[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18115-18117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              H. RES. 121

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. On June 26, 2007, the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives met to consider and adopt 
H. Res. 121. This resolution was authored by Congressman Michael Honda 
of San Jose, CA.
  H. Res. 121 expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives 
that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, 
and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner 
for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into sexual 
slavery, known to the world as ``comfort women,'' during its colonial 
and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s 
through the duration of World War II.
  There is no doubt in my mind that during the war period the men in 
the Imperial Armed Forces of the Government of Japan did abuse, 
assault, and forcibly impose their wills upon women for sexual 
purposes. This was conduct and behavior that cannot in any way be 
condoned or justified.
  These events, according to H. Res. 121, occurred during the war 
period of the 1930s and 1940s. Records indicate that on August 31, 
1994, as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II was 
approaching, then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement 
articulating Japan's remorse and apology to comfort women.
  His statement says in part, ``on the issue of wartime `comfort 
women,' which seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women, I 
would like to take this opportunity once again to express my profound 
and sincere remorse and apologies.''
  This statement was made in his official capacity as Prime Minister of 
Japan.
  Subsequently, every successive Prime Minister since 1996--Prime 
Ministers Hashimoto, Obuchi, Mori, and Koizumi--have all issued letters 
of apologies to individual former comfort women, who have accepted an 
apology letter along with atonement money offered to her by the Asian 
Woman's Fund. It should be noted that some former comfort women refused 
to accept the atonement money.
  The Asian Women's Fund was established, sanctioned, and approved by 
the Government of Japan. The letters addressed to former comfort women 
were issued by the Prime Ministers of Japan in their official capacity, 
and recite, ``as Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most 
sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent 
immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical 
and psychological wounds as comfort women.
  I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral 
responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up 
squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future 
generations.'' Japan's present Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, in a March 
1,

[[Page 18116]]

2007, news conference clearly indicated that Japan accepts 
responsibility and expressly apologized to all its victims.
  On March 11, 2007, Prime Minister Abe made the following statement:

       I will stand by the Kono Statement. This is our consistent 
     position. Further, we have been apologizing to those who 
     suffered immeasurable pain and incurable psychological wounds 
     as comfort women. Former Prime Ministers, including Prime 
     Ministers Koizumi and Hashimoto have issued letters to the 
     comfort women. I would like to be clear that I carry the same 
     feeling.

  The 1993 Kono statement made by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei 
Kono stated in part:

       The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, 
     involved in the establishment and management of the comfort 
     stations and the transfer of comfort women. . . . The 
     Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once 
     again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all 
     those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered 
     immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological 
     wounds as comfort women.

  During his visit to our Nation's Capitol in April 2007, Prime 
Minister Abe reconfirmed these sentiments in a meeting with bipartisan 
leaders of the House and Senate.
  Prime Minister Abe also expressed similar statements in a meeting 
with President Bush. At a joint press conference at Camp David, Abe, 
when describing his meeting with congressional leaders, said:

       I, as Prime Minister of Japan, expressed my apologies, and 
     also expressed my apologies for the fact that they [comfort 
     women] were placed in that sort of circumstance.

  In 1995 and 2005, the Japanese House of Representatives considered 
and adopted resolutions related to Japan's actions in World War II, 
including the comfort women issue. The 1995 resolution adopted by 
Japan's House of Representatives provides in part:

       Solemnly reflecting upon the many instances of colonial 
     rule and acts of aggression that occurred in modern world 
     history, and recognizing that Japan carried out such acts in 
     the past and inflicted suffering on the people of other 
     countries especially in Asia, the Members of this House 
     hereby express deep remorse.

  The Asian Women's Fund was established in 1995 with the cooperation 
of the Government of Japan and the Japanese people. The fund has 
extended letters of apology and payments, donated by the Japanese 
people, to 285 former comfort women in the Philippines, the Republic of 
Korea, and Taiwan. Each of the 285 individuals received 2 million yen, 
or $17,000. The fund has also implemented medical and welfare projects.
  I have taken the time to cite the above because of my concern over 
the adoption of H. Res. 121, the Honda Resolution.
  It should be noted that after World War II, the issue of compensation 
for Japan's wartime crimes was settled, country by country, by the 
Treaty of San Francisco with the U.S. and by the relevant peace 
treaties with other countries. Thus, from a purely legal standpoint, 
the issue of the comfort women has been settled by treaties of peace.
  Several questions come to mind as I read the text of statements made 
on this matter, and the text of H. Res. 121. For example, what would be 
required of Japan under H. Res. 121 to ``formally acknowledge, 
apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and 
unequivocal manner''?
  The statements of apology that I quoted earlier were issued by six 
Prime Ministers of Japan, each acting and speaking in his official 
capacity.
  I would think that in the world of diplomacy, these words would 
suffice as official statements.
  Another matter that should be noted is that these events occurred in 
the 1930s and 1940s, and the acknowledgment and apology over the abuse 
of the comfort women have been made by successive Prime Ministers since 
1994.
  I can think of many events in our own historic past that deserve an 
acknowledgement and apology issued by the United States. Nonetheless, 
our Government has not acknowledged these actions and other countries 
have not officially reprimanded us because of it.
  For example, soon after December 7, 1941, the United States contacted 
the Governments of Chile and other South American countries and 
requested that they round up their residents of Japanese ancestry and 
send them to the United States to be used by the United States in 
negotiations for the return of American prisoners of war held by Japan.
  Many Latin Americans of Japanese descent were arrested, stripped of 
their passports or visas, and shipped to the United States. Once in the 
United States, they were treated as illegal aliens, subject to 
deportation and repatriation.
  The internees' vulnerable position under the law basically left their 
fate in the hands of the State Department and Department of Justice. 
Those caught in this situation were considered repatriable and thus 
available for use in hostage exchanges with Japan.
  I am happy to report to you that after many years of concern, the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has 
considered this matter and reported favorably on a measure to study 
this matter. However, the bill still faces consideration by the full 
Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House.
  And yet has any country suggested we should ``formally acknowledge, 
apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and 
unequivocal manner'' for this matter?
  Nor have the legislatures of other nations criticized and accused us 
for Executive Order 9066, which directed the United States Army to 
establish 10 concentration camps in various parts of the United States 
to intern residents of Japanese ancestry. The majority of them were 
American citizens. As investigations disclosed in later years, their 
incarceration or internment was based only upon race. No crime had been 
committed, no act of treason, no act of sabotage.
  Consequently, four decades later, the Congress finally acknowledged 
and apologized for the actions of the U.S. Government in the Civil 
Rights Act of 1988.
  There exist many other such events in our history that could be 
discussed, but these incidents in particular are of interest because 
they involve the men and women whose ancestry lies in the nation of 
Japan.
  Regardless of the historical example, the question remains the same: 
how would the U.S. Government have reacted if the legislature of some 
other nation had condemned our historical actions in World War II?
  Diplomatic protocol among friendly nations and allies calls for 
consideration and sensitive handling of such matters.
  In the case at hand, I respectfully suggest that the Government of 
Japan, through six of its Prime Ministers, and through two acts 
considered by its House of Representatives, has issued statements of 
acknowledgement and apology since 1994.
  I would suggest that so many apologies should suffice.
  The payment of $17,000 to each survivor may not suffice because no 
amount of monetary compensation would be sufficient to clear away such 
memories just as much as the payment of $20,000 to each internee of 
Japanese ancestry in the United States for years of incarceration by 
the United States in the concentration camps was not sufficient to wipe 
away that memory either. Nevertheless, payments have been made and 
accepted.
  As a final matter, it may be interesting to note that a Gallup Poll 
conducted in February and March 2007 sets forth the following: 74 
percent of the general public, and 91 percent of opinion leaders 
thought of Japan as a dependable ally or friend. 48 percent of the 
general public, and 53 percent of opinion leaders considered Japan to 
be the most important U.S. partner in the Asia region, followed by 
China, which scored 34 percent among the general public, and 38 percent 
among opinion leaders. 67 percent of the general public, and 86 percent 
of opinion leaders described U.S. relations with Japan as ``good'' or 
``excellent.'' 87 percent of the general public, and 88 percent of 
opinion leaders supported the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. Security 
Treaty.
  Finally, when asked whether Japan shared common values with the 
United

[[Page 18117]]

States, 83 percent of the general public, and 94 percent of opinion 
leaders agreed. The only country that received a higher score was the 
United Kingdom, by only 2 percent for each group.
  These numbers and responses to the Gallup Poll should suggest our 
relationship with Japan is excellent. The general public believes it, 
and our Government has said so as well. Why should we involve ourselves 
in a legislative act that would jeopardize a relationship as good as we 
share with Japan?
  Is this how we Americans should conduct ourselves with the Japanese, 
our friends and allies?

                          ____________________