[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 11494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         STAND UP FOR OUR VETS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 21, 2001

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, later this month, the Prime Minister of 
Japan will meet President Bush. I urge the President to address the 
issue of compensation of American veterans who were sent to forced 
labor camps during the war.
  Obtaining justice for Americans who suffered at the hands of Japanese 
companies is an issue that must be addressed during the upcoming 
summit.
  It is unfortunate that the State Department has taken the mistaken 
and regrettable position that the Peace Treaty with Japan somehow bars 
private legal actions by our veterans against private Japanese 
corporations to whom they were forced to work with no pay and 
horrendous conditions.
  The legal experts who have aligned themselves with these American 
heroes in their actions against immensely profitable private Japanese 
companies make a number of solid arguments to the effect that the 
waiver provisions of the 1951 Treaty do not cover these national-
against-national claims. It is far from obvious that under our 
constitutional system, the federal government even has the authority to 
compromise or to waive claims of private citizens, which, after all, do 
not belong to the government. Nor is it obvious that the negotiators of 
the Treaty--including John Foster Dulles--contemplated, much less 
preemptively resolved, private claims of this kind.
  Article 14 of the Treaty does not even purport to waive all claims 
howsoever arising, having to do with misconduct by Japanese companies 
during the War years. It is limited, even by its own terms, to claims 
based on ``actions taken . . . in the course of the prosecution of the 
War.'' Acts that were illegal under international law as it existed in 
the 1940s are not, and should not be, protected under the waiver 
according to the principle of law, morality, and common sense that one 
should not be permitted to profit from his own wrong.
  Using slave labor to assist in the War effort was illegal in the 
years 1939-45, as it is today. Thus mistreatment of prisoners of war 
cannot have been undertaken ``in the course of the prosecution of the 
War,'' unless the companies that accepted the benefit of these 
captives' work are now to confess that they are guilty of war crimes: 
allegations they have vehemently resisted for nearly five decades.
  These men do not seek, nor does the outcome they are attempting to 
achieve require, abrogation of the Treaty. They believe that as a 
matter both of law and of fairness, the Treaty and the peaceful Pacific 
that it heralds are consistent with a measure of compensation for their 
suffering. A legal victory for our vets would be another indication 
that the United States legal system is founded not on empty ideals but 
on the real rights of real people. That would be an outcome in which 
all Americans should rejoice.
  But make no mistake about it, while I hope that the Bush 
Administration and the government of Japan will assist our veterans 
through diplomacy, failure to do so would not put an end to this issue. 
Rep. Michael Honda and Dana Rohrabacher have introduced legislation to 
overcome the State Department's twisted interpretation. I support this 
bill and will push for its passage into law if the U.S./Japanese Summit 
does not produce justice for our veterans.

                          ____________________