The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STAND UP FOR OUR VETS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1177 on June 21, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
