Fourth Meeting

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Meeting Agenda

Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and five others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 30)
Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State (submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 31)

[1] Regarding the revised Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party) and three others, Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu, a presenter of the revisions, explained the reasons for the submission of the revised bill. (Click here) 

[2] Regarding the two abovementioned bills and the revised bill presented by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and three others, questions were put to the following presenters. Presenters of the two bills: Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), Mr. SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), and Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), and Mr. OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents). Presenters of the revised bill: Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito) and Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party).

Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:

A report was received from Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents) concerning the local open hearings held in Niigata and Osaka on March 28, 2007. (Click here) 


Explanation of the reasons for the submission of the revised bill by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)

Concerning the "Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan," submitted by the ruling parties, Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito, and the "Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State," submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, a "merged revised bill" has been submitted by the ruling parties. On behalf of the presenters of this "merged revised bill," I would like to take this opportunity to explain the reasons for submission of the revisions and to outline the main points of the revisions.

Prior to the submission of related bills to the Diet, national referendum legislation was extensively discussed in this Special Committee since its inception in September 2005. All political parties were given opportunities to express their views; expert informants were invited to sessions of the Special Committee and engaged in questions and answers; and committee members freely and actively participated in discussions that approached the subject from various angles and perspectives. Parallel to these research activities, the directors of the Special Committee met on a total of seven occasions during 2006 to arrive at a "summarization of points of contention," including the pros and cons of enacting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment, and details of its systemic design. The total time spent by the Special Committee in research and the time spent in deliberations by the directors' meeting comes to about 50 hours. In light of the research conducted, in May 2006 draft bills for national referendum law were submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan. Thereafter, this Special Committee has concentrated its efforts on deliberating upon the two bills. To promote and to ensure thorough discussion, a subcommittee was formed under the Special Committee. On each specific subject, the subcommittee heard the views of expert informants, engaged in discussions with informants, and submitted the results of its research to the Special Committee for discussion. Last week, open hearings were held in Tokyo, followed by local open hearings held yesterday in Niigata and Osaka. Combining all of these activities, the two bills have been subjected to examination for a total of about 50 hours. Thus, in sum, about 100 hours have been spent on research and on examination of the bills. We have paid close attention to the counterproposals presented by the Democratic Party of Japan, as well as to the positions advocated by the Japanese Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party and the People's New Party. Throughout these deliberations, our position has been to accept any superior views and opinions and to boldly incorporate these into our revisions. Through the process of repeated and intensive discussion, the various differences that existed at the start between the bills submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan have been almost totally eliminated. Having arrived at this point, our intention now is to confirm the culmination of the discussions of the Special Committee through the formulation and presentation of a revised bill. It is for this reason that we have submitted this revised bill.

I would now like to explain the main points of the revised bill.

The first matter concerns the "scope of national referendums." An essential and fundamental difference exists between "national referendums for constitutional amendment" and "general national referendums," and further discussions are needed to determine the details of the two systemic designs. Therefore, we believe the scope of the legislation on hand should be restricted to the enactment of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment. However, we believe that the creation of a national referendum system for considering questions requiring constitutional amendment is well worth considering, even under the structure of the present Constitution, which is based on the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. A general national referendum system would be centered on laws for what can be referred to as a system for preliminary national referendums on constitutional questions. We are prepared to enter into discussions concerning a general national referendum system immediately after the promulgation of the bill currently under consideration. These discussions would focus on the significance and need for such a system, the details of its systemic design, and the implementation of necessary measures. These matters are provided for in the supplementary provisions of our revised bill in the form of a special clause concerning future matters to be considered.

The second matter concerns "eligible voters." In many countries throughout the world, the minimum age for voting in national referendums is 18, which is also the legal age of majority. In the case of Japan, lowering the minimum voting age in public elections and national referendums and the lowering of the age of majority in the Civil Code, which provides the basis for the current voting age, would have a very significant impact on Japan's legal and social systems. Taking this into consideration, we propose to set the minimum voting age in national referendums at 18, under the following condition. During the period pending enforcement of this law, the Public Offices Election Law, the Civil Code and other laws will be duly examined and necessary legislative actions will be taken to allow persons between the ages of 18 and 20 to vote in public elections. Until the necessary laws are enacted to allow persons between the ages of 18 and 20 to vote in public elections, the minimum voting age in national referendums will be set tentatively at 20. These matters are specified in the supplementary provisions of the bill.

The third matter concerns the "method of indicating approval or disapproval on the ballot, and the definition of 'majority.'" Further examination of this matter from the perspective of the importance of properly registering the will of the voter has led us to the following revisions. In order to minimize the number of invalid ballots, the words "approve" and "disapprove," will appear printed on the ballot, and voters will be asked to circle one of them. An initiative for constitutional amendment shall be deemed ratified by the people when the number of approval ballots exceeds one-half of the total number of ballots cast for both approval and disapproval.

The fourth matter concerns the "scope of specified public service personnel prohibited from participating in national referendum campaign activities." In the revised bill, the prohibition applies solely to the staff and employees of the Election Management Councils and others connected with them. Subsequent to the discussions of this Special Committee, we determined that the expression of one's views in national referendums for constitutional amendment constitutes an extremely valuable and important opportunity for the sovereign people to directly speak out on matters of state, and that judges, public prosecutors and other civil servants should be guaranteed the same right.

The fifth matter concerns "restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities." The revised bill maintains these restrictions after clarifying the scope of "official capacity." However, it does not penalize persons found in violation. Furthermore, concerning the restrictions on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities, the supplementary provisions of the revised bill contain the following provision. "Pending the coming into force of this law, the government shall examine the provisions of the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law and other laws restricting the political activities of civil servants and shall take necessary legislative measures to ensure that civil servants are not prevented from expressing their views and soliciting support or opposition to a constitutional amendment in the course of a national referendum."

The sixth matter concerns "organized bribery of large numbers of people." In the revised bill, the scope of the application of this provision is limited to the worst forms of violation. For this purpose, chargeable "acts of solicitation" are limited to certain acts that are explicitly specified. Secondly, the scope of "provision of goods and other benefits sufficient to influence voting behavior" is restricted to "instances that go beyond normal practices in which these are used as a means of conveying one's views to large numbers of people."

The seventh matter concerns "publicity and public information concerning national referendums." First of all, the revised bill stipulates that the National Referendum Official Gazette shall present "the proposed constitutional amendment and its summarization, a comparative table of the present and proposed provisions of the Constitution, and other easy-to-understand explanations of materials that can serve as reference." Provisions concerning the holding of explanatory meetings have been deleted from the revised bill. Regarding the allocation of free advertising on television and in newspapers and other media, the bill stipulates that views expressed in opposition to and in support of a proposed constitutional amendment must be given "fair and equal" treatment. Furthermore, the revised bill explicitly allows political parties that have been given allocations of free advertising to transfer a part of those allocations to designated groups and organizations for their use.

The eighth matter concerns "paid radio and television advertising." In the revised bill, the period of prohibition has been extended to cover the last two weeks prior to voting. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that broadcasters must take into consideration the intent of the provisions of the Broadcast Law when airing programs related to national referendums.

Finally, the revised bill contains the following provisions concerning the "date on which this law shall come into force, and the powers of examination of the Commission on the Constitution." The date of effectuation is set at three years from the date of the promulgation of the law. Furthermore, the bill explicitly stipulates that the Commission on the Constitution shall engage solely in "research" during this three-year period.

This completes my explanation of the reasons for the submission of the revised bill and the outline of its main points.

The contents of the revised bill that we have now submitted are almost totally based on and derived from the discussions of this Special Committee. I understand that in yesterday's open hearing held in Osaka, the following statement was made by the former Vice-Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. NAKANO Kansei of the Democratic Party of Japan. Referring to the finalization of the national referendum bill, which stands as one of the fundamental laws supplementing the Constitution, Mr. NAKANO stated, "The ruling parties must exhibit broadmindedness, and the opposition parties must exhibit good judgment." These words strike a sympathetic cord with me. We believe we have shown the utmost "broadmindedness" as ruling parties regarding this revised bill. I can say with due pride that these revisions have further perfected and heightened the standing of the proposed national referendum law for constitutional amendment as the repository of fair and impartial rules concerning the basic procedures for constitutional amendment. Thus far, we have received and accepted many constructive comments from the opposition parties. And now I turn to the opposition parties to ask that they exhibit "good judgment," either by supporting this revised bill as it stands, or by joining us in preparing a jointly submitted bill based on our revised bill. Whatever form your "good judgment" may take, I would like to very clearly state that we are prepared to show even greater "broadmindedness." It is our intent to pursue an even more broadly based consensus in our efforts to develop an ideal national referendum law for constitutional amendment. I would like to add that our basic position is to value and to respect the outcome of the past discussions of this Special Committee. As I stated at the outset, it is based on this position that this revised bill is being presented as a "merged revised bill," which stands as a revision of the two original bills presented by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.

I close with a plea for your speedy approval.


Main points of questions put to the presenters

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> I want to know why the revised bill contains a special clause mandating future consideration of a national referendum system for constitutional issues.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> As a possible option, it appears that the Democratic Party of Japan is considering a general national referendum system with a limited scope. What progress has been made in examining this option? What is your evaluation of the special clause mentioned above?

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> How does the revised bill treat the provisions contained in the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law that relate to the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities?

>> The revised bill states that broadcasters of programs related to national referendums must take into consideration the provisions of Article 3-II Paragraph 1 of the Broadcast Law. What is the intent of this provision? Does this differ from the provisions concerning equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment in terms of cost and other advertising conditions?

>> What is the meaning of a "merged revised bill?" What are the reasons for taking this approach?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> It is my hope that the two bills presented by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan can be merged and re-submitted as a joint bill. I would like to hear the views of Mr. EDANO on this matter as the Democratic Party of Japan's senior director.


HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(Comment)

>> It is inappropriate to refer to the bill submitted by the ruling parties as the "national referendum bill." It should be referred to as the "bill concerning constitutional amendment procedures."

>> The enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendments cannot be rejected because it establishes the methods and procedures for the exercise of popular sovereignty. However, current conditions are not such that we can engage in calm and composed discussion.

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> Won't the revised bill virtually bury the general national referendum system?

>> There is a logical contradiction in the revised bill being presented by the same people who presented the original bill of the ruling parties. Shouldn't the bill be retracted and submitted again from the start?

>> The supplementary provisions of the revised bill contain a clause mandating the future examination of a preliminary national referendum system for constitutional issues. Does the clause give any indication of when this examination will take place? I believe that necessary measures should be implemented before the Commission on the Constitution begins its own examinations. What are your views on this matter?

>> The supplementary provisions that have been added to the revised bill mandate the implementation of legal measures pertaining to the minimum voting age in national referendums. What is the scope of such legal measures that must be implemented?

>> I believe the reference to "majority" contained in Article 96 of the Constitution should be interpreted to mean a majority of all ballots cast. What are your views on this matter?

>> Suppose a re-vote is to be taken because a certain portion of a national referendum is judged to be invalid. In this case, what happens to the restrictions on broadcast advertising, the prohibitions on participation in national referendum campaign activities, and the rules and procedures pertaining to the public information activities of the Public Relations Council?


OGUCHI Yoshinori (New Komeito)

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> The revised bill contains a clause mandating the future examination of a national referendum system on issues related to constitutional amendment. Does this proposal presume the introduction a preliminary national referendum system as indicated by Professor EBASHI in the open hearing held in Tokyo?

>> The revised bill extends the scope of eligible voters and mandates the implementation of necessary legal measures pertaining to the Public Offices Election Law and other laws within a period of three years. What are the laws that need to be revised? Are the laws to be revised within three years, or are the revised laws to be put into force within three years?

>> I would like to ask the following questions concerning provisions in the revised bill that relate to restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities in their official positions: (a) How were these provisions revised, and are the restrictions the same as those that apply under the Public Offices Election Law? (b) What penalties apply to persons violating the ban on the use of official position? (c) In what cases will the crime of abuse of power by civil servants apply?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The importance of newspapers in national referendum campaign activities was pointed out by Mr. ASANO in the open hearing held in Tokyo. What progress has been made in considering a system for partial public sponsorship of newspaper advertising by political parties with seats in the Diet?

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Given the principle of separate initiation of individual amendments, it would be difficult to undertake a comprehensive revision of the Constitution. What is your judgment of the meaning of "matters of related content?"

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> In the revised bill, the date of effectuation is three years after the promulgation of the law, which is one year longer than in the original bill presented by the ruling parties. What is the reason for this extension?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Is there any change in your desire to enact the national referendum law before Constitution Day on May 3? What direction will your future discussions in the Democratic Party of Japan take? I would like to ask Mr. EDANO to respond to these questions.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The voice of the people has been heard in the central and local open hearings, and the people are demanding careful deliberation of the bills on hand. How do you respond to these voices, and how do you intend to reflect these views in future deliberations of the bills?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Prime Minister ABE has stated that he wants a procedural law for constitutional amendment to be enacted so that the Constitution can be amended. Judging from this statement, conditions have significantly changed from when the ruling parties referred to the creation of fair and impartial rules in their explanation of the reasons for the submission of their original bill. How do you respond to this?

(To the presenters of the revised bills)

>> The revised bill includes a provision stating that due consideration must be given to the regulations of the Broadcast Law. Also, the revised bill fails to provide exemption from the application of the regulations of the National Public Service Law and Local Public Service Law. These two points are at variance with what was discussed in this Special Committee. I would like to know how the revised bill was formulated.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Strong views were expressed in the central and local open hearings favoring the introduction of a minimum voter turnout requirement. Moreover, such a system should be adopted given the characteristics of a rigid constitution. What are your views on this matter?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Prime Minister ABE has stated that the national referendum law should be enacted during the current Diet session. Does not such a statement constitute an infringement on the jurisdiction of the legislative branch by the executive branch? Should we not protest this infringement regardless of our position in favor of constitutional preservation or constitutional amendment? I would like to ask Mr. FUNADA to respond to these questions.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The overseas research conducted last year taught us the importance of developing parliamentary and public consensus. What are your views of the present stance of the ruling parties?

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Today, parliamentary consensus has collapsed. Under these conditions, I do not believe that we should make haste in our deliberations of the bills. What are your views on this matter?

>> Given the provisions of the Constitution, I believe the Cabinet is not empowered to submit proposals for constitutional amendments. Under the provisions of the revised bill, are members of Diet the only persons authorized to submit constitutional amendments? Responding to questioning, Chief Cabinet Secretary SHIOZAKI and others have stated that the Cabinet also has the power to submit constitutional amendments. In light of the provisions of the bill before us, how will a proposed constitutional amendment be treated if it has been submitted by the Cabinet?

>> The question of who has the power and authority to submit proposals for constitutional amendments is a very important question. I believe the Diet should adopt a unified stand on this matter stating that the Cabinet does not have the authority to submit constitutional amendments. What are your views on this matter?


ITOKAWA Masaaki (People's New Party and Group of Independents)

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> In the reasons given for the submission of the revised bill, it was stated that it represents the "culmination of the discussions of the Special Committee." Is there any possibility for considering further revisions?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> In the reasons given for the submission of the revised bill, it was stated that the "various differences that existed between the bills submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan have been almost totally eliminated." What are your thoughts on this understanding?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> If the Democratic Party of Japan were to submit a revised bill, what would it have to contain to be acceptable to the ruling parties?

(To the presenters of the revised bill)

>> The revised bill is similar to the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan in that judges, public prosecutors and police officers are excluded from the scope of specified civil servants prohibited from participating in national referendum campaign activities. What is the reason for this?

>> Regarding the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities, a statement was made in December 2006 to the effect that civil servants would be exempted from the application of the provisions of the National Public Service Law concerning restrictions on the political activities of civil servants. Why does the revised bill not contain such an exemption?

>> What specific materials do you expect the National Referendum Official Gazette prepared by the Public Relations Council to contain? In the revised bill, the holding of explanatory meetings has been removed from the list of functions of the Public Relations Council. What is the reason for this?

>> It has been argued that banning paid broadcast advertising in the period immediately preceding the voting day constitutes a serious restriction of the freedom of expression. Notwithstanding these arguments, in the revised bill, the period of the ban has been extended from 7 days to 14 days. What is the reason for this?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> In the revised bill, the period of the ban on paid broadcast advertising prior to the voting day has been extended. What is your evaluation of this revision?

Report of local open hearings held in Niigata and Osaka by Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

I would like to report on the local open hearings on behalf of the head of the mission and representing the members who participated in these hearings.

The mission, consisting of ten members, was headed by Chairman NAKAYAMA Taro and comprised the following: Director AICHI Kazuo, Director FUNADA Hajime, Director SONODA Yasuhiro, Director AKAMATSU Masao, Member ISHII Keiichi, Member KASAI Akira, Member TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi, Member ITOKAWA Masaaki, and myself, Director EDANO Yukio. In the local open hearing held in Niigata, we were joined by Member TANAKA Makiko and Member TSUTSUI Nobutaka.

The Niigata local open hearing was held in the morning of March 28 in a conference room at the Hotel Nikko Niigata. The Osaka local open hearing was held in the afternoon of the same day in a conference room at the Hotel New Otani Osaka. The subjects of the hearings were the Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and five others to the 164th Session of the Diet, and the Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others to the 164th Session of the Diet.

First, I will present a summary of the local open hearing held in Niigata City in the morning of March 28. Chairman NAKAYAMA opened the session by introducing the members of the mission and the speakers. Following this, statements and views were heard from the following four speakers: Mr. TAMURA Shigeru, Associate Professor, Niigata Law School; Mr. BABA Yasushi, President, Niigata Bar Association; Mr. FUJIO Akira, Professor Emeritus, Niigata University; and, Mr. OCHI Toshio, Professor, Department of Information Culture, Niigata University of International and Information Studies.

I will briefly describe the main points of the views expressed by the speakers. Mr. TAMURA expressed the following opinions. Given the situation in various foreign countries, it is appropriate to set the minimum voting age at 18. Discussions of the Civil Code and other laws should be started without delay. It is appropriate that the bills do not contain a minimum voter turnout requirement. Mr. BABA expressed the following opinions. Constitutional amendment should be based on careful consideration and consensus of the people. For this purpose, it is necessary to adopt a minimum voter turnout requirement. Mr. FUJIO expressed the following opinions. Majority should be interpreted to mean a majority of all ballots cast. Both blank and invalid ballots should be included in the total number of ballots cast. Mr. OCHI expressed the following opinions. The Constitution functions as a safeguard to restrict the exercise of power. In light of this fact, the national referendum system for constitutional amendment should be designed to make it difficult to implement changes in the Constitution.

Following the statement of these opinions, members of the Special Committee posed the following questions to the speakers: evaluation of the activities of this Special Committee; design of general national referendum system; appropriate publicity period for the people; justification for rejecting the adoption of minimum voter turnout requirement; pros and cons of speedy enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment; and, evaluation of public opinion polls concerning constitutional amendment.

Next, I will present a summary of the local open hearing held in Osaka City in the afternoon of March 28. Chairman NAKAYAMA opened the session by introducing the members of the mission and the speakers. Following this, statements and views were heard from the following four speakers: Mr. IMAI Hajime, journalist and Secretary General of Referendum Information Office, Journalist; Mr. NAKANO Kansei, President, Research Institute for New Age Policies; Mr. YOSHIDA Eiji; Professor, Faculty of Law, Kansai University; and Mr. NAKAKITA Ryutaro, Attorney-at-Law.

I will briefly describe the main points of the views expressed by the speakers. Mr. IMAI stated that failure to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment was a violation of the people's right to constitutional enactment. He expressed opposition to the adoption of minimum voter turnout requirements on the grounds that this could instigate boycott movements, and expressed support for a general national referendum system in principle. Mr. NAKANO expressed the following opinions. As the highest organ of state power, the Diet should take the lead in the constitutional debate. Hasty work, and partisan interests and strategies should be avoided in discussing national referendum bills. Mr. YOSHIDA expressed the following opinions. The two bills do not reflect the views of constitutional scholars on the following points, and may be unconstitutional: system of conference committees of both Houses, provisions on lawsuits brought by the people for the nullification of national referendum results, and failure to adopt minimum voter turnout requirements. Mr. NAKAKITA expressed the following opinions. It is clear that the objective of both bills is the amendment of Article 9, and the bills contradict the essential design of national referendum procedures for constitutional amendment that is based on the principle of popular sovereignty.

Following the statement of these opinions, members of the Special Committee posed the following questions to the speakers: the need to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment at this point in time; the future direction of the management of the Special Committee and its activities; evaluation of the New Komeito's advocacy of "adding to the Constitution;" the effectiveness and impact of restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities; whether the Cabinet is empowered to submit proposals for constitutional amendment; and, restrictions on paid broadcast advertising.

For details of these sessions, please refer to the stenographic records that were made. May I propose that when these stenographic records are ready, they be entered into the minutes of this Special Committee for future reference. In closing my report, I would like to sincerely thank the many people who contributed to the smooth operation of these open hearings.

This concludes my report.