[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.
____________________