William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. With great distinction.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, I have the greatest respect for his soundness of judgment, for his honesty and integrity. I have the same for the Senators named. But the fact remains, honorable men and women often disagree. Here we do disagree. I am just trying to join my colleagues--there are 23 of us --in seeking to correct what we think was unfair treatment to two individuals who devoted a lifetime of service to this country. Yes, there are differences of opinion on this matter, but nothing seems to me more important than to try to correct a record which I think, on the basis of the studies I have seen, results in unfairness. We are trying to correct that. I understand you disagree with the basis of our proposal, but I think both of us want the same thing, and that is fairness.

Mr. ROTH. I point out to my distinguished colleague that first of all, the Dorn Report makes the very clear finding that responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. It should be broadly shared. When it says it should be broadly shared, it seems to me it is saying in effect that all of those who had any responsibility for the act should be treated the same. That is basically what we are saying here. These two distinguished gentlemen gave a lifetime of service to their country with distinction. There are many factors that were shown in the other investigations: That they did not have the intelligence, they did not have the information that they were entitled to if they were going to properly discharge their responsibility. We are not saying here that they were not partly responsible, but they were no more responsible than other leaders in Washington. To me, it is unfair, inequitable and not in the tradition of the military to treat two individuals differently from others. This is not an effort of a younger generation trying to correct what we think is an unfair situation. I, like the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, served in World War II with the military. I just think it is only right, it is only just that we treat them exactly the same and let them be promoted to their higher wartime ranks. There is a responsibility, accountability, among many. Any number of these studies clearly showed that a large part of that responsibility was in Washington. All we are asking is, let's treat all these people alike--fair and with justice.

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. It really is not a question, I say to my colleague, of new evidence. The evidence has been there for many years, since 1944, when investigations were made both by the Army and Navy. Time and again, it has been found that these two individuals were not the only ones responsible. Admittedly, they share blame with others. But everybody else in the Service was permitted to keep their rank or raised to their highest.

Mr. ROTH. There were some findings that because of the lack of intelligence, they were not advised of the most up-to-date information that Washington had; they were not at fault. As a matter of fact, the finding was made that their disposition based on the information they had was appropriate and proper.

Mr. ROTH. I appreciate that. I think the important thing is to show that in our country, individuals who were not treated equitably, the record can be set straight.

Mr. ROTH. Let me say this. What I do know, as far as the record shows, only two officers were penalized, were punished.

Mr. ROTH. With all due deference to my colleague, that is hypothetical. It is possible that somewhere someone was mistreated. But those facts are not before us. I am not aware of any such charges. But here we have two individuals about whom many different people agree, from those like Bob Dole, who served with great distinction, from the admirals who were in command, both of the Navy and our military forces, all coming forward with the recommendation that, to be fair, these two individuals should be advanced to their highest wartime rank. The point the Senator is making is true in life. Many times lawsuits are brought but you cannot, in settling that lawsuit, with the individuals before you--you are not going to solve all the problems of mankind because you only have the facts of those you are considering. Our resolution is a followthrough for two individuals, about whom, time and time again, it was said they served with distinction.

Mr. ROTH. No one of whom I am aware, who served in World War II at the time of Pearl Harbor and had any responsibility in Washington, was held accountable and given less rank. General George Marshall admitted that he had a responsibility, but I do not think anyone suggested, or would want to suggest, that he should have been penalized.

Mr. ROTH. No. But to me it is the same sort of thing. You are in a law case. Can you talk about the others who may be involved in the same kind of a problem? We are only trying to correct what I think are two serious cases. Let me point out any number of distinguished groups and organizations who have come out in support.

Mr. ROTH. I think the point is that in these investigations, the purpose of them was not to determine who was accountable but, rather, it was a statement of fact. But, again, let me underscore. You keep coming back and saying: Why should we be looking at it today? I think that is what makes this country different. If there is a wrong, an error, it is never too late to correct it. Here we have a case where these individuals were found not to be solely responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor. As a matter of fact, there were findings in agreement that many in Washington played a key role. Most persuasive to me is the fact that the intelligence they needed to address the attack was not made available to them, yet they are the ones who were denied promotion. The only two.

Mr. ROTH. I say, to the contrary, what is the evidence that there are others? Theoretically, you keep saying there are others. Who are they?

Mr. ROTH. The issue is not the question of new facts. The issue is the question of fairness. I believe that is as critically important today as it was at the time it occurred. The record is clear that these individuals, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, did not have the intelligence information available at the time that would have enabled them to better address the challenge from the Japanese.

Mr. ROTH. Because of the fact that--

Mr. ROTH. You reject the argument, but you give me no names. Who else was involved? These are the two who many distinguished former officers of the service, of the Navy, of the Army, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, find this is unfairly treating these individuals. I am merely trying to correct a wrong. I recognize different people--I think we are both fair minded, to be honest. We just happen to disagree.

Mr. ROTH. We do know----

Mr. ROTH. There were findings that these individuals did not have the intelligence to which they were entitled. In Washington, it was known that war was imminent. If you had the full information, it was fairly clear that there could be an attack on Pearl Harbor. There was a so- called bomb, 14-part message, all of which indicated that attack was an immediate threat. That information was denied the two individuals with the key critical responsibility in Hawaii. I just think that to hold them responsible and not to give them the lifetime is unfair.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. I say to the good chairman, the others have not presented the case. These individuals, their families, have tried to correct what I think is a serious wrong. Again, all I can say is that rare is it that by one stroke of action you correct all inequities, all injustices. But here we have two individuals who were scapegoated. Let's face it. They needed to blame somebody. I think as a matter of fact the Roberts investigation was not known for the legal jurisprudence with which it was conducted. I believe, in fairness to these individuals, the record ought to be set straight. They served their country with great distinction through the years. Disaster occurred at Pearl Harbor, but they alone cannot be held responsible. Most of these reports will admit that. The others were permitted to rise to their highest rank, and I just say as a matter of justice----

Mr. ROTH. To me, it is just a difference, I guess, in approach. If you take the position that it happened in the past and it should not be changed, I think that is wrong. I think there is a strong case that these individuals were not treated fairly. The President was given authority under the 1947 act to raise any retired flag officer to the rank----

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and on behalf of Senator Thurmond and Senator Kennedy to introduce an amendment whose intent is to redress a grave injustice that haunts us from the tribulations of World War II. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were the two senior commanders of U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, they were unfairly and publicly charged with dereliction of duty and blamed as singularly responsible for the success of that attack. Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, in a hastily prepared report to the President, the Roberts Commission--perhaps the most flawed and unfortunately most influential investigation of the disaster--levelled the dereliction of duty charge against Kimmel and Short--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized. Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of this Commission, later disavowed its report, stating that these two officers were ``martyred'' and ``if they had been brought to trial, they would have been cleared of the charge.'' Later, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who was Admiral Kimmel's predecessor as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, wrote: In the impression that the Roberts Commission created in the minds of the American people, and in the way it was drawn up for that specific purpose, I believe that the report of the Roberts Commission was the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office. After the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a painfully enduring veneer when Admiral Kimmel and General Short were not advanced on the retired lists to their highest ranks of war-time command--an honor that was given to every other senior commander who served in war-time positions above his regular grade. Admiral Kimmel, a two star admiral, served in a four star command. General Short, a two star general, served in a three star command. Let me repeat, advancement on the retired lists was granted to every other flag rank officer who served in World War II in a post above their grade. That decision against Kimmel and Short was made despite the fact that war-time investigations had exonerated these commanders of the dereliction of duty charge and criticized their higher commands for significant failings that contributed to the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. More than six studies and investigations conducted after the war, including one Department of Defense report completed in 1995 at Senator Thurmond's request, reconfirmed these findings. Our amendment is a rewrite of Senate Joint Resolution 19, the Kimmel- Short Resolution, that I, Senator Biden, Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator Kennedy, Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Abraham, Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator John Kerry, Senator Kyl, Senator Hollings, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, Senator Voinovich, Senator DeWine, and Senator Feinstein--a total of 23 cosponsors--introduced last month. The amendment calls upon the President of the United States to advance posthumously on the retirement lists Admiral Kimmel and General Short to the grades of their highest war-time commands. Its passage would communicate the Senate's recognition of the injustice done to them and call upon the President to take corrective action. Such a statement by the Senate would do much to remove the stigma of blame that so unfairly burdens the reputations of these two officers. It is a correction consistent with our military's tradition of honor. Mr. President, the investigations providing clear evidence that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame include a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, the 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee, and a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. To give you the sense of the thoroughness of these investigations, I have before me the volumes that constitute the Joint Congressional Committee's final report that compiles many of these studies. I think they demonstrate, beyond question, the thoroughness with which the investigation had proceeded. The findings of these official reports can be summarized as four principal points. First, there is ample evidence that the Hawaiian commanders were not provided vital intelligence that they needed, and that was available in Washington prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short. In my review of this fundamental point, I was most struck by the honor and integrity demonstrated by General George Marshall who was Army Chief of Staff at the time of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. On November 27 of that year, General Short interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington as suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, he concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, thus inadvertently increasing their vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the General Staff took no steps to clarify the reality of the situation. In 1946, before a Joint Congressional Committee on the Pearl Harbor disaster, General Marshall testified that he was responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He acknowledged that he must have received General Short's report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that he failed to do so. Mr. President, General Marshall's integrity and sense of responsibility is a model for all of us. I only wish it had been able to have greater influence over the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. A third theme of these investigations concerned the failure of the Department of War and the Department of the Navy to properly manage the flow of intelligence. The 1995 Department of Defense report stated that the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by, among other faults, ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up. The fourth and most important theme that permeates the aforementioned reports is that blame for the disaster at Pearl Harbor cannot be placed only upon the Hawaiian commanders. They all underscored significant failures and shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington that contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The 1995 Department of Defense report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly shared.'' This is an important quote. It shows that the Department of Defense recognizes that these two commanders should not be singled out for blame. Yet, still today on this issue, our government's words do not match its actions. Kimmel and Short remain the only two officials who have been forced to pay a price for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Let me add one poignant fact about the two wartime investigations. Their conclusions--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly disposed according to the information available to them and that their superiors had failed to share important intelligence--were kept secret on the grounds that making them public would have been detrimental to the war effort. Be that as it may, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Spruance, one of our great naval commanders of World War II, shares this view. He put it this way: ``I have always felt that Kimmel and Short were held responsible for Pearl Harbor in order that the American people might have no reason to lose confidence in their government in Washington. This was probably justifiable under the circumstances at that time, but it does not justify forever damning those two fine officers.'' Mr. President, to do so is not only unfair, it tarnishes our nation's military honor. Mr. President, this sense of the Senate has been endorsed by countless military officers, including those who have served at the highest levels of command. These include former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer and Admiral William J. Crowe, and former Chiefs of Naval Operations Admiral J.L. Holloway III, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt and Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost. Moreover a number of public organizations have called for posthumous advancement of Kimmel and Short. Last August, the VFW passed a resolution calling for the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Let me add that Senator Robert Dole, one of our most distinguished colleagues and a veteran who served heroically in World Warr II, has also endorsed this sense of the Senate resolution. This resolution now in amendment form is about justice, equity, and honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that Admiral Kimmel and General Short are treated with the dignity and honor they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. As we approach Memorial Day and prepare to honor those who served to protect our great nation, it is a most appropriate time to redress this injustice. After 58 years, this correction is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of exhibits be printed in the Record, including a statement from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, including a resolution adopted by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a letter from several distinguished admirals of the U.S. Navy who are alive and sent this to us comparatively recently, likewise a letter from the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, Inc., and finally a copy of the letter from Senator Bob Dole to myself.

Mr. ROTH. I just think it is not fair to these individuals, to their reputation. Admittedly, even the Dorn report makes all kinds of conclusions that they did not have the information to which they were entitled, that others shared in the responsibility for what happened. In this country, in the tradition of the military--and I am not a professional soldier, although I did have the pleasure of serving several years in the military----

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.