SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR LOSSES FROM EVACUATING U.S. PERSONNEL FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 21, 2007
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: April 21, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA=RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
April 21, 1980
CONGRESSIONAL RECORt - HOUSE
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the pro-
visions of clause 3(b) of rule XXVII, the
Chair announces that he will postpone
further proceedings today on each mo-
tion to suspend the rules on which a re-
corded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered, or on which the vote is ob-
jected to under clause 4 of rule-XV.
Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will
be taken on Tuesday,. April 22, 1980.
JEWISH HERITAGE WEEK
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the joint reso-
lution (H.J. Res. 474) to authorize and
request the President toiissue. a procla-
mation designating April 21 through
April 28, 1980, as "Jewish Heritage
Week."?
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. RES. 474
Whereas the Congress recognizes that an
understanding of the heritage of all Amerir
can ethnic groups contributes to the unity Of.
our country: and
Whereas intergroup understanding can be
further fostered through an appreciation of
the culture, history, and traditions. of the
Jewish community and the contributions of
Jews to our country and society; and
Whereas the month of April contains
events of major significance in the Jewish
calendar-Passover, the anniversary of the
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Israeli Independ-
ence Day, Solidarity Sunday for Soviet
Jewry, and Jerusalem Day: Now, therefore
be it -
Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America ,
in Congress assembled, That the President is
authorized and requested to Issue. & procla-
mation designating April 21 through April 28,
1980, as "Jewish Heritage Week" and calling
upon the people of the United States, State
and local government agencies, and inter-
ested organizations to observe that week with
appropriate ceremonies, activities, and
programs.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the'rule,
a second is not required on this motion.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
HARRIS) will be recognized for 20 min-
utes, and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. DERWINSKI) will be recognized for
.20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. HARRIS).
^ 1220 . .
'Mr. HARRIS. Mr., Speaker, House
Joint Resolution 474 would authorize the
President to issue a proclamation desig-
nating April 21 through 28, 1980, as
"Jewish Heritage Week." .
In previous years, Jewish Heritage
Week has been very successful in terms
of generating understanding and appre-
ciation of the Jewish culture, history,
and tradition.
Jewish Heritage Week recognizes the
history of the Jewish people and their
contributions to life in America. With the
observance of Jewish Heritage Week we .
will also show our commitment to pursue
the human rights of all those who have
known fear and persecution. Most of all,
it should remind us all' to continue our
struggle for world peace. '
House Joint Resolution 474 has been
cosponsored by 225 Members of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was intro-
duced by Representative ADDABBO' on
January 22, 1980; since that time; more
than one-half of the membership of the
House has joined as cosponsors. In order
to enact this legislation promptly the
chairman of the committee, Mr. HANLEy,
has consented to waive formal committee
action.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker,.I rise in support of House
Joint Resolution 474, designating the
week of April 28, 1980; as "Jewish Heri-
tage Week."
For the Jewish community the month
of April is most significant. The Jewish
Calendar contains such major events as
Passover, the anniversary of the Warsaw
ghetto uprising, Israeli Independence
Day, Solidarity Sunday for Soviet Jewry,
and Jerusalem Day.
It is good not only to recognize the
events which occur _ in the month of
April, but also to bring them to the at-
tention of the young men and women
of the Nation. Throughout our Nation's
history, the Jewish community has con-
tributed to every facet of American life.
It is therefore fitting and appropriate
that the week of April 28 be designated
as "Jewish Heritage Week." I urge my
colleagues to approve this resolution and
recognize publicly the major role the
Jewish people have played in contribut-
ing to our American heritage.
I have no further request for time and
reserve-the remainder of my time.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such . time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. AD-
DABBO).
(Mr. ADDABBO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of this resolution. -
Mr. Speaker, though I was very much
disappointed that this resolution did not
come before the House last week as ex-
pected, I am pleased that the commit-
tee has reported it for consideration tow
day. I would like to thank my colleagues
on the committee for their timely at-.
tention to this measure, with special
gratitude to a distinguished fellow New
Yorker, Mr. GARCIA.
Jewish Heritage Week is being cele-
brated in many areas of. the country be-
ginning today, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to join me in support of this
occasion., As you may now, several dates
of major significance in the Jewish cal-
endar are included in and around the
scope of this week; which is traditionally
a time of exploring the universal signifi-
cance of these events.
Jewish Heritage Week is primarily an
H 2667
tributions. An understanding of the her-
itage of each, promotes a stronger bind
among us all.
This effort, I and 225 other cosponsors
have supported will encourage this in-
tergroup understanding. I sincerely hope
that others will join us at this time.
? Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of House Joint Resolution 474, to
authorize the President to issue a proc-
lamation designating April 21 through
April 28 as "Jewish Heritage Week." As a
cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 474
I believe this measure makes a significant
contribution toward: promoting inter-
group understanding amongst the
diverse groups which have made this Na-
tion great.
These particular dates are of major
significance in the Jewish calendar. Pass-
over, the anniversary of the Warsaw
ghetto uprising, Israel Independence
Day, Solidarity Sunday for Soviet Jewry,
and Jerusalem Day all fall within or
around its scope. Since 1977 New York
has commemorated this week through
educational programs which explore the
universal significance of these events.
Appreciation of the Jewish comunity's
culture, history, and traditions in this
way gives us the opportunity to acknowl-
edge the contribution the Jewish people
have made to our society and to reaffirm
our commitment to promoting under-
standing amongst all peoples of this Na-
tion and the world. At this critical time
for the Jewish State of Israel, I urge
you to join me in, supporting this im-
portant resolution as an expression of
our commitment to the r :alization of a
world free from fear and persecution.
and dedicated to peace and understand-
ing.?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back
the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
OTTINGER). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from . Virginia
(Mr. HARRIS) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 274).
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof) the
rules were suspended and the joint
resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous matter on the joint
resolution just passed.
Rhe SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Virginia?
There was no objection.
educational venture, and, as such, has` E']'TLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR
met with wide success. I am hopeful that S LOSSES FROM EVACUATING
national recognition will further add to U.S. PERSONNEL FORM A FOREIGN
an appreciation of the culture, history, COUNTRY
and traditions of the Jewish community,
especially as they relate- to the history Mr. DANIELSOI. Mr. Speaker, I move
and philosophy of our own country. to suspend the rules and pass the bill
I am a firm believer that all the ethnic (H.R. 6086) to provide' for the settle=
groups who helped found and nurture ment and payment of claims of civilian
this great Nation of ours have made and military personnel- against the
their own individual and collective con- United States for losses in connection
Annroved For-Release 2007/05/21 ,CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
 H 2668
Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE April 21, 1980
be made from funds appropriated before the
date of enactment of the Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a sec-
ond demanded?
Mr. MOORHEAD of California. Mr.
Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER pro -tempore. Without
objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.. The gen-
tleman from California (Mr. DANIELSON)
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Moon-
HEAD) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from -California (Mr. DANIELSON).
(Mr. DANIELSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, this
bill, H.R. 6086; is to provide an avenue
for very dramatic relief needed by some
U.S. Government personnel. It sterns
from the fact that a year ago a number
of American personnel were evacuated
from Iran on very short notice and were
compelled to leave behind them much, if
not all, of their personal property. The
existing law which would pertain to a
similar situation provides for a ceiling of
$15,000 on claims for such loss or dam-
age to the property of Government per-
sonnel which has been injured or dam-
aged in a foreign country or as an inci-
dent to their Government service. On the
occasion of the lamentable situation in
Iran, Government personnel were com-
pelled to evacuate on extremely short
notice. Many of them were limited - to
carrying two suitcases, and they had to
leave everything else they owned behind
them. As a result, the $15,000 limitation
simply does not begin to make them
whole in a very large number of. cases.
This is not the fault of those who were
evacuated. Insurance could not be ob-
tained to cover the loss situation that
developed. Those who did have insurance
to cover anything in excess of the $15,000
limitation found that their insurance
would not cover loss or damage under
circumstances that would prevail,
namely, under damage resulting from
civil commotion. There is one insurance
company which held that these people
abandoned their property and, therefore,
of course, they did not have to pay the
insurance claims.
The subcommittee took a good deal of
testimony on the matter. The bill was re-
ported out unanimously by the subcom-
mittee and also in the full Committee
on the Judiciary. The limitation of $40,-
000 covers most citizens involved. The
committee report reflects there are very
few claims which do exceed the limita-
tion, but they are very few in number. It
is deemed by both the subcommittee and
the full committee that the $40,000 limi-
tation which is created by this bill will
do justice to all concerned.
I would like to point out that this bill
addresses itself only to the emergency
situations comparable to that which
would prevail in Iran. We have since
that time had two similar situations, one
when the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan was
taken over by a mob about a year ago
and burned to the ground. Many of the
people lost everything that they owned.
They all had to be evacuated in 24 hours.
There was a similar situation in Libya
later in 1979. I believe the amount of
damage was very small in that case.
The $40,000 limitation will apply only
to the emergency evacuation type of case
and not to the situation of an ordinary
traditional loss of or damage to property.
Mr. Speaker, the bill, H.R. 6086, pro-
vides for the settlement and payment of
claims of U.S. civilian and military per-
sonnel for losses of their personal prop-
erty resulting from acts of violence di-
rected against the U.S. Government or its
representatives in a foreign country or
from an authorized evacuation of per-
sonnel from a foreign country.
This would be accomplished by adding
a new section 9 to the Military Personnel
and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of
1964. The new section would-authorize
the head of any agency to pay a military
member or a civilian employee for dam-
age or loss of personal property in a for-
eign country suffered incident to that in-
dividual's service for damage or loss
resulting from either an evacuation of
U.S: personnel in response to political un-
rest or hostile acts in that country or
from any such incident or hostile act, or
from acts of mob violence, terrorist at-
tacks . or other hostile acts, directed
against the'U.S. Government or its offi-
cers or employees.
This new authority would make it pos-
sible to compensate U.S. personnel for
property lost, damaged or abandoned
when the Government has authorized an
evacuation, and the loss results from that
evacuation or was caused by the incident
or hostile action which prompted the
evacuation. As I have stated, the
amended bill would also provide author-
ity to pay for loss or damage to property
in a foreign country resulting from mob
violence, terrorist attacks or other hos-
tile acts directed against the United
States or its personnel. The bill provides
a--ceiling of $40,000 on compensable
claims to apply to a settlement for the
depreciated value of the lost, damaged or
abandoned personal property.
Since the amendments are effective on
and after December 31, 1978, the pro-
visions of the new section would apply
to losses sustained by Federal personnel
evacuated from Iran in 1979, and in the
violence in Pakistan in November of 1979,
and in Libya in December of 1979, both of
which also prompted evacuations.
The mob violence which was recently
directed against the U.S. Foreign Service
posts in Pakistan and, Libya illustrates
the problem faced by our personnel over-
seas. The State Department in testimony
before the subcommittee pointed out
that personnel might not be evacuated in
all such instances. It was pointed out
that such events might not lead to an
evacuation because of political consid-
erations or because a host government
takes immediate steps to prevent recur-
rence of such incidents. As I stated at the
outset, the amended bill would provide
the necessary authority to pay losses
in such cases as well.
At the hearing held on the bill H.R.
6086 and companion measures on Febru-
ary 6, 1980, it was also pointed out that
with the evacuation. of such personnel
from a foreign country, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 6086
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Military Personnel and Civilian Employees'
Claims Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 767, 31 U.S.C.
240 et seq.) is amended by adding ,at the
end thereof the following new section:
"SEc. 9. (a) Subject to any policies that
the President may prescribe, the head of any
agency, or his designee, may settle and pay
not more than $40,000 for any claim against
the United States made by a member of the
uniformed servicesunder the jurisdiction of
that agency or by a civilian officer or em-
ployee of that agency for damage to, or loss
of, personal property in a foreign- country,
incurred on or after December 31, 1978,
which damage or loss was incident to the
service of that member, officer, or employee,
and
"(1) (A) that member, officer, or employee
was evacuated from that country on or after
December 31, 1978, in accordance with a
recommendation or order of the Secretary
of State or other competent authority which
was made in response to incidents of politi-
cal unrest or hostile acts by people in that
country, and (B) that damage or loss re-
sulted from that evacuation or from any
such incident or hostile act: or
"(2) that damage or loss resulted from
acts of mob violence, terrorist attacks, or
other hostile acts, directed against the
United States Government or its officers or
employees.
"(b) The head of the agency, or his de-
signee, authorized under subsection (a)
to settle and pay a claim of a person de-
scribed in such subsection may, if such per-
son Is deceased, settle and pay any claim
made by the decedent's surviving (1) spouse,
(2) children, (3) father or mother, or both,
or (4) brothers or sister, or both, that arose
before, concurrently with, or afer the de-
cedent's death and is otherwise covered by
this section. Claims of survivors shall be
settled and paid in the order set forth in
the preceding sentence.
"(c) A claim may be allowed under this
section only if it is presented in writing
within two years after the claim accrues, or
within one year after-the date of the enact-
ment of this section, whichever is later.
"(d) The head of each agency shall issue
regulations to carry out this section. The
same standards applied in adjudicating a
claim under section 3 of his Act shall be
applied in adjudicating a claim under this
section. Any claim to which this section
applies but which has been adjudicated
under section 3 of this Act by. the applica-
ble head of an agency before the date of
the enactment of this section shall not be
adjudicated under this secion, but any
amount of loss adjudicated under such
section 3. in connection with that claim
which has not been paid shall be payable to
the etxent permitted in this section.
"(e) Upon payment of a claim under, this
section, the United States shall, to the ex-
tent of the amount of such payment, be
subrogated to any right or claim, with respect
to the same damage or loss for which the
claim under this section was paid, that the
'claimant may have against the foreign
country in which that damage or loss oc-
curred.".
SEc. 2. No funds may be obligated or ex-
pended pursuant to the amendments made
by this Act, for fiscal years beginning on or
after October 1,- 1980, except to the extent
provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
Any, payments made pursuant to such
amendments before October 1, 1$80, inay only
Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
 Ap.proved.For Release 2007/05/21.: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
April 21, 1980 CONGRESSIONAL'RECORD -HOUSE
the circumstances which prompted
evacuations, and cases where damage
resulting from mob violence, terrorist
attacks and hostile acts involved in-
stances in which personnel cannot pro-
tect their possessions by obtaining in-
surance. Where employees and military
personnel have obtained insurance to
protect their belongings in foreign coun-
tries, the policies have exclusions for
damage resulting from such acts. As
a practical matter, for such losses in
overseas areas, insurance,- against the
increased-risks of loss -occasioned by po-
litical unrest, civil disorders, and forced
abandonment of personnel property is
simply unavailable. The - committee has
been advised that, in fact, mafiy Iranian
evacuees who thought they had insur-
ance against such risks were shocked
.and dismayed when they later were in-
formed by their insurance carriers to
the contrary.
The amended bill Snow being consid-
ered under suspension in section 2 ob-
viates any possible difficulty concerning
the Budget Act by providing that any
payments, made before October 1, 1980,
can only be made from funds appro-
priated and made available before the
enactment of this bill. and by requiring
any expenditures for fiscal years begin-
ning October 1, 1980 must be provided in
advance by appropriation acts.
The testimony presented at the hear-
ing on February 6, 1980, by` the Depart-
ment of State and Justice supporting
this legislation and the information sup=
piled the committee by those Depart-
ments in addition to that testimony es-
tablish a clear basis and define the need
for the amendment. provided for in the
amended bill. It is urged that the
amended bill be considered favorably.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder
of my time. _
Mr. MOORHEAD of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MOORHEAD of California asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of California. Mr.
Speaker, all Americans continue to share
a genuine frustration and deep outrage
over the illegal confinement of the
American -hostages in Iran. Our hearts
go out to the hostages and their families,
with the hope that there will be a favor-
able resolution of this situation very
soon.
The mob seizure of the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran symbolizes a frightening trend
in the world-a disregard for the basic
Principles. of international- law and'
diplomatic immunity. The' current tur-
moil in Iran and similar incidents that
have -occurred in Pakistan and Libya
demonstrate the vulnerability of Ameri-
can governmental personnel when serv-
ing overseas.
The legislation we consider today does
not deal with the personal safety of such
American Personnel. I know of no way
we can do that by legislation. But it will
provide a remedy for the serious eco-
?nomic consequences that are suffered as
the result of such unlawful action. H.R.
6086 would amend-the Military Person-
nel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act
so as to permit a maximum recovery of
up to $40,000 for losses of personal prop-
erty and household effects by military
personnel and Federal civilian employees
serving overseas. The $40,000 maximum
would apply only in those instances
where .the loss is incident to Federal
service and directly results from political,
unrest or hostile acts-in a foreign coun-
try directed against the United States,
its representatives, or, employees. This
measure would remiburse the American
hostages in Iran and their families for
such losses. In addition, it would estab-.
lish -an ongoing program to deal with
similar situations in the future.
This bill, which I cosponsored with
Administrative 'Law Subcommittee
Chairman GEORGE DANIELSON. does not
alter the existing $15,000 maximum for
claims based upon routine' property
losses. That is, moving from one employ-
ment. station to another..Our approach,
instead, was to' establish a separate
claims category for the unique situation
-of losses resulting from terrorism, mob
violence and the emergency evacuations
made necessary by such situations. The
$40,000 maximum claim amount is made
retroactive "to December 31, 1978, to in-
sure that those military personnel, For-
eign Service officers and other Federal
employees who were present in Iran at
the outbreak of the revolution will be
the first to benefit from these new claims
provisions.' The administration supports
this legislation. Our subcommittee re-
ceived testimony from both the Depart-
ment of State and the Department of
.Defense calling for legislation which at
least would deal with "Iranian-type"
emergencies.
I strongly urge that the House of Rep-
resentatives suspend the rules and pass
H.R. 6086.
^ 1230
Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman
.from, Illinois (Mr. MCCLORY), who serves
as ranking Republican on the full Judi-
ciary Committee, is absent today because
of other congressional business; however,
he is fully behind this legislation, and if
present would speak in favor thereof.
? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I want
to express my full support for what is
a judicious legislative solution to a grow-
ing and serious problem. H.R. 6086 would
amend the Military Personnel and Civil-
ian Employees' Claims Act, so as to per-
mit the reimbursement of governmental
personnel for personal property damage
or losses incurred while serving in for
eign countries. The current statutory
maximum allowed for such claims is now
$15,000. Under this measure it would be
raised to a maximum of $40,000 in cer=
-tain special circumstances.
However, this amendment requires
that the losses be incident to govern-
mental service and, in addition, must
have occurred as a result of two alterna-
tives. These are: First, the individual was
authorized to be evacuated from a for-
eign country on or after December 31,
1978, in response to political unrest or
hostile acts, and the losses resulted from
evacuation from such hostilities; or see-'
ond, the losses resulted from mob vio-
lence or hostile acts directed against the
H 2669
U.S. Government or its employees. The
reason for the retroactive feature is to
insure that those Americans who have
suffered as a result of the upheaval in
Iran will benefit from these new provi-
sions.
The :Subcommittee on Administrative
Law and Governmental Relations of the
House Judiciary Committee heard testi-
mony from administration witnesses on,
February .6, 1980. They and other wit-
nesses urged us to raise the $15,000 statu-
tory ceiling across the board. However,
as a_result of these hearings, our sub-
committee was unconvinced that the case
had been made to raise the $15,000 limit
for routine losses of personal property -
and household goods. Instead, the sub-
committee chose to create a new section
in the Military Personnel and Civilian
Employees' Claims Act to deal with
emergency evacuation claims and losses
resulting from terrorist acts.
The bill the House considers today was
cosponsored by'the chairman of the Ad-
ministrative Law Subcommittee, Mr.
DANIELSON of California, and the ranking
Republican on the subcommittee, Mr.
MOORHEAD of California. I congratulate
both of the honorable gentlemen from
California for their leadership and ef-
forts to resolve this problem.
. I urge the House to' support H.R.
6086.?
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may, have 5 legislative days in which
to revise and extend their remarks on
the bill, H.R. 6086.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, I?have
no further requests for time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr.
-DANIELSON) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill,. H.R. 6086, as
amended.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill,
as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
"A bill to provide' for the settlement
and payment of claims of United States
civilian and military personnel against
the United States for losses resulting
from acts of violence directed against
the 'U.S. Government or its representa-
tives in a foreign country. or from an
authorized evacuation of personnel from
a foreign country.".
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
PRESIDENT CARTER'S RASH
THREAT
(Mr. BINGHAM. asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Presi-
dent Carter's seemingly casual state-
ment in an interview that military ac-
 H 2670
Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-00003R000300060011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE April 21, 1980
tion will have to be taken against Iran
if the hostages are not released in the
next- few weeks is nothing less than
terrifying.
Surely a decision of this magnitude
should be taken only after thorough re-
view within the administration and
after the most careful consultation with
the Congress. Indeed, in view of the fact
that there is ample time available for
such review and consultation, the War
Powers Act requires congressional in-
volvement before such military action
could be undertaken.
Most Americans are deeply frustrated
and angered by the irrational behavior
of the current regime in Iran, but the
last thing we ought to do is to lose our
tempers and act irrationally ourselves.
The most commonly mentioned form
of military-action is a blockade by min-
ing of Iran's port facilities. Is there a
shred of evidence to suggest that Aya-
tollah Khomeini and Iran's Revclutian-
ary Council would knuckle under to such
pressure. It seems morelikely'that Iran's
fanatic, leaders would welcome the mar-
tyrdom entailed and would proclaim to
the world that America's acts of vio-
lence confirm the charges they have
been making of our demonic nature.
Embarking on military action would
lose us the sympathy and support we
have had up to now among Moslem na-
tions and would embarrass and damage
our allies. Even more seriously, it might
well result in active Soviet involvement
in support of Iran.
The President should ask himself who
it is among us that wants the United
States to engage in acts of war against
Iran. Surely not the hostages or their
families. Being incarcerated month after
month is hideously painful, but it is not
to be.compared with death.
True, -the American people seem to
have grown more and more dissatis-
fled by the President's policy of eco-
nomic pressure, but that is not to say
that they want acts of war. If the Presi-
dent must suffer politically because of
the American voter's frustration at the
lack of results in Iran, then he must
have the fortitude and the integrity to
accept that. For him to embark on a
rash and ill-considered course of action
in a frantic search for votes would con-
demn- him in the eyes of history.
Perhaps , the President's- casually
stated threat does not represent the
administration's policy. I hope that is
the case, even though it would once
again present this Presidency as a. wildly
erratic one.
But if the case is otherwise, and the
threat represents a considered policy,
then the leadership of this Congress
must demand that the Congress be fully
involved in the decision before it be-
comes final, as the Constitution and the
War Powers Act require.
In today's Washington Post, the dis-
tinguished columnist Clayton Fritchey
makes essentially these same points, far
more eloquently than I can do. His col-
umn follows:
MIXED SIGNALS ON IRAN
(By Clayton Fritchey)
It is not surprising that America's allies
feel imposed upon in being required-with.'
out prior consultation to reinforce a White
House crackdown on Iran about which they
have grave misgivings. However, if it's any
comfort to our foreign friends, they are not
alone in being ignored by the president in
the formulation of a policy that could well
lead to military involvement. Congress has
not been consulted either.
There is no law, of course, obliging the
president to get a green light in advance from.
the allies, but there is one-the 1973 War
Powers Resolution-that requires prior con-
cultation with Congress on military initia-
tives, except in an "emergency" when there
is no time to consult.
For the last two weeks or so, Carter and
his spokesmen have been threatening to take
drastic steps that "might very well involve
military means" if the economic sanctions
already imposed fail to free the hostages. The
time for decision, says Zbigniew Brzezinki,
the national security advisor. Is "a matter of
weeks at the most."
Nobody In the administration Is counting
on the present sanctions (largely symbolic),
or the severing of diplomatic relations with
Iran, to win the release of the hostages.
Hence, the United States Is on the brink of
what Carter says "would be very strong and
forceful" action. Both a naval blockade and
the aerial mining of Iranian oil, ports have
been intimated.
The president's tough new posture has been
described by his press secretary as a public
relations triumph, which it may be for the
moment. But in adopting it, Carter has paid
scant heed to the War Powers Act that was
enacted in the wake of Vietnam to inhibit
crief executives from initiating military
moves entirely on their own.
It may be that Carter intends to consult
Congress before using the armed forces. If
so, the time to do it is now-not at the last
minute, or after the fact. It also may be that
he has privately confided in some of his
friends on the Hill, but there is no record
of it.
In any case, that's not the kind of broad
conferring called for in Section 3 of the 1973
resolution. It provides that "the president in
every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing U.S. armed
forces into hostilities or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances."
The resolution further says that the presi-
dent's powers in such 'situations "are ex-
ercised only pursuant- to (1) a declaration
of war, (2) specific Statutory authorization,
or (3) a national emergency created by at-
tack upon the United States, its territories
or possessions, or its armed forces."
Pat Holt was chief of staff of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee when the reso-
lution was debated and adopted. This Is the
way he interprets it:
"Since both a declaration of war and
specific statutory authorization require an
act of Congress, this means that the presi-
dent can act on his own authority in the
case of hostilities or of an imminent threat
of hostilities only when there is a national
emergency caused by an attack on U.S. ter-
ritory or on U.S. armed forces. This does not
Include a national emergency arising from
other causes; nor does it include attacks on
civilian Americans."
The dilemma of our European and Asian
partners has aroused sympathy in., unex-
pected quarters. Ronald Reagan, for instance,
is saying, "A long string of conflicting sig-
nals from the White House, State.Depart-
ment and the National Security Council to
the allies clearly is causing them to wonder
if the Carter. administration really knows
what it is doing." He has a podnt.
The allies, being so dependent on Persian
Gulf oil, naturally are not eager to join the
United States in economic and diplomatic
warfare against Iran, let alone military in-
volvement. They feel it would not only be
against their best interests, but against the '
best interests of the alliance as well.
There is also concern here and abroad that
a resort to raw force could be fatal for 'the
hostages and jeopardize the long-range in-
terests of the United States in the whole
area, especially if Iran, . In desperation,
should turn to neighboring Russia for help.
Since Carter pursued a constructive policy
of patience and, quiet diplomacy for almost
six months, why not extend it for a couple
of more months to give the new Iranian
parliament, now being elected, a chance to
resolve the hostage question, as proposed. by
Ayatollah Khomeini? Even if it turns out to
be just another'delaying tactic, there is little
to lose.
The danger to the hostages, who have been
well treated, is not losing their liberty be-
tween now and summer, but the possibility
of losing their lives if U.S. armed force is
invoked. Being confined is no picnic, but it
is certainly better than being killed.
GRACIOUS OFFER OF - GEORGIA
O'KEEFFE REFUSED BY NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE
(Mr. LUJAN asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, we in New
Mexico are very proud of the accom-
plishments of the, world famous artist
Georgia O'Keeffe. Her brilliant portray-
als of the New Mexico. landscape and
other masterpieces have brought pleasure
to milions.
As you may know, Georgia O'Keeffe
resides in northern New Mexico and re-
cently made a most gracious offer to the
Government and the people of the
United States. She offered to donate her
home and studio to the National Park
Service for conversion into a national ,
historic site. But incredibly the. Park
Service rejected the offer.
The events surrounding this rejection
are most curious and very disturbing.
The Albuquerque Journal' recently edi-
torialized about this strange govern-
mental saga and today I am submitting
it for review by my colleagues. The edi-
toral thoughtfully sums up the situation
and urges this body to approve Miss
O'Keeffe's home and studio as a national
historic site. I have introduced legisla-
tion that would realize that goal. It is
currently being studied by the House In-
terior Committee.
Despite the reluctance of the Park
Service, to recognize the value and cul-
tural significance of this proposal, I am
sure the Congress will disagree. The edi-
torial follows:
"GIFT HORSE" REJECTED
The U.S. National Park Service's thanks-
but-no-thanks response to New Mexico artist
Georgia O'Keeffe's offer of her home and
studio for conversion into a national his-
toric site leaves the artist's New Mexico
neighbors puzzled and dismayed.
The most logical and acceptable explana-
tion for the federal agency's bent to treat
the O'Keeffe property as a gift horse-
budgetary problems-offered an excuse the
Park Service did not see fit to invoke. To
accept the property would be to assume ob-
ligations for its maintenance in perpetuity
and for the accommodation and supervision
of visitors to the historic site.
The facts refute and invalidate the one
reason offered by the Park Service: .that the
agency's rules provide that "properties