December 16, 1980 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE 819

On December 23, 1980:

LUMP SUM DEATH BENEFITS TO SURVIVORS 

OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT O F F ICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND CERTAIN 

OTHER EMPLOYEES KILLED IN THE LINE 

OF DUTY

I am withholding my approval of 

H.R. 5888, a bill that provides for payment of a $50,000 lump-sum death 

benefit to survivors of Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters and 

certain other employees killed in the 

line of duty. This benefit would be 

paid in addition to the regular death 

benefits available to all Federal employees, and would be retroactive to 

September 26, 1976.

I am not approving H.R. 5888 because the special benefits it would provide are preferential and unwarranted, 

and because the bill would become a 

precedent for extension of similar 

benefits to other Federal employees.

My disapproval of this bill in no way 

reflects on the bravery and dedication 

of Federal employees in law enforcement and firefighting occupations. 

Nor does it in any way diminish the 

gratitude that I and this Nation feel 

for those who sacrifice their lives in 

the performance of their duty.

H.R. 5888 is objectionable because it 

would single out certain groups of employees for preferential treatm ent 

under the Federal employee workers’ 

compensation law (FECA). Survivor 

benefits provided by the Federal Government should be adequate in all instances to ease the financial burden 

resulting from an employee’s death, 

regardless of occupation. Moreover, 

there are many civilian employees outside the areas of law enforcement and 

firefighting who are also exposed to 

special hazards in their work. It is inequitable and unfair to provide a 

greater benefit to a select group of 

Federal employees based only on the 

nature of their employment. Such preferred treatment is directly contrary 

to the evenhandedness that must be 

basic to a workers’ compensation 

system.

Under the existing FECA program, 

the Federal Government already pays 

generous death benefits to survivors of 

employees who die on the job. These 

benefits are tax-free and are adjusted 

annually for increases in the cost of 

living. Depending on family size, such 

benefits can be as high as 75% of the 

employee’s salary while alive, and are 

limited in total amount and duration 

only by changed family circumstances. 

The Government’s Group Life Insurance Program, which was recently liberalized for younger employees, also 

provides substantial protection in the 

event of an employee’s death.

The proponents of H.R. 5888 argue 

that this legislation is needed to 

assure parity with State and local 

police and firefighters, who receive a 

$50,000 death benefit under a law 

passed in 1976. However, one of the 

main reasons for enactment of that 

law was that States and localities’ 

compensation systems were inadequate or nonexistent and that life insurance coverage was often unavailable. The Congress at that time expressly decided against granting the

$50,000 death benefit to Federal firefighters and law enforcement officers

because the benefits provided under

FECA are comparatively generous and

would in many cases exceed the

$50,000 payment authorized for Statelocal public safety officers.

Although the costs entailed in H.R.

5888 are not large, the special treatment provided by the bill would inevitably set a precedent for extension of

its benefits to other, if not all, Federal

employees who die in the line of duty.

This would result in an unwarranted

and costly added burden on the taxpayers of this Nation.

Finally, the retroactive provision in

the bill is objectionable by arbitrarily

excluding employees whose deaths occurred before the effective date.

For all of these reasons, I cannot approve H.R. 5888.

J i m m y C a r t e r.

T h e W h it e H o u s e , December 23, 1980.

On December 24, 1980:

NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY ACT

I am withholding my approval from

enrolled bill S. 1097, “The National

Tourism Policy Act.”

Among other provisions, this bill

would establish a United States Travel

and Tourism Administration (USTTA)

as an independent agency, create a

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board,

and abolish the United States Travel

Service of the Department of Commerce.

My Administration has proposed

that the Federal government’s role

concentrate on development and coordination of policies conducive to

tourism, collection of information, and

selected promotional activities. Because tourism is an integral part of

other trade promotion activities, we

also recommended to Congress that

the Travel Service be incorporated

into the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration,

where overseas tourism activities

would be carried out by the Foreign

Commercial Service.

By contrast, S. 1097 would separate

the government’s travel and tourism

activities from other international

trade functions. This is a seriously

flawed management approach. The establishment of independent agencies

to promote individual aspects of international trade would only impede the

efficient management and coordination ot important related functions.

Furthermore, the bill would create

an agency not only independent of a

Cabinet department but also virtually

independent of Presidential direction.

The principal initial function of the

USTTA would be to develop a detailed

and comprehensive tourism development plan, including estimates of

funding and personnel needed to carry

it out. The plan would be submitted by

April 15, 1982 to the House and Senate

Commerce Committees. Under the bill,

that plan and any budget requests or

legislative recommendations by the

USTTA would have to be submitted

concurrently to the President and

Congress, and no Federal officer or

agency would be permitted to review

or approve them before their submission to Congress. I consider this to be

an unacceptable derogation of the

President’s executive authority and responsibility.

In addition, the Travel and Tourism

Advisory Board—14 of the 17 members

of which would be senior executives of

the travel and tourism industry—

would be given extraordinary powers

of oversight. It would monitor the activities of the USTTA and report to

Congress on the agency’s preliminary

plans and final budget requests. The

composition of the Board and its functions would almost certainly ensure

that the USTTA would be more responsive to special industry interests

than to the need for a coordinated

Federal approach that will balance the

needs of tourism against other national priorities.

Finally, the USTTA would be authorized to establish branch offices in

foreign countries, consult with foreign

governments, and represent U.S.

travel and tourist interests at international meetings, conferences, and expositions. In this way, the USTTA

would become an independent foreign

office in miniature. It would be highly

undesirable to grant such an agency

the ability and mission to deal with

foreign governments directly, and independently of the Department of

State. The proper conduct of foreign

relations requires that the central role

be played by the Department of State,

under the direction of the President,

and that contacts with foreign governments by Federal agencies be undertaken only in close cooperation with

the Department of State.

For these reasons, and because S.

1097 is deficient or objectionable in

several other respects, I am withholding my approval from the bill.

J i m m y Ca r t e r .

D ec em ber 24, 1980.

FOR THE RELIEF OF MR. AND MRS.

CLARENCE OVESON

I am withholding my approval from

H.R. 4386, a bill “For the relief of Mr.

and Mrs. Clarence Oveson.”

H.R. 4386 would direct the Secretary

of the Treasury to pay $50,000 to Mr.

and Mrs. Clarence Oveson of Saint

Louis and Koochiching Counties, Minnesota. The payment would be for full

settlement of the Ovesons’ claims arising from the assumption of management by the United States of certain

real property owned by the United

States but occupied by the Ovesons.

The payment would not affect any

claims that the Ovesons might have

arising from the loss of any structures

affixed to the land. The Ovesons apparently purchased the land in question from another individual in good

faith though title to the land actually

rests with the U.S. Government as

part of the Voyageurs National Park.