 

alongside Forest Service biologists on actual projects. They received the highest accolades for the professional quality of their work. When they formed a business to 

bid on agency contracts for survey and manage work, they were told that the work 

had been packaged into an IDIQ contract and gone to a company based in Canada 

with an office in the State of Washington who would be working up and down the 

West Coast. We called the Canadian-owned company’s office in Washington State 

and told them we had a trained crew that knew the local forest and wanted to subcontract with them. They said no. 

There would be a local workforce to do this work and the need for H2B workers 

would diminish if the agency could change its business relationships with public 

land communities. 

I asked a contractor about the H2B program and how effective it was at solving 

the labor shortage. The reply was, ‘‘we don’t have a labor shortage, we have too 

many workers and too many contractors, and that’s why people work for nothing.’’

If the playing field gets leveled in terms of wages and compliance but the Forest 

Service continues to package contracts that spread the work out in a three or four 

state region, you are going to prevent a local workforce and forest industry from developing. The practice of creating multi-state contracts for large quantities of work 

will undermine the development of a place-based workforce that can perform the 

needed restoration and long-term maintenance necessary, especially in the frequent 

fire forests of the West. Losing a place-based, local workforce has further ramifications on the availability of skilled workers in fire emergencies and actually drives 

up the cost of wildfire suppression. 

We know low-bid contracting and IDIQ contracting were built for efficiency, and 

we endorse efficiency. We also have seen that concentrating on efficiency in individual programs can create an overall inefficiency in the system. 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

I would like to provide several recommendations for the Forest Service as they 

explore alternatives responses to these issues. These recommendations are based 

both on my own experience and on discussions with community-based forestry partners and the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition. 

The Forest Service should establish both short-term and long-term processes for 

protecting forest workers and creating a system of offering work on public lands 

that is effective and efficient at meeting ecological, social, and economic goals. Evaluating economic efficiency without consideration of the effectiveness of meeting ecological and social goals may well drive up overall costs and reduce the agency’s ability to properly care for the resources.

39

1. We would like the agency to convene, through the National Partnership Office, a series of meetings with workers, contractors, rural community organizations, contracting officers, and other relevant federal staff to develop concrete 

ways to implement changes in the procurement system to help avoid creating 

an underclass of forest workers and create a legitimate industry. 

2. When a bid comes in 20% lower than the government estimate, it should 

be disqualified. 

3. Move to a system of ‘‘best-value’’ contracting that includes rewarding contractors who do high quality work, treat their workers properly, and provide 

worker training. 

4. Contracting officer’s representatives and inspectors, who visit these sites 

already, should be required to record worker-days and other information. 

5. Explore using a system like the Davis-Bacon certified payroll to increase 

compliance. 

6. Procurement contracts should be packaged for long duration employment—

multiple months or seasons-and multi-skill sets. Contracts should provide business and employment for fewer workers over longer periods of time. 

7. Build on existing models from the Pacific Northwest for worker training 

and contract packaging.

In closing, I would like to reflect for a moment on quality jobs. Quality jobs for 

forest workers are critical to sustaining both healthy forests and healthy communities. One of the goals of my organization is to create quality jobs for forest workers 

who work on public lands. We believe a quality job in the forest has six characteristics. It should:

1. Pay family-supporting wages and health benefits. 

2. Last multiple seasons and years. 

3. Have opportunities for advancement. 

4. Include a safe and healthy workplace. 

5. Provide skill training and reward trained workers. 

6. Allow people to work near where they live.

In considering forest workers and quality jobs, wage and safety issues are only 

the tip of the iceberg. An overarching issue is that federal procurement has made 

these jobs miserable in terms of wages, working conditions, and continuity of work. 

Meanwhile, the shrinking federal budgets for service work on the federal forests 

have put greater pressure on the agencies to increase acres treated per dollar. It 

is the forest worker who has been squeezed in this process. Undocumented workers 

have been exploited and local workers have been eliminated, unable to compete on 

this uneven playing field. Service contracting has become a game and the race is 

to the bottom. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective and experience with this 

important issue.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you. Based on what I know about 

what’s going on out there on the landscape right now and the new 

requirements in the Healthy Forest Act and a lot of things that 

we’re looking at, your statement fits. Maybe we do need to look at 

a new approach or a new paradigm as to how this work gets done, 

and it’s certainly the character of the U.S. Forest Service’s professional staffs that have changed significantly over the years in their 

ability and their understanding. Thank you. 

Cindy Wood, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY WOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

WOOD’S FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC., PORTOLA, 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. WOOD. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here. We’ve got eight inches of snow up in Portola as of last night, 

Senator CRAIG. What’s your altitude? 

Ms. WOOD. Pardon? 

Senator CRAIG. What’s your altitude? 

Ms. WOOD. We’re at 5,500 feet, so you know it’s stepping up 

higher. 

40

Senator CRAIG. Probably getting rain today then, aren’t you? 

Ms. WOOD. I agree with Lynn’s suggestions as far as contracting 

changes. I’m going to take bits and pieces of everything that I’ve 

heard here and add on to what I’ve developed here. I speak on behalf of NWSA, the National Wildfire Suppression Association, 

formed in 1991, representing 200 professional contractors with six 

chapters throughout the United States along with affiliate member 

associations throughout the United States providing the full complement of firefighting services, catering and showering units, support services, heavy equipment and management services for 

wildfires and national emergencies such as shuttle recovery, hurricane cleanup and disaster relief. These are the cross-trained people 

that are now starting to integrate into thinning services, fuels reduction services. 

In recent years, the contract fire industry has become an efficient 

and increasingly vital resource for providing best-value services 

and wildfire suppression and fuels reduction services in order to 

stabilize the roller-coaster income of our industry and to offset the 

huge costs of training, employee safety, equipment, uniforms, attrition, insurance, equipment purchases, maintenance and upgrades, 

all striving to meet or exceed specifications set by the agencies they 

contract with. 

Several members of the California Chapter of NWSA have had 

the most recent experience with the issues of health and welfare 

of foreign guest workers, and in the bigger picture of things, how 

the exploitation of these workers has devalued best-value contracts 

to ridiculously low levels where we cannot compete. It affects the 

local economy of communities that were to benefit from the fuels 

reduction work to be done in their local areas, employment levels 

and money spent in the form of rents and groceries. Support is 

leaving with the foreign guest workers and the companies that are 

usually from out of the area. 

The area of service I service is located in the Herger-Feinstein 

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, a project area in 

Plumas County. I shared with you in the written testimony our 

personal experience. While bidding on projects in the HFQLG area, 

the California association members noticed a major increase of 

awards to that same forest guest worker contractor that I had severed relationships with. We started analyzing costs and then came 

up with the conclusion something was just not right. Firestorm, a 

provider of a 20-person fire crew in the community of Quincy, 

opened their books to us over a 5-year period to do cost comparisons for thinning work. Bottom line, one man would have to thin 

three acres a day. That’s an impossibility. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. 

Ms. WOOD. More and more work was lost. Firestorm had to close 

their Quincy operations this year where they had employed approximately 240 employees over a sample 5-year period. This 

meant a loss of local employment opportunities, loss of local income, increased local income and money spent within Quincy for 

rents, utilities, groceries, et cetera, with a payroll in excess of $2 

million. Over $50,000 in company-paid rent for office, utilities and 

miscellaneous expenses will be gone for this small mountain community. Wood’s Fire closed and sold its Truckee station and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
41

duced overhead expenses in order to prepare itself to ride through 

what looks to be a rough road ahead for us. 

Firestorm and Wood’s Fire made a power-point presentation to 

the Quincy Library Group regarding the trends we were seeing for 

a race to the bottom for healthy forest work in late January this 

year. The group was aghast, concerned and apologetic. They had 

been pressuring the local Plumas National Forest to get more acres 

for each dollar. They had no idea of the repercussions. 

Firestorm, Wood’s Fire and NorthTree Fire International met 

with the Plumas National Forest supervisor. We gleaned a lot of 

information from that meeting of the pressures this local forest supervisor faced with both the local and national overhead level to 

get more acres for the dollar at any cost, even at local small business survival. How is that the best value? I learned that there is 

no value to having a local fire contractor doing work on the forest 

and available for a quicker fire response to the forest. It is worth 

absolutely nothing. It is not contractually a consideration. I learned 

that exploitation of forest guest workers and forest work objectives 

is tolerated because of the bottom line: Dollars. 

Assumptions are made in the contracting process that once a 

company has addressed all the narratives of providing local communities with jobs and increased moneys spent in the work areas, 

that it will happen. This process falls far short in the actual implementing of such opportunities. There are no failsafes to assure that 

any of this is done. Final decisions on the awards of service contracts are made solely on price. Since our foreign guest worker 

company comparison does not meet muster when everything is laid 

out, we can only assume that corners are being cut. The signs are 

all there when looking at the track record of this company for labor 

wage, OSHA, and workers’ compensation violations since the mid1990’s. 

If it is happening in our little area, you know it is happening 

elsewhere, confirmed by our national membership of NWSA. Forest 

agencies are charged with the implementation of forest work, so 

naturally, I would assume that violations are being seen by agency 

managers, our front line of defense. The NWSA has outlined solutions and recommendations for your review. We also have shared 

this with the Director of Acquisition Management in a face-to-face 

meeting recently in Reno, Nevada, at our national conference. It is 

still our concern, from the Forest Service Chief’s memo, that a system for checks and balances still needs to be addressed, both in the 

field and in the contracting devices. This is not a new problem, nor 

does the solution require changes in laws and regulation, just implementation, steadfastness to the task and consistency. 

It is also the fear of our organization and the professional contracting sector that local accessible businesses will be harassed, put 

under the microscope and driven out of business with overregulation instead of pursuing the nomadic foreign guest worker companies that are our problem. The foreign guest workers are just trying to attain the American dream just as my great-greatgreatgrandparents did. It needs to stop in a swift and fair manner 

so that the history of indentured servitude never repeats itself in 

our global community. The professional contracting community 

wants to be able to compete on a level playing field for work they 

42

are interested in doing. There is room for all of us. Thank you for 

listening to my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CINDY WOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WOOD’S FIRE & 

EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER & REPRESENTATIVE

OF NATIONAL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the following testimony. My name is Cindy Wood and I am the Chief Executive Officer of Wood’s Fire and Emergency Services, Inc. (Wood’s Fire) specializing 

in wildland firefighting equipment, personnel, project and prescribed burning services and fuels reductions services locally and nationally since 1986. My business is 

located in the central Sierras of California and Nevada with stations in Portola and 

Truckee, CA, Reno, NV, and Prescott, AZ. Wood’s Fire is a California Small Business Administration-certified, woman-owned, minority, small business. 

My testimony is on behalf of the National Wildfire Suppression Association 

(NWSA) and the California Chapter of NWSA that have extensive experience in 

these issues. The NWSA has been in existence since 1991 and represents more than 

200 contractors with six chapters throughout the United States. In addition, it has 

affiliate members including the Northwest Contract Firefighters Association, the Oregon Firefighting Contractors Association, the Northern Rockies Wildfire Contractors Association, and the Western Forest Fire Services Association. 

NWSA’s members provide fire crews, engines, water tenders, showering units, catering units, tree fallers, dozers, and other resources to help battle wildfires across 

the United States. NWSA members have also been used by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) for other national emergencies such as the Shuttle Recovery, hurricane clean up and other disaster relief. 

In recent years, the contract fire industry has become an efficient, increasingly 

vital resource to federal, state and local wildfire suppression officers and public land 

managers. This is evidenced in the expansion of national ‘‘Best Value’’ engine and 

crew contracts, which represent a more formalized relationship between the government and the fire suppression contractor. A feature of these contracts is clearly defined standards and inspections. 

NWSA’s primary goal is to support and assist its members to be successful in 

their areas of contracting expertise and provide services that meet or exceed national standards. Another goal is to achieve national recognition as a professional 

organization, or cooperator. 

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the role of the Forest Service and 

other Federal agencies in protecting the health and welfare of foreign guest workers 

carrying out tree planting and other service contracts on National Forest System 

lands, and to consider related Forest Service guidance and contract modifications 

issued in recent weeks. 

As a regional and national contractor pre-qualified to bid on fuels reduction 

projects, I am bidding against, working with and completing work after companies 

utilizing foreign guest workers have completed their assigned tasks. The traces left 

behind of their nomadic lives are evident in the forest. 

My company and several other local companies and community businesses within 

the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) 

project area in Plumas County are dealing with the short and long term effects of 

the exploitation of foreign guest worker companies. Money that should have been 

spent housing and feeding these guest workers is taken out of the local community. 

Contract awards are at ridiculously low prices and we cannot compete with these 

nomadic contractors as we comply with all training, insurances, and federal and 

state regulations. We have opened dialogue on a local and national level with the 

U.S. Forest Service and the Quincy Library Group to bring the situation of the 

‘‘Pineros’’—men of the pines—to light and discuss possible solutions. 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Starting in the 1970’s there was a big push by industry and agencies for education 

and compliance in the reforestation industry. It was not until the agencies and industry worked together towards a solution that there was some success. However, 

due to the nomadic nature of many of the non-compliant companies, a large number 

evaded the regulatory agencies giving them an incredible competitive advantage 

43

with their pricing schedules. Compliant companies were then subjected to over-regulation and driven out of business or no longer able to be competitive. 

The effect of the spotted owl has been dramatic on the reforestation industry resulting in a huge downsizing. Many of the companies that once did only reforestation are now moving into the fuels management and fire industries. Along with 

this transition have come some of the practices that are now plaguing the industry. 

Many established and new compliant companies have hired local workers who have 

been displaced by the spotted owl and slowing logging industry. Many wildland fire 

services companies began bidding on fuels reduction and forest services contracts to 

reduce the attrition and costs of keeping employees available for fire emergencies. 

The training and regulatory costs for this industry is staggering. 

In any industry there are companies that abide by the rules, those who sometimes 

adhere, and others who evade the rules every chance they get. The forestry, fuels 

and fire industry is no exception. 

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

Agency personnel are not fully trained, equipped or empowered to recognize, report and respond to the signs of foreign guest worker exploitation. Direction for 

checks and balances has not been implemented. 

Language barriers make it impossible to communicate to workers directly about 

their conditions. 

Lack of enforcement for existing State and Federal labor regulations and laws is 

minimal due to mobility and the nomadic nature of the companies exploiting the foreign work force. 

Payroll deductions for the use of tools and even personal safety equipment to complete the forest work in addition to recruitment or management fees, mileage and 

lodging is common. This borders on indentured servitude. 

Contractual verbiage needs to address and initiate compliance tools within the 

contract vehicle. 

Agencies are pressured to produce results quickly and at the lowest cost possible, 

at the sacrifice of American workers and small business. 

MY EXPERIENCE

I run a well trained, flexible and small local work force that strives to provide 

a quality product at a good value to my customers on federal and non-federal lands. 

Mediocrity or minimal work performance is unacceptable by me or my husband who 

is Chief of Operations. We employ up to 22 local young men and women with a 

cadre of very seasoned managers. We are a niche company that adapts itself to the 

needs of the working fire environment in the most modem sense. We are striving 

to make a difference in our community by making it Fire Safe with fuels reduction 

services and we protect it when fires are a danger. 

I can speak of the Pineros/foreign guest worker issues based on first hand experience. My company, Wood’s Fire, once subcontracted to another company that utilized foreign guest workers to perform project burn work on the Plumas National 

Forest. Wood’s Fire was subcontracted to provide the expertise and management for 

the burn operation. 

During the course of the project, my managers witnessed many instances of practices by the prime contractor that were questionable at best if not non-compliant 

with applicable regulations. These included: unhealthy sleeping conditions for foreign guest workers in the field when it was freezing or snowing; unacceptable foot 

attire; and transport vehicles lacking proper license and other certification information. Only after my managers brought the sleeping conditions to the attention of the 

prime contractor was lodging provided for the foreign guest workers. 

From day to day we had a revolving door such that we did not know from one 

day to the next what foreign guest workers would be working. The project managers 

and supervisors from the prime contractor’s company stayed the same but the foreign guest workers would change. Without proper documentation, particularly fire 

qualifications for who was working on any given day, it became difficult to ensure 

safety and performance. Also, at one point, the prime contractor dismissed the Burn 

Boss, one of my managers, from the burn operations. This decision to reduce the 

prime contractor’s costs put my company in a very difficult situation because I was 

ultimately liable for any escape of the burn operations. This concern was compounded by the fact that the prime contractor refused to provide proof of workers 

compensation and liability insurance after I had already provided my insurance documents. So my assumption was the prime contractor did not have proper insurance. 

44

These problems combined with communication and chain-of-command problems 

led my company to terminate its work with the prime contractor. At that time we 

also notified the appropriate agency contracting officer representative. 

To demonstrate how these practices stifle competition, I’ve included the following 

table:

Task Acres 

Compliant

Contractor 

Non-Compliant

Contractor 

Unit 

Price Total Unit Price Total 

Thin, lop, scatter ........... 474 $98.50 $46,689.00 $57.78 $27,387.72

Thin ................................ 102 354.12 36,120.24 46.00 4,692.00

Thin & pile ..................... 77 442.65 34,084.05 198.00 15,246.00

653 116,893.29 47, 325.72

Total Difference $69,567.57

Total Difference/Acre $106.54

This table shows the difference between actual bids on the Pull Plug Pre-Commercial Thinning project on the Modoc National Forest. The ‘‘Compliant Contractor’’ 

bids are courtesy of Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppression, Inc., a local contractor in 

Quincy and Chico, California. Firestorm was agreeable to opening its books to demonstrate how hard it is to compete with non-compliant contractors. 

SOLUTIONS

The National Wildfire Suppression Association believes the issues surrounding 

the Pineros do not require any new laws or regulations. What is required is better 

utilization of existing contracting authorities and greater enforcement by the agencies to both address the needs of foreign guest workers as well as protect local jobs. 

More specifically, the vast majority of these types of service contracts are an Invitation for Bid (IFB) or a Request for Quote (RFQ). Both of these are awarded based 

solely on the lowest cost bid. 

NWSA would like to see the agencies instead use the Best Value Request for Proposals (RFP) or Best Value Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts 

for this type of work. The RFP and IDIQ are both existing contract vehicles and 

would lend themselves to the new Stewardship Contracting authority. 

NWSA believes that using RFPs and IDIQs will provide the agency better means 

to assess the bidder’s actual business. Such assessments may include but not be limited to financial ability, experience, past performance, technical qualifications, and 

the ability to provide local jobs. 

One of the purposes of this hearing is to comment on Forest Service guidance and 

contract modifications issued in recent weeks. I would like to offer some very specific comments in this regard. 

On November 18, 2005, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth sent a memo to the 

field regarding ‘‘foreign workers on H2B seasonal work visas’’ and how ‘‘Concerns 

have arisen about some contractors exploiting these workers and about the health 

and safety conditions they work under.’’ The Chief is only hitting a part of the problem. That is, these concerns are not exclusive to H2B seasonal workers. In fact, I 

would submit that this is not where the problem lies. Instead, the greatest exploitation comes from those contractors that do not abide by the rules including the 

H2B rules. 

Also in the Chief’s memo, he makes three key points: (1) on matters beyond the 

responsibility of the Forest Service, e.g. immigration law or OSHA regulations, that 

the agency personnel are to ‘‘promptly report the situation to the appropriate oversight agency and to document the notification’’. (2) on matters within the Forest 

Service’s scope, e.g. safety equipment, the Chief says ‘‘don’t let them work’’. and (3) 

documented violations must be a factor in evaluating future bids and awarding future contracts. 

I will comment on these three points. First, point (1) above is simply passing the 

buck. If the Forest Service representative knows enough to promptly report the situation, they should also be stopping all work. Prompt reporting to the appropriate 

45

oversight agency does not ensure prompt investigation by the oversight agency and 

thus the contractor is allowed to continue working. 

The second point should be a given. If the Forest Service representative sees a 

safety violation or something similar, they can and should immediately stop all 

work. As the Chief said in his memo, this is nothing more than just as ‘‘we would 

[do] with our own employees.’’

We agree entirely with the Chief’s third point that documented violations, whether arising from (1) or (2) above should be a prominent factor in evaluating future 

bids and awarding future contracts. We also feel the only way the Forest Service 

can do this is to move away from the IFB and RFQ to the RFP and IDIQ Best Value 

contract vehicles. 

There is one last comment on recent contract modifications I’d like to make. On 

January 4, the Director of Acquisition Management sent a memo to the field with 

new provisions for service contracts. We have reviewed these provisions and support 

adding them to the contracts. It is our interpretation that these provisions articulate 

worker safety, lodging and other existing requirements. By including these in all 

service contracts, all parties will be working from the same set of information. We 

also believe by including these provisions, the agency representatives will be better 

empowered to enforce existing regulations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

‘‘Inspect What You Expect’’

Contractually set up a system for checks and balances for Contract Officer Representative (COR) and contracting office to utilize in their ‘‘tool box’’.

1. Notification of Lodging & Food facilities for foreign guest worker (FGW) 

companies. 

2. Notification of Work Schedule and the Work Area to COR daily to be able 

to track and catch non-compliant companies 

3. Defined work hours to be negotiated (i.e.: daily start time, weekend/holiday 

exemptions) 

4. Employee verification to address matters of Homeland Security, for example: 

a. Photo Id 

b. Social Security 

c. Work Visas 

i. *To be carried in the field by FGW company representative at all 

times with their copy of contract specifications. This is mandated in the fire 

fighting community, why not in this environment. 

5. Changes in project staffing would use same protocol 

6. Development of checks and balances in the initial contract award work 

place 

a. Verification of employee id’s, work visas with existing data bases being 

implemented now by the Forest Service with the fire community 

b. Employee Disclosures as stated by U.S. Department of Labor 

c. Contractor verification of all insurances, review of class codes for Workers Comp Insurance 

d. Disclosure of I.N.S., D.O.L. suspensions, fines, resolutions of findings 

by contractor with cross check 

e. Company Ownership disclosure on all contractors and subcontractors 

to assure violators are not forming new companies 

7. Agency Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) be cross trained by I.N.S. or other 

specific agency to perform spot checks. 

8. COR or LEO need to communicate in the language of the FGW at the 

project site to conduct interviews or have a bilingual individual on contract to 

help with this need. Possible bilingual ratio to crew workers development 

9. Assure all required postings are on the job site 

10. Assure all company vehicles are marked with the proper ID/Company designation as outlined by D.O.L./I.N.S.

IN CLOSING

Recently I discussed this situation with my parents and asked them about my 

family’s experience with migrant labor. Coming from a Mexican and French heritage 

with my ancestors legally migrating across the Mexican Border into Arizona and 

California in the 1900’s as workers in the agriculture, ranching and mining industries or to escape being killed during revolutions, they found the information deeply 

disturbing and unacceptable. As children, when school was out they went on family 

46

working vacations and picked nuts and apricots and were never subjected to the 

conditions that the Pineros and other foreign guest workers endure now trying to 

attain the ‘‘American Dream’’. 

I concur with my parents. These people are being exploited and it needs to stop 

in a fair and swift manner. It is my fear and the fear of private industry that history will repeat itself with the over-regulation of professional, capable and compliant 

companies. That the nomadic contractor practices of the past will slip thru the regulatory cracks and local small businesses and communities will suffer. We only want 

a fair chance to compete. Long term stability for the industry is the result of better 

written contracts and enforcement of existing rules. It will provide a better product 

to the agencies that are stewards of our natural resources and better protection to 

the worker.

Senator CRAIG. Cindy, thank you. 

Michael, you work in areas other than forestry, do you see similar problems in those areas, and do you see the same problems 

with getting the Department of Labor and Homeland Security to 

engage in the enforcement that they are expected to provide? 

Mr. DALE. Because most other areas that I work in aren’t way 

up in the woods, the problems are less complex. Having said that, 

the enforcement personnel available to Wage and Hour Division 

has fallen pretty consistently through Republican and Democratic 

administrations ever since I’ve been a lawyer to the point where 

the capacity to really engage in effective enforcement is really quite 

limited. 

I’m glad you brought up the question about the Department of 

Homeland Security. One of the things that I didn’t mention is 

something that we should not do in response to this re-airing of the 

issues, and that is that the Department of Homeland Security has 

its work to do with respect to folks who are not in the country in 

a proper status or working here without worker authorization. Past 

response in some of the earlier spasms—I described maybe inaptly. 

Senator CRAIG. We’ll let that stand. That’s probably appropriate. 

Mr. DALE. Past response has been to enhance collaboration and 

reporting of workers found to be in unlawful status or suspected of 

being in unlawful status in forestry crews, and that’s counterproductive because what it means is—I mean, it—think of the situation. If you are here working illegally, you’re still protected by 

U.S. wage and hour laws and need to be, or no one’s protected because it enhances the race to the bottom. There you are in the 

mountains, pretty much subject to the contractor’s whim with respect to not only your job but your very food and transportation to 

get home. I’ve represented workers that were abandoned in the 

mountains because of complaints that they had made about working conditions. Who are you going to turn to if the word is out that 

if you go to the Forest Service guys, if you talk to anybody from 

the Bureau of Land Management, the net result is you’re going to 

be deported? Who are you going to go to? And if we want to drive 

these practices farther underground, make people evermore dependent upon people that are not very nice and would exploit workers, then the way to do that is make the price of speaking to the 

Forest Service be a trip home. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I think that’s appropriately said. My time 

is getting limited here, so let me ask just one question of each of 

you, if I can. Cassandra, if we converted this program to one in 

which the agency had to hire workers, and that meant not as many 

of these H-2B workers were utilized, would that be helpful? 

47

Ms. MOSELEY. Can I just ask for clarification? Do you mean hire 

other workers directly, as in Federal employees? 

Senator CRAIG. That could be an alternative, yes. 

Ms. MOSELEY. Workers who work for the Federal Government 

are protected very well. Many of them have union representation. 

They have systems of appeal, ombudsmen. They have benefits. 

Their laws are not broken very often. And so, job quality for Federal workers is in a whole different world from contract forest 

workers. And so, yes, if we employed people directly, their job quality would probably improve. Not everybody wants to work for the 

Federal Government, so maybe people would make different 

choices. To work for the Federal Government, you have to be a U.S. 

citizen, so it would not provide as many opportunities for non-citizens as the contract work does. 

Senator CRAIG. Lynn, both you and Cassandra have made it a 

point to suggest that a conversion to best-value contracting for this 

work would be helpful. Why do you think this change will result 

in better enforcement of health, safety and wage laws and regulations? 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. Well, we think that best value can help, but currently, in the system, best value can have several criteria. It usually has price, experience, track record, what your technical proposal looks like, and then that sort of local benefit criteria. 

Typically, in the Forest Service, the weighting is 50 percent or 

51 percent or 70 percent price and then minor percentages for 

those other things. So, if they use best value, but the lowest price 

is always the best value, it won’t work. Best-value contracting that 

actually has honest criteria and is weighted properly can help, but 

if you don’t repackage these into multi-task, multi-skills, across the 

season, you’re going to run into the same kind of problem. So, it’s 

a systemic problem. It’s the system’s problem. It’s not just an enforcement problem. We’d like to encourage you to encourage the 

Forest Service to work with all of us at this table to come up with 

a way to solve this. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Lynn. 

Cindy, what steps have the associations that represent the companies that participate in these planting and thinning contracts 

taken to weed out some of the bad actors that have been described 

at this hearing? 

Ms. WOOD. Well, we do our own order of self policing and generating enough pressure on a noncompliant company to come to compliance on a one on one. If they don’t do that, then we will report 

them. It’s a fact of life we can’t compete with these current conditions at all. And we’ve made suggestions—I mean, the private sector is an extremely creative entity. And if you want to catch a noncompliant officer, what better area to ask than the industry that 

tries to find all the different loopholes and creative ways to make 

money? So, we developed this toolbox for out in the field that we 

put into the narrative, and that’s an area to get started with. 

There is also a new program that the Forest Service is implementing in the fire sector that is called ETIS. It is the Equipment 

and Training Inventory System. And within that automated system 

is a way to have the contracting office input information about noncompliant or exemplary reviews about the work that a contractor 

48

does. I would suggest something like that be implemented within 

these new contracting vehicles. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you all very much. We are certainly 

going to stay tuned to this. And as I say, we may, in the course 

of the year, see a whole new set of standards or principles out 

there embodied in this new immigration law that will impact these 

kinds of programs from the title on down, if you will. And so, I 

think that’s going to behoove us from the implementation of a new 

law itself, if we get there, to the breakdown as to category and specifics, monitor these approaches very closely, and you out there on 

the ground with the eyes and ears, you have will be very helpful 

to us in doing that. So, we thank you very much, and we’re glad 

you came, and the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[The following statement was received for the record:]

RENEWABLE RESOURCES, 

A DIVISION OF RENEWABLE FORESTRY SERVICES, INC., 

Barnesville, GA, March 6, 2006. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR: My company was the first to get H2B visas back in 1996. This 

was only after I spent over one hundred thousand dollars in three years pushing 

the U.S. Department of Labor to grant the labor certification (form ETA-750) and 

then INS to approve the petition (form I-129) from which the visas are issued. 

On Tuesday, March 2nd your committee held a hearing regarding abuses within 

the H2B visa system. have vast experience in this industry and would like to clarify 

some points as well as make some critical recommendations for the new immigration 

bill currently being debated. I started planting trees in the Rocky’s when was 18; 

the year was 1977, before the invasion of undocumented labor from Latin America. 

Tree planting and related environmental rims have been my soul source of income 

for my entire adult life. 

Yes, the forest industry, because it is a subculture within America and is generally isolated due to the remote rural location of the worksites continues to be an 

avenue of abuse. Much of the present day abuse is by Mexican crew leaders and 

Mexican contractors against their own people. In some segments there is almost a 

rite of passage. Therefore your strongest solution to end this abuse is to simply 

mandate that industrial tree farmers as well as the U.S. Forest Service are simply 

joint employers of this workforce. It took 20 years—20 years, Senator—to get the 

U.S. Forest Service to require and verify proof of Workers Compensation Insurance 

among its contractors. I don’t know of any other population with in our society that 

has suffered this blatant discrimination and abuse in modern times. It is this historical abuse that demands such an aggressive definition of employment, Without it 

abuses will continue as the Department of Labor and Homeland Security’s Immigration Services lacks the in-house workforce to police the industry.

1. Forest Service districts that are found to violate the law should pay penalties and remediation out of their district budgets. If Congress enacted such a 

bold step where the district’s money was at risk if abuses occur the abuses could 

stop immediately. 

2. If you multiple to million undocumented workers × $8.00 an hour × 40 

hours per week × FICA tax 15.6% × 52 weeks a year you generate $25.9 billion. 

You can see that we as a Nation are losing tax revenue that could completely 

fund the retiring Baby Boomers Social Security Trust Fund; resolving this critical issue of fulfilling the retirement needs of our aging Americans. As a Nation 

We do not know what the actual FICA loss is but assume that this figure is 

50% accurate it’s a lot of money and Mexico is no longer the impoverished third 

world country it was twenty-five years ago when this situation first got started. 

3. The question of amnesty should be answered with an affirmative, it worked 

back in 1984 in the Food Security Act and legalized a work force that kept 

America competitive and gave both small and big business the productive legal 

labor it needed. A reasonable fee should be charged, such as $500.00 for filing 

the paper work and another $500.00 upon approval, but rather than granting 

49

a Resident Mien status, issue a new H2B visa. Make this visa a special visa 

to note that the individual was in the U.S. when the visa was issued, for example H2B-US1, and make the visa good for two years, Then put a very simple 

stipulation on it, that if a holder of this visa class is arrested and convicted of 

a felony they are then deported and banned from entering the U.S. for a decade. 

the same punishment should apply for habitual DUI and drug offenders. 

4. Another point that needs to be clarified is what an H2B visa entitles a person to. An area of current misunderstanding centers on disability insurance. Regardless of what the law says, the social Security administration will not grant 

SSI to an H2B worker who becomes disabled while residing legally in the U.S. 

If the disability is thru no fault of the employer, no workers comp coverage is 

available and some situations are difficult to determine. When this occurs the 

fundamentals of our Nation should afford this worker’s disability coverage, have 

enclosed a video tape profiling the story of Benjamin Mendez who was one of 

the first Mexicans to ever receive an H2B visa. A very honorable hard working 

family man who was struck down by a flu germ his body could not defend itself 

against. He now resides in Mexico, blind with two dysfunctional kidneys and 

is dependant upon family charity and support from my wife and I. Benjamin’s 

only daughter Maria was later smuggled into the U.S. to work illegally in a factory to help support her mother and father by family members working in a 

meat processing plant. While in the U.S. she married and had two children who 

are legally U.S. citizens yet Maria remains an illegal alien to this date.

This situation and many similar to it are the results of our dysfunctional immigration policies, and an everyday reality creating unhealthy social situations that 

will only hurt our great Nation as time moves forward. Please make sane reform 

a top issue! 

In closing, I am submitting this letter and ask that it be submitted into the Congressional Record as additional testimony on the hearing that was held on March 

1st, 2006, which was organized by Senator Jeff Bingaman. This information was requested by Senator Staff Member Scott Miller. 

Towards a more perfect Union, 

I am Sincerely Yours, 

DAVID M. ELLIS, 

President.

(51)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF CINDY WOOD TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. As I understand it, the Department of Labor certifies that there is 

a shortage of available labor in a given area before H2B visas are issued to an employer wishing to work in that area. However, the H2B contractors reportedly compete with local contractors for Forest Service reforestation projects, which seems to 

call into question the Department’s determination that there was a shortage of 

labor. Do you have any insight into how the Department of Labor’s process for certifying a shortage of available labor falls short? Do you have any suggestions on how 

it can be improved? 

Answer. The issue is not so much local contractors competing with the H2B contractors for Forest Service reforestation contracts. Instead, it is the local contractors 

competing with those contractors that use undocumented workers. The latter group 

of contractors is not using the H2B program. Illegal alien issue along with abuses 

in the H2B program makes it difficult to compete in the market place. 

Having said that, some H2B companies set up business in small rural towns 

where there is not a labor force. Idaho has their share of H2B companies who use 

small Idaho towns as fronts. Once the H2B contractors obtain visa’s for their work 

force they are not monitored and then move workers into larger towns jobs following 

awarded contracts all across the country and are no longer confined to the labor 

shortage area that the visa’s were issued for. 

Many of us in the west are in Hub Zones, areas that SBA has designated with 

higher unemployment rates, therefore are not lacking in a labor force. We could employ more full time employees rather than lay them off after the Wildfire season 

has passed, if we could augment with forestry work. There are many good contractors that have a lack of work for their good employees. 

The H2B workers use this program as a means to enter the country and then stay 

after they have finished their job or their visa expires. These workers begin working 

illegally for other contractors that then abuse them by working and paying them 

‘‘under the table’’ as a ‘‘favor’’ or under the fear of being turned in to immigration. 

Suggestions: 

The Department of Labor needs to follow up on the intent of the companies that 

use the small rural communities as a front. 

Tracking system: Are work visa’s bar coded to facilitate tracking much the same 

as FedEx or Rental Car Industries use, to track how a worker is being utilized? 

Long range benefits could track inconsistencies with visas, reduce paperwork, reduce abuse of one visa being utilized by many workers etc. 

EATIS: List authorized H2B workers attached per contract award with special 

number attached to each documented or H2B worker. This would help track for example: training, annual refreshers, proper insurances, company information, company officers or owners and contract performance. 

**Tracking systems are only as good as the agencies that put them in place, oversee them and maintain oversight. All should be accessible to the agencies that need 

to check that accurate information is being inputted i.e.: proper social security & 

visas numbers. These should also be integrated with the ORCA/CCR databases already in place. Centralized or linked databases will make oversight less time consuming for contracting and enforcement offices. 

Receipt of jobs announcement: copy of advertisement, date and by what means—

via internet, newspaper, magazine, trade show, bulletin board; where it was flown, 

for how long and for what type of job. 

Continued efforts toward compliance of Job Clearance Order/Worker Contracts 

disclosures. 

52

In addition, the U.S. Forest Service should be required to put hiring locals in their 

best value contacts. Put a high value for awarding contracts to local entities. Public 

Law 106-291 has a requirement for hiring locals. 

Question 2. Similarly, the Department of Labor makes a determination of the prevailing wage in a given area. However, in many instances, that wage reportedly falls 

short of what is fair or adequate. Do you have any insight into how the Department 

of Labor’s process for determining a prevailing wage falls short? Do you have any 

suggestions on how it can be improved? 

Answer. The Department of Labor sends out wage surveys to companies in the 

industry. The Department should solicit a broader group to get accurate wage information and they should do it more frequently. For example, I have been informed 

by NWSA members, one contractor, has been solicited by the Department only twice 

in 27 years. 

One current requirement that helps address this problem is the certified payroll 

and daily work schedules. Though this is time consuming to the contractor, it is a 

necessary step to help address this issue. This does not stop the abuse of paying 

workers cash, paying workers 6 hours on the time card and certified payroll but 

work them 9 in order to avoid paying the prevailing wage. DOL and the agencies 

need to work hand in hand to enforce the laws and rules that are currently in place. 

Raising wage determinations for the specific work will not solve the problem. It 

will just give further advantage to companies who pay under the table; skew hours, 

or otherwise circumvents the system. The companies who are above board will put 

those rates in their costs and the companies that pay under the table will have a 

further competitive advantage. In addition, high wage determinations cause moral 

problems for long-term employees who see beginners starting at high wages. Unless 

there is strict enforcement and monitoring with field personnel and paper trails, 

raising wages will have the opposite effect of the desired result. 

The Department of Labor will have trouble controlling wage abuse unless they 

hire undercover agents to go into the companies. History has shown the Department 

will just audit companies who have legitimate business sites. 

Many companies in this industry do not know all the items they must comply 

with. The education process can be painful and costly but well worth the effort. 

Pressure from educated companies to comply with regulations with non-compliant 

companies is sometimes all that is needed, however knowledgeable COR’s that can 

recognize warning signs of non-compliant companies will be extremely important. 

COR’s will need a support system to be able to report issues to the regulating agency ie: e-mail or phone number in a timely basis and be empowered to stop work if 

the situation requires it. Head counts & unannounced visits should be implemented 

at odd hours. Implement the help of federal agency L.E.O.’s to back up the COR. 

Question 3. The Forest Service contract clauses issued on January 4, 2006, require 

contractors to train their employees in the safe operation and use of equipment, but 

it doesn’t appear that there are any standards or certifications to ensure that all 

the workers are appropriately trained. Should the agencies develop a uniform training and certification program so the Forest Service can verify that appropriate training has been provided and so the contractors know what is expected of them? I note 

that the Forest Service already does this in the context of wildland fire fighting and 

that British Columbia reportedly has instituted training and certification of its reforestation crews. 

Answer. We already do more wildfire training than Canada. You can have all the 

rules you want but without enforcement the ones who cheat get the competitive advantage. That is how these companies have proliferated over the years. Creating 

new regulations simply exacerbates this problem. 

Workers Compensation and OSHA already requires us to do training on all types 

of work we do. Certainly OSHA could be part of the compliance monitoring. However, like the other regulatory agencies OSHA also goes the path of least resistance 

and audits or inspects those companies with legitimate business locations. Adding 

more regulation to combat abuses is not necessarily the answer and could actual increase the problem. Rather, enforcement of existing laws, along with a collaboration 

effort with overseeing agencies. Combined with an aggressive education program to 

the industry we feel that industry would respond in a positive way. Failure to respond immediately to the situation will result in many legitimate businesses going 

out of business, which hurts the taxpayer, all the workers and the agencies trying 

to manage our forests. 

53

RESPONSES OF CASSANDRA MOSELEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. As I understand it, the Department of Labor certifies that there is 

a shortage of available labor in a given area before H2B visas are issued to an employer wishing to work in that area. However, the H2B contractors reportedly compete with local contractors for Forest Service reforestation projects, which seems to 

call into question the Department’s determination that there was a shortage of 

labor. Do you have any insight into how the Department of Labor’s process for certifying a shortage of available labor falls short? Do you have any suggestions on how 

it can be improved? 

Answer. As I understand it, when a contractor would like to hire H2-B workers, 

they must place an advertisement in the newspaper where the work will start. They 

do not have to advertise in the communities near national forests or private lands 

where they will work subsequently. Thus, contractors can acquire visas for H2-B 

workers based on a lack of availability workers in the location where their work season starts. Subsequently, they can move H2-B visa holders to work on contracts far 

from those initial locations, even if there would be an abundance of workers in those 

locations. Unless the workers in those subsequent locations happen to read the 

newspaper in initial location, they have no way of knowing about the availability 

of those jobs. Contractors should be required to advertise more broadly, including 

in the locations where they expect to work throughout the work season, not just 

where they begin working. 

The pre-certification job advertising requirements are inadequate in another way 

as well. Contractors are only required to advertise for short periods of time and in 

a limited manner. Consequently, even in starting locations where there would be 

adequate workers, these workers may not hear about the jobs or have time to apply. 

The advertising requirements should be expanded to ensure that available workers 

learn about the job opportunities and have time to apply. 

In addition, contractors can request H2-B workers before they actually have contracts in place. This means that they may be bringing workers to the United States 

for jobs that may not materialize. When these jobs do not appear or when there are 

gaps in employment, H2-B workers may end up needing to take jobs outside of the 

provisions of their visa. 

Question 2. Similarly, the Department of Labor makes a determination of the prevailing wage in a given area. However, in many instances, that wage reportedly falls 

short of what is fair or adequate. Do you have any insight into how the Department 

of Labor’s process for determining a prevailing wage falls short? Do you have any 

suggestions on how it can be improved? 

Answer. In the case of forestry services and fire suppression, the federal government is seeking to replace government jobs with contract jobs. Consequently, prevailing wage should be no less than the wage that workers would have been paid 

had they been working for the government directly. 

Despite the fact that contractors move across the country to work, wage determinations can vary considerably from place to place. For example, the wage set for 

thinning in the Southwest is about $3/hour less than in the Pacific Northwest. Wage 

determinations should be revised upward in places where wages are out of line with 

the higher-wage parts of the country. The wage that a federal worker would have 

been paid should be a minimum standard for the prevailing wage across the country. 

In addition, the prevailing wage should rise at least as fast as the rate of inflation. This has not been the case over the past decade or more. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) periodically falls behind in it wage determinations. DOL did not change wage determinations in the Pacific Northwest in forestry 

services for several years. Nationwide, fire-related wage determinations had been 

out of line with what state and federal wildland fire fighters were being paid. 

Finally, the ‘‘health and welfare’’ determination should be examined to determine 

if it is sufficient to cover the costs of purchasing health care for a worker and his 

or her family, given the rapid rise of health insurance costs. This number needs better pegged to rising health insurance costs so that workers would have sufficient 

funds to purchase health insurance for their families. 

Question 3. The Forest Service contract clauses issued on January 4, 2006, require 

contractors to train their employees in the safe operation and use of equipment, but 

it doesn’t appear that there are any standards or certifications to ensure that all 

the workers are appropriately trained. Should the agencies develop a uniform training and certification program so the Forest Service can verify that appropriate training has been provided and so the contractors know what is expected of them? I note 

that the Forest Service already does this in the context of wildland fire fighting and 

54

that British Columbia reportedly has instituted training and certification of its reforestation crews. 

Answer. It would be a good idea to create certification and standards for safety 

training. Whenever forest workers are using chainsaws, they face significant risks 

from chainsaw injuries and falling limbs and trees. Safety training should also include training to reduce long-term injuries such as hearing loss associated with 

chainsaw use without hearing protection and repetitive motion back injuries associated with tree planting. 

Although I agree that safety standards and certifications for training are a good 

idea, safety training is not the only type of training is needed if we are to have with 

high quality restoration performed and high quality jobs for forest workers. When 

community-based forestry groups advocate for training, they envision training that 

is holistic and comprehensive. Workers not only need to know how to work safely 

in the woods, but they also need to understand basic ecological principles, how to 

make decisions that result in ecological improvements, and be able to perform a 

wide variety of activities and tasks. Required training on safe work practices and 

protection would be a good start towards this larger term goal. 

RESPONSES OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. As I understand it, the Department of Labor certifies that there is 

a shortage of available labor in a given area before H2B visas are issued to an employer wishing to work in that area. However, the H2B contractors reportedly compete with local contractors for Forest Service reforestation projects, which seems to 

call into question the Department’s determination that there was a shortage of 

labor. Do you have any insight into how the Department of Labor’s process for certifying a shortage of available labor falls short? Do you have any suggestions on how 

it can be improved? 

Answer. They appear to be asking to verify a shortage instead of affirming existing supply. The Forest Service could verify existing supply by looking at the number 

of responses to their bid solicitations, then they could trigger an H2B request if 

their needs are not met. The local ngos we work with usually do a labor and workforce survey for their local National Forests, this helps contracting officers know 

how to package their solicitations for local businesses if they choose to. 

Question 2. Similarly, the Department of Labor makes a determination of the prevailing wage in a given area. However, in many instances, that wage reportedly falls 

short of what is fair or adequate. Do you have any insight into how the Department 

of Labor’s process for determining a prevailing wage falls short? Do you have any 

suggestions on how it can be improved? 

Answer. They need to look across the state borders because the people who do the 

work in Oregon, for instance, are also doing the work in California, the Department 

should compare state rates from time to time because the market area is clearly the 

same. 

Question 3. The Forest Service contract clauses issued on January 4, 2006, require 

contractors to train their employees in the safe operation and use of equipment, but 

it doesn’t appear that there are any standards or certifications to ensure that all 

the workers are appropriately trained. Should the agencies develop a uniform training and certification program so the Forest Service can verify that appropriate training has been provided and so the contractors know what is expected of them? I note 

that the Forest Service already does this in the context of wildland fire fighting and 

that British Columbia reportedly has instituted training and certification of its reforestation crews. 

Answer. We developed an Ecosystem Workforce Training Program, certificated 

through the local community college in conjunction with the Forest Service and contractors and jointly funded with DOL job training dollars. This program created 

multi-skilled workers. It was our attempt to create a high skilled, high wage work 

force that could live and work locally. We found this did not work because of the 

way the agency packaged the work for large, mobile, single skilled crews. This curricula is developed and has been used 

In several counties in California and Oregon. Be very careful how you structure 

this certified training, it has to be bi-lingual and accessible and preferably would 

be for multiple skill sets. Otherwise you just further institutionalize keeping workers in dead-end jobs with no options for growth. However, certified training is dangerous (look at the red card forgery issues in fire suppression) so we need to find 

a way to keep this honest. March 8, 2006

55

RESPONSES OF ELAINE CHAO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. The Chief and Director of Acquisition Management, Ron Hooper, sent 

out memos to the field on the issues we are addressed at the March 1st hearing. 

The Chief’s November 18th, 2005 memo said, amongst other things, ‘‘I expect expertise and immediate action. Contract Administrators must be able to recognize health 

and safety violations... When these situations occur they must take action [and 

not] let them work. ‘‘Mr. Hooper’s January 4th, 2005 memo said: ‘‘Please ensure 

that these provisions are included in all service contracts,’’... ‘‘Finally, please ensure that all service contract files include a written statement to the effect that the 

Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer’s Representative, or the contract Inspector has reviewed the requirements of these provisions with the contractor and has 

conducted at least one inspection of existing and new service contracts to ensure 

compliance with these provisions when applicable.’’

Please provide a work plan for each region that will ensure the inspections called 

for in Mr. Hooper’s letter are accomplished. 

Answer. In the preface to your questions, you reference the November 18, 2005 

letter from the Forest Service (FS) Chief Dale Bosworth and a related January 4, 

2006 memorandum from the FS Director of Acquisition Management, Ronald E. 

Hooper. The Chief’s letter directed the FS Contract Administrators to recognize 

health and safety violations and to take action when such situations occur. Mr. Hooper’s memorandum directs FS Contracting Officers to include health and safety provisions in service contracts, to include a written statement in the file that the requirements of these provisions have been reviewed with the contractor, and to conduct at least one inspection of the existing and new service contracts to ensure compliance of these provisions. The November 18, 2005 and January 4, 2006 communications were internal FS directives and do not involve Department of Labor personnel. Therefore, the Department of Labor has referred this questions to the FS, 

which will respond under a separate cover. 

Question 2. What steps will you take to check that the Contracting Officers and 

Inspectors have complied with the direction in Mr. Hooper’s January 4th, 2005 

memo? Please provide for the Committee documentation of the accomplishments as 

of the end of June and the end of the fiscal year. 

Answer. As discussed in our response to the first question, this question concerns 

internal FS policies and practices. Accordingly, the Department of Labor has referred this question to the FS for response under a separate cover. 

Question 3. In the event an inspector, Contracting Officer’s Representative, or 

Contracting Officer fails to enforce the worker health and safety provisions of a contract, what personnel actions will be taken against them? What steps will you take 

against your Line officers in the District, Forests, or Regional Offices in which the 

violations occur? 

Answer. As discussed in our response to the first question, this question concerns 

internal FS personnel policies and operating procedures. Accordingly, the Department of Labor has referred this question to the FS for response under a separate 

cover. 

Question 4. The Forest Service has a significant amount of experience with best 

value contracts through the Stewardship Contracting; would we get better performance and better enforcement of health and safety and other labor laws if we shifted 

all Service Contracts to a ‘‘best value’’ contract process? 

Answer. As discussed in our response to the first question, this question concerns 

internal FS operating procedures and expertise. Accordingly, the Department of 

Labor has referred this question to the FS for response under a separate cover. 

Question 5. What specific steps has the Forest Service taken with the Department 

of Labor and Homeland Security to ensure you have authority to utilize and access 

their databases prior to awarding contracts? 

Answer. The Department of Labor has provided the FS with the links to information posted on-line regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection history and the Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 

(MSPA) ineligible farm labor contractor list maintained by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Employment Standards Administration. In addition, the WHD 

and the FS have established procedures for communication between local offices, 

which allows the WHD the ability to provide the FS with the registration status of 

farm labor contractors and information on closed investigations. 

RESPONSES OF ELAINE CHAO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. The Forest Service contracts require contractors to comply with the 

Department of Labor’s vehicle safety standards, but, as I understand it, those standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
56

* Retained in subcommittee files. 

1 20 CFR § 655.3(a)-(b) (general H-2B recruitment requirement), and Employment and Training Administration, General Administration Letter No. 01-95 (outlining procedures for state 

processing and, in Section V, Federal determination of availability). While the WHD does investigate reforestation contractors, it does so under other applicable statutes, such as MSPA, the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or the Service Contract Act. 

ards do not require seatbelts and they do not address transportation of equipment, 

for example. Is the Department planning to improve those regulations? 

Answer. The applicable vehicle safety standards referenced are part of MSPA that 

is enforced by the WHD. MSPA applies to migrant or seasonal agricultural workers 

employed in predominantly manual forestry activities, including but not limited to, 

tree planting, brush clearing, precommercial tree thinning and forest firefighting 

per the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Bresgal v. Brock, 833 F.2d 763). The MSPA 

regulations at 29 CFR § 500.104(1) and at 29 CFR § 500.105(b)(3)(vi)(D) require that 

seating be securely fastened to the floor. The MSPA regulations contain no specific 

standard requiring the provision of seat belts for the transportation of workers as 

mandatory seat belt usage is addressed by state law. 

MSPA general vehicle safety obligations at 29 CFR § 500.100(a) require the farm 

labor contractor (or agricultural employer or agricultural association) which uses or 

causes a vehicle to be used to transport MSPA-covered workers ensure that such 

a vehicle conforms not only to safety standards prescribed by the Secretary but also 

‘‘with other applicable Federal and State safety standards.’’

Our research regarding seat belt usage required by states shows that forty-nine 

states and the District of Columbia have mandatory safety belt laws and in most 

states, these laws cover front-seat occupants only. Seat belt laws in eighteen jurisdictions cover all rear seat occupants. 

A Wage Hour Advisory Memorandum (enclosed)* providing guidance on MSPA vehicle safety reiterated the statutory and regulatory language that vehicles must conform with other applicable Federal and State safety standards, such as State seatbelt law. Therefore, we believe that existing regulations provide authority to enforce 

current state laws regarding seat belt usage. 

In regard to the second part of the question, the above guidance also addressed 

MSPA-covered vehicles when towing trailers, a common means for such contractors 

to move equipment. Further, the existing regulations at 29 CFR § 500.105(b)(2)(vii) 

require any load to be adequately secured, which includes equipment being carried 

inside the vehicle. In addition, as noted above, we believe our existing regulations 

provide authority to enforce any current applicable Federal or state laws that provide safety requirements for the transportation of equipment. 

Question 2. The Forest Service typically has multiple bidders on reforestation 

projects. Can you explain how it can happen that the Department of Labor certifies 

that there is a shortage of available labor for purposes of the H2B program in a 

given area when the H2B contractor later competes with numerous local businesses 

for contracts in that same area? 

Answer. As with other employers seeking to hire foreign workers under the H2B temporary visa program, employers performing reforestation activities who request a labor certification from the Department of Labor must first test whether 

there are U.S. workers qualified and available to fill those positions. At the initial 

stage of the H-2B labor certification process, the state workforce agency in the area 

of intended employment supervises employer recruitment of U.S. workers. The Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) reviews each 

labor certification application forwarded by the state to ensure that the record supports an employer’s decision not to hire U.S. workers applying for positions covered 

by the application. If the record supports the employer’s decision then ETA certifies 

that there is a shortage of available labor in the relevant geographic area to fill the 

vacancies at the time the employer is hiring. 

Labor availability is determined based on the number of qualified individuals who 

apply for the specific positions advertised by an employer.1 For example, an employer may advertise for ten (10) positions for tree thinners or planters. Two qualified U.S. workers may apply for those positions, leaving eight (8) positions unfilled. 

Once it is determined that qualified U.S. workers are unavailable, ETA certifies 

that there is a legitimate need to fill these eight job openings with foreign workers. 

Reasons for unavailable qualified U.S. workers include, but are not limited to: 1) 

there are no qualified U.S. workers available in the occupation in the area of intended employment; 2) all qualified U.S. workers in the occupation in the area of 

intended employment already are employed by the other companies; and 3) the 

sponsoring employer (the one completing the application for labor certification) alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
57

ready employs U.S. workers in the occupation in the area of intended employment, 

but needs additional workers to fill vacancies. 

Question 3 Many observers have suggested that the Department issue regulations 

providing H2A-like protections for H2B forestry workers. Why hasn’t the Department issued such regulations, and is it considering doing so at this point? 

Answer. The Department of Labor has no direct enforcement authority of the H2B provisions. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the 

Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005, provides the Department of 

Homeland Security with authority to impose sanctions on employers, including civil 

money penalties and debarment from the program, for certain types of violations of 

the H-2B petition attestations. In addition, the Department of Labor’s ETA issued 

a proposed rule last year to change the procedures for issuance of H-2B visas and 

to provide for post-adjudication audits of attestions. 

While the WHD does investigate reforestation contractors, it does so under other 

applicable statutes, such as MSPA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or the Service 

Contract Act. 

RESPONSES OF MIKE JOHANNS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. Please provide the Committee with a detailed plan for enforcing the 

direction from the Chief and Ron Hooper on this issue. 

Answer. The requirements to include the specific contract clauses will be monitored through our established internal control audits of the field units which are 

conducted in accordance with each Region’s Internal Control Plan. The results are 

documented and reviewed during Washington Office audits of the Regions. This area 

will receive special emphasis during these audits. We will update the committee on 

these results as these audits proceed. 

Question 2. Please develop an analysis of the cost of hiring H2B workers during 

the planting and thinning seasons to perform the planting and thinning work currently accomplished through your service contract program. Assume the crews will 

work in a manner similar to how the fire crews work and assume that we would 

like to accomplish similar amounts of work as are currently being accomplished 

through your service contracts. 

Answer. This is a very complex issue. We presently don’t have the data necessary 

to perform the requested analysis. However, we will be studying reforestation activities under the OMB Circular A-76 process in the Fiscal Year 2008. This process establishes Federal policy regarding the performance of commercial activities. The 

purpose of this process is to set forth the procedures for determining whether commercial activities should be performed under contract with commercial sources or 

in-house using Government facilities and personnel. 

Question 3. Given the extraordinary unemployment costs the Forest Service is 

now paying for fire fighters (after the fire season is over), is there any reason that 

the agency couldn’t use the fire crews to accomplish some of this planting and 

thinning work? 

Answer. Fire crews are typically seasonal or contract crews and the Agency trend 

is to increase the use of contract crews. For example, this year we have in place 

national fire engine and crew contracts. These crews are not available except for fire 

crew contract duties. 

Fire season and reforestation work occur at the same time of year, therefore the 

seasonal fire crews would likely not be available for reforestation work. Also, it 

would be inefficient and costly to move fire crews around the country to conduct reforestation activities. 

RESPONSES OF MIKE JOHANNS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. On August 12, 1993, Chief Robertson issued a memorandum with an 

attached action plan addressing ‘‘Labor and Immigration Policy on Labor Intensive 

Contracts. ‘‘Much of the Forest Service’s recent response to this issue is a reiteration 

of the 1993 memo and action plan. 

Is Chief Robertson’s memo and attached action plan still in effect, and, fnot, when 

and why was it withdrawn or superseded? 

Answer. Chief Robertson’s 1993 memo primarily addressed the legal status of 

these workers. Once this issue appeared to be addressed, and was not a reoccurring 

problem, the agency addressed other priorities and events. 

Question 2. Can you explain what plan the Forest Service has to ensure that 

Chief Bosworth’s directives are not ignored a few years from now? 

Answer. The Forest Service has established an ongoing working relationship with 

the Department of Labor, mandatory contract clauses, mandatory training for conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Jun 20, 2006 Jkt 109427 PO 28144 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\28144.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
58

tract officers, and a process to monitor compliance. The Chief and Director of Acquisition Management, Ron Hooper, sent letters to the field outlining their expectations 

regarding the health and safety of contract workers and contract administration. 

Question 3. The contract clauses issued on January 4, 2006, require contractors 

to train their employees in the safe operation and use of equipment, but it doesn’t 

appear that there are any standards or certifications to ensure that all the workers 

are appropriately trained. 

Should the agencies develop a uniform training and certification program so the 

Forest Service can verb that appropriate training has been provided and so the contractors know what is expected of them? I note that the Forest Service already does 

this in the context of wildland fire fighting and that British Columbia reportedly 

has instituted training and certification of its reforestation crews. 

Answer. We do not believe training and certification is necessary for this type of 

contracted work. As with other contract work, the solution lies in monitoring, enforcing, and reporting potential violations to the appropriate agencies. These are the 

areas we are now emphasizing. 

Question 4. In his testimony, Mr. Rey referred to the development of new performance measures to help evaluate employees’ performance in addressing the issues discussed at this hearing. Please explain what measures have been implemented or are 

being considered and how they will be used to encourage performance. 

Answer. Contracting Officers’ and Contract Administrators’ performance evaluations will include compliance with the Chief’s November letter and Mr. Hooper’s 

January letter. This includes not only their activities directly related to contract administration but also their relationship and communications with the Department 

of Labor representatives. 

Question 5. What percentage of Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction and reforestation projects in recent years are contracted to local businesses and NGOs? 

Answer. The Forest Service has contracted the analysis because the data is not 

centralized. We will provide the information in late summer. 

Question 6. What percentage of Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction and reforestation projects in recent years have been carried out under IDIQ contracts? 

Answer. Approximately 75 percent of fuel reduction and reforestation work in recent years has been carried out under IDIQ type contracts. 

Question 7. In recent years, what percentage of Forest Service hazardous fuel reduction and reforestation projects utilizing best-value contracting authority were 

awarded to the lowest qualified bid? 

Answer. Forest Service policy is that all hazardous fuel reduction and reforestation contracts be awarded on a best-value basis. Based on annual reviews of field 

units it is reasonably accurate to say that 100 percent of these contracts are awarded on a best-value basis. On occasion even a best-value decision results in award 

to the lowest priced offer. 

Question 8. Does the Forest Service need any additional authority to expand the 

current role that best value contacting plays in ensuring that contractors perform 

high quality restoration, that contractors that treat workers poorly or have a history 

of labor and safety violations are disfavored, and that contractors that provide structured training for their employees and create local benefit for public lands communities are rewarded? 

Answer. No additional authority is required to accomplish these goals. 

Question 9. The Forest Service developed a database in the 1990s to track contractors with repeat violations of labor and safety laws. Why was that database discontinued? 

Answer. The database referenced was not a FS database but rather one that 

Health and Human Services developed and operated. The FS has created a database 

which will track potential violations of Department of Labor regulations. We will 

use that information as part of the responsibility determination during the award 

process for future contracts. 

Question 10. Does the Forest Service have a process in place to make sure that 

a contractor is not using H2B workers in places not listed on the relevant itinerary 

that the Department of Labor approves? 

Answer. As part of the award process, the contractor must provide written 

verification that he is authorized by the Department of Labor to hire H2B workers. 

This authorization would indicate the specific location in which the H2B workers 

could be employed and this would have to be consistent with the location of the 

project. 

Question 11. The Forest Service contracts require contractors to comply with the 

Department of Labor’s vehicle safety standards, but those standards do not require 

seatbelts and they do not address transportation of the equipment, for example. Absent improvements in the Department of Labor’s regulations, shouldn’t the Forest 

59

Service require contractors to meet specific vehicle safety and transportation standards that address the unique risks involved in transporting crews for reforestation 

and restoration projects? 

Answer. The Forest Service has the authority to include these vehicle safety requirements in the technical specifications of the contract. Our new contract provisions do precisely what the Committee suggested by this question. 

Question 12a. The witnesses included in their testimony a number of recommendations to address the problems addressed in the hearings, which are paraphrased below. Please respond to each recommendation, including whether you support the recommendation or have specific concerns with it. 

The agency should convene, through the National Partnership Office, a series of 

meetings with workers, contractors, rural community organizations, contracting officers, and other relevant federal staff to develop concrete ways to implement changes 

in the procurement system to help avoid creating an underclass of forest workers 

and create a legitimate industry. 

Answer. The FS convened an oversight group for this purpose on March 22, 2006 

and is in the process of developing membership of working groups, procedures, and 

goals and objectives. We will continue to implement this suggestion. 

Question 12b. The Forest Service should automatically disqualify bids that are 

20% or lower than its estimate. 

Answer. The GAO has clearly established that the FS cannot arbitrarily establish 

some percent below which award will not be made. We will however ensure that 

all minimum Service Contract Act (SCA), Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSHA), and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) requirements can be complied with at the price offered as a minimum. 

Question 12c. Contracting officer’s representatives and inspectors should be required to record worker-days and hours. 

Answer. It would not be feasible or appropriate for contracting officer’s representatives or inspectors to record worker-days and hours at each worksite given the dispersion and remoteness of the sites. Establishing this requirement would unnecessarily duplicate a current SCA requirement applicable to the contractor. Moreover, 

MSPA requires contractors to provide payroll records to the Forest Service. 

Question 12d. The agency should explore using a system like the Davis-Bacon certified payroll to increase compliance. 

Answer. The SCA requires contractors to keep the same payroll records as DavisBacon. Moreover, MSPA requires contractors to provide payroll records to the Forest 

Service. 

Question 12e. Procurement contracts should be packaged for long duration employment—multiple months or seasons and multi-skill sets. Contracts should provide business and employment for fewer workers over longer periods of time. 

Answer. The oversight group established in March will be looking at ways to implement this recommendation. 

Question 12f. There should be Notification of Lodging & Food facilities for foreign 

guest worker companies. 

Answer. This is accomplished during the pre-work meeting. 

Question 12g. There should be Notification of Work Schedule and the Work Area 

to COR daily to be able to track and catch non-compliant companies. 

Answser. This is accomplished during the pre-work meeting. 

Question 12h. Defined work hours should be negotiated with the Forest Service 

CO or COR (i.e.: daily start time, weekend/holiday exemptions). 

Answer. This is accomplished during the pre-work meeting. 

Question 12i. The agency should verb employee identification and work visas with 

existing databases that are being implemented by the Forest Service for its wildfire 

suppression program. 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security and, to a lesser extent, the Department of Labor each has responsibilities related to employers verifying that employees are eligible to work in the US. The FS database tracks violations. The Agency works with the other agencies to ensure contractors are certified to utilize H2B 

workers. The FS fire databases do not track work visa status of contracted employees. 

Question 12j. The agency should verify that contractors have appropriate insurance coverage. 

Answer. This is accomplished during the pre-work meeting. 

Question 12k. Agency Law Enforcement Officers should be cross-trained by DHS 

and DOL to perform spot checks. 

Answer. DOL is working with FS to make informational materials and training 

on OSHA and WHD requirements available to FS contracting officers. 

60

Question 12l. The Department of Labor, Forest Service, and BLMshould create a 

joint task force to report to Congress on the agencies’ efforts to address the problems 

discussed at the hearing. 

Answer. The Forest Service and DOL are working together closely in areas of 

training, monitoring and inspection, and referrals for enforcement. 

Question 12m. The agency should create an ombudsman who can investigate concerns of workers, contractors, citizens, and agency staff about labor and safety violations. 

Answer. Rather than create another role and process we feel we now adequately 

have addressed violations of labor laws and safety requirements.

Æ