About that Washington Post article on the Federal worker flag bill….

« Previous story
Next story »
About that Washington Post article on the Federal worker flag bill….

It is almost passé to say that an article in the media is misleading or inaccurate.  It happens so often it’s almost like pointing out that water is wet, that gravity exists, and that the Pats are the Super Bowl favorites.  This Washington Post article by Joe Davidson (despite my attempts to correct and explain the various deficiencies of the piece) is a perfect example of that.

It begins:

A seemingly innocuous piece of bipartisan legislation that would provide an inexpensive flag-draped patriotic gesture is drawing right-wing opposition because the honor would go to federal civilian employees.

Fair enough, I suppose it is, but since he links only to RedState and Erick Erickson, I don’t really know how widespread it is.  Either way, our opposition predated anything Erick wrote, so the relationship he is making here by innuendo simply doesn’t exist.

 Davidson continues:

The Legion opposed the bill for several reasons, one of which is misleading.

“Civil service workers do not sign a pledge to defend America with their lives,” said Fang Wong, the Legion’s national commander, in a news release.

The truth is that the oath civilians and members of the military swear says they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Um, really?  What is misleading about that?  Do civil service workers sign a pledge to defend America with their lives?  They take the same Oath to defend the Constitution, as he points out, but how is it misleading to note that your average Postal Worker isn’t instructed in, nor required to engage in, hand to hand fighting to protect the country?  Misleading?  The only thing misleading is if one leaves out the "defend America WITH THEIR LIVES" part.


That’s included in a point-by-point reply to the Legion penned by Terry Newell, who was an originator of the flag idea. Newell, by the way, is an Air Force veteran and spent 32 years as a civilian federal worker.

Here are some other points made by the Legion and Newell’s responses, which were sent to supporters and a few congressional offices.

Might have been nice for Mr. Newell to share with us, certainly more appropriate for Davidson to bring up some of those points in his discussion with our Legislative Director, and allow us to point out the fallacious logic of some of them.  I endeavored to find this point-by-point refutation, and all I found was an article on a Syracuse blog wherein Mr Newell compares the deaths of Marine Cpl. Jamie R. Lowe (KIA Afghanistan) and Victoria DeLong (U.S. Cultural Affairs Office killed in Haitian Earthquake.)  Mr. Newell laments:

No government policy or program ensured an escort or provided a flag for her as a civilian worker. No government appropriation paid for a burial plot.

And yet, the picture accompanying this blog posting has a picture of Ms. DeLong’s casket covered with an American Flag.  This bill that he is advocating would neither provide an escort, nor a burial plot, and she already has the third element he is complaining about her not getting.

So, let’s look at the actual laws, as currently enforced. 

NOTHING in the US Code precludes any Department Secretary from supplying a flag for the coffin of any employee.  Further, the various hypothetical deaths used by Washington Post commenters to accuse the legion of being “Heartless and cruel” are erroneous as a matter of law.  Take for instance the comment of VTAVGJOE:

I can understand delineating between a headquarters-working fed that electrocuted themselves at the coffeemaker versus a foreign service officer that was kidnapped by the same government that our troops are fighting….

How about RonJeske’s comment:

Mr. Fang Wong is "wong" when he says that civilian deaths in war do not equate to military deaths and do not deserve the same recognition. Were it not for the civilian who took one for the cause, he would be comforting another military family in their time of loss. Death in war for one's country is as noble out of uniform as in uniform.

Or PamDB:

U.S. federal employees in Afghanistan to help the country came under attack by the Taliban yesterday. A flag for those killed doing their job in a combat zone is nice. Civilians have to pay for the funeral. Military KIA get a taxpayer paid burial. 

Notice anything in common about these comments?  They are all wrong, all of those decedents are already authorized a flag under US Law:

Sec. 1482a. Expenses incident to death: civilian employees serving with an armed force

(a)    Payment of Expenses.—
The Secretary concerned may pay the expenses incident to the death of a civilian employee who dies of injuries incurred in connection with the employee’s service with an armed force in a contingency operation, or who dies of injuries incurred in connection with a terrorist incident occurring during the employee’s service with an armed force, as follows:
(1) Round-trip transportation and prescribed allowances for one person to escort the remains of the employee to the place authorized under section 5742 (b)(1) of title 5.
(2) Presentation of a flag of the United States to the next of kin of the employee.
(3) Presentation of a flag of equal size to the flag presented under paragraph (2) to the parents or parent of the employee, if the person to be presented a flag under paragraph (2) is other than the parent of the employee.

Since I don’t have Mr. Newell’s complaints about our position, I can only address what is in Mr. Davidson’s article.  Such as:

Legion: “This bill leaves far too much to be determined by a few individuals.”

Newell: “It does allow some discretion in saying that regulations must ‘consider the conditions and circumstances surrounding the death of an employee and the nature of the service of the employee,’ but this language was added specifically to give the head of the agency discretion NOT to provide a flag in instances where it is not warranted.”

Where does it say that in this bill?  Where does it discuss this limiting instruction in the Committee report on the bill?  Mr. Newell may read it that way, but legislative construction isn’t haphazard, if this is some limiting factor, I would like to see where it says that.


Legion: “It doesn’t clearly identify associated costs.”

Newell: “Since a flag costs about $60 retail, and mailing or delivering it cannot cost much more ... it is hard to imagine a caisson, 21-gun salute or honor guard, all suggested as possible by the American Legion statement, as being ‘incident’ expenses.... There is nothing in the bill or its history that even suggests such honors.”

Does he truly mean to suggest that the phrase “incidental expenses” has never been used by a federal bureaucracy to mean more than it was intended for?  If not some form of honor guard, then who is it exactly that delivers the flag to the next of kin?  If the flag is to be mailed to the family, where does it say that in the bill? 

In fact, look at the original bill that was submitted, it specifically stated that:

A flag shall be furnished and presented under this section in the same manner as a flag is furnished and presented on behalf of a deceased member of the Armed Services who dies while on active duty. [Bold added]

Now, the bill has been changed, but it hasn't clarified this portion, only omitted it.  A Court will look back at the original intent, and since there is no discussion on why this was changed, and how the new language differs from this, it makes us somewhat nervous about the interpretation.  Wishing to clarify something doesn't make us cruel and heartless, it makes us cautious and cognizant of how legislation can be reinterpreted.

Further, lest anyone think that it is only civil service employees who have sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution who are beneficiaries under this bill, I would draw your attention to section 2 (f)(a) of H.R. 2061 which authorizes it for “individuals who perform volunteer services at the discretion of the head of an executive agency.”  I have no idea who this is intended for.

Again, it is not the intent of this bill we are questioning, a point made clear in the point paper written by Mr. Tetz that I am including in full below.  If you have a problem with the Legion position on this, email me (MOTHAX[at]LEGION[dot]org) and tell me exactly where our position is incorrect.  None of us here want to preclude a border patrol agent killed on the job from getting a flag, our concern is two fold; with the way this bill is written, and the recurring theme to equate military service and civil service as equal.  Look no further than the recent suggestion to change military retirement to a 401k for an example of the latter.

No one at the Legion is saying that Federal Employee killed in the line of duty should not be honored by a grateful nation, and to the extent that this Washington Post article improperly suggests that such is the case, we renounce it utterly.   Our concerns are based in the nature of that honorarium, and the deficiencies of the bill itself.

ADDED: In attempting to explain to Mr. Davidson where he is wrong, he emailed me that:

The bill does say civilians have to be "killed." The first line of the legislation says its purpose is "To authorize the presentation of a United States flag at the funeral of Federal civilian employees who are killed while performing official duties or because of their status as a Federal employee."

People often misread things, as you apparently did when you read the legislation. Do you blame the authors of the legislation because you thought the legislation did not say civilians had to be "killed"?

I responded that:

The bill TITLE says that, however, if you read the committee report, and look at the controlling language from section 2, it specifically states:


In fact, if you go and look at the bill on Thomas, you will see :


 So, explain to me again how I misread something that was struck out by the Committee?

 (For those who don't understand legislative language, what it means is that the "killed" language was purged from the bill now before the House.

Waiting on a response, will post as it comes in, but Mr. Tetz further elaborated on this point:

 In my meetings with hill staff, we pointed out the killed part.

 As I explained to him in an interview yesterday, the language that was added, that which extended it to those who dies of injuries, was added so that if someone is injured in a shooting at Fort Hood but doesn’t die for weeks or months is still eligible even though they may die of complications due to the original violent act.

 Our argument remained that if they intended to cover those people, they needed to change the language to say “dies of injuries related to the violent act” or similar.  Merely saying “dies of injuries incurred” while a federal employee allows for a host of worst case scenarios including heart attacks, food poisoning, etc.



The Point Paper on this issue:




The American Legion Talking Points on S. 1444 and H.R. 2061


Underlying Bills:       S. 1444 Civilian Service Recognition Act

Sponsored by Sen. Akaka (HI) - 1 Co-sponsor

Introduced on 7/28/11 and referred to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

H.R. 2061 Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011

Sponsored by Rep. Hanna (NY) – 21 Co-sponsors

Introduced on 5/31/11 and reported to floor for consent agenda


Issue:                          Many believe the family of killed ATF Agent Brian Terry was unfairly treated.  This intent expanded when others wanted to show that federal service, whether as a first responder or in any role was cherished.  Thus the bill expanded beyond federal civilians in first responder positions to all federal employees. 


                                    Approximately 3,000 federal civilian workers have died on the job since 1992.  This bill would allow presentation of a United States flag as a way to express sympathy and gratitude.  There is no cost to the bill.


Criticism:       Why now?

Existing laws do not prohibit such presentation; the flag code allows for a flag to be on coffin/cremains regardless of military service.  The bill sponsors have been unable to point to a circumstance where this was thwarted or criticized when it occurred. 


Term “shall pay the expenses incident to the presentation” is unnecessarily vague.

As currently written, the agency head shall pay the costs associated with presentation.  This could vary depending on the agency and perhaps employee anywhere from mailing costs to the costs of an agency delegation to be present at a funeral.  The vague nature and case by case scenario sets up an atmosphere for inequality.


Phrase “dies of injuries incurred in connection” with their status as an employee is expansive

Intended to be vague to allow for someone injured in a catastrophic event who later dies to be eligible.  This language would seemingly allow employee who suffered work-related stress, who later dies to also receive this benefit.  If the intent was to recognize those victims of violence, the bill should be written to accommodate that.


Definition of employee

The existing bill allows for “volunteers” to be counted as employees.  Although volunteers are generally prohibited, they serve a vital role in VA facilities, parks, and during times of emergency.  Some of the volunteers may die of natural causes “on the job.”  Questionably extends the legal status of “volunteer.”


“Next of Kin” definition muddled

There is no clear definition of “next of kin” and the bill allows for others, other than the next of kin, to receive a flag if the next of kin chooses not to request one.


Non-uniform manner of enactment

The bill allows that the OMB, Sec. of Defense, and Sec. of Homeland Security may prescribe regulations, but beyond notifying employees of eligibility, the manner in which an agency carries out an act may vary greatly within an agency and between agencies.  This will guarantee a problem where certain classes of employees are recognized in one way in a particular agency or differently based on employee class within the same agency.


Feedback:    What about those civilians serving in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Those who served in the military are already eligible for presentation of a flag.  Those who are killed while supporting contingency operations are eligible through approval by the secretary.


What about civilians at Fort Hood, post office, etc.?

Victims of these violent actions, whether military or civilian deserve to be recognized in some manner.  The American Legion believes this should be carried out in a manner that is not similar to that of a veteran or military member.


You’re against recognizing those who serve under the same flag?

The American Legion is not against recognizing service to our nation, whether in uniform or as a civilian.  We are against equating that service in uniform to civilian service, both in benefits and recognition of sacrifice.  The average military member recognizes the likelihood he/she may not return home.  The average federal employee is nearly guaranteed to return home every evening. 


Until we can reconcile the bill to adequately recognize the loss of a civilian federal employee without diluting the honor of recognition offered a military member or veteran, The American Legion will remain in opposition.


Posted in the burner | 14 comments
« Previous story
Next story »


* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.


I am a 22year US Navy and State Guard Veteran,I donot take that lightly. I do feel that any Civilian who works with Federal or Military personnel in an Hostile enviorment or Dangerous locations should be allowed to have their Caskets covered in an American Flag free of Charge if the are killed or die of the injuries,due to. But the honors of a Soldier or other military personnel,not the same.Those that were killed on 9/11 yes,those serving overseas with military events of risk,yes. Remember many Americans died in our previous conflicts,such as wagon drivers in the American Revolution,no honors,if killed in conflict. So if I were President of The United States,I would sign abill to allow and welcome it.

Hell! the way this country is going, give everyone a flag, I in fact, would like to change the Pledge. as,
Instead of Republic, lets say corporation. That way we will be done with all of this unnecessary bickering.

When I served overseas I was proud to work under the U.S. Flag(Our "Colors") If a civilian of our U.S. Government is killed overseas they deserve the same rights as any American Serving overseas Under OUR FLAG. "Be American" "Be a Vet" Dont Pick On Those Who aint. Dont pick on my dead countrymen. "In God we Trust" Is an American saying. Not Military. Not Civilian. American

Steven, did you not read what I wrote?  Those killed overseas are already authorized the flag, like I wrote about above.

Also, kinda confused with what "In God We Trust" has to do with the flag issue.

If a civilian employee decides to quit his/her job, they quit and go home. I a member of the military decides to quit his/her job they go to prison. If the individual dies with honor defending thier country or it's ideals then they deserve the honor, but a blanket rule covering all federal employees makes the meaningless.

I have to agree with Legions position on this one. Military service is different, and that difference should be recognized and honored.

I served in the Navy, the Army Reserve and was a 25 year veteran of the US Civil Service. During my career, I was sent to various places as a civilian employee of the Army. In one location, I was told to do something that was, in my mind, a military task. I reminded the General that I was a civilian and didn't do that. He very abruptly told me that I was a civilian in his theater because he allowed me to be a civilian in his theater. Of course I performed the mission. However, the discussion is about flags and funerals for civilians killed in action. When in Europe, I carried a geneva conventions card that made me equivalent to the military person of my same level. The civilian regulations stated that if killed in the line of duty, all my expenses would be paid including a flag drapped coffin. That was 40 years ago. What has changed?

First, I apologize for leaving this comment anonymously, but I am a government civilian who works at Dover Port Mortuary. These comments/opinions are completely mine own and do not reflect policies, regulations, laws, etc. of the US Air Force, Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations, Port Mortuary Division or Armed Forces Medical Examiner System.

I agree with the American Legion stance regarding receipt of a flag for government civilians. S. 1444 and H.R. 2061bills as currently written are poorly worded, vague and ambiguous.

Please rest assured that all government employees who die in theater or in some other action which is against the US Government and come through our facility receive an interment flag.

A hypothetical example of government employee who comes through us and would not be provided a flag by us would be an embassy staffer on vacation in foreign country that is robbed and murdered. (I don’t know if Ms. DeLong, Haitian Earthquake Victim, came through our facility. Unfortunately, I have prepared too many remains since then, and it would be highly inappropriate and unprofessional for me to “dig through the files” without permission from the family.) However, most government employees are veterans and qualify for a free internment flag through the Post Office which all funeral professionals know how to get.

Basically, just because you get to us in a transfer case does not entitle you to a flag. All transfer cases carrying remains are flag-draped because no one is truly identified until verified through the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System.

You know it’s a funny thing, but there are hundreds more civilian contractors who have died as a result of enemy action in theater than the extremely few cases cited in the Washington Post article. Guess what, they don’t get an internment flag through us, because they are not employed by the US government. Now that’s a change in the rules and regulations that I wish would occur.

where has this USA gone - if your side by side and both die - only one deserves the FLAG - get real. Met a lot of civilians in Vietnam and they were not on vacation - maybe they came home - easy or hard or never, same as us - US citizens, guess they just don't count in todays world. Retired USN

My grandfather and old man were US Civil Service, Dept of the Navy, workers at Cavite N.A.S. prior to WW2. They both spent 3 years as prisoners at Santo Tomas. Undergoing stavation , beri beri , tuberculosis, dengue fever, and constant threat of death on the spot by guards, and my old man was part of the resistance in camp. Gramndpa was killed by Japanese artillery fire a few days after liberation. They took the same oath of office ( have my old man's original signed oath) that WE all did.

Is the Legion I have been a member of for 14 years , and a PUFL , telling me these men don't deserve a flag ??? Then I'm in the wrong outfit !

And whom among my fellow Legionnaires will tell me to me face that my grandfather and old man didn't sacrifice their liberty, one life, and offer themselves in defense of the USA ? Good way to piss off a Marine vet , not a wise idea !

Sir, did you read what I wrote?  Both of them are entitled to it by virtue of already existing law.  Again, my email is on there if you wish to email me and complain about our position, tell me where I am wrong, etc.

Hey thanks for fresh stuff here! By the way I wanted to ask about material. From where are you getting these ideas?

level-headed forum a lot of info

Nice post about About that Washington Post article on the Federal worker flag bill…. | The American Legion's BurnPit. I am very impressed with the time and effort you have put into writing this story. I will give you a link on my social media blog. All the best!

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.