January 16, 2012 United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce,

U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida, Chairman Rep. Justin Amash, Michigan, Vice-Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Rep. Connie Mack, Florida Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking Member Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Rep. Gerald Connolly, Virginia Rep. Danny Davis, Illinois Dear Representatives, I am a seasonal Wilderness Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho. I would like to introduce you to your Forest Service seasonal employees. You may be unfamiliar with what we do. We spend about half of each year maintaining and protecting the country's national forests for the benefit of all Americans. We fight fires, maintain and build trails, work as backcountry rangers, and do many other jobs in the forests. We travel on foot; there are no roads where we work. We hike long distances with 50 or more pounds on our backs. We sleep in our tents in the backcountry for a week at a time. We use chainsaws and six-foot, two-person crosscut saws to clear trails, make campgrounds safe, and fight fires. We blast trails through rock. We move fallen trees and boulders by hand. We transport building materials into the backcountry by horseback to construct bridges. We dig for days on end to build trails and fire lines. We enforce the law on a public that is allowed to carry guns, but we are unarmed, and often alone and far from help. We protect private property from forest fires. We rescue people who are lost or injured in the mountains. We put our bodies and lives on the line every day in service of this country. We love our work. We are your employees. We have no health insurance. I am writing to younot just as an employee, but as a member of the public you representto respectfully request that Congress appropriate funds to provide health insurance for its seasonal Forest Service employees. Although seasonal employees are covered by Workers Compensation if injured on the job, this is not a reasonable system to address the health issues they face in such physically demanding jobs. Worker's Compensation is, by definition, a purely reactive system; it only takes effect after an injury has occurred. It does nothing to prevent injuries from happening, as regular, preventative healthcare would. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the gradual toll on the human body from the physically punishing work that seasonal employees perform on a daily basis. It would not cover medical treatment required during the off-season, even if the problem were due to wear-and-tear on the body that occurred on the job, unless there were a

documented connection to a specific on-the-job incident. But in the slow process of wear on the knees, back, and other parts of the body that seasonals are subject to, there may be no one specific incident. Without regular, preventative healthcare, this gradual wear on the body may go untreated, and health conditions that could put employees at risk for serious injury in the process of doing their jobs may remain unknown until it is too late. I have also heard anecdotal evidence of seasonal employees being unfairly denied Worker's Compensation benefits even when their injuries clearly occurred on the job. Seasonal employees face a unique obstacle to obtaining health insurance as individuals. As you know, the insurance industry is regulated by state. Thus, one must prove residency in a particular state in order to purchase insurance as an individual. But seasonal employees often live in any one state for only about half the year, due to the seasonal nature of their work. This makes it very difficult for them to meet residency requirements, and makes it that much more critical for the government to provide a group plan that can accommodate their unique situation. I am fortunate enough to have individual health insurance. It is my understanding that I just barely meet the residency requirements in my "home" state. But I live with the anxiety that if I ever needed medical care while residing outside my "home" state for half the year, my insurance company might attempt to deny my benefits on the grounds that I (unintentionally) misrepresented my residency. This is what it is like to be a seasonal employee; we fall through the cracks in a healthcare system never designed with our unique situation in mind. Many Forest Service seasonal employees return each year, despite the lack of health insurance, because they love their jobs so much. But that doesn't make it right for the government to take advantage of their enthusiasm in order to maintain a necessary workforce without protecting its health and safety. It is particularly disturbing that those who have returned to the same job for many yearsfive, ten, and moreare still labeled as "temporary" employees in order to deny them benefits. But regardless of whether an employee works for one season or twenty, the government has the same ethical obligation to provide that employee with health insurance each season. If Congress appropriates funds for health insurance for seasonal employees, I propose that the employees be eligible to continue their coverage during the off-season by paying (out of their own pocket) the same group rate that the government would pay for their health plan during the season. This would be similar to the COBRA coverage available to any other worker in this country who is laid off from a job. In this way, if a seasonal employee returns every year and is in effect a permanent employee, he or she would be able to maintain health coverage yearround. I want to be clear that I do not wish to see health insurance for seasonal employees at the expense of our precious wild places. The funding for health insurance for seasonals must be in addition to current appropriations, which are already inadequate to maintain our forests. To give you an example, I am one of only two backcountry rangers who patrolon foot, alonethe entire 750,000 acre Sawtooth National Recreation Area, where there used to be about 20 rangers. And if it were not for our supervisor scraping together outside grants each year, we couldnt even afford the two of us. I think this situation, which is unfortunately the norm in our national forests, speaks for itself in demonstrating that the Forest Service cannot be expected to provide health insurance out of current appropriations. Perhaps at least some of this funding could come from a fee assessed on those whose private property is protected from forest fires by the very firefighters who are currently denied

insurance. Or funds could be raised through visitor usage fees. It would be unfortunate if such measures were required, but a source of funding must be found somehow; if our country cant afford to safeguard the people who maintain our national forests, it simply cant afford to have national forests. As an employer, the federal government has an ethical obligation to abide by the employerbased healthcare system it has established and provide health coverage to its own employees, particularly to those engaged in such high-risk work. But even if Congress feels no ethical obligation in this matter, denying health insurance to seasonal employees is a shortsighted policy. A healthy workforce is more productive and has higher morale. And unless the policy is changed, the government will continue to lose good seasonal employees who have returned for years, but ultimately decide they have no choice but to find a different employer in order to obtain health insurance. Almost exactly 100 years ago, Congress abandoned Forest Service firefighters who battled the largest wildfire in U.S. history, refusing to pay the medical bills of those who were burned, blinded, and crippled. Congress even refused to pay the wages owed to those who died to their surviving family members. It was a shameful episode in our countrys history. I do not suggest that the current situation is nearly as extreme, yet it is striking how little has changed in 100 years in Congresss treatment of Forest Service employees who sacrifice their bodies for this country. You have the opportunity to amend for the wrong done to those firefighters by doing what is right for the people who have followed them into the Forest Service. As you consider whether to provide funding for health insurance for seasonal Forest Service employees, I ask you to consider this: who among you wants to tell voters that you believe that a congressman deserves to receive health insurance from his employerthe federal governmentbut a firefighter also employed by the government does not deserve it? Who is willing to stand up and say to the public that, given the power to provide insurance for both employees, you choose to give insurance to yourself, and not to the one who is sacrificing his body and risking his life? Sincerely, Paul J. Auerbach Wilderness Ranger Sawtooth National Recreation Area