Bordallo revives war claims:
Guam bill to piggy-back on defense spending act
By Amritha Alladi
Pacific Daily News
May 22, 2010
The island's World War II survivors are confident Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo will garner the congressional support she needs to pass an amendment to the fiscal 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that would pay war reparations to World War II survivors on Guam.
On Thursday, Bordallo announced she will include H.R. 44, The Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, as an addition to the 2011 defense spending bill, which was unanimously passed by the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
The amendment will be added when the bill heads to the floor of the House of Representatives next week, Bordallo said in a press release.
"This strategy is identical to what was done with war claims in last year's defense spending bill due to procedural issues in the Armed Services Committee," Bordallo stated in the release. "The House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act will still need to be reconciled with the Senate's version of the defense spending bill. H.R. 44 remains my top legislative priority and I am confident that this strategy is the most effective means of advancing war claims legislation."
Last year, her amendment was successfully adopted by the full House by voice vote as part of a block of amendments during passage of the National Defense Authorization Act 2010, Bordallo's release stated. However, that war claims provision was excluded from the 2010 defense spending bill after Bordallo rejected a compromise measure from Senate leaders, Pacific Daily News files show.
According to Bordallo, the committee's chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, has reiterated his support for the inclusion of war claims in the defense bill again this year.
But before the entire defense spending bill reaches the House floor for a final vote, it will be considered by the Rules Committee where they will make certain amendments in order.
The bill will then go to the floor where only amendments made in order by the Rules Committee are debated, according to Bordallo's office.
She said the amendment wasn't considered during full committee mark-up on Wednesday due to procedural issues with provisions that are out of the House Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction, Bordallo stated in her release.
According to Guam war survivor Tom Barcinas, this strategy is a pretty standard legislative procedure.
"The amendment is a very normal way of getting things through," he said yesterday. "I'm sure that (the) congresswoman will garner enough support."
Barcinas went to Washington, D.C., in December to share his stories of surviving the Japanese occupation of Guam during World War II. He also testified about the importance of war claims for a survivor, according to Pacific Daily News files.
He applauded Bordallo for her efforts to include this provision into this year's defense budget, adding that Bordallo should move on the issue expeditiously.
He said he's ready to mobilize support for the amendment if she needs it for the amendment to be included.
"If she needs anything from the Guam group, if we have to start a letter-writing campaign or e-mail to help her (convince) all members of the Congress, we'll be very happy to get things going," he said.
Bordallo last year did not accept a Senate compromise offer that would have paid reparations to living Chamorro survivors of World War II, but excluded payments to spouses and children of Guam's war survivors who have died.
Bordallo said at the time she believed the offer was contrary to what the community has said it wanted.
Bordallo's previous bill would have resulted in $126 million for war reparations for Guam survivors of the Japanese occupation during World War II.
Piti Mayor Ben Gumataotao said if it's the World War II survivors they need to focus on in the first round to get the amendment passed, that's fine. The immediate need is for the survivors, he said.
"A lot of the survivors are dying on a daily basis," Gumataotao said.
If needed, islanders can push for war claims for the survivors' heirs during a "second round," he said.
Since the U.S. decided to take on the responsibility of paying war claims from Japan, Gumataotao said it should honor that commitment.
"The responsibility should be coming from our lovely country the U.S," he said. "At that time, they took the responsibility, so let them be an honorable country."
Showing posts with label Ammendments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ammendments. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
House Bill Would Sharply Raise Cost of Guam Project
House Bill Would Sharply Raise Cost of Guam Project
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Washington Post
A little-publicized provision in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill approved by the House last week would double the $10 billion cost of construction on Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Pacific.
The planned move of 8,000 U.S. Marines and about 3,600 other U.S. military troops and their dependents from Okinawa and mainland Japan to Guam over the next five years was originally expected to cost about $15 billion.
Of that total, $10 billion would be in construction of facilities, family housing and public utilities.
But a provision in last week's House bill would require that construction companies pay their employees working on Guam's realignment construction projects wages equivalent to rates in Hawaii, which are 250 percent higher than those on Guam, according to the Joint Guam Program Office.
The Congressional Budget Office report attached to the House bill estimates the growth in labor costs from this provision alone "would increase the need for discretionary appropriations by about $10 billion over the 2010-2014 period."
The provision was authored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the fourth-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Another amendment Abercrombie added to the bill would limit to 30 percent the proportion of foreign workers that would be allowed to work on these projects.
"At a time when a depressed economy has dealt a body blow to our construction industry, the Department of Defense should not even consider turning over badly needed jobs to foreign workers at questionable wages," Abercrombie told his constituents.
"This is a huge opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building an American military base. My amendments provide clear guidelines to manage the buildup while ensuring quality work for our service members and their families," he added.
ad_icon
Another provision would require the secretary of labor to report to the House and Senate Armed Services committees by June 30, 2010, "on efforts to expand the recruitment of construction workers in the United States to support this effort; on the ability of labor markets to support the Guam realignment."
Not everyone agreed with Abercrombie's proposals. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), also an Armed Services Committee member, said during debate on the bill, "This provision will lead to inflated wages in Guam, while taking American jobs from construction projects in Texas, Maryland and Virginia."
The realignment, first agreed to in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japanese government, was designed to reduce tensions caused by a large, unwanted American military presence on Okinawa. In February, during her trip to Japan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton restated the U.S commitment "to modernize our military posture in the Pacific."
The government of Japan is expected to contribute about $2.8 billion to pay for the move. The U.S. government is to contribute $4.2 billion, and an additional $3.2 billion worth of family housing construction will be financed by third parties, who would then take a fee for managing those properties.
The Congressional Budget Office said it "does not expect the Japanese government to increase its share," thus leaving Washington to pick up the additional costs for construction projects if the provision remains in the bill.
A Government Accountability Office report in April raised questions about whether the U.S. government and the military had made adequate preparations on Guam. The GAO pointed out that military members and their families would create roughly a 14 percent increase in Guam's current population of 171,000, which would "substantially impact Guam's community and infrastructure."
There also would be a need for an estimated 22,000 additional construction workers, at least temporarily.
The GAO suggested that Guam's two major highways would need upgrading to carry the increased traffic. In addition, the island's major port would have to double its capacity.
Its electric capacity would need a major buildup, as would its water and wastewater systems, which the GAO said are near capacity already. The estimate was that the latter would have to be increased by 25 percent.
One question was who would fund the additional demands on Guam's roads, schools and public utilities. In last week's bill, the House expressed its "sense of the Congress that utility improvements on Guam should incorporate military and civilian utilities on Guam into a unified [electric] grid."
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Washington Post
A little-publicized provision in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill approved by the House last week would double the $10 billion cost of construction on Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Pacific.
The planned move of 8,000 U.S. Marines and about 3,600 other U.S. military troops and their dependents from Okinawa and mainland Japan to Guam over the next five years was originally expected to cost about $15 billion.
Of that total, $10 billion would be in construction of facilities, family housing and public utilities.
But a provision in last week's House bill would require that construction companies pay their employees working on Guam's realignment construction projects wages equivalent to rates in Hawaii, which are 250 percent higher than those on Guam, according to the Joint Guam Program Office.
The Congressional Budget Office report attached to the House bill estimates the growth in labor costs from this provision alone "would increase the need for discretionary appropriations by about $10 billion over the 2010-2014 period."
The provision was authored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the fourth-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Another amendment Abercrombie added to the bill would limit to 30 percent the proportion of foreign workers that would be allowed to work on these projects.
"At a time when a depressed economy has dealt a body blow to our construction industry, the Department of Defense should not even consider turning over badly needed jobs to foreign workers at questionable wages," Abercrombie told his constituents.
"This is a huge opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building an American military base. My amendments provide clear guidelines to manage the buildup while ensuring quality work for our service members and their families," he added.
ad_icon
Another provision would require the secretary of labor to report to the House and Senate Armed Services committees by June 30, 2010, "on efforts to expand the recruitment of construction workers in the United States to support this effort; on the ability of labor markets to support the Guam realignment."
Not everyone agreed with Abercrombie's proposals. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), also an Armed Services Committee member, said during debate on the bill, "This provision will lead to inflated wages in Guam, while taking American jobs from construction projects in Texas, Maryland and Virginia."
The realignment, first agreed to in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japanese government, was designed to reduce tensions caused by a large, unwanted American military presence on Okinawa. In February, during her trip to Japan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton restated the U.S commitment "to modernize our military posture in the Pacific."
The government of Japan is expected to contribute about $2.8 billion to pay for the move. The U.S. government is to contribute $4.2 billion, and an additional $3.2 billion worth of family housing construction will be financed by third parties, who would then take a fee for managing those properties.
The Congressional Budget Office said it "does not expect the Japanese government to increase its share," thus leaving Washington to pick up the additional costs for construction projects if the provision remains in the bill.
A Government Accountability Office report in April raised questions about whether the U.S. government and the military had made adequate preparations on Guam. The GAO pointed out that military members and their families would create roughly a 14 percent increase in Guam's current population of 171,000, which would "substantially impact Guam's community and infrastructure."
There also would be a need for an estimated 22,000 additional construction workers, at least temporarily.
The GAO suggested that Guam's two major highways would need upgrading to carry the increased traffic. In addition, the island's major port would have to double its capacity.
Its electric capacity would need a major buildup, as would its water and wastewater systems, which the GAO said are near capacity already. The estimate was that the latter would have to be increased by 25 percent.
One question was who would fund the additional demands on Guam's roads, schools and public utilities. In last week's bill, the House expressed its "sense of the Congress that utility improvements on Guam should incorporate military and civilian utilities on Guam into a unified [electric] grid."
Monday, June 29, 2009
Amendment Could Stall Marine Transfer
Amendment could stall marine transfer
Monday, 29 June 2009
by Romeo Carlos
Marianas Variety
AS EARLY as June 9, Japanese media reports were saying that negotiations between officials from Tokyo and Okinawa in Japan had come to a standstill over concerns about references made to amendments to the United States’ Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget.
More recently, the office of Representative Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, proposed a key amendment to the fiscal 2010 defense budget that would jeopardize the planned transfer of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The plan to move 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam is part of an agreement struck between the United States and Japan in May 2006 to realign the U.S. military presence in Japan by 2014. Relocating the Marines to Guam is closely tied to a key element of the agreement - transferring the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station's heliport functions from Ginowan in central Okinawa, to an alternative facility located near Camp Schwab, in Nago, a northern Okinawa prefecture.
Abercrombie’s amendment says the U.S. defense secretary should not give its approval to the alternative facility as long as it fails to comply with minimum flight safety requirements. The amendment would make it difficult to realize the agreement.
Abercrombie believes that an area extending from the lower part of Camp Schwab into shallow waters is not the right sort of location for the alternative facility and has urged that an alternate site be considered. The Hawaii congressman told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun last week that the alternative facility under the current plan does not meet several safety standards; particularly:
- The runways are too short.
- A school, Okinawa National College of Technology, is located nearby.
- There are obstacles, such as utility polls, along the flight path.
The Yomiuri Shimbun reported last Thursday a Japanese government source saying, "The content of this amendment suggests the transfer to the alternative facility agreed by Japan and the United States won't be permitted."
Another Japanese paper, Mainichi Daily, reported in early June that the Japanese ministry of defense is keen to reach a settlement on the relocation of the air base from Ginowan to the coastal side of Camp Schwab in Nago.
The paper detailed a reference made then by U.S. Marine Corps Commandant James Conway to a possible amendment of the relocation plans - an indication the U.S. is not settled in its stance.
Conway spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 4, mentioning problems relating to training and the ability to move Futenma Air Station facilities, and said there were several amendments that deserved consideration, indicating that doubts remain over the direction of the relocation plans.
In testimony before the committee, Conway indicated a need to modify the plan to transfer U.S. Marines from Japan's Okinawa prefecture to Guam by 2014.
"This Futenma replacement facility has to be indeed a fully capable replacement for what we're giving up on Okinawa," Conway said, adding, "We are concerned about training opportunities on Guam, in the nearby islands as well as the rest of the Asia-Pacific basin.
"So there are some things like that, that we certainly want to see considered and negotiated as need be with the Japanese before we slap the table," he said.
As part of his opening remarks, Conway said, though the U.S. Marines support this move, he also believes the development of training areas and ranges on Guam and the adjoining islands of the Marianas are key prerequisites to the realignment of our forces.
Japanese Administrative Vice Minister of Defense Kohei Masuda confirmed in early June that, for their part, Japan intends to steadily press ahead with plans in line with the road map adopted by both governments. Another Defense Ministry official commenting on the situation told Mainchi Daily, "We are waiting carefully to see what the U.S. does first."
The opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which has requested that Futenma Air Station be moved out of Okinawa Prefecture, is opposed to an agreement on the relocation of U.S. Marines in Okinawa to Guam. The agreement, approved by the Japanese Diet in May, sets as a prerequisite a development toward the completion of a replacement for facilities at Futenma.
Monday, 29 June 2009
by Romeo Carlos
Marianas Variety
AS EARLY as June 9, Japanese media reports were saying that negotiations between officials from Tokyo and Okinawa in Japan had come to a standstill over concerns about references made to amendments to the United States’ Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget.
More recently, the office of Representative Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, proposed a key amendment to the fiscal 2010 defense budget that would jeopardize the planned transfer of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The plan to move 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam is part of an agreement struck between the United States and Japan in May 2006 to realign the U.S. military presence in Japan by 2014. Relocating the Marines to Guam is closely tied to a key element of the agreement - transferring the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station's heliport functions from Ginowan in central Okinawa, to an alternative facility located near Camp Schwab, in Nago, a northern Okinawa prefecture.
Abercrombie’s amendment says the U.S. defense secretary should not give its approval to the alternative facility as long as it fails to comply with minimum flight safety requirements. The amendment would make it difficult to realize the agreement.
Abercrombie believes that an area extending from the lower part of Camp Schwab into shallow waters is not the right sort of location for the alternative facility and has urged that an alternate site be considered. The Hawaii congressman told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun last week that the alternative facility under the current plan does not meet several safety standards; particularly:
- The runways are too short.
- A school, Okinawa National College of Technology, is located nearby.
- There are obstacles, such as utility polls, along the flight path.
The Yomiuri Shimbun reported last Thursday a Japanese government source saying, "The content of this amendment suggests the transfer to the alternative facility agreed by Japan and the United States won't be permitted."
Another Japanese paper, Mainichi Daily, reported in early June that the Japanese ministry of defense is keen to reach a settlement on the relocation of the air base from Ginowan to the coastal side of Camp Schwab in Nago.
The paper detailed a reference made then by U.S. Marine Corps Commandant James Conway to a possible amendment of the relocation plans - an indication the U.S. is not settled in its stance.
Conway spoke to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 4, mentioning problems relating to training and the ability to move Futenma Air Station facilities, and said there were several amendments that deserved consideration, indicating that doubts remain over the direction of the relocation plans.
In testimony before the committee, Conway indicated a need to modify the plan to transfer U.S. Marines from Japan's Okinawa prefecture to Guam by 2014.
"This Futenma replacement facility has to be indeed a fully capable replacement for what we're giving up on Okinawa," Conway said, adding, "We are concerned about training opportunities on Guam, in the nearby islands as well as the rest of the Asia-Pacific basin.
"So there are some things like that, that we certainly want to see considered and negotiated as need be with the Japanese before we slap the table," he said.
As part of his opening remarks, Conway said, though the U.S. Marines support this move, he also believes the development of training areas and ranges on Guam and the adjoining islands of the Marianas are key prerequisites to the realignment of our forces.
Japanese Administrative Vice Minister of Defense Kohei Masuda confirmed in early June that, for their part, Japan intends to steadily press ahead with plans in line with the road map adopted by both governments. Another Defense Ministry official commenting on the situation told Mainchi Daily, "We are waiting carefully to see what the U.S. does first."
The opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which has requested that Futenma Air Station be moved out of Okinawa Prefecture, is opposed to an agreement on the relocation of U.S. Marines in Okinawa to Guam. The agreement, approved by the Japanese Diet in May, sets as a prerequisite a development toward the completion of a replacement for facilities at Futenma.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
House Bill May Complicate Things at Camp Schwab
Bill may complicate planned Camp Schwab airstrip
By Leo Shane III and David Allen
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 28, 2009
The House version of the Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill could hamper plans to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma on Okinawa with a new airstrip on Camp Schwab.
Under the bill, the Defense Department "may not accept … a replacement facility in Okinawa (for Futenma) unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the replacement facility satisfies at least minimum Naval Aviation Safety requirements."
The language was prompted by concerns raised by Naval Air Systems Command about hazards surrounding the new airstrip location, including utility poles in the proposed flight path, a nearby school and the planned V-shaped runway into Oura Bay, said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
The bill allows for safety improvements to be made at Camp Schwab to make it an acceptable replacement for Futenma, Helfert said.
The House approved its version of the authorization bill with the Futenma language Thursday, by a 389-22 vote.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement Thursday citing concern that the clause would "limit the Secretary’s authority to exercise reasonable judgment regarding airfield operations."
"The current FRF (Futenma Replacement Facility) configuration was agreed to during bilateral negotiations with the government of Japan, and this provision places the resulting International Agreement at risk," the office stated.
A Pentagon spokesman echoed the White House concerns.
"There have been public reports in the U.S. pertaining to safety issues with the Futenma replacement plan," the spokesman said Thursday.
"There are processes in place to address these concerns without making changes to the agreement itself. Moving a runway or reconfiguring a facility would be examples of major changes that the U.S. would not support."
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, the House delegate from Guam, said House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., raised concerns about the design of the facility. But, she said, the language in the bill is not mean to scuttle the far-reaching realignment plans.
"The continued commitment to the military build-up on Guam is evident in the significant military construction funding for Guam in the bill," Bordallo said. "The issue of the Futenma Replacement Facility is a provision that the committee leadership will continue to address in conference committee with the Department of Defense."
Japanese officials Thursday said the clause flies in the face of a bilateral plan to replace the air station, close U.S. military bases south of Camp Foster, and to transfer some 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam in 2014.
The plan is part of a well-thought-out agreement made by both governments, said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defense.
"The plan was not made by a suggestion from one side, but it was a fruit of discussions and studies from various aspects by both governments," she said.
Japanese opposition parties and some Okinawa officials have serious concerns about the safety of the current plan. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima has demanded the runways be placed farther offshore.
The 2010 appropriations bill allots $934 million for defense projects on Guam for the coming year. That’s just the start of some $4 billion the U.S. plans to spend to build housing and other infrastructure for the move of Marines, including several major Marine commands now based on Okinawa.
The total cost of relocation has been budgeted at $10.27 billion, with Japan paying $6.07 billion, or 59 percent.
But replacing MCAS Futenma has always been a sticking point. The United States and Japan have been searching for a way to replace the air station ever since they signed an agreement in 1996 for the return of some 21 percent of the land on Okinawa used by the U.S. military.
A spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Defense said he was aware of the clause in the authorization bill, but was hopeful the realignment plan would move forward as planned.
"It has been affirmed by Prime Minister Aso and President Obama that both countries would steadily carry out realignment plans according to the road map, which both governments agreed to in 2006, including facility relocation and closure of the Futenma air station facility," he said.
"Also, it is stipulated in a pact signed by both governments, an international promise, that both governments have an intention to complete the replacement facility," he said.
Stars and Stripes reporters Chiyomi Sumida and Jeff Schogol contributed to this report.
By Leo Shane III and David Allen
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 28, 2009
The House version of the Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill could hamper plans to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma on Okinawa with a new airstrip on Camp Schwab.
Under the bill, the Defense Department "may not accept … a replacement facility in Okinawa (for Futenma) unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the replacement facility satisfies at least minimum Naval Aviation Safety requirements."
The language was prompted by concerns raised by Naval Air Systems Command about hazards surrounding the new airstrip location, including utility poles in the proposed flight path, a nearby school and the planned V-shaped runway into Oura Bay, said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
The bill allows for safety improvements to be made at Camp Schwab to make it an acceptable replacement for Futenma, Helfert said.
The House approved its version of the authorization bill with the Futenma language Thursday, by a 389-22 vote.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement Thursday citing concern that the clause would "limit the Secretary’s authority to exercise reasonable judgment regarding airfield operations."
"The current FRF (Futenma Replacement Facility) configuration was agreed to during bilateral negotiations with the government of Japan, and this provision places the resulting International Agreement at risk," the office stated.
A Pentagon spokesman echoed the White House concerns.
"There have been public reports in the U.S. pertaining to safety issues with the Futenma replacement plan," the spokesman said Thursday.
"There are processes in place to address these concerns without making changes to the agreement itself. Moving a runway or reconfiguring a facility would be examples of major changes that the U.S. would not support."
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, the House delegate from Guam, said House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., raised concerns about the design of the facility. But, she said, the language in the bill is not mean to scuttle the far-reaching realignment plans.
"The continued commitment to the military build-up on Guam is evident in the significant military construction funding for Guam in the bill," Bordallo said. "The issue of the Futenma Replacement Facility is a provision that the committee leadership will continue to address in conference committee with the Department of Defense."
Japanese officials Thursday said the clause flies in the face of a bilateral plan to replace the air station, close U.S. military bases south of Camp Foster, and to transfer some 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam in 2014.
The plan is part of a well-thought-out agreement made by both governments, said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defense.
"The plan was not made by a suggestion from one side, but it was a fruit of discussions and studies from various aspects by both governments," she said.
Japanese opposition parties and some Okinawa officials have serious concerns about the safety of the current plan. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima has demanded the runways be placed farther offshore.
The 2010 appropriations bill allots $934 million for defense projects on Guam for the coming year. That’s just the start of some $4 billion the U.S. plans to spend to build housing and other infrastructure for the move of Marines, including several major Marine commands now based on Okinawa.
The total cost of relocation has been budgeted at $10.27 billion, with Japan paying $6.07 billion, or 59 percent.
But replacing MCAS Futenma has always been a sticking point. The United States and Japan have been searching for a way to replace the air station ever since they signed an agreement in 1996 for the return of some 21 percent of the land on Okinawa used by the U.S. military.
A spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Defense said he was aware of the clause in the authorization bill, but was hopeful the realignment plan would move forward as planned.
"It has been affirmed by Prime Minister Aso and President Obama that both countries would steadily carry out realignment plans according to the road map, which both governments agreed to in 2006, including facility relocation and closure of the Futenma air station facility," he said.
"Also, it is stipulated in a pact signed by both governments, an international promise, that both governments have an intention to complete the replacement facility," he said.
Stars and Stripes reporters Chiyomi Sumida and Jeff Schogol contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)