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

23–409 PDF 2005

TENSION IN THE TINDERBOX: FINDING FAIRNESS

FOR FEDERAL FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 12, 2005

Serial No. 109–69

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

——— ———

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA

RON MARTINSON, Staff Director

CHRIS BARKLEY, Professional Staff Member

CHAD CHRISTOFFERSON, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on August 12, 2005 ........................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Judd, Casey, business manager, Federal Wildland Fire Service Association; and Ryan Beaman, president, Clark County Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters ............................................................ 31

Beaman, Ryan ........................................................................................... 67

Judd, Casey ................................................................................................ 31

Vaught, Bob, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, U.S.

Forest Service; and Nancy Kichak, Associate Director, Strategic Human

Resources Policy, Office of Personnel Management ................................... 7

Kichak, Nancy ........................................................................................... 16

Vaught, Bob ............................................................................................... 7

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Beaman, Ryan, president, Clark County Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, prepared statement of ............................................ 72

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 83

Judd, Casey, business manager, Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 37

Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy,

Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of .......................... 18

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 84

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 5

Vaught, Bob, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, U.S.

Forest Service, prepared statement of ........................................................ 11

(1)

TENSION IN THE TINDERBOX: FINDING FAIRNESS FOR FEDERAL FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION

FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Las Vegas, NV.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., at the Red

Rock Canyon Fire Station, off Red Rock Campground Road, Las

Vegas, NV, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representative Porter.

Staff present: Chad Bungard, deputy staff director, chief counsel;

Christopher Barkley, professional staff member; and Chad

Christofferson, clerk.

Mr. PORTER. I’d like to formally bring the meeting to order. I

want to say I guess before I get into my scripted remarks, which

I have to include for the record, as do many of you here today, how

much I appreciate all of you being here today.

And, you know, it’s truly a great facility, you know, at the foothills of one of the most beautiful places in the country. We’re very

proud of it, those that are here from Nevada. I’d like to say it’s a

secret but it really isn’t. Red Rock and the adjoining area is just

absolutely a phenomenal place. I know as you step outside, and

hopefully you can spend a little time and tour the area, it’s tremendous.

But it’s very special not only because of the natural resource but

we have so many people here that help make it so great. You know,

the firefighters, Forest Service, State of Nevada, BLM, we can go

on and on, the Federal agencies and all the State agencies. But it’s

truly because of a lot of people that care. There’s a lot of volunteers

that help here locally that help in Red Rock. It’s very pristine. We

want to make sure that we keep Red Rock the natural resource

that it is; something for us to brag about.

There are some very special individuals that are on the line

every day, and I’ve had a chance to talk to some of the guys outside. I think I had a picture with all of them.

But it’s a very, very tough job. And it’s, you know, we hear about

it at times when the fires are big or when the fires are roaring

across the valley or we hear about it when there’s structures at

2

risk. But truly these men and women that are fighting those fires

are our heroes.

And having had a chance to meet with many individuals prior to

today and then today, I want to make sure that they are compensated properly, that benefits are proper, that they realize that

we, as Members of Congress, but also residents of Nevada and of

the country, can do everything we can to make sure that they have

the benefits and they have proper compensation.

I know that Nevada is a State that faces late summer and fall

with the potential of more fires. I know we’ve experienced many of

those fires just through the years, but now with the needed moisture we received early in the year, we now have a lot of vegetation

that I know as soon as I would read the accounts or see the amount

of rainfall, knowing how the valley, from a moisture standpoint,

but also realizing August, September and October we’re going to

have some more fires. So I thought it was an appropriate time to

have this hearing.

It’s again important for the rest of the country to realize that Nevada is on the forefront of a lot of things, and that’s resort industry, gaming industry, entertainment and even shopping. But we

have natural resources here that we’re very proud of and that’s

why I think at the base of Red Rock it’s also very, very important

to have the hearing here today.

Now into my formal comments. We do have a title for the hearing. It’s called ‘‘Tension in the Tinderbox: Finding Fairness for Federal Firefighters.’’ Again as a committee, in August, Ranking Minority Member Mr. Danny Davis was going to try to join us, originally was, but at the last minute had a conflict, and he sends his

apologies. He’s a good friend from Chicago and is very supportive

of what we’re doing today.

Copies of his opening statement have been made available, so if

anyone would like to see them, and his statement will be entered

into the official record. As I mentioned, I want to thank everyone

here and to the Bureau of Land Management.

You know, as we, as a subcommittee, look at the Federal work

force, it’s vital that we make sure that we examine how the Federal

Government compensates the wildland firefighters. It’s nowhere

more important than here in Nevada where each year our State is

ravaged by hundreds of wildland fires protected by hardworking

firefighters.

I must say that the green brush and the wonderful wild flowers,

I hope you have a chance to see and maybe even take some pictures, is a beautiful sight. And as I talk to many of my colleagues

from the east and we talk about public lands, many of my colleagues they don’t really understand the magnitude of Nevada

being almost 90 percent Federal land.

And we’ve had a chance to fly over Nevada with other Members

of Congress and I point out the window and let them know that

you realize that’s Federal property and we have that responsibility.

That too is I think a reason for having the hearing here today

so we can send that message.

So with that I will submit my formal statement for the record,

but I want to recognize a good friend of mine that couldn’t be here

today, Chairman Richard Pombo. He’s chairman of Natural ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Oct 11, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23409.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

sources. He has a bill that we’re going to talk about specifically

today, and that’s H.R. 408 called the ‘‘Federal Wildland Firefighter

Emergency Response Compensation Act of 2005.’’ Mr. Pombo is

from California where I guess it’s been over a hundred plus there,

which is good they have the hot weather there. We’re used to it

here.

H.R. 408 would do—what it would do is enhance the pay and

benefit package offered to employees of the Department of Interior

and the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture who fight

wildland fires.

H.R. 408 would provide what is known as ‘‘portal-to-portal’’ compensation for wildland firefighters and would allow hazardous duty

pay to be calculated for retirement purposes.

Portal-to-portal compensation refers to pay given on a 24-hour

basis beginning at the time a firefighter leaves his home station

and ends upon his return.

Now, I’ve had a chance to meet some of the gentlemen that are

here today from Arizona, this would be a case where they are here

from southeastern Arizona. I tried to get them to stay but they said

they had to go home sometime, but they were enjoying being here.

Currently, wildland firefighters are paid only during working

hours and not for off hours despite not being able to leave the fireline.

At this time, the vast majority of Federal firefighters—structural

and wildland—do not receive portal-to-portal compensation and so

the decision to change how firefighters are compensated will have

to be made carefully. My hope is that this hearing will serve as a

forum from all key stakeholders on this issue.

We will first be hearing from Bob Vaught of the Forest Service.

I have invited Mr. Vaught here today not to comment on the provisions of this bill, but rather to provide the subcommittee with insight into the current conditions facing wildland firefighters.

In his capacity as forest supervisor for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, he’s had firsthand experience with wildland fires and

understands what it is that the wildland firefighters do at the Forest Service on a day-to-day basis.

Next we’ll hear from Nancy Kichak. I hope I pronounced that

right.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. From the Office of Personnel Management. She will

share with us administrations’ views on H.R. 408 and help us to

see how this bill will affect pay issues involving other Federal employees.

On the next panel we’ll hear from a representative of wildland

firefighters, Mr. Casey Judd, best tie in the room. Mr. Judd is the

business manager for Federal Wildland Fire Service Association

and he will be sharing his views on H.R. 408 with the subcommittee.

Last, we’ll be hearing—we’re fortunate to hear from Mr. Ryan

Beaman, the vice president for the Southern Region of Nevada for

the International Association of Firefighters. Mr. Beaman will

share his views with us on some other issues facing Federal firefighters at this time.

4

We’re fortunate to have all our guests today to discuss this important issue and I look forward to your testimony.

I’ve asked other Members and have allowed other Members to

provide any statements in writing, and Members of Congress will

have 5 days to issue their statement and possibly have additional

questions for all of you that are panelists.

I also ask that any written questions provided by the witnesses

be included in the record. I request that all exhibits, documents,

and other materials referred to by members and the witnesses may

be included, and I think we should get a picture of Red Rock to be

on the record.

Mr. BUNGARD. I’ll do it.

Mr. PORTER. And may be included in the hearing record, and all

Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.

It is the practice of the subcommittee to administer the oath to

all witnesses. So if you would all please stand, all those witnesses

please stand for a moment and I’ll administer the oath.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]

5

6

7

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PORTER. Let the record show the witnesses answered in the

affirmative. Please be seated.

Each witness will have approximately 5 minutes to summarize

their comments, and certainly we’ll accept anything in writing. I

know it will be tough keeping it to 5 minutes but we’ll do the best

we can to make sure that yours points are known and taken for

the record.

So first though we’ll now hear from our first panel. Mr. Vaught,

you may begin. Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF BOB VAUGHT, FOREST SUPERVISOR, HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, U.S. FOREST SERVICE;

AND NANCY KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC

HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF BOB VAUGHT

Mr. VAUGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and talk about firefighting in the Forest

Service. I am Bob Vaught, forest supervisor for the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, which is 6.3 million acres, mostly in Nevada, of magnificent mountainous terrain that most people don’t

appreciate unless they’ve been there.

We do manage about 650,000 acres of national forest that are located in California on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada range.

I’m responsible for oversight of the management of the natural resources on this national forest including significant responsibilities

for working with local people.

Mr. PORTER. Excuse me, Bob. You realize California is going to

fall off into the ocean anyway. We’ll have that in Nevada.

Mr. VAUGHT. I hope a piece of the eastern part of the mountains

are still steady.

Mr. PORTER. That would be OK.

Mr. VAUGHT. I would like to introduce briefly, if I could, Mike

Dudley. Mr. Dudley is the director of fire management in my higher level office in Ogden, UT.

I supervise over 400 employees. Over 130 of those work full time

and seasonally in fire management. Many of our non-fire employees, such as wildlife biologists, foresters, engineers, hydrologists

and many others while they’re not full time firefighters have qualifications and are an essential resource in fighting fires as well.

Many factors and people are involved in fuel and fire and firefighting and fuels management. This area of expertise includes not

only fighting wildfires but suppression, rehabilitation and restoration after fires as well.

Today I’ll discuss the current fire season very shortly and our

methods of wildland fire management and the duties of the many

people that are involved in wildland fire management. Of the three

factors that influence wildland fires, weather, topography and

fuels, fuels is the only one we can really manage with any effectiveness at all.

For much of the 20th century, wildland fires were generally

thought to be bad for the environment, and as a consequence all

8

were put out as soon as possible. Over time and across very large

areas in Nevada and across the west, as the acres of natural fires

was reduced, the amount of fuel on the landscape in the form of

trees and shrubs has increased.

This buildup of vegetation coupled with drought and the development of homes and communities near the wildlands has led to very

significant, increasing concerns about the health of the forest and

rangelands as well as the risk to communities. Understanding and

meeting these challenges requires unprecedented cooperation today

among interagency groups including Federal agencies, State agencies, tribal and local governments.

I would like to say a few words about this year’s fire season.

We’ve burned more than a million acres of land this year in Nevada, mostly in southern Nevada. Heavy winter snows and early

rains led to heavy growth of grasses and other herbaceous fuels.

Most of western Nevada rangelands remained at high risk for wildfire. Eastern and southern Nevada have had recent rainfalls and

so we believe there will be near normal fire danger for the rest of

the season in this area. Forested areas across the State will continue to see near normal fire conditions we believe in August.

In initial attack as we fight fires, agencies use a variety of techniques including ground firefighters, crews, engine crews and a

mixture of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. In recent we’ve succeeded in controlling more than 98 percent of fires through initial

attack.

If firefighting assets are strained, however, as a result of multiple, simultaneous large fires, resources are prioritized and allocated by a group called the National Multi-Agency Coordinated

Group which is based in Boise in a part of the national interagency

fire center. This group consists of national fire directors of all the

Federal firefighting agencies and State representatives as well.

These efforts ensure that all of the national firefighting assets are

appropriately positioned and provided with the most up to date information.

In 2005 we have about the same level of firefighting resources as

we had in 2004. Nationally more than 18,000 firefighters are available. This does not include though the Federal agency personnel

and the many other occupations like wildlife biologists and many

others that also mobilize to perform incident management duties

when fires occur. These 18,000 firefighters include Federal and

State employee crews from tribal organizations, local governments,

contract crews, emergency and temporary hires.

If we experience severe fire risk, we stage or deploy firefighters

even before fires occur. And we stage things like equipment and

aircraft vehicles, supplies and personnel. And these are tracked

through a national integrated system.

Aviation is a big and important part of the firefighting effort, and

we use heavy airtankers, helitankers and many other helicopters.

We also use CL–215 airtankers, which are a midsize airtanker, and

smaller airtankers called Single Engine Airtankers called SEATS.

There’s also eight military aircraft, C–130 aircraft that are available.

Safety is of course of extreme importance to our agency and to

our people. Safety is a core value of the Forest Service. Our fireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Oct 11, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23409.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

fighters do an impressive job under adverse conditions. And as you

stated, Mr. Chairman, they very much deserve our thanks.

Firefighting is a high risk, high consequence activity, so safety

and training are essential for firefighter preparedness. Situational

awareness is the centerpiece of firefighter safety, and our responsibility for managing the unexpected in wildfires which is where

the danger lies. It includes formal classroom training, on-the-job

training, drills, discussions, and reviews that are all a part of a

very significant training program that firefighters are involved

with. They must complete course work and multiple training assignments in the field before they can be certified for fire-line positions.

The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative has been very important to the Forest Service and other wildland agencies in providing

us with tools to reduce the risk of fuels, and therefore reduce the

risk of severe and dangerous wildfires. In total the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest in the last 4 years has completed about

7,000 acres of fuels reduction work. About 3,000 of those acres have

been in the wildland urban interface. I expect this program to significantly increase over the next few years, and it is a very important one for our nation, for our communities and for the health of

our resources on the landscape.

Over the past 2 years the Nevada State Forester, the Bureau of

Land Management and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest have

worked with the Nevada Fire Safe Council and have completed

Community Wildfire Protection plans for 251 communities at risk

in Nevada. Each of these plans identifies specific actions to protect

communities.

This year the Forest Service also provided $21⁄4 million in matching grants to the State of Nevada for fire fuels and forest health

management. And the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest also assists volunteer rural fire departments with training, equipment

and organization through the volunteer fire assistance program.

And so again it highlights the very significant importance of the

interagency help both financially and as we work together on fires.

As you can see, there are many facets of fire management. Many

occupations are involved in firefighting—planners, scientists, hydrologists, biologists, finance specialists, community specialists as

well as the men and women of our firefighting force.

When fire season is over, and even before fire season begins, our

firefighters also have collateral duties and they put those skills to

good use. They include planning, prescribed fire management and

fuels reduction projects, range and many other non-fire duties.

Conversely many of our foresters, biologists, hydrologists and other

professional and technical and clerical employees have collateral

duties when a fire bell rings.

Last I’d like to say just a few words about the action that citizens

can take. And this is also a very important aspect of living and

working in fire adapted western ecosystems. Homeowners need to

learn how to protect their homes with survivable, cleared space and

how to build their homes and landscape with fire resistant materials.

A consortium of wildland fire agencies sponsors a Firewise program. These include the Forest Service, Department of Interior, the

10

National Fire Protection Association and the National Association

of State Foresters. Information about the Firewise program is

available on our Web site www.firewise.org, and it is very important that every person that lives or plays in these fire-adapted ecosystems be knowledgeable.

And we appreciate the opportunity that we have to be here, and

of course we’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaught follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Bob. Appreciate your comments. Before

we move on I want to also recognize a friend, Steve McClintock

with Clark County Fire Department. He’s here. He’s the rural coordinator. I think many of you know him professionally. He offered

his assistance.

But also I want to acknowledge that his sister recently passed

away, Anita, who was a friend of mine. If you didn’t know, Steve’s

sister had cancer and it’s just recent that he and his family had

the loss of his sister, so I want to add that for the record because

they’re a great family and a firefighting family in Cal-Nev-Ari and

other areas.

On a lighter note I know Steve is always eyeballing our Federal

firefighters, and we want to make sure that county doesn’t steal

any more of your Federal firefighters and the city. We want to

make sure that we keep them working for the Federal Government,

right, guys? We want to make sure that we’re competitive, and I

know that Clark County and the city of Las Vegas have been superb in cutting edge fire equipment and employees, but we want

to make sure that our Federal team is equal and has compensation.

So having said that, I know Steve will appreciate your best wishes.

Next, Nancy, we appreciate you being here, look forward to your

statement.

STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have summarized

my remarks and request that my whole statement be submitted for

the record with your permission.

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Office of Personnel

Management to discuss the issue of compensation for Federal employees who perform emergency functions and to provide the administration’s view on H.R. 408, the Federal Wildland Firefighter

Emergency Response Compensation Act of 2005.

We at the Office of Personnel Management recognize the importance of the work performed by Federal wildland firefighters and

by their State, local and tribal government colleagues. We respect

the difficulties inherent in the complex and intense situations they

address and I want to express our appreciation for their efforts.

I would like to focus my testimony today on H.R. 408. As you are

aware, Mr. Chairman, the administration’s views have recently

been provided to you in a letter from Linda Springer, the Director

of OPM. In general terms the administration is unable to support

the proposal.

In determining our position on H.R. 408, we are governed by

three basic principles. First, we need to address the merits of the

proposal based on the objectives that must be met to achieve a certain mission. Second, we must try to maintain some level of equity

among various groups of Federal employees who face similar challenges. Finally, we are obligated to ensure taxpayer dollars are

being spent efficiently and effectively to achieve results for the

American people.

Section two of H.R. 408 would amend the current law to provide

portal-to-portal compensation for wildland firefighters. It appears

the intent is to mandate that wildland firefighters be in a duty and

17

pay status for all hours they are away from their normal duty location to fight wildland fires. This change would violate each of the

three principles stated which are guiding our review of legislative

proposals.

We do not find compelling evidence that such a change is necessary to meet mission objectives. Pay must be set to assure that

the Federal Government is able to recruit and retain the employees

that it needs to meet its mission. Where there is no indication that

pay levels are producing significant and widespread recruitment or

retention problems, we cannot justify large, general increases in

pay.

Second, this change in pay formula would not lead to equity

among various groups of Federal employees who face similar challenges. Other Federal employees who are temporarily assigned to

geographically isolated work sites are placed in a non-pay status

when they are released from duty. Therefore, we believe paying

wildland firefighters for periods of rest and sleep would create inequities for other Federal employees receiving assignments away

from home. Also, we believe it would be inappropriate to provide

hazardous duty pay for sleep and rest periods.

Our third responsibility is to assure that taxpayer dollars are

spent wisely. Again the pay proposals of H.R. 408 do not meet this

test. As stated previously, many adjustments are made to the pay

of wildland firefighters while they are working at the sight of the

fire. This includes hazardous duty pay and overtime pay. Under

current law, firefighters can receive total pay for a week that is

three to four times his or her regular weekly rate of basic pay.

Depending on work schedule, this legislation could increase overall pay in a given week by as much as 100 percent over amounts

payable under current law. Since there is no compelling evidence

of widespread staffing problems, we don’t see a basis for asking

taxpayers to fund the kind of large pay increases that H.R. 408 can

produce.

Section three of the bill would make hazardous duty pay received

by firefighters basic pay for retirement purposes. Again this provision does not meet the three principles governing our review of the

bill, and therefore we oppose that section also.

The proposed provision does not meet the test of being good public policy when viewed independently. Retirement annuities are intended to replace a proportion of an individual’s income earned consistently over the course of a career. For that reason hazardous

duty pay is one of many things explicitly excluded from statutory

definition of basic pay.

Second, crediting hazardous duty pay for retirement purposes

could create substantial inequities between wildland firefighters

and the broader community that also receives hazardous duty pay

but is not credited with that pay for retirement.

The provision fails the third test of being a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. Incorporating these amounts in the calculation of annuities will result in unfunded pension liabilities and will require

additional taxpayer dollars. For all of the reasons stated above, the

administration opposes H.R. 408. I would be pleased to respond to

any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much. I would also like to note that

firefighters are not whiners.

Ms. KICHAK. No.

Mr. PORTER. And note that the firefighters that I’ve spoken to

are very proud of what they do. They’re very proud to serve and

they’re also happy to be where they are and they consider it an

honor. So even by this legislation coming forward and being heard

today, it’s not based upon a bunch of folks out there that are really

unhappy. They’re actually very proud of what they do. But I would

concur that I believe that there needs to be some adjustments,

which is really why we’re gathered here today.

I have of course numerous questions and then we will submit additional because of the element of time. But I guess first, Bob, how

many in Nevada, how many residents of Nevada would be under

this category? You mentioned 400 and some. Is that Nevada residents?

Mr. VAUGHT. Most of those are Nevada residents, 400 employees

total. About 130 include the firefighting force for the Forest Service. That does not, Mr. Chairman, include BLM employees or other

Federal agency employees. Only a portion though of those 130 employees have a permanent appointment with the Forest Service and

would be applied to a standard like this. And I’m sorry I don’t have

the exact number with me today, but I’d be happy to provide that.

I could do so quickly.

Mr. PORTER. What would you say an average for, and I may have

the terminology wrong, but a transfer to another portal, would it

be called transfer or what would you call it when they go to fight

a fire in Washington State or whatever, what is that called? Transferred?

Mr. VAUGHT. Mike.

Mr. DUDLEY. Just a reassignment.

Mr. PORTER. So if you’re to take the average time away to be reassigned, what would it be for an employee to be away from their

own portal.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, it really varies a lot. Right now, in

fact, in Washington and the very northern part of the United

States fire danger is very high, and we expect that there will be

additional significant fire behavior up there this fall. And when an

employee leaves their home to go to a fire in a location such as that

from Nevada, they are gone—I believe they can work—how many

days, Mike.

Mr. DUDLEY. 14 up to 21.

Mr. PORTER. 14 up to 21.

Mr. VAUGHT. Up to 21 days.

Mr. PORTER. So they should anticipate 14 but then they could go

to 21 is what you’re saying.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. When they transfer, reassign it’s 14 days at a time

normally.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes, normally. Now, if the fire danger remains severe, they would have a short period of rest and they could be

quickly reassigned to the fire again. So the main purpose of the 14

to 21 days is to ensure that they have a limited period of work and

a proper amount of rest before they’re reassigned to fires. But in

24

some cases in severe years firefighters are assigned constantly on

that type of schedule, 14 to 21 days and then rest period and reassigned throughout the fire season.

Mr. PORTER. So they could be gone for a better part of a summer

or fire season, 90 days or so, I mean, could they.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, that is entirely possible. And for

some employees it’s even likely. We have a group of employees

called Hot Shots and their role is to be kind of the army rangers

of the Forest Service firefighting corps. They’re the elite troops and

they spend their entire summer fighting fires somewhere in the

Forest Service across the country.

Mr. PORTER. Are they compensated differently? Is it the same

hazardous pay when they’re on? How does it work for those guys.

Mr. VAUGHT. They’re compensated in precisely the same way as

other Federal employees that fight fires, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. So of the 400 and some approximately you mentioned, about 130 are full-time firefighters.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, full time during the season.

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes. Some have permanent appointments and some

are just seasonal employees and just work part of the year for the

Forest Service and don’t have permanent Federal appointments.

Mr. PORTER. I met a young man this morning that’s from Arizona that’s trying to—he’s seasonal and trying to go full time.

Mr. VAUGHT. Right.

Mr. PORTER. There you have a number of those folks.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. PORTER. And this may be a question for Nancy, and if need

be, please jump in. What are their classification? What is their

title? Are they technicians? Wildlife technicians? Wildland technicians? How do they fall into the category of titles.

Mr. VAUGHT. That might be better addressed—or should I go

ahead? In most cases, Mr. Chairman, our firefighting forces are

and historically have been classified in the forestry technician series. And the pay grades range from GS–5 up to GS–13 or so for

the employees that are actively fighting fire on the ground. And I

think in most cases they are classified as forestry technician employees.

Mr. PORTER. That’s because they have other duties beyond just

fighting fires.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes. The Forest Service has always viewed our firefighters as a part of our larger natural resource management force,

and during the off season they perform forestry technician duties.

During the on season they perform fire duties, and then basically

almost all of our employees fight fire when the need is high. So it’s

part of our larger resource management issue.

Mr. PORTER. So more specifically how much time does a wildland

firefighter spend on fighting wildfires as compared to other Forest

Service management duties? Like 50/50 or 70/30 or what would it

be.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, our firefighting employees have different kinds of appointments. Some are full time year round. And

in those cases those employees spend maybe 30 percent of their

year fighting fire and the remainder of the year in other duties.

25

Other employees have what we call 18 and 8 appointments. So 18

pay periods fighting fire mostly with 8 pay periods off where

they’re not on active duty, so to speak.

And then we have another class of employee that are 13 and 13.

So about half of their year they are full-time employees fighting

fire and then about half of their year they are off. And then we

have seasonal employees who are only hired, don’t have a full-time

appointment and only are hired during the firefighting season.

Now, what I also have to say though that many of our less than

permanent full time, year round status employees, the 18 and 8

employees and the 13 and 13 employees, remain on when there is

funding and work to do. So when we have fire, prescribed fire work

or fuels reduction work and lots of chain saw work and other on

the ground work, wildlife projects, range fence building projects,

when there is funding and they have an interest in staying on,

many of them work much longer than their 18 and 8 or 13 and 13

appointment in order to take on that extra work. I hope that answers your question.

Mr. PORTER. I’m going to have to digest what you just told me,

but I think I understand. I’ll probably come back to that in a little

bit.

The forestry technician category, and I’ll tell you where I’m

going, I don’t particularly like that title. I think we need to elevate

that position somehow, something other than technician. And

maybe not today but I’d like both of you to help me as we move

forward in legislation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that

title, but I think we have to elevate it a little bit more because

they’re not technicians, you know, they’re firefighters. They’re professionals.

And as part of legislation we need to work on that title, and

maybe some of you guys will help me later on with a better title.

But I want to work on that too, because I think they deserve something elevated in that capacity.

Explain some of the off-season duties. You talked about it a little

bit, off fire season. So they do proactive under the forestry initiative, the President, so can you talk about that a little bit more,

some of the things they do?

Mr. VAUGHT. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. One of the main duties

they do is what we call fuels or prescribed fire program under the

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and the President’s initiatives that

we’re currently operating under, it gives us funding and priority to

do a lot of fuels reduction work.

This type of work occurs outside normally of the wildfire season,

and so we have to do planning, NEPA, National Environmental

Policy Act, planning work. We have to do technical planning work,

figure out where to do this kind of work on the landscape of millions of acres. We have to set priorities and then we actually go out

and do that.

Mr. PORTER. So if there’s a beetle infested forest, they would

work on under the act.

Mr. VAUGHT. That would be a good example.

Mr. PORTER. Remove some of these proactively.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes. They also do many other kinds of work that

are unrelated to fire. The range program has projects that might

26

involve fence construction or supporting the ranchers on the national forest. They might have work associated with our timber

program, marking boundary lines or helping and supporting the

folks that are surveying and laying out timber sales, for example.

There are many, many, many resource areas—watershed

projects. There are wildlife and fisheries projects, building guzzlers

to support higher levels of wildlife populations. Many kinds of work

that really cover the entire gamut of the natural resource work

that the Forest Service does.

Mr. PORTER. My friends at the National Park Service, I spent 25

years in Boulder City and I was mayor and councilman so I have

a lot of friends in the National Park Service, and I know that a lot

of their duties have evolved from National Park duties to law enforcement duties because of the number of tourists and visitors

there. Is your team involved much in law enforcement or are they

being put in a position of law enforcement because of the tourists

or visitors or problems in the areas.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, by and large they do not. That

doesn’t mean there aren’t a few employees that are involved in the

law enforcement work. But at least on Humboldt-Toiyabe National

Forest our law enforcement officers are professional officers, they’re

peace officers of the same rank and level as county sheriffs and

other professional law enforcement officers. There are relatively

few of them. We just have maybe four or five law enforcement officers on the entire Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in the State

of Nevada.

Mr. PORTER. Normally that would be in partnership with local

government, counties, cities.

Mr. VAUGHT. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. They’re not being called into that role very often.

Mr. VAUGHT. No.

Mr. PORTER. Other than those that are assigned to that.

Mr. VAUGHT. Right.

Mr. PORTER. How about rescues, do they do a lot of rescue of individuals.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, they really do not. Now, if we have

rescue missions, and we do, we search around in our organization

and we assign people that are available to go on those rescues, but

it would be a very small, a very small percentage of the firefighter’s

responsibility.

Mr. PORTER. What about prescribed burns, how is that handled?

Is that handled differently as far as their role with prescribed

burns.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, actually our firefighters would have

a very big role in the prescribed burn program. They help plan

those. They help design that kind of work. And then our firefighters of course, our wildland firefighters are the most experienced in dealing with fire. And so when we put fire on the landscape as a planned activity, they would have a very large responsibility in doing that. And that kind of work is increasing at a rather dramatic rate as we have funding and priority to implement the

President’s initiative.

Mr. PORTER. I was just in Washington State and I know there’s

serious fires happening. For the team from the Nevada portal to go

27

to the Washington portal, how are they transported? How do they

get there? How does that work.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, it does depend. In some cases they

would fly on commercial airlines. In some cases there would be

Forest Service air transportation for some crews. And in many

cases, I would say probably in most cases they would drive.

Mr. PORTER. Drive a Federal vehicle or their own vehicle? How

do they get there.

Mr. VAUGHT. Through Federal vehicles, fire engines or fire vehicles that are specifically funded and set aside for use in the fire

program.

Mr. PORTER. I see.

Mr. VAUGHT. So most crews have crew vans, for example, and in

most cases they would drive.

Mr. PORTER. Now, this is a premier facility we’re in today. I

know the guys from Arizona would smile and appreciate being

here. But when the firefighters are called to a fire and they’re living and breathing the smoke and the danger every day, their off

times are many times spent right at the base of the fire, correct,

whether it be tents or under a tree. So if you could, maybe explain

some of the living conditions when they are—when they do leave

a portal if there’s a severe fire.

Mr. VAUGHT. On our larger fires, Mr. Chairman, we generally set

up what we call an incident command post. Sometimes they can be

very large and include several hundred employees that are living

and working in this area. They bring in showers, portable showers.

They bring in portable food, folks that prepare and feed and can

feed large numbers of firefighters in short periods of time. And

each of the crews sets up in a certain place almost in a military

fashion, and they do live and stay in that fire camp during their

off hours.

Our firefighters are restricted to 16 hours of firefighting work a

day, which is a very long day. And that doesn’t mean they all work

16 hours, but they work up to 16 hours. And so our crews would

come back to the camp, to the incident command post, for their

sleep hours and then get fed, showered and the next day go out

again from that location. They generally are fairly segregated from

say cities and towns, and so they oftentimes are remote.

Mr. PORTER. And we have lost some technicians, firefighters

when they’re off duty from fires and other catastrophes, correct,

that were actually on duty in a camp nearby? Hasn’t there been

some cases where accidents have happened or the fire has shifted,

we’ve lost some individuals?

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately there have been some

fatalities of our firefighter crews over the last number of years on

duty. And occasionally there are firefighters that, much relatively

rarely, but there are examples of firefighters that off duty wander

onto a highway or in some cases get into trouble and also there are

a few fatalities that occur in that way.

Mr. PORTER. The reason I ask about living conditions is that

again we have a great facility here, and this is unique, but if we

have a major fire, as we have had here in the past, they wouldn’t

all be able to stay here. There would be facilities set up, you say

military style here, it would be 120 degrees in a camp, correct? It’s

28

not like we’re putting folks in Bellagios around the country when

there’s a serious fire.

Mr. VAUGHT. Basically, Mr. Chairman, we provide very good

meals. We provide as good of living conditions as we can to keep

the firefighters happy and healthy, but they would certainly be described as rustic.

Mr. PORTER. And again these employees are not complaining.

They would like to have their compensation adjusted but they don’t

complain. They’re a great group of folks. You should be very proud.

Thank you, Bob. And I may come back a little bit later.

For the OPM, and I know that we disagree a little bit possibly

on pieces of this legislation, but I also know of OPM’s respect for

these individuals. Just talk about your prospective of these folks a

little bit, would you, Nancy, because I know you have great respect

also for them.

Ms. KICHAK. Well, they definitely do a magnificent job, and we

do want to afford them all the respect they’re due. And, therefore,

if the title forestry technician doesn’t have the connotation that affords that respect, we would certainly be glad to look at renaming

the series.

However, it is true that because of the particular series they’re

in, series 462, the firefighters do receive higher grade—are paid at

a higher grade level in recognition of the extra duties they do, the

things they know about conservation and forestry and agriculture.

So the title might be misleading but the series definitely recognizes

their broad range of skills, not just their firefighting skills.

And there is some value to that to be in that series because it

helps them achieve a higher grade. But we’d definitely be glad to

look at renaming that, would make it clear what high regard we

hold them in.

Mr. PORTER. And again we’re not here to talk about renaming it.

Ms. KICHAK. Right.

Mr. PORTER. Or coming up with a new title, but I think that’s

something we can work on that would help a little bit with morale.

The seasonal employees of course was talked about, permanent.

You also mentioned a little bit about not having a recruitment

problem and not having a retention problem. Would you talk about

that a little bit?

Ms. KICHAK. Sure. We have a data base, the central personnel

data file. We’ve analyzed looking at the folks that assume this position. And if you look at what we call quit rates for folks in similar

grades as our firefighters, the quit rates are similar. In other

words, folks are as likely to leave a Federal job of a similar grade

that are not firefighters as the ones who are firefighters.

We’ve looked at the quit rate of seasonal folks, and the quit rate

there is high but it’s not higher than other seasonal folks. The Federal Government employs a broad range of folks to meet its objectives. We have a lot of seasonal employees in other jobs in interior.

We have seasonal employees in the Internal Revenue Service, etc.

Mr. PORTER. We have too many of those, IRS. Just kidding.

Ms. KICHAK. Anyway, if we look at the quit rate for folks in that

kind of employment situation, it’s very similar to the firefighters.

So we don’t believe we have a recruit and retain problem in the

firefighters.

29

Mr. PORTER. Is it possible that there are regional problems with

recruitment.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes, there can be regional problems. There are

other pay flexibilities besides the portal-to-portal coverage. There

are recruitment bonuses and retention bonuses. We also have locality pay. We have locality pay adjustments for some firefighters in

California. So there are other ways if there are recruitment and retention programs to address the issue.

Mr. PORTER. I realize this is a hearing specific to the bill, but are

there some areas that you, OPM, is working on now to help with

Federal firefighters or in this circumstance? Is there anything that

we need to know about that maybe is on the drawing board.

Ms. KICHAK. We are not specifically working on anything pertaining to firefighters. We are studying the issue. We have received

a lot of feedback from the community, and we remain interested in

everything they’ve provided. We’ve been reviewing that. We know

there’s been some concern about healthcare for firefighters, although those who are permanent, either a full time or seasonal

basis, those folks get it.

We continue to look at what might be done for coverage for folks

of a temporary nature and health insurance. However, again the

Federal Government is a large organization and it hires a lot of

folks on a temporary basis. So we’re looking at all these programs

as they affect not just firefighters but the community at large.

Mr. PORTER. What happens to seasonal if they get hurt on the

job.

Ms. KICHAK. Well, anyone who gets hurt on the job is assisted

through the Department of Labor through our workman’s compensation program. No matter what kind of appointment they’re in,

that is available to them.

Mr. PORTER. I mentioned earlier the prescribed burns. My understanding is that they don’t receive hazardous duty pay for prescribed burns; is that correct.

Ms. KICHAK. I am unable to answer that question.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. PORTER. Do we know why that is.

Mr. DUDLEY. Because it’s considered under a prescribed fire

you’re operating under constrained conditions at your——

Mr. PORTER. Portal.

Mr. DUDLEY [continuing]. At your work in terms of developing

the burns. So because of that it’s not considered to be a wildfire

and under those operations hazard pay is not considered. If the

prescribed fire was to escape and be declared a wildfire, then you’d

be in a hazard pay situation.

Mr. PORTER. I see. You anticipated my question. Thank you.

The Federal Government hires a number of cooperators from

State and local as well as private fire agencies to assist just because there’s not enough Federal firefighters or is it because it’s

tough to gear up without that?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, the decision on who to hire to fight a particular fire is made at the fire.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there are many very good

and important reasons for hiring local resources. You don’t have

transportation. They often know the country. Oftentimes volunteer

30

fire departments really appreciate the experience that they receive

while fighting wildfires when they work with us.

And so it has always been perceived as a very positive thing to

use local resources when available. And I believe that it helps our

relationships, it provides some small amount of work for a period

of time to local folks and local communities, and it is a very positive cooperate relationship.

Mr. PORTER. And I will put a plug in for Nevada, whether it be

North Las Vegas or Boulder City or Henderson, County and City,

we have a great team here. And I know that its cooperation is

probably one of the best in the country. And that’s credit to those

folks out there every day and to management. But I think we’re a

real model here in southern Nevada of cooperation between agencies.

And I know that we’ve had some rough situations in the years,

but of course when you include 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 people a month

moving into the area and all the of course strain on our infrastructure and facilities, I think in Nevada we did a great job and we

appreciate everyone for that.

I really have one more question, and that is the portal-to-portal,

if we were to make some adjustments specific to the forestry technicians and firefighters, how does that impact other firefighters?

What happens if we do that?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, the other Federal firefighters are called structural firefighters, and their pay system——

Mr. PORTER. Excuse me, is that like Nellis firefighters, are they

structural firefighters.

Ms. KICHAK. Which kind.

Mr. PORTER. At Nellis Air Force Base.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. In fact, 90 percent of the structural firefighters

are in the Department of Defense. And they’re in a series called

0081, and their grade level is lower and their hourly pay is lower.

And this is because they are paid for a 24-hour shift. They don’t

receive overtime until they’ve worked over 53 hours a week and

they don’t receive hazardous duty pay. So their whole package is

entirely different.

And we do not want to create—you can’t look at one piece of the

package without looking at the other piece. In other words, I definitely understand the interest for having portal-to-portal coverage

but then in order to do exactly comparable, you would end up with

a lower hourly pay and you would give us your hazardous duty

pay. So changing this for one set of firefighters would create an environment in which the other Federal firefighters would then be

dissatisfied.

Mr. PORTER. Or when we’re looking maybe we should look at

some others also, make sure that they’re being compensated appropriately also, correct? Put you on the spot, Nancy. But it seems to

me we should be looking beyond this at some other areas also. And

really that’s it for now. I sure appreciate you both being here.

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you very much.

Mr. PORTER. You’ve come a long way from Pennsylvania.

Ms. KICHAK. It’s beautiful.

Mr. PORTER. Bob, where do you live.

31

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, the forest supervisor’s office, my

headquarters office is in Sparks, so we’re in the Reno area. We

have 10 districts throughout the State of Nevada with one office

being in Bridgeport, CA. And so our forces and employees are widely separated in 10 different offices throughout the State.

Mr. PORTER. And Sparks has made it on ABC News as one of the

best places to live in the country, by the way. Just thought you

might like to know that. Thank you very much.

Mr. VAUGHT. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Casey and Ryan, please join us.

Next this, of course, is panel two. Casey Judd, you’re up, president, Federal Wildland Fire Service Association. Casey, welcome.

STATEMENTS OF CASEY JUDD, BUSINESS MANAGER, FEDERAL

WILDLAND FIRE SERVICE ASSOCIATION; AND RYAN

BEAMAN, PRESIDENT, CLARK COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS

STATEMENT OF CASEY JUDD

Mr. JUDD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to correct you.

I’m actually the business manager for the Federal Wildland Fire

Service Association.

Mr. PORTER. So you get blamed for everything.

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. And the buck stops here. The president,

the one with the really cool tie, is sitting behind me.

Mr. PORTER. There we go.

Mr. JUDD. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It’s been a

long time coming. As stated, my name is Casey Judd, and I’m the

business manager for the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association. The FWFSA is an employee association that was created by

wildland firefighters in 1991. Our members hold positions throughout the GS grade system from the entry level GS–2s and 3s to

FMOs, or fire manager officers, in the GS–12 range.

As a result, the FWFSA itself receives a wealth of information

on the impact of pay and personnel policies in the everyday lives

of its members along with the environment of their working conditions they face on the fire-line. We believe that such information

is not readily available to other government agencies.

It is my responsibility to represent the association’s members in

a legislative capacity by developing legislative proposals designed

to achieve the association’s goals and objectives and to educate you

folks on the Hill with respect to those issues.

I was a Federal firefighter employed by the Department of Defense for 20 years and previously held the elected position of fifth

district vice president for the California Professional Firefighters,

a position which provided legislative and political representation

for the State’s Federal firefighters.

I also nearly won a position on the executive board of the International Association of Firefighters in 2003 by losing by 21 votes

in a special election. I have been working with Members of Congress on Federal firefighter issues for over a decade. As committee

members you’re of course——

32

Mr. PORTER. Excuse me, it’s funny how you remember those

numbers, right, 21. I remember I’ve lost some races. I can tell you

the numbers. It’s OK.

MR. JUDD. 21. Trust me, I counted and recounted.

As committee members of course you’re all used to the formality

of witnesses offering their thanks, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t personally on the record thank Chris for taking the time to work with

us, and Chad too. Chris has really taken an interest in this issue.

I’ve sent him Web sites of infrared imaging, and I really think to

a large degree we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t have folks such as

Chris that are really truly interested in the subject matter and

want to make a difference in it.

Although it’s unfortunate that more members of the committee

couldn’t be here today as a result of the August recess and the

scheduling conflicts, it is our fervent hope that you will help those

folks read our written testimony. We had hoped to have additional

firefighters here today. Of course they’re all on fire assignments.

Mr. PORTER. Excuse me, Casey. I’ve been threatening my subcommittee that we would be coming to Las Vegas for a hearing

soon, and know that if it wasn’t for whether it be family or——

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely.

Mr. PORTER [continuing]. Congressional commitments that they

really are very interested in this. Of course we love to come to Nevada, but timing is such, but they are very interested and want to

hear more.

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. I understand that. We trust that each one

of you will take the time to thoroughly read the testimony provided

by our firefighters, if you haven’t already. We believe that it will

paint a very clear picture of the longstanding detrimental effects of

current pay and personnel policies that are on our Federal wildland

firefighters and will illustrate the ramifications of maintaining the

status quo with respect to those policies. We trust the testimony

will also provide guidance on how to affect positive change not only

for our firefighters but the Nation’s taxpayers.

H.R. 408, the Federal Wildland Firefighter Emergency Response

Compensation Act, is the second in a series of bills introduced by

Congressman Pombo on our behalf. His first effort, H.R. 2814, was

well received by the subcommittee under the chairmanship of

former Congressman Joe Scarborough.

During hearings before what was then the Subcommittee on Civil

Service, and additional testimony before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, the FWFSA laid the groundwork for H.R.

408. Although opposed by OPM in favor of a legislative proposal offered by the administration, H.R. 2814 which eliminated the overtime pay cap for Federal wildland firefighters was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2000.

The issues identified in H.R. 408 and supporting testimony are

certainly not new. The concept of portal-to-portal pay along with

the proper classification of wildland firefighters has been discussed

for over two decades by the land and management agencies themselves.

Numerous meetings have resulted in recommendations from a

variety of sources suggesting that the time has come for proper

33

classification while also identifying the benefits of portal-to-portal

pay for Federal wildland firefighters.

Despite these recommendations and the employing agency’s very

own findings on the benefits of portal-to-portal pay, proper classification and other personnel pay reforms, firefighters continue to

face bureaucratic opposition to these reforms. Whether it be the political appointees of the land management agencies fearing the loss

of such appointments or the bureaucratic bean counters with absolutely no insight into the world of wildland firefighting, our brave

men and women have been stymied for years in being properly recognized as firefighters and properly compensated for their life risking duties.

Yet sadly these very bureaucrats who classify the employees as

forestry technicians, range technicians and biological science technicians refer to them as firefighters when our men and women lose

their lives in the line of duty. Despite data to the contrary, the government continues to suggest there are no recruitment and retention problems within the Federal wildland firefighting community.

Such opinions are truly misleading when it becomes evident that

the data used by the government fails to take into account the loss

rates for seasonal firefighters who make up nearly 50 percent of

the annual firefighting staffing. Responding to H.R. 408 the administration of land management agencies have suggested that implementing such legislation would be prohibitively expensive rather

than embracing the reality that it might, in fact, mandate the

agency to develop more cost effective and efficient fire suppression

funding policies and practices, and, in fact, require them to become

more fiscally responsible to the American taxpayer. Given that the Forest Service has chosen to scrape $100 million

off the top of the suppression budget to move its human resources

department to New Mexico, it would seem a logical conclusion that

fiscal policies could be more efficient. The administration has also

suggested that implementing H.R. 408 would create a pay disparity

between wildland firefighters and other Federal employees who are

sent on temporary assignments.

As I indicated in my written testimony, the only government employee who faces the same dangers and working conditions that our

firefighters face are the men and women of the armed services, yet

they are not taken off the clock and put in a non-pay status when

resting and eating. I think we would all agree that applying such

policies to the military would be as ludicrous as it is to our firefighters.

Add to that the typical phenomenon among government agencies

where a portion of appropriated dollars somehow get lost before

reaching their intended targets, in this case fire managers who

need to staff and equip their firefighters for the season, and you

begin to understand why it is time for Congress to takes action on

these issues.

The opposition from the government agencies is nothing new. We

faced it head-on when dealing with the Department of Defense and

OPM in the mid to late 1990’s when working for pay reform for

Federal firefighters employed by DOD, and again as I mentioned

in 1999 and 2000 with H.R. 2814. On each occasion Congress understood the need for such reforms and passed our legislation.

34

While the opposition isn’t surprising, it’s disappointing and difficult to understand given that it is these same government entities

that have time and again over years and years identified these

same reform measures as practices and policies that need to be

adopted.

We find ourselves in the 21st century responding to a variety of

incidents and environments yet being managed through archaic,

out of date policies. Quite simply, current pay and personnel policies created a number of dynamics all converging in a convoluted

and never ending viscous cycle.

There are approximately 16,000 employees in the 4624 technician series. Of that about 54 percent are permanent. The remaining are seasonal and temporary firefighters who don’t receive basic

healthcare for risking their lives.

Additionally, for years the Forest Service has relied upon other

non-primary firefighting Forest Service employees to perform collateral duties on wildfires. We have identified these employees as

the militia in our written testimony. Despite the Forest Service

still relying on such employees, a number of studies report that the

number of militia personnel actually responding to wildfires continues to decline substantially as a result of antiquated policies and

for a variety of other reasons.

Further, recruitment and retention, always an issue in many

Federal occupations as a result of lower pay and benefits than their

private counterpart, continues to be a major problem on individual

forests in the west regardless of the more optimistic picture painted

by the agencies and administration.

Retention rates in some areas are less than 50 percent. On other

forests, vacancies simply cannot get filled. Let us also not forget

that in 1990 the first President Bush signed the Federal Employees

Pay Comparability Act [FEPCA], into law. It was designed to help

close the disparity in pay between Federal employees and their

counterparts in the private sector. However, each year since its enactment provisions of the law are not properly radically implemented.

As a result of serious recruitment and retention problems in the

primary Federal wildland firefighters, and the ever increasing reluctance on the part of the members of the militia to respond to

fires, the land management agencies have become more and more

reliant on cooperative agreements with State and local fire chief

agencies as well as private for-profit contract companies.

There is no doubt that cooperative agreements with such fire

agencies in a number of cases are crucial to prompt responses to

wildfires each season to a point. The inherent higher cost of such

resources, often substantially higher than comparable personnel

and equipment from the Federal land management agencies, must

be looked at and is in our opinion one of the greatest causes for

the skyrocketing costs of wildfire suppression across the country.

Not only do these higher costs impact our Nation’s taxpayers, the

negative financial impact it has on the government’s own wildland

firefighters fuels the continuing loss of qualified, well trained, at

taxpayers’ expense I must add, Federal wildland firefighters causing the recruitment and retention problems we referred to.

35

The concept of equal pay for equal work should be in the Federal

Government to ensure it retains its work force whose training and

expertise, in the case of wildland firefighters, should be considered

an investment by the taxpayers and the protection of this country’s

natural resources as well as the real and personal property.

Instead the financial inequities faced by our Federal wildland

firefighters between themselves and their counterparts breeds low

moral and creates sufficient incentive for these firefighters to leave

the Federal service. As a result, as recent GAO studies have

shown, the current cache of fire management personnel are closing

in on retirement while those that should be preparing for long careers to take on such manager assignments are rapidly leaving for

better pay and benefits outside of the Federal system after receiving significant training.

Given that it may take 17 to 25 years of training and experience

to become a type I or type II incident commander, it becomes quite

clear that current archaic policies must be amended to rebuild the

ranks of Federal wildland firefighting staffing. Unfortunately instead of reforming pay and personnel policies to assure the survival

of the Federal wildland fire service and increase the return on our

taxpayers’ investment by giving them the greatest bang for their

buck, land management agencies seem content on relying on more

expensive cooperators and contractors to fill the ever increasing

gaps in wildfire staffing assignments.

The question is why. The answer is simple. These agencies have

no incentive to change the way in which they do business. They

have no true incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.

There is virtually no oversight and no one to be held responsible

for irresponsible fiscal policy. Historically Congress will ultimately

fund the fire suppression costs, whether they do it at 100 percent

of the preparedness budgets or provide a supplemental appropriations at the end of the season.

In recent years some in Congress have chastised the chief of the

Forest Service for borrowing funds from other projects to pay for

suppression. Yet in the end Congress provides the necessary funds

to restore those projects and pay for all suppression expenses regardless of the cost.

We firmly believe that many in Congress are totally unaware of

the enormous cost expended by the land management agencies to

pay for contracts and cooperators and salaries and associated costs

as compared to what they pay their own Federal wildland firefighters.

So as to avoid being redundant with the written testimony, the

FWFSA has clearly outlined a variety of these costs and significantly higher rates in their written testimony. Congress has begun

to pose questions of the land management agencies about the ever

increasing cost of fires. Unfortunately the answers they get are not

necessarily consistent with what our firefighters see in the field.

And inevitably, despite receiving the necessary funding for suppression, the land management agency often redirect those funds

targeted for fire suppression to other projects, such as the human

resources department move to New Mexico. As a result, our firefighters are told they can’t hire seasonal firefighters, can’t properly

staff engines, and at the same time the agencies are more than

36

willing to pay significantly higher costs to contractors and cooperators. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Mr. PORTER. Excuse me, Casey. Let me remind you that we’ve

gone a little beyond five, so maybe you could summarize it a little

bit for us and we’ll allow Ryan to——

Mr. JUDD. OK. And I was going to—with all due respect to Mr.

Beaman, and those folks that he represents, they have a difference,

a distinct difference as you well know of the fact that they can negotiate pay and benefits. As Federal employees we can’t.

We have provided some examples in our written testimony. If

we’re looking at the disparities or inequities, we want to remind

you that the Federal Government, our firefighters’ boss, pays these

contractors and cooperators at a much higher basic rate, portal-toportal pay plus a 17 percent administrative fee plus backfill costs

plus a number of other costs associated with them. They’ll put

them in motels. They put us under a tent in the dirt.

And I just want to leave you with one comment if I could from

a female firefighter in Montana. In referring to OPM’s draft letter

in opposition of H.R. 408 she writes, ‘‘Have them take a standards

test and a pack test then send them out to a crappy piece of land

somewhere. Well, and give them the bad yellow TSA line gear and

the yellow gloves made by the society for the blind and inmate

crews. Have them chink line in poison oak and manzanita for about

2 weeks with bad contractors’ food, green meat for lunches. It may

change their attitude.’’ She finishes with, ‘‘The people sitting in

their offices never built a house. It was the man swinging the hammer.’’

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. JUDD. With that I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Mr. PORTER. She is not very happy.

Mr. JUDD. She is a little spitfire.

Mr. PORTER. Ryan.

STATEMENT OF RYAN BEAMAN

Mr. BEAMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say

thank you for letting me have the opportunity here today to speak

in front of you and the committee, and also thank your staff for

how helpful they’ve been in this process. I’m Ryan Beaman.

Mr. PORTER. Maybe we should give them portal-to-portal pay

probably.

Mr. BEAMAN. I’m Ryan Beaman, southern district vice president

for the Professional Firefighters of Nevada and a member of the

International Association of Fire Fighters. I’m here today to express support for two bills introduced into the 109th Congress.

The first bill is H.R. 697, Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, that

was introduced by Congresswoman Joanne Davis and Congresswoman Lois Capps.

Firefighters are exposed on a daily basis to stress, smoke, heat

and various toxic substances. As a result, firefighters are far more

likely to contract heart disease, lung disease and other cancers

than any other profession. Firefighters increasingly assume the

role of the Nation’s leading providers of emergency medical services

and are exposed to many infectious diseases. Heart disease, lung

disease and cancer and infectious disease are now the leading

cause of disability and death for firefighters. Numerous studies

have found that these illness are direct occupational hazards for

firefighters.

In recognition of this link, nearly 40 States have enacted presumptive disability laws which presume that cardiovascular disease, cancer and infectious diseases are job related for the purposes

of workers’ compensation and disability retirement unless proven

otherwise. No such law covers Federal firefighters employed by the

Federal Government.

Our Nation’s Federal firefighters have some of the most hazardous and sensitive jobs in our country. While protecting our national

interests on military installations, nuclear facilities, VA hospitals

and other Federal facilities, they are routinely exposed to toxic substances, biohazards, temperature extremes and stress.

Under the Federal Employee Compensation Act, Federal firefighters must be able to pinpoint the precise incident or exposure

that caused a disease for it to be considered job related. This burden of proof is extraordinarily difficult for firefighters to meet because they respond to a wide variety of emergency calls consistently working in different environments under different conditions.

As a result, very few cases of occupational disease contracted by

firefighters have been deemed to be service connected.

The presumption is rebuttable, meaning the illness would not be

considered job related if the employing agency can demonstrate

that the illness likely has another cause. For example, a firefighter

who smokes would not be able to receive a line-of-duty disability

for lung cancer. But the burden of proof would be on the employer

rather than the injured employee or his or her family.

68

It is fundamentally unfair that firefighters employed by the Federal Government are not eligible for the disability retirement for

the same occupational disease as their municipal counterparts.

This disparity is especially glaring in incidents where Federal firefighters work alongside municipal firefighters during mutual aid

responses and are exposed to the same hazardous conditions.

If the Federal Government wants to be able to recruit and retain

qualified firefighters, they must be able to offer a benefits package

that is competitive with the municipal sector.

H.R. 697 amends the Federal Employee Compensation Act to create a rebuttable presumption that cardiovascular disease, certain

cancers and infectious diseases are job related for the purposes of

workers’ compensation and disability retirement.

Mr. Chairman, we also are here to speak on the other bill that

everybody else is here, which is H.R. 408 that was introduced by

Congressman Richard Pombo.

Mr. PORTER. Ryan, can I interrupt you for a moment.

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. I’m kind of going off of protocol, but the H.R.

697——

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. And I guess 697 covers infectious disease also.

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. So it’s similar to what we passed here in Nevada,

correct.

Mr. BEAMAN. Correct. In the State of Nevada we do have presumptive benefit for infectious diseases.

Mr. PORTER. So that’s one bill, and the 408 is the other one.

Mr. BEAMAN. The 408 is what everybody else is here to talk

about.

Mr. PORTER. Because I remember the testimony when I was in

the legislature and supported it.

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes, you did.

Mr. PORTER. And I know from the infectious disease side there’s

certain challenges too, especially in the rescue end. But it’s not normally protocol to discuss another bill in the midst of 408, but I’m

glad you brought it up.

Mr. BEAMAN. We thought it was an important issue that definitely affects Federal firefighters, and we’re here today to talk

about those issues.

The second bill being H.R. 408 that was introduced by Congressman Richard Pombo. This legislation would correct the problems of

portal-to-portal compensation for wildland firefighters.

As most of you know, Federal firefighters are called out on a moment’s notice to battle fires and support other emergency incidents

all over the United States as well as other countries on occasion.

In these instances firefighters are compensated for their travel and

the work time only. These firefighters are not compensated whatsoever for being away from their home and families.

In other words, it makes no difference in pay for wildland firefighters to be away from their home for an extend period of time.

These firefighters have fought fires throughout the western United

States, eastern United States, Canada and Alaska. They have been

69

pre-positioned for fires in other States and only work 8 hour shifts

as if they were at home with no extra compensation for this duty.

They may be literally thousands of miles away from home but

get paid as if they were going home every night to the comforts of

their home and family.

Frequently crews have been utilized in a fire suppression strategy known as ‘‘Coyote Tactics.’’ This implies that we construct firelines all day then just before dark we receive a helicopter sling

loaded with military rations, drinking water and paper sleeping

bags delivered to our fire-line location. Once they are provided

these items of survival, they go off the pay clock while remaining

on the fire-line.

Firefighters have lost a lot of sleep with the ongoing concern of

fire spread and fire behavior during these incidents. Sleeping in

the dirt on some ridge top in Montana 75 miles from the nearest

community is not the same as going home at night once your shift

is over, yet the compensation is the same, that is, without pay.

They do not have the freedom to engage in personal freedoms

during these periods as we would at home. Instead they are usually

trying to dry off the sweat often around a campfire before their

bodies begin to chill while they are at complete mercy of the incident. It is a rugged environment on the borderline of heat exhaustion and dehydration at times and hypothermia at others.

Sometimes in the 24-hour period they go weeks without a shower

or even washing their hands on some assignments, yet they are

compensated the same as if they were returning to their homes

every night and the luxuries of a hot meal, shower and bed. They

are not getting any additional compensation yet they are making

the sacrifices left and right.

The Federal lands that they protect contain some of the most

rugged terrain in the United States. Firefighters work long hours

on steep slopes and a ration of water to make it through the shift.

They carry all the necessary provisions of survival on their backs

while they perform these arduous duties. Work shifts on these assignments are usually 14 to 16 hours long and last up to 21 days.

Sleep is something that the wildland firefighters usually do not

get enough of during these assignments. As during your off time

in a fire camp situation, you can spend a lot of time of your programmed sleep standing in lines to eat, shower and use portable

toilets. These situations are uncomfortable, lack good sanitation

and are sleep depriving, yet they are paid as if they’re going home

every shift which means there is no pay during the nonworking

hours. In these cases working 16 hour shifts during your 8 hours

off a firefighter gets 5 to 6 hours of sleep.

Sometimes the incident commander deems the fire camp closed.

This means that firefighters are confined to the perimeter of the

fire camp. Firefighters in these cases are treated no different than

prisoners during non-paid hours. Imagine being told you’re off the

clock but you can’t leave the premise, yet it would give the appearance of a violation of one’s civil rights.

Another example of the need for portal-to-portal pay compensation occurs when firefighters are off duty after shift and they’re not

restricted to fire camp. Firefighters may be visiting a nearby comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Oct 11, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23409.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
70

munity unavailable during an off shift time when an emergency

need occurs and they cannot be found.

Many, many times over the years they have been awakened

while in fire camp to engage in fire suppression activities due to

structures or control lines being threatened. Sometimes these critical occurrences last 24 to 48 hours. The bottom line is the crew’s

supervisor cannot retain complete control of the resources during

off-pay non-pay status.

With the common exposure of heat exhaustion, dehydration and

muscle fatigue, to mention a few, incidents need to be managed to

allow for a maximum recovery to personnel between their work

shift as well as maintain control of the troops for their availability

should the need occur.

In this part of the country, county, city and State cooperators are

paid portal-to-portal pay when they fight Federal wildland fires. It

appears unjust that the Federal wildland agency would pay their

competitors round the clock to help put out the fires on Federal

lands when not returning to their home unit after shift, yet these

same agencies do not pay their own firefighters at the same incidents.

This decreases the morale of the troops to know that someone

working side by side with them is compensated with consistent pay

while the Federal wildland firefighters are off the clock. This issue

has escalated in the last several years as personnel availability in

the Federal work force has shrunken drastically. This is due to

qualified personnel retiring with an insufficient younger work force

in their place and the fact that many qualified personnel are discouraged to do the same job as their competitors yet receive a

much lower compensation.

The Federal wildland agencies agree that portal-to-portal pay is

needed, but I’m not certain that they are persuing this for the reasons previously mentioned.

I’ll just kind of summarize and I’ll get to my end here. A realistic

portal-to-portal pay compensation would be like that of the cooperators who are employed and provide for compensation for wildland

firefighters while assigned to the emergency incidents for being

away from their homes and families and enduring the rather primitive environment the incident offers, and provide for the necessary

control of resource personnel on incidents to increase firefighter efficiency.

The Federal wildland firefighting work force has aged progressively over the last two decades. Retention of the newest employees

is a problem. In some areas, such as southern California, the numbers are staggering and firefighters are opting to leave to go to

other cooperating agencies which provide better pay, incentives and

year round employment.

Quite simply, the portal-to-portal pay is that wildland firefighters are only paid for the hours they are actually performing

duties even when they are assigned to fire camp hundreds of miles

away from their home. H.R. 408 entitles a wildland firefighter employed by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the

Interior to compensation for the entire period of time such firefighter is engaged in officially ordered or approved duties in responding to a wildland fire or other emergency.

71

Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to say again thank you for the opportunity to give testimony here today. I would also like to offer I’m

a good friend of Steve McClintock’s also, and I send his family condolences. As you know, his sister was a volunteer firefighter for

Cal-Nev-Ari also. And her passing of cancer definitely is something

I’d like to put on the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaman follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

Mr. PORTER. Thank you for mentioning that.

Ryan, I’ll ask you a question first. So is the arrangement with

the county, cities, are they called cooperators then?

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes. And we’ve been on the line with them numerous times. They’ve called us out for the incident.

Mr. PORTER. Is that negotiated.

Mr. BEAMAN. Negotiated with the——

Mr. PORTER. Yeah, the amount, the pay, you know. Maybe this

is more for Bob.

Mr. BEAMAN. It might be.

Mr. PORTER. Is that negotiated per community? How does that

work for the cooperators.

Mr. DUDLEY. It’s through—excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It’s

through statewide agreements, that’s the first setup, and then also

local agreements between different municipalities.

Mr. PORTER. Do you do like an annual review of those or how

does that work.

Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, sir. Every State—here in the State of Nevada

there is an operating plan that is signed yearly by all the cooperators.

Mr. PORTER. I see. Thank you.

For both of you, what would be the No. 1 issue facing Federal

firefighters in southern Nevada today? If there were one thing,

what would it be, I mean whether it be equipment or pay or food

or facilities, what would it be?

Mr. JUDD. I think because it’s been so longstanding, that the

classification issue. When we testified before for Forest, Forest and

Health, and again with the Civil Service, that question was asked

of our previous president, and he said without a doubt, although

it may not provide as much financial benefit as portal-to-portal

pay, the classification, if you will, is probably the most endearing

issue to our firefighters.

They’ve become firefighters. They’ve become multitasked. Their

off-season time is occupied, as far as the information we get from

the field, doing fire preparedness, running on calls, planning. Of

course planning is a part of any fire organization. Hiring, firing,

maintaining equipment. It’s evolved to the point where the preponderance of their time is now geared toward not only the fire season

but preparing for fire season.

Mr. PORTER. Ryan, what do you think.

Mr. BEAMAN. I would definitely say in the classification also. You

know, in working on the same line as with the Federal firefighters

we respond, and Nellis Air Force Base is definitely one within the

county, and we’re standing side by side with them and definitely,

you know, they always ask, you know, if we would like to have

same type of benefits that you do. And that’s why I brought forward the presumptive benefits.

Mr. PORTER. Back to the presumptive disability. As you explained your testimony, firefighters often have a difficult time proving illness obtained or work related even though many studies

show that these certain illnesses are related. Can you explain how

establishing this presumptive disability clause would help firefighters be protected in their work? Now, I understand from the

78

benefit perspective, but how will it help also for the record with the

work environment?

Mr. BEAMAN. Well, they would know that their family is going

to be protected if they do come down with any type of heart or lung

or cancerous type of problem that they know going into that structure as a Federal firefighters for like Nellis would be known that

they’d be being protected, not just themselves but their family. So

it would definitely help them.

Mr. PORTER. Do you think it will change then the working conditions or environment in any way?

Mr. BEAMAN. I don’t believe.

Mr. JUDD. If I could add on that.

Mr. PORTER. Please.

Mr. JUDD. Being a former DOD firefighter this is just another example of the fire service evolving. You know, we’ve gone from carts

and horses in firefighting to EMS, hazardous materials, level A entries and so forth. Now it takes probably far more brain than

brawn to be a firefighter.

And with respect to infectious diseases, the incident of training

and the required training for DOD firefighters, and I’m sure for all

firefighters, increased significantly over the last few years, of

course with AIDS and other infectious diseases, TB.

Of course there was a recent news article that the cases of TB

are skyrocketing with immigration and so forth. And while it won’t

stop us from doing our job, it will allow us to identify the precautions we need to take and develop the training mechanisms to

ensure that we’re protected as best we can.

Mr. PORTER. Do you know some individuals who have had problems.

Mr. JUDD. Oh, absolutely. McClellan Air Force Base was one of

the most toxically polluted bases in the air force industry where I

was stationed. They literally worked with the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission during the cold war. They uncovered plutonium and

uranium below our training site after the base closed. And fortunately I don’t think I heard of any nastiness.

Military facilities, again because of regulation over the years,

have not had to comply as private industry does. And so the incidents of making contact with these industrial sites, which, of

course, have all sorts of chemicals, is extremely high. I mean, our

caseload was probably more HazMat than anything else in the last

few years that the base was open.

Mr. PORTER. Some day we’ll talk about Yucca Mountain. That

would be for the next hearing.

You had touched about—Casey, you talked about the retention

problem. Can you spend a little more time on that?

Mr. JUDD. Sure. And, again, you get the full spectrum. We’ve got

a forest in northern California, and a lot of people ask, well, is this

just a California issue. Well, let’s make it very clear. Wildfires is

a western issue, and that’s just the way it is, and California is a

microcosm for the wildfire issue.

But as an example of the Six Rivers National Forest, 35 to 40

positions remain vacant. The guy can’t—the deputy chief of the forest can’t hire anybody. He cannot get anybody in to fill those vaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Oct 11, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\23409.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
79

cancies. He’s almost resigned to actually hiring a recruiter to be

able to bring people in there.

One of the apprentice programs, one of the best in the Nation,

if not the best in the Nation, is at McClellan Air Force Base now.

The Forest Service apprentice can come in and learn their craft

and so forth.

And while figures may demonstrate that we get a lot of recruits

in, of course we have a number of settlement agreements that require a certain hiring from different demographics and so forth, we

may get a number of recruits in but their retention after 2 years

is suspect. I mean, most of the forests that report to me show a

less than 50 percent retention rate for these folks coming into the

system.

And just as with DOD firefighting, you leave the fence, you hop

the fence to the municipality. I mean, you’re getting better pay and

better benefits out the gate. Why not take advantage of significant

training at taxpayer expense courtesy of the Federal Government,

put yourself on a pedestal to these municipal firefighters and

they’ll pluck you out in no time at all. And it’s not a unique situation in wildland firefighting, but it is unique to the Federal system

as a whole in a number of occupations.

So I think the OPM representative was accurate in the sense

that these could be regional, but I think if you look at the west in

and of itself in the 12 contiguous States, the actual figures and you

go from forest to forest you’d find that there are, in fact, issues of

retention and recruitment.

Mr. PORTER. How will passage of 408 decrease our dependence

on cooperators.

Mr. JUDD. I’m glad you asked that. Again we’re not suggesting

we eliminate contractors and cooperators. They play a very vital

role that we think they’ve become—the land management agencies

have become over-reliant on them. What 408 would do is hopefully

provide a direction from Congress to the land management agencies to redefine how they spend their fire suppression dollars.

They could conceivably reduce their reliance on a contractor or

cooperator, hire another Federal seasonal firefighter and still save

money on a daily basis, save more than enough money to provide

that seasonal firefighter with health benefits.

And so that’s what we see is that, you know, again, since Congress gives them as much money as they want, there is no incentive to change policies. They’ve consistently said, well, 408 throws

money at it. No, we’re suggesting that you can do this within your

budget parameters now, just as we suggested with DOD in 1994

through 1998.

And they have done it within their budget parameters, but it will

take a mindset change from the leadership of these agencies to say,

hey, we can be more cost effective and efficient. We can improve

the staffing and stem the tide of recruitment and retention and

save money at the same time. And hopefully our written testimony

has provided some data that allows a color picture, if you will, on

how that can be achieved.

Mr. PORTER. Your written testimony, and you touched upon it

verbally, was regarding the healthcare coverage for seasonal firefighters. What should we be doing different.

80

Mr. JUDD. I think if the government is going to hire seasonal,

some are entry level, some have a number of seasons behind them,

and obviously it’s good to tap into their experience level. Some seasonal folks want to be permanent, some seasonal folks like to be

seasonal.

But I think any time the Federal Government is going to hire

somebody with the clear understanding that they’re going to risk

their lives on a daily basis to protect the natural resources of this

country, and the taxpayers’ real and personal property, No. 1, they

ought to maybe bring them in at rates a little higher than GS–2;

and No. 2, provide them with basic health coverage. I can’t think

of anything more basic than if you’re going to ask somebody to not

sit in an office environment and risk their lives. I can’t make it any

more complex than that.

Mr. PORTER. Let’s say that this young man that I met earlier

today that’s a seasonal employee, let’s say he gets a disease or has

some problem, of course there’s workers’ compensation, but his injury could actually prevent him from becoming a firefighter full

time, correct.

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely.

Mr. PORTER. Something happens to him today in the seasonal

status, he could be hurt so he would not get back into the system.

What would happen to him.

Mr. JUDD. Go back to washing cars I guess. I really don’t know.

The people that enter the Federal wildland firefighting service are

a different breed. I’ve had the luxury of being associated with the

International Association of Firefighters and structural entities and

so forth. When you get to the wildland folks, when you see them,

they’re mountain people. You know, they just put on an aura of

just real genuineness.

And they truly want to be there and doing it because of their

love of nature because of the business and so forth. But at some

point you can’t raise a family 3,000 miles away without trying to

find a way to stay in a paid status. And I touched on in the written

testimony too that although there are policies in place to limit the

amount of time on a fire-line, it happens, people will find a way

to stay on the fire-line while they’re away from home simply to be

on a paid status.

What does that do? That increases the safety risks. If they’re in

a paid status reports have found, No. 1, you have more control over

them. Again these reports are 20 years ago. You have more control

over them, you have less likelihood of safety issues and so forth.

Mr. PORTER. How often do you think these individuals are away

from their home portal a year.

Mr. JUDD. Well, the room would have been filled if they weren’t

away now. As a matter of fact, again, we were hoping to have additional written testimony. I talked to a guy that was preparing written testimony just a few days ago from the Sierra National Forest

in California. He’s been in Arizona for 5 days and hasn’t even seen

the fire camp.

Again it’s a lot of pre-positioning, a lot of planning and so forth

and so on, but they can, you know, 14 to 21 days, but again you

can consume that 21 days, have a day or two of rest and you’re

right back on the fire-line.

81

And again these folks aren’t whining. I’ll be the one to whine for

them. They love it. But at some point in time you’ve got to look at,

as they said, the big picture and look at the costs associated with

the skyrocketing costs of firefighting. And how do we fix it. How

do we, No. 1, take care of our firefighters; No. 2, provide the service

to the taxpayer. And out of those I clearly obviously disagree with

OPM that 408 actually meets those.

Mr. PORTER. There has been some testimony presented even

prior and some calculations run that many critics would say 408

would increase pay by 90 percent. I assume you don’t agree with

that.

Mr. JUDD. I don’t buy it. We poured over example after example.

We took our folks’ pay grades and looked at it and so forth. And

again I haven’t seen the final version of OPM’s letter. We saw the

draft letter referencing something like 390 percent of this and that

and so forth, and we couldn’t come up with anything more than 75

percent basic pay.

Again we’re not asking to throw that money at the fire service,

we’re asking to maybe take a little bit away from the contractors

and cooperators and redirect it to our country’s very own firefighters. We’re not asking to add more to the transportation bill.

No, it’s all right. Take that off the record. At least I got a laugh

out of you folks. That’s why it was sensible and we have to market

this to both sides of the aisle and we have to make it cost effective.

But it’s going to rely on the agencies to do their part.

Mr. PORTER. If I understood correctly earlier testimony, that ranges by $34,000 a year to what level would it be? I guess here’s

the question: What would the range be? I don’t know the numbers

as well. I know the GS numbers, but is it $34,000 to $60,000 or

what would it be in pay for base.

Mr. VAUGHT. Mr. Chairman, I’m guessing, and maybe I can get some help here, but it would be around $25,000 to $60,000 I believe.

Mr. PORTER. $25,000 to $60,000.

Mr. VAUGHT. Up to grade GS–13.

Mr. PORTER. So what would you see, Casey, this is a question for you, with 408 where would that person making $25,000 be at the

end of the year.

Mr. JUDD. Maybe $32,000. You know, as an example, our deputy

chief of the Federal service, the cost to the government, which includes benefits and so forth, maybe $45 an hour. The municipal

down the street that goes on a fire call, they’re $190 an hour.

You know, we’re hearing about the DOD firefighters and their

grades are reduced because of this or because of that, they get paid

for meals and sleep time. Well, that needs to be fixed too. I mean,

we’re in the 21st century. Firefighters, the vast majority of paid

professional firefighters across the country are paid whether they

go on a call or not. They’re paid to be available, to respond. We’re

not asking any more than to be paid while we’re actually on an

emergency incident.

And I think Ryan would agree. You are paid to be there. And

OPM’s own guidelines that we put in our written testimony seem

to conflict with that where they say Federal agencies can take an

employee off the clock for 8 hours for meal and sleep time, yet it

82

says that they are so confined and enclosed to the government’s location that they can’t perform their own duties as normal then they

would be in a paid status. So we’re not the ones that wrote these

things, but they seem to be conflicting as well.

Mr. PORTER. Really one more formal question then we’re going

to have to conclude. But, Ryan, what message should I take back

to my colleagues from Nevada regarding firefighting, whether it be

local or Federal, what message should I take back.

Mr. BEAMAN. We just want everybody to be treated the same, if

it’s professional firefighters out here, Clark County, city of Las

Vegas to our brothers that are the Federal firefighters, everybody

should be paid the same for doing the same type of line of work.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Well, I assure you that the cost question, I’m going to make that a priority. Also in working with the

pay and benefits portion and the bill that you mentioned earlier,

the presumptive, what’s that number.

Mr. BEAMAN. That was H.R. 697.

Mr. PORTER. As a priority and working with Chairman Pombo on

his bill. I think there’s a lot of merit and I’ll do everything I can

to see that we can improve some of the benefits and pay for firefighters.

I will pass this information on to my colleagues, and I know that

they’re very, very interested and very concerned. And know that

you’re saving a lot of lives and you’re also saving a lot of people’s

life savings and personal investments because of what you do. We

really appreciate it.

I remember reading a book probably 10, 15 years ago about a

fire, a wildland fire somewhere in Montana where a bunch of folks

died. I don’t remember the book, but it talks about the rigors of

fighting the fire. And it was in Montana on the side of a mountain,

and it was very vivid in its explanation of the challenges for the

firefighters. So know that I’m doing what I can to help. I’d suggest

you read the book if I can remember the name of it.

Mr. JUDD. I appreciate that. Of course we’d be delighted to come

back to D.C. any time and chat with anybody who needs to be chatted with.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. And with that we’ll adjourn the meeting. Of course Members will have additional time to submit their

testimony that have any questions forwarded to all those that testified today. Anything else I need to add for the record.

We’ll adjourn the meeting. Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Danny K. Davis and Hon.

Richard W. Pombo, and additional information submitted for the

hearing record follow:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Æ