[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE FEATURES IMPROVEMENT BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 18, 2000

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Congress 
created the national defense features program in response to a report 
by the Department of Defense describing a shortage of sealift capacity 
during military contingencies. This shortage of shipping space for 
heavy military vehicles and other cargo was best cured by a program 
such as the NDF program that would be the most cost-effective way to 
augment the substantial investment that was being made in new sealift 
ships by the Navy.
  Within the last several years, Congress has authorized and 
appropriated funds to install special defense features in new 
commercial vessels to be built in the shipyards of the United States. 
Most recently, at my request and as a result of the leadership of our 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, Congress included in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 a provision that would 
expand the Secretary of Defense's ability to fund militarily useful 
projects under the NDF program.
  Since the NDF program was launched, Congress expected that our 
allies, particularly Japan, would find mutual defense benefits in 
promoting the program on their trade routes with the United States. 
Under one project that has received attention, ten commercial vessels 
would be built in the United States based on a design funded and 
approved by DARPA's Maritime Technology Program. These vessels would 
normally operate in the Japan-United States vehicle trade, which is at 
present entirely dominated by Japanese carriers.
  Notwithstanding expressions of support by very senior officials in 
our government, this expectation has not been realized. The Government 
of Japan continues to take the position that the decision to employ NDF 
ships is strictly a matter for the commercial judgment of Japanese 
vehicle manufacturing and shipping companies. The vehicle 
manufacturers, which operate under closely inter-locking relationships 
with the Japanese vehicle carriers, continue to insist that the NDF 
program is a matter between the two respective governments since it 
addresses defense.
  In view of the US role in providing security for our Far East allies, 
it hardly seems appropriate that defense concerns expressed by our 
government should not have been met with a more positive response. Our 
government's repeated representations to the Japanese government have 
fallen on deaf ears as if the NDF program was without military value, a 
position that is contradicted by two US Navy reports on the NDF 
program. Taking note of the extensive military collaboration of our two 
governments, which it is safe to say has conferred material benefits on 
Japan, this is not the position that Congress should have expected.
  The position that this matter is purely commercial in nature rather 
than governmental in character is not defensible. Japan, like other 
nations, supports its merchant marine with financial assistance, 
including direct construction loans at artificially low rates of 
interest. This is not the mark of a purely private industry operating 
under purely commercial conditions.
  The real reason our carriers are effectively being excluded from this 
market is the Japanese kereitsu system of doing business. It is not 
price, but rather the interwoven industrial and financial structure 
that closes this market like so many other sectors of the Japanese 
economy against international competition. The situation, then, is that 
a fleet of US built and operated ships, commercially competitive and 
having significant defense value to both nations, has apparently no 
chance to break through the economic fence encircling the Japanese 
vehicle trade.
  Notwithstanding this state of affairs, I continue to hope that the 
Government of Japan and the vehicle manufacturers will ultimately see 
the merit of supporting the NDF program, especially given the 
longstanding support of the Department of Defense. Recently, the 
Secretary of Defense and the Director General of the Japanese Self-
Defense Agency agreed to establish a regular consultative mechanism to 
ensure closer cooperation in improving our mutual defense capabilities. 
I understand the Secretary of Defense suggested that this might be an 
appropriate mechanism to move the NDF program forward. I agree.
  Given past experience, however, we may nonetheless not see the type 
of action that is by now long overdue. Therefore, along with my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, I am introducing a bill today that we 
intend to push later next year if we do not see any movement on the 
part of the Government of Japan. The bill is very straightforward. It 
says: If the Federal Maritime Commission finds that vessels built under 
the NDF program are unable to obtain employment in a particular trade 
route in the foreign commerce of the United States for which they are 
designed to operate, and if that sector of the trade route has been 
dominated historically by citizens of an allied nation, then the 
Commission shall take action to counteract the restrictive trade 
practices that have led to this situation.
  I trust it will not be necessary to enact legislation to encourage 
support for a program so self-evidently in the mutual security 
interests of our two nations and that as a result of the new 
consultative mechanism the NDF program can begin the much needed 
recapitalization of our aging Ready Reserve Force.

                          ____________________