Mr. ZABLOCKI. General, I realize that the authorizing legislation under which you aid the Ryukyus would have to be amended for you to be able to do this. But wouldn't this be the easiest way as far as Congress is concerned?

General WATSON. You are aware of the Price Act, which sets an annual ceiling on the aid appropriation. That is specified at $12 million, plus administrative expenses-which amount to about $2.7 million in our current budget request which is now before the Congress. There is a ceiling in the Price Act, which I would think would take a great deal of activity to lift, in time to be effective. As I said, this would be mixing two types of activities, really. This payment of claims is a pardon the slang expression-a one-shot operation. It will take place over a period of not more than 2 years, as you have noted from the language which we have proposed, and then it is completed and finished. If we request funds for these claims through the normal channel, I think we would have a very complicated matter.

I think that it would be a very difficult thing to get straightened

out.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. General, I agree that this is a one-shot approach. I just wonder if the authorizing legislation under which our $12 million aid is given could not be amended to provide a ceiling higher than $12 million with the understanding that the increase between 12 to 20 be $8 million earmarked for the payment of claims. What I am trying to say is that authorizing legislation from the Armed Services Committee has easier going on the floor of the House than that legislation from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

General WATSON. This is a tactical matter I am not qualified on, sir. You have me way out of my department on this one. I would like to say, sir, in answer to that question I answered earlier in which I gave my judgment. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The $12 million is for the purpose of assisting the Ryukyuan economy.

General WATSON. Not alone; education, welfare, well-being, industry.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Would not the $8 million also indirectly perform the same functions.

General WATSON. So far as the individuals would apply this money and put it into the system, that is true, it would. There is no argument against that point. I agree with that.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The purpose of having this colloquy is because of the argument and debate on similar legislation, in the case of the payment of the Philippine War Damage claims; I must say I do not disagree with you at all.

General WATSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. As a matter of fact, you are confirming my past position for which I was severely criticized.

General WATSON. I might add one point here. I think I should emphasize that we do intend to pay these claims mechanically, through the government of the Ryukyu Islands. But as a result of a separate authorization, and not part of the annual budgetary process. Mr. ZABLOCKI. [Security deletion.]

General WATSON. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ZABLOCKI. This is a technical matter. Even if we pass the authorizing legislation is there anybody from the executive branch in the position to tell us whether this is in the budget?

General WATSON. Yes. If I may get that for you-$15 million and $7 million; 15 this year and 7 in the year to follow.

Mr. WHALLEY. These are calendar years?

General WATSON. I am talking fiscal. Fiscal 1966, fiscal 1967; 15 in the first, and 7 in the next.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The fact that it is in the budget should be a helpful argument. But those who are opposed to it will say that does not make any difference. If it is not in the budget, they use it as an argument to vote against it.

I am very happy it is included. Are there any other questions? General WATSON. Pardon me, sir, I want to clarify this. After consultation, I understand the financing of these claims is covered by an item, proposed for separate transmittal, on page 396 of the fiscal 1966 budget. It indicates that, subject to the enactment of pending authorization legislation, $22 million will be requested for appropriation under the joint resolution as new obligational authority. It further estimates that $15 million will be spent in fiscal 1966 and the remaining $7 million in fiscal 1967. This takes in the full $22 million. That indicates that, subject to enactment of pending legislation, $22 million will be requested for appropriation, under the joint resolution as new obligational authority.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. This would require a supplemental appropriation, would it not?

General WATSON. Yes.

Mr. WHALLEY. Is the State Department in complete agreement with the military figures used in their presentation?

Mr. BERGER. They are responsible for the administration of the Ryukyus. We do not have that responsibility. We are in agreement with the general proposal. We have not taken part in the claims analysis; that is not our job. We assume they have done their job. We are in general agreement with the proposal.

Mr. WHALLEY. [Security deletion.]

Mr. RESOR. The current request before the Congress is for $12 million.

General WATSON. For fiscal 1966 it is $12 million.

Mr. WHALLEY. What is the population?

General WATSON. 930,000 odd.

Mr. WHALLEY. Does it increase much annually?
General WATSON. Yes, 112 percent rate of increase.

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. General, if I could return to whether the funds are budgeted or not, in the letter of January, the Department of the Army states if this legislative proposal is enacted it is estimated that the bulk of this sum would be expended within 1 year. This amount has not been included in any estimate of appropriations submitted through budget channels by either the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army. This is on page 6 of the letter to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. RESOR. Secretary Ailes' letter was written early in January, and the budget went up toward the end of that month. I think what we just read to you as the budget provisions is correct.

General WATSON. The letter is previous to the statement which I gave earlier, which said that the financing was covered by an item, proposed for separate transmittal, on page 396 of the fiscal 1966 budget.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Is there any document that dates it?

Mr. RESOR. We can get a copy of the budget.

I am sure it will show what is actually said there.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. And date. In our report, you see, Mr. Secretary, we will have in our hearings a statement by the witnesses saying that it is budgeted, while the letter to the Speaker of the House would indicate that it was not budgeted.

General WATSON. The letter was dated January 8, if you notice, sir. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Should not that letter be superseded by a subsequent letter to the Speaker?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The hearings will develop that.

Mr. RESOR. I think it would be better if the record reflects what the budget actually says, and we will get that for the record.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Very well, have some statement to correct the impression given in the Secretary's January letter.

(The information is as follows:)

The following statement appears in the letter by which the Secretary of the Army forwarded the administration's legislative proposal in this matter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives: "If this legislative proposal is enacted, it is estimated that the bulk of this sum would be expended within 1 year. This amount has not been included in any estimate of appropriations submitted through budget channels by either the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army." The letter was dated January 8, 1965.

The fiscal year 1966 budget, which the President submitted to the Congress later that month (on January 25, 1965), included a provisional budgetary estimate with regard to these claims, for the advance information of the Congress. This item indicated that a supplemental appropriation, in the amount of $22 million, would later be requested of the Congress, in the event that the authorizing legislation, now being considered by the subcommittee, should be enacted into law. The relevant item follows (from p. 369 of the appendix to the fiscal year 1966 budget):

"Under proposed legislation, 1966.-A supplemental appropriation is anticipated to cover a contribution to certain inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands for death and injury to persons, and for use of and damage to private property, arising from acts and omissions of the U.S. Armed Forces, or members thereof, after August 15, 1945, and before April 28, 1952."

Mr. ZABLOCKI. General, then you would say the payments of the Ryukyu claims at this time would be very much in the U.S. national interest?

General WATSON. Very definitely in our national interest. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Any other questions?

Any other statements?

Mr. BERGER. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If there are no further questions or statements, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

(The following statement has been supplied for inclusion in the record :)

STATEMENT ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 251 BEFORE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FAR EAST AND THE PACIFIC, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE, JULY 28, 1965

I appear before this committee in support of House Joint Resolution 251. which would authorize a contribution to certain inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands for death and injury to persons, and for use of and damage to private property, arising from acts and omissions of the United States Armed Forces, or members thereof, after August 15, 1945, and before April 28, 1952.

I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 32 jointly with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in the Senate on the same subject matter. I am happy that this matter, on which I introduced legislation in the 87th Congress and subsequent Congresses, first as a Member of the House and then as a Member of the Senate, is finally receiving the attention which it seriously deserves. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Department of Defense were received too late for hearings in the last Congress. I am confident, now that these recommendations are again before us, that this committee as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will give them full, serious and expeditious consideration.

I am glad to support the proposal of the Defense Department to effect compensation to the people of Okinawa for losses arising out of the acts of our Armed Forces there in the pretreaty period. The proposal is necessary, equitable, well reasoned, and more than timely.

The claims themselves, aggregating $22 million, and the particular basis of computation have been explored by the representatives of the Secretary of Defense. There is no need for me to enter into these details at this particular time. It may be useful, however, to briefly place this submission in perspective and to explain why it seems proper that this Government should effect compensation. The battle of Okinawa stands as one of the bloodiest and most terrible in American military history. It was also terrible for the people of that small island who for centuries have lived quietly, making their living from the land and from the sea. Scarcely a building in all of Okinawa was left standing. Crops and croplands were badly damaged, and there were thousands of civilian casualities. It was years before some of the most elementary tasks of restoration of civilian life could be accomplished in Okinawa. The social and economic structure of the area was permanently changed by the fact that we did not pull our forces out, but remained to build the impressive military bases that we maintain today.

The local government of the Ryukyu Islands was not resumed, when hostilities ceased, although officials acting under the Japanese Government in Tokyo were removed. Because of the strategic importance of the area which was even then well grasped, the United States exercised direct governmental authority, much as it does today. The peace treaty with Japan, effective in 1952, accorded to the United States the right to exercise full powers of administration in Okinawa, in effect continuing the status which existed in the period 1945 to 1952.

During that period, there arose claims from the acts of U.S. forces in Okinawa which are normal in any area where troops are stationed from air, road, and sea accidents and from unlawful acts of soldiers. There arose also claims for the use of land by the military, because of the paucity of agricultural land in

Okinawa and the need for large areas for the air fields and attendent installations that we were building.

In retrospect, it seems to me clear that we should have made provision for payment of these claims by the time of the Japanese peace treaty in 1952, if not before. Why this was not done is not for me to judge, but I do want to stress that it seems always to have been conceded that the individuals concerned had just claims that should be compensated by somebody. Perhaps the authorities who had to deal with this matter were themselves confused by the peculiar international law status. Regarding it as an occupied enemy territory, it would have been perfectly normal that we insist that the sovereign concerned, namely, the Japanese Government in Tokyo, take responsibility for the compensation. However, this presumably did not seem reasonable or practical because the actual administration was not being returned to Japan. Logically, then, the United States should itself have assumed responsibility, and there were certain such indications which, however, did not lead to full and adequate payments.

While it is unfortunate that we have waited so long to deal with these claims, at least the passage of time gives us a clearer perspective. In this perspective, it is, I suggest, manifest that in exercising full and exclusive responsibility for the government of the Ryukyu Islands since the Japanese surrender, the United States has assumed the obligation toward the people of Okinawa to see that their just interests are respected. Speaking strictly from the standpoint of international law, the liability of the United States may be said to have been extinguished. The only foreign power that had the legal authority to raise such questions, which is Japan, waived such claims in the 1952 peace treaty. But from the standpoint of the responsibility of the United States as an administering power toward its wards, there has been no extinguishment of the claims, and there is a clear responsibility on our part to see that they are properly taken care of. International justice, if not legality, demands that this be done. Our present and future commitments in the area demand that this be done. For the sake of maintaining good relations with the Okinawan people, and for the sake of our own interests in the Pacific, immediate attention to this problem is necessary.

Before concluding, let me just say a word about the kinds of payments that are involved here and what they mean to the people concerned. I am not, of course, as familiar with the details as the gentlemen who are here from the Department of Defense, but I have made some inquiries, and I am satisfied that the compensation that this bill will provide is, in the main, for the ordinary Okinawan people-small landowners who stand to realize on the average between $200 and $300 each for utilization of their land and other losses for over a period of years. There are some 82,000 claims. In the nature of the social structure of the area, these are essentially claims of families and not of individuals. With an average of five members to a family, the claims affect perhaps 400,000 people, almost half the whole population of Okinawa. Thus, in a very real sense, we are not dealing with the vindication of the legal interests of a handful, but of the discharge of the responsibilities of the governing authority towards practically the whole people of the Ryukyus. An act of simple justice needs no further reason, but I am sure that the benefits that we will get from this act will far exceed the costs.