[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3233-H3234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JAPAN FORCES REDEPLOYMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is recognized during
morning business for 5 minutes.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today President Clinton arrives in Asia
on a trip designed to shore up the United States security relationship
with Japan and Korea. Since the conviction of three marines on charges
of raping a 12-year-old girl in Okinawa and the ensuing protests on the
island, the future status of U.S. forces on Okinawa has been unclear.
Following the rape incident, other issues, such as the return of land
used by U.S. forces on Okinawa, have boiled to the surface. Last week,
landowners on Okinawa refused to renew land leases
[[Page H3234]]
on which U.S. forces train. Pressure from Okinawan landowners has
forced the Pentagon to reevaluate the future status of U.S. military
bases on Okinawa.
A discussion of United States forces in Japan inevitably involves an
evaluation of the United States presence in both Guam and the Asian
Pacific region and the Pentagon's policy of forward deployment of
100,000 American forces in the region. I am pleased that the
administration has stood firm on our security commitments and on
maintaining the military forces necessary to support these commitments.
As recent incidents in the Taiwan Straits and North Korea's military
provocations in the DMZ demonstrate, the United States must maintain
the flexibility to respond quickly to threats in the region. In spite
of technological advances which enable rapid deployment of forces from
other U.S. bases to the Pacific, there is no substitute for a forward-
deployed U.S. presence in the region. For 50 years, the U.S. presence
in the Asia Pacific region has maintained the peace and made possible
the economic prosperity the region and the United States have enjoyed.
Yesterday, Secretary of Defense William Perry announced that the U.S.
military will give back to Okinawa about 20 percent of the island
property it uses for training. Secretary Perry qualified this action by
saying that ``we are in no way backing off from our view that the
United States military presence in Japan, in Okinawa, is critical to
security in the region.'' While some of these forces are being
transferred to other bases in Japan, the Secretary said the United
States is now considering moving some military forces from Japan to
other places in the region, including Guam.
Secretary Perry's thinking on this issue proves what Guam has been
saying all along: Guam should be considered in the context of its role
in Asia and not compared to domestic bases. It appears that Guam is
Secretary Perry's fallback position. The Defense Department should make
clear its intentions for Guam. This is only fair to Guam, which has
been subjected to mixed signals from DOD--on the one hand we are
enduring military cuts mandated by BRAC 95 while on the other hand we
are told our island is DOD's fallback.
The problematic status of foreign basing should make the Pentagon
reevaluate its timetable and pace of base closures on Guam. Guam and
its U.S. citizens provides stability, and unlike foreign bases, the
military does not have to deal with arduous political issues and
international agreements.
The reliance on workers at foreign ship repair facilities undercuts
the Pentagon's support on Guam. As a matter of principle, American
workers on Guam deserve the benefits of forward deployment. As a matter
of policy, the Pentagon would be prudent to guarantee an effective
transition for the ship repair facility on Guam which was slated for
closure by a recent BRAC decision. A prudent policy would be to keep
the Military Sealift Command supply ships forward deployed on Guam
while Guam transitions to a privatized SRF.
The successful transition to a privatized SRF-Guam depends on repair
work from these supply ships. Keeping the supply ships on Guam for the
foreseeable future is good policy for three reasons:
First, the supply ships will help Guam implement its privatization by
providing SRF with a base load of work;
Second, this policy will provide support for American workers at an
American shipyard;
And third, this policy will give the Navy a reliable ship repair
facility that supports their forward presence in Asia unencumbered by
changing international dynamics.
The Navy's national security concerns cannot be divorced from Guam's
economic recovery. The Navy has long-term requirements on Guam, but it
must also recognize the needs of its host. I am hopeful that the
Pentagon will learn a lesson from its experience in Okinawa: unlike
foreign bases, Guam is reliable.
____________________