[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H838-H841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SENSE OF HOUSE CONCERNING TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY 
                    BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 68) stating the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security 
Between the United States of America and Japan is essential for 
furthering the security interests of the United States, Japan, and the 
nations of the Asia-Pacific region, and that the people of Okinawa 
deserve recognition for their contributions toward ensuring the 
treaty's implementation, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res. 68

       Whereas the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security 
     Between the United States of America and Japan is critical to 
     the security interests of the United States, Japan, and the 
     countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
       Whereas the security relationship between the United States 
     and Japan is the foundation for the security strategy of the 
     United States in the Asia-Pacific region;
       Whereas strong bilateral security ties between the two 
     countries provide a key stabilizing influence in an uncertain 
     post-cold war world;
       Whereas this bilateral security relationship makes it 
     possible for the United States and Japan to preserve their 
     interests in the Asia-Pacific region;
       Whereas forward-deployed forces of the United States are 
     welcomed by allies of the United States in the region because 
     such forces are critical for maintaining stability in East 
     Asia;
       Whereas regional stability has undergirded East Asia's 
     economic growth and prosperity;
       Whereas the recognition by allies of the United States of 
     the importance of United States armed forces for security in 
     the Asia-Pacific region confers on the United States 
     irreplaceable good will and diplomatic influence in that 
     region;
       Whereas Japan's host nation support is a key element in the 
     ability of the United States to maintain forward-deployed 
     forces in that country;
       Whereas the Governments of the United States and Japan, in 
     the Special Action Committee on Okinawa Final Report issued 
     by the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee 
     established by the two countries, made commitments to 
     reducing the burdens of United States armed forces on the 
     people of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa;
       Whereas such commitments must maintain the operational 
     capability and readiness of United States forces; and
       Whereas gaining the understanding and support of the people 
     of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa, in fulfilling 
     these commitments is crucial to the effective implementation 
     of the Treaty: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between 
     the United States of America and Japan remains vital to the 
     security interests of the United States and Japan, as well as 
     the countries of the Asia-Pacific region; and
       (2) the people of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa, 
     deserve special recognition and gratitude for their 
     contributions toward ensuring the Treaty's implementation and 
     regional peace and stability.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of 
House Resolution 68. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for raising this issue and bringing us this 
legislation. This Member would note that our good friend from Indiana 
has consistently been a voice in support of United States security 
interests, and the gentleman's resolution regarding the United States-
Japan security agreement and the people of Okinawa is no exception. He 
is to be congratulated for his initiative. This Member is pleased, 
together with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], 
to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 68.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of 
United States security strategy for the Asia-Pacific region and serves 
as the anchor for the United States military presence in the region. 
Not only do United States forward based forces in Japan contribute to 
Japanese security, but these assets are absolutely essential for any 
contingency on the Korean Peninsula. Our bases on the Japanese mainland 
and on Okinawa enable us to protect and advance our interests 
throughout the Pacific. In addition, elements of these forward-based 
forces were among the first to arrive in the Persian Gulf during 
Operation Desert Shield.
  There is no question that American forces in Japan contribute to a 
sense of regional stability. This Member has often commented that all 
the nations of Asia, with the possible exception of North Korea, 
welcome the presence of United States forces and want us to remain in 
the region. Indeed, the commitment of the Clinton administration to 
keep 100,000 troops in Asia has become an important issue 
psychologically with the countries of the region, who look constantly 
for reassurance that the United States military will remain in the 
region.
  This Member would also note that the Government of Japan pays the

[[Page H839]]

overwhelming majority of expenses of forward basing of American troops 
in Japan. In what is a model basing agreement, the Japanese pay 
approximately 75 percent of our basing costs. Frankly, even considering 
all direct and indirect costs, it is cheaper to keep our troops in 
Japan than it is to base them in the United States. As House Resolution 
68 notes, we would not be able to maintain such a vigorous presence in 
the Pacific were it not for the host nation's support provided by the 
Japanese.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 68 offers special recognition of the 
importance of the United States-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and 
Security. The resolution also takes note of the contribution of the 
people of Okinawa, who have been expected to bear a disproportionate 
share of the burden of hosting our troops. This is a good and useful 
resolution, Mr. Speaker, and this Member urges approval of House 
Resolution 68.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the ranking 
member and chairman, respectively, of the Subcommittee on Asia and the 
Pacific, as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
chairman of the committee, for the help and leadership they have all 
extended in moving this resolution to the floor.
  Former Ambassador Mike Mansfield, who called the relationship between 
the United States and Japan the most important bilateral relationship 
in the world, bar none, would love to see this moved. Our bilateral 
alliance has endured and remains strong because the United States and 
Japan are united not by a common enemy but by a common interest.
  In December 1996 the United States and Japan agreed to measures to 
renew and strengthen our security relationship. In particular, our two 
Governments agreed to lessen the burden borne by the people of Okinawa 
whose small island prefecture hosts over half of the forward-deployed 
United States forces in Japan.
  This is the right moment to restate the fundamental importance of the 
United States-Japan Mutual Security Treaty to the peace and prosperity 
of the entire Asia-Pacific region. It is also the right time to 
recognize the contribution of the people of Okinawa toward ensuring 
regional peace and security.
  My Republican colleague, Senator William Roth, has introduced an 
identical measure in the other body. This is a bipartisan effort. Our 
relationship with Japan is crucially important. For this reason and the 
others I have mentioned, I urge the adoption of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa 
[Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution which 
reaffirms that the security treaty between the United States and Japan 
remains the anchor of American engagement and the foundation for 
regional stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
  I would commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for 
introducing this excellent piece of legislation. I would further 
commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the full committee 
chairman; the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific; and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the 
Pacific, for their strong support and work on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 68 sends the message that although the 
cold war era has ended, the security alliance between the United States 
and Japan remains more critical than ever--and is in the best interests 
of both countries as well as the nations of the Asia-Pacific region.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure underscores the important role that United 
States Armed Forces deployed in Japan and the Pacific have played in 
ensuring peace, that our allies have welcomed our presence, and that 
the regional stability provided by our forces have materially 
contributed to Asia's tremendous growth and economic prosperity.

                              {time}  1545

  The resolution further recognizes, Mr. Speaker, the vital 
contributions of Japan as the host nation. I find it very appropriate 
that the people of Okinawa, who have borne the heaviest burden in 
supporting the American bases, are honored by this measure through 
special recognition and thanks for their sacrifices and invaluable 
contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to adopt this excellent 
resolution which supports the United States-Japan security alliance, 
thereby furthering peace and stability for all throughout the Asian 
Pacific region.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Resolution 68.
  The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United 
States and Japan is the framework that supports our commitment to the 
Asia-Pacific region. The Japanese-American relationship provides the 
stable conditions which promote trade and commerce in the region and 
provides further advancements in the peaceful relations of all peoples 
of the Asia and the Pacific region.
  The security of the Asia-Pacific region is of vital interest to the 
United States, and no community of the United States is more acutely 
aware of this than Guam, my home island. In the post-cold war 
environment U.S. forward deployed forces have been welcomed by our 
allies in the theater. This forward deployment is made possible by the 
special friendship shared between the United States and Japan that is 
signified by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation. In the coming years, as 
our friendship with Japan continues, let us not just focus on the 
numerical commitment of 100,000 troops to the region, but ensure that 
the United States maintains its capabilities in the changing Asian 
Pacific region.
  The United States commitment to the Asia-Pacific region has required 
sacrifices from many people, sacrifices by our soldiers, our sailors, 
our airmen and marines who defend our Nation's interests in the region; 
also the contributions by the people of Japan and, most importantly, 
the people of Okinawa. Okinawa has continued to play a pivotal role in 
ensuring the security environment of the region. This community has 
contributed much, and this resolution extends to them our sincere 
appreciation.
  During my recent visit to Okinawa, I saw firsthand some of the 
concerns they face supporting a large contingent of U.S. forces. Even 
after the Special Action Committee on Okinawa recognized the need to 
reduce the presence of United States Armed Forces on Japan, our 
commitment to the people of Okinawa's concerns cannot and should not be 
lessened. The people of Guam have a distinct understanding of their 
concerns, and to them as well as the people of Japan we express our 
sincere appreciation.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to push this 
to the point of a vote, but I want to express my disagreement with the 
resolution. I am sorry to spoil the good cheer, and I admire the people 
of Okinawa, but I think we should make it very clear that there is 
considerable unhappiness in the United States and here in the Congress 
with the one-sidedness of this relationship, particularly financially.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record an article, from which I want 
to read briefly.
  The article referred to is as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 15, 1997]

             Japan Hesitant About U.S. Antimissile Project

                          (By Clifford Krauss)

       Washington, Feb. 14--After three years of exploratory 
     talks, Administration officials say Japan has all but decided 
     against taking part in an antimissile defense project with

[[Page H840]]

     the United States for fear of offending China and 
     overspending scarce military resources.
       Tokyo's hesitation stems from reluctance to spend billions 
     of dollars when its own economy is weak, and concerns that 
     developing a missile system would anger Japan's deeply 
     pacifist electorate and frighten Asian neighbors wary of any 
     signs of a Japanese military buildup.
       A decision not to join the project would be a setback to 
     American military contractors that hope to supply Japan with 
     hardware. And it could swell United States military budgets 
     for Asia because the United States would have to bear the 
     cost of such a system alone.
       Senior Administration officials said that no Japanese 
     decision would be announced for months and that the United 
     States would press ahead with its own plans to develop 
     antimissile systems to protect American forces in Japan from 
     any North Korean or Chinese attack.
       The feasibility of an effective antimissile shield is still 
     a matter of debate, but Pentagon officials say the Patriot 
     missiles, which displayed a mixed record during the Persian 
     Gulf war, have been updated and improved in recent years.
       Administration officials also say a decision by Tokyo not 
     to take part would not hurt its relations with Washington.
       Discussions on how to pool technology, engineering talent 
     and money to set up a ``theater missile defense'' began 
     shortly after North Korea test-fired a Rodong 1 missile 300 
     miles into the Sea of Japan in 1993. A middle-level working 
     group of Japanese and American defense planners has met nine 
     times to discuss regional threats, deployment timetables and 
     various types of land- and sea-based antiballistic weaponry.
       Japan has been wary of the project ever since the Clinton 
     Administration first broached the idea in October 1993. But 
     American hopes were raised after Japan allocated $2.7 million 
     in its 1996 budget to study building an antimissile system, 
     20 times what Tokyo spent the year before on the project. 
     American officials were also encouraged when President 
     Clinton and Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto met in Tokyo 
     last April and promised to broaden their military alliance.
       A Japanese Foreign Ministry official said the group would 
     continue meeting until the summer, after which time Tokyo 
     would decide what role to play. ``At this moment, we have not 
     made any decision and we cannot predict or prejudge any 
     result or conclusion,'' he said.
       But after a meeting in Tokyo last weekend, senior American 
     officials have concluded that Japan is simply not ready to 
     pursue a project that could cost them as much as $10 billion 
     a year--more than one-fourth of Japan's current $35 billion 
     military budget--for four or five years. They said the 
     project has a few powerful supporters in Japan's military 
     establishment, but is opposed by many in the Foreign Ministry 
     and by most of the nation's top economic officials.
       ``Japan is financially constrained, and they don't have the 
     strategic consensus,'' said a senior Pentagon official 
     involved in making Japan policy. ``Japan is most nervous 
     about China, even through they talk about North Korea. A 
     decision to build this would be perceived by the Chinese to 
     be a blatant act. So I'm sure Japan will not go down this 
     line.''
       Another Administration official, who noted that China has 
     repeatedly warned Japan that it would view deployment of an 
     antimissile system as a hostile act, added, ``This is not 
     something that will happen anytime soon.''
       The Chinese have argued that a Japanese antimissile program 
     would undermine regional arms-control efforts.
       Given the pacifist strain that runs through the Japanese 
     electorate, American officials said, Prime Minister Hashimoto 
     and other members of the political elite cannot be expected 
     to commit themselves to any such program without a thorough 
     debate in Parliament. And there is no sign, they said, that 
     Parliament will take up the issue any time soon.
       The Pentagon has proposed at least four antimissile options 
     for deployment by 2004, including enhanced Patriot surface-
     to-air missiles designed to intercept low-altitude missiles 
     and Thaad antiballistic systems for high-altitude 
     interceptions. American officials have also discussed the 
     possibility of sharing with Japan early-warning data from 
     satellites that are now being developed to detect infrared 
     radiation at the time of a launching.
       ``Our interest is that we would like to see American troops 
     in Japan protected from ballistic missile attacks,'' said 
     Joseph Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, who is 
     dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 
     University. ``But Japan is very sensitive to the political 
     repercussions in China and North Korea.''
       Many American military experts still say Japan will 
     eventually join the project, but perhaps not for another five 
     years or more.
       ``These things take time,'' said John M. Deutch, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence, who pushed for a joint 
     project when he served as a senior Defense Department 
     official in the early 1990's. ``Inevitably, the Japanese 
     Government will see that it needs to be concerned with 
     antimissile defense.''
       Despite the setback, Administration officials say they are 
     committed to building or upgrading regional antimissile 
     systems to protect American troops in all potentially 
     hazardous regions, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and South 
     Korea. The Administration's proposed $265 billion military 
     budget for 1998 calls for a 3 percent cut in spending from 
     the 1997 budget, but it adds $320 million for antimissile 
     systems.
       ``The goal is to develop, procure and deploy systems that 
     can protect forward-deployed U.S. forces, as well as allied 
     and friendly nations, from theater-range ballistic 
     missiles,'' Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said this 
     week while testifying on the budget before Congress. ``These 
     programs are structured to proceed at the fastest pace that 
     technology will allow.''

  New York Times, February 14:

       Japan has all but decided against taking part in an 
     antimissile defense project with the United States for fear 
     of offending China and overspending scarce military 
     resources.

  Needless to say, the scarce military resources they are afraid of 
overspending are theirs. They are quite willing to spend ours.
  As the article points out this ``could swell United States military 
budgets for Asia because the United States would have to bear the cost 
of such a system alone.''
  And where is this system going to go if the Japanese do not want to 
pay for it? Then we are going to have to pay for it in Japan. This is a 
system that we are going to install in Japan to protect American 
soldiers that are in Japan, in part to protect Japan from North Korea 
or China, but the Japanese do not want to offend North Korea or China; 
they want us to be over there to offend North Korea and China 
presumably, and they do not want to spend their money because they have 
budget problems.
  The worst of it is the article then concludes in relevant part: 
``Administration officials say a decision by Tokyo not to take part 
would not hurt its relations with Washington.''
  Well, I have to say that maybe it does not hurt relations with the 
administration, but the administration is wrong to say so. The notion 
that the American taxpayer, and we are going to balance the budget, and 
we are going to be making cuts in education and environment and housing 
and health care and very important domestic programs so that we can 
spend billions of dollars to build an antimissile system in Japan to 
protect American troops that are in Japan to help Japan, and the 
Japanese tell us they cannot afford to do it because they do not have 
enough money; they have got budget problems.
  We have got to put an end to the one-sidedness and subsidy of the 
Japanese nation.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In light of what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 
just said, I would remind my colleagues that American military might, 
100,000 personnel, a little bit less than that at the moment, are in 
the Asia-Pacific region because of our national interests. If we 
maintain a security balance in the region, it is far less likely that 
American troops will ever have to be wounded and die in that part of 
the world in the future.
  Make no mistake about it. Our forces are located in Okinawa and 
elsewhere because it is in our national interests to have them there.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Hamilton. I commend him for 
his efforts to draw attention to the significance of the Asia-Pacific 
region.
  This resolution highlights the unique and important relationship 
between the United States and Japan. It also addresses the important 
role that the people of Okinawa have played in ensuring peace and 
stability in the region.
  The significance of the Asia-Pacific region will continue to grow in 
the 21st century. As we continue to review the defense treaty between 
the United States and Japan, it is important that the people of Japan 
know that we are committed to the long-term stability of the region. 
The United States-Japan relationship remains the cornerstone of our 
engagement in the region.
  As a nation, we must continue to strengthen our ties with Japan. In 
Hawaii, the stability of our economy is tied to the stability of the 
region and largely to Japan. The people of Hawaii have developed 
broadbased ties with Japan, to include a strong relationship with the 
Prefecture of Okinawa.
  As a result of these ties, the people of Hawaii continue to be 
concerned about the land issues being addressed in Okinawa with regard 
to basing of United States military forces. Unfortunately, it took the 
rape of a 12-year-old school girl in 1995 to turn the attention of the 
world toward the issues raised in Okinawa with respect to their land 
use concerns.

[[Page H841]]

Today, we are making steady progress on these very sensitive issues 
which need to be resolved between the Okinawa Prefecture and the 
Government of Japan.
  It is no exaggeration to say that Okinawa's people view their 
homeland as occupied territory. They see the overwhelming presence of 
United States military forces there as confirmation and they remain the 
poorest prefecture in Japan.
  Some 50 years after the end of World War II in the Pacific, Okinawa 
is the only unresolved residual issue of any significance between Japan 
and the United States. The people of Okinawa are the least culpable of 
all those thrust into World War II. For centuries past, they have been 
known in the region for promoting peace. They are friendly to the 
interests and people of the United States. Yet they bear the most 
burden generations later.
  They have given up a great deal in terms of economic prosperity and 
deserve to be recognized for their contributions toward ensuring the 
treaty's implementation and regional peace and security.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution (H.Res. 68), as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________