centage of raise anticipated certainly would not bring Federal firefighters pay up to comparability. Mr. Ruddock might want to make that prediction.

Mr. DANIELS. I was wondering, should we pass this legislation, if we still would have a problem because of inadequacy of pay?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't believe so. I do not see any connection.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am inclinded to believe firefighters should have hazardous duty pay. Then, if the question comes up whether they are entitled to hazardous duty pay, should we include all Federal employees who receive hazardous duty pay in the provisions for early retirement? If we would get the answer to those two questions I know exactly what I would do. Here, I wonder if we don't have the cart before the horse. I will go on record and say I would vote for hazardous duty pay for firefighters.

Mr. DAVIS. We would appreciate that vote Mr. Henderson. The Federal firefighters do not receive hazardous duty pay as such. The Civil Service Commission has ruled that in the case of firefighters their present pay is based partly on the fact that the regular duties. are hazardous-in other words, the hazardous aspect has already been considered along with the longer-than-40-hour week, the intermittent night and day work, and the Sunday and holiday work.

Mr. HENDERSON. Under the present law we require that this be taken into consideration in computing the retirement of firefighters. We have reported out of this subcommittee, and the full committee, a bill to extend the use of overtime and premium compensation to all Federal employees, so that the Federal firefighters would not then have this slight advantage. It is not a great advantage, it is something I think they are entitled to, but the Congress has recognized to that extent the merits of the duties of Federal firefighters.

Mr. DANIELS. How many Federal firefighters are there, 11,000? Mr. DAVIS. Between 11,000 and 12,000.

Mr. HENDERSON. Does that figure include all the firefighters employed by FAA?

Mr. DAVIS. It includes all civilian Federal firefighters in all Federal agencies.

Mr. DANIELS. If this legislation is enacted you indicated approximately 225 firefighters would take advantage of it immediately and retire?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. That is according to the survey we made a little over a year ago.

Mr. DANIELS. If only that small number, or about 1 percent of the force, would retire, does that indicate to you a great need for this legislation?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I believe that it would. As I have previously stated, this legislation, if passed, would take care of firefighters who due to their age and grade were unable to continue to perform arduous firefighting duties, but under the present provision of their retirement they could not live on the low retirement pay they would receive.

Mr. DANIELS. Then this legislation would not induce those people who would be eligible to retire with 20 years of service at age 50 to retire. It would only be taken advantage of by those who feel they do not measure up to perform their duties as firemen?

Mr. DAVIS. I believe that is correct; however, we know that there. would be some who would retire at 50 years of age with 20 years of service.

Mr. DANIELS. It would be taken advantage of mostly by those people who feel they would be transferred to a different job or be removed from the rolls of active firemen?

Mr. DAVIS. We believe that an employee who performs hazardous duty for 20 or more years and has reached the age of 50 years has earned the right to retire.

Mr. DANIELS. What is the average age of retirement of a fireman today?

Mr. DAVIS. Our research includes both Federal and municipal firefighters and the last survey was made in 1966. At that time it was 56 years.

Mr. DANIELS. In 1966 a bill was enacted which gave optional retirement rights to all Federal employees who had rendered 30 years of service and who had attained the age of 55, and also to those employees who had attained the age of 60 and who had rendered 20 years of service. With respect to the 30 to 55 provision, do you know how many firemen took advantage of that optional retirement provision? Mr. DAVIS. No, I do not and we do not have any records that would answer your question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, I might say I raised a question as chairman of the manpower subcommittee. I took a particular interest in firefighters on military bases, and, very specifically, I agree with the Air Force policy. I spent many hours on an Air Force base in my district talking to the fire chief about his particular problem, and they have a practice I don't believe Members of Congress are familiar with. Last year we had an F-4 crash there, and one pilot was killed and another suffered a broken limb. The firefighters responded to that fire and I have seen them in their demonstrations, and they have convinced me the chief and the lieutenants have that they would rather go to a plane crash with civilian firefighters who had maturity and experience than with the young ones they have to train. I am convinced the Air Force uses as many enlistees as they can in this business, but, having been a volunteer fireman before I came here, I know at age 47 I couldn't go out there and do any firefighting now. But we don't get on our bases the experience that I think is so important to a fireman, that is, to know where the danger spots are and how to approach various buildings and installations that are on fire. I think we need to get young men and keep them as long as they are physically fit.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying while I favor doing whatever we can, I now have more questions in my mind than before. I wonder if we should not look into hazardous duty pay for all our firemen. I am not convinced we are paying our firemen what they should be paid, and this is one instance in the Federal Government where it seems to me a study should be made to ensure comparability. Comparability so often in the Federal Government is a matter of theory. The one thing that disturbs me is that, traditionally, city firemen have been underpaid all over the country, but we should be able to assure our Federal firefighters of comparable pay with the major cities in America. So, I think a recommendation from our subcommittee to the full committee, or to the compensation subcommittee, would be beneficial to the Federal firefighters.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Henderson, we hope to present and adequately justify these problem areas before Mr. Hanley's position classification

subcommittee when they next hold hearings, and we have every reason to believe that their recommendations to the full committee will correct now existing inequities.

Mr. HANLEY. You mentioned a number of categories that were enjoying the preferential retirement benefits. Were these all blanketed in at once, or were they considered separately?

Mr. DAVIS. To my knowledge the original act of 1947 only included agents of the FBI and the Secret Service, so I would therefore take it that these other groups were added at some later time.

Mr. HANLEY. Is committee counsel aware of whether they were all blanketed in at the time the gentleman mentioned or were any of them considered separately?

Mr. DEVLIN. I believe they were considered separately. This was a determination by the Civil Service Commission of those groups which, in their opinion, are involved in hazardous law enforcement duties. It is not necessarily exclusive or inclusive.

Mr. HANLEY. Did you mention the Conservation Department? Mr. DAVIS. Immigration and Naturalization, Customs, Headquarters of Special Investigation of the Air Force, Army and Navy, the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. HANLEY. The Fish and Wildlife Service?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. They are only the members of the Fish and Wildlife Service that are engaged in law enforcement.

Mr. DAVIS. This is right; however, guards in the Department of Correction of the District of Columbia government come under the hazardous duty retirement.

Mr. HANLEY. With respect to the cost projection by the Commission, did I understand you to differ with that?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, we do differ with the cost figure submitted by the Civil Service Commission. If the $3.5 million cost figure is the total cost, projected over the entire life expectancy of all of the now employed Federal firefighters (11,000), then I submit that this is in my opinion a rather misleading way to submit an estimated cost. Mr. WALDIE. Will the gentleman yield?

The assumption seems to be the only hazard in the Federal Government is in law enforcement, and I think firefighting is certainly more hazardous than the duties of a game warden or an FBI agent who is out gathering information. And I suspect there are other occupations in the Federal Government that are far more hazardous than law enforcement. I think the image of a law enforcement agent is that he is always confronted by someone wanting to kill him.

Mr. HANLEY. That is evidenced by the casualties of law enforcement officers versus firefighters.

What is the total number of personnel involved in this category? Mr. DAVIS. Prior to some recent cutbacks there were approximately 11,500. We thoroughly agree with you Congressman Henderson in that firefighting today is a specialized job and therefore requires extensive training and, in addition, experience is most valuable. Mr. HANLEY. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. The gentleman from California.

Mr. WALDIE. I have no further questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. As a practical matter, if we enacted this legislation, wouldn't the Federal firefighter who was not retired on disability,

in order to take advantage of this, have to get another job? Wouldn't he stay on until he could arrange to get another job, because it would take his retirement pay plus the salary of another job for him to live at the level he had previously? It seems to me his pay is so low I wouldn't envision the firefighter taking retirement without arranging to do something else. Is that your feeling?

Mr. DAVIS. This would depend on the individual concerned and also his financial circumstances. A GS-4 firefighter retiring at age 50 still having unsettled financial obligations would certainly need to supplement his pension.

Mr. HENDERSON. Obviously some firefighters are in more hazardous work than others. I am thinking of those who are responding to aircraft crashes at airports, FAA employees, as well as the military.

Mr. DAVIS. That is true.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you know whether or not high death rates have occurred there? My primary inquiry is, are they paid any more, do they have higher classifications?

Mr. DAVIS. No, they are not, and this is an identical situation that you will find in every municipal fire department a firefighter serving in the most active downtown company and another serving in a suburban station not so active. However, both of these men are subject to detail to and transfer from one location to another.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wish every Member of Congress could see how the Federal firefighters respond to one of these aircraft crashes. They walk right into that fire.

Mr. DANIELS. I was almost involved in one yesterday.

Mr. DAVIS. At this point may I add a comment in the way of a question. Would any member of this committee like to be in the position of the first firefighter carrying a foam hand line into that burning plane, knowing full well that the firefighter supporting him on that line is 55 years of age or older, and further also knowing that he is not in top physical condition?

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Davis, the proposed legislation, extending to Federal firefighting personnel the same retirement benefits extended to Federal law enforcement officers, S. 1507, states that it would be extended primarily to those engaged in the performance of work directly connected with the control and extinguishment of fires or the maintenance and use of firefighting apparatus and equipment. If a fireman is employed or engaged exclusively in the maintenance or repair of equipment, do you think he should receive the preferred retirement benefits?

Mr. DAVIS. No; we do not. At the time S. 1507 was drafted, I sat in on the meeting and it was thought then, as Mr. Ruddock has previously quoted, a section of the original act gives the Civil Service Commission the authority to rule out those whom you describe as not being entitled to the benefits.

Mr. DANIELS. Assuming this bill is approved, would you have any objection to striking the words "or the maintenance and use of firefighting apparatus and equipment"?

Mr. HENDERSON. Shouldn't the words "and use" remain in the bill? The word "maintenance" perhaps could be stricken, but I think "use" should be in to cover going to or from a fire.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not believe that those particular words in the bill need to be changed. As Mr. Ruddock has previously stated, the Civil

Service Commission would have the authority to disallow hazardous retirement provisions to those employees that spend their careers in fire-apparatus maintenance. We do not intend that such employees be covered.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

The next witness is Mr. C. L. Dorson, president, Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the U.S. Government.

TESTIMONY OF C. L. DORSON, PRESIDENT, RETIREMENT FEDERATION OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Mr. DORSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is C. L. Dorson. I am president of the Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the U.S. Government, an organization of about 90,000 members, most of whom are currently employed within the Department of Defense.

The bill before you, S. 1507, would bring Federal firefighting personnel within the provisions of section 8336 (c) of title 5, United States Code. The resulting benefit would be retirement at age 50 with minimum service of 20 years and a flat 2-percent computation rate, provided the head of the employing agency so recommends and the Civil Service Commission approves.

Our organization believes, and has long advocated, that benefits under the civil service retirement system should be provided on the same basis and at the same cost for all who are subject to the System. As introduced, S. 1507 would add yet another class of employees to those now entitled by virtue of position title to special benefits under the civil service retirement system.

We are of the opinion that S. 1507 should be amended so as to make the provisions of section 8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, applicable to all employees and members alike. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you take such action.

With the recommended amendment, we endorse S. 1507 and pray that it be favorably reported and enacted at an early date.

Mr. Chairman, we thank the subcommittee for its interest in the legislation and for the opportunity to express our views.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Dorson, for your statement.

This concludes today's hearing. The record will be held open for a limited time for those who desire to file statements on this legislation. (Thereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

(The following statements were received by the subcommittee, for inclusion in the record.)

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify in behalf of legislation designating the occupation of federal firefighter as hazardous for purposes of equitable retirement benefits. My bill on this subject is H.R. 11524, which I introduced on July 18, 1967. It is identical to S. 1507, which the Senate passed on December 15, 1967.

I believe that simple equity requires that Congress establish federal firemen on a retirement parity with federal law enforcement officers, permitting them to also retire on full annuity at age 50 after 20 years of service. The prime consideration should be that firefighters are among those groups of federal employees whose official duties on occasion place their lives and health in danger.