John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. What was the year you entered the Army Reserve? I remember I was there when we recognized----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our distinguished former chairman for that powerful statement. His firm hand and leadership are very much a part of the everyday activities of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I can think of no Member of this body who has served in uniform longer than our distinguished colleague, who entered, in my recollection, through the Army Reserve. I was there at a ceremony. What was the year that you entered the Army Reserve, Senator? Anyway, way back----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will provide our distinguished colleague with those amendments. I believe at the desk now is the Specter-Landrieu amendment. So one is before the Senate. I am now working with Senator Roberts on a revision of his. I presume that the Roth amendment is pretty well in final form. I hope someone can inform the Senator from Virginia as quickly as possible as to the text of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before we leave that point, if none of these reports that I recited--some nine in number which had before them live witnesses, clarity of mind and clarity of recollection--did not exonerate these officers, then why should we now at this late date in history try to make a different finding? There could have been other officers who possibly were not advanced in rank. You cite they should be treated equally. How do I know there are not other officers, Army and Navy, who were not advanced in rank because they bore part of the responsibility for this tragedy? So, when you ask for equality, it would seem to me you would have to come forth with all the cases of all those who bore part of the responsibility and show that they were treated differently than Kimmel and Short.

Mr. WARNER. But, Senator, what do you say to all of these people--I wish we had a volume here that showed how many Members of Congress participated? Perhaps you can provide that. I do not know how many sat on all the boards that Frank Knox had. I recited all of them here, but I did serve in the Department of Navy as an Under Secretary for 5-plus years.

Mr. WARNER. I am not so sure, but you are nice to say it. It was a challenge. I was privileged and humbled to do so. But my point is, a naval court of inquiry, that is usually about 9 or 10 officers certainly for a matter of this importance. All of these investigations involved, I think, at a minimum 10 or 12 people, not to mention all the staffs on both sides. I am sure they had the opportunity for these two officers to make known their own views and to turn over all of the investigations and say that they did not act fairly towards these two men. Here we are, here in May of 1999, with no new evidence. I do not have the records of all these boards. I suppose somebody has gone through them. And Mr. Brzezinski maybe has. Could I ask, have you got an estimate of how many persons were involved in all these boards which rendered a judgment that these two men must be held accountable for this tragedy at Pearl Harbor? Does anyone have an estimate of how many Members of Congress?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I understand the order is our distinguished colleague, also a new member of our committee and one who has certainly pulled her weight by a margin of two in her service on the committee. Amendment No. 384

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I think his statement reflects the partnership in which we have worked and will continue to work. We do urge Members to bring their amendments to the floor. Currently, we have the following--I share with my colleague, and I think he is aware of this: Senator Roberts has an amendment, Senator Specter has an amendment, and Senator Roth has an amendment, the subject matter I am sure the Senator is familiar with. It is the desire of the majority leader, and I presume with the concurrence of the minority leader, that votes on these amendments will occur not before 5:30, but as soon thereafter as we can package them and have them sequentially. So that is for the information of all Senators. I now yield the floor. I see our distinguished former chairman, the senior Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague. I dare say that she will establish a record far superior to that of her predecessor; namely, the Senator from Virginia, as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Maine be added as a cosponsor to the Roberts-Warner amendment now pending at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of the Committee on Armed Services appearing on the list appendant hereto be extended the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1059.

Mr. WARNER. How fortunate we are in the Senate to have one with that traditional background as now head of the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. You share that with another distinguished colleague in the next-door State of Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who is the ranking member. We are well represented on this committee. I commend you for your report and bring to the attention of the Senate and the American people the underlying theme of our pay bill, how many times our men and women of the Armed Forces are required now in missions beyond our shores. That is very important. Of course, as to the 300-ship Navy--a famous figure--I hope that you and I and others can hold the line, because we are a maritime Nation. Our entire economic strategy is dependent on the security of our overseas markets and the ability to get our products out. Our entire defense strategy is dependent on what we call forward deployment. The ships of the Navy are a lifeline protection for both our economic as well as our national security responsibilities in this country. I commend the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. If I could again refer to the Dorn Report: The failure of Kimmel and Short to make adequate preparations in light of the information they did have. That was a major finding. They knew their primary mission, arguable their only mission, was to prepare for war. They knew that war with Japan was highly likely. They knew that a surprise attack probably would precede a declaration of war. They knew Japan, not the US, would strike the first blow. They knew the initial Japanese attack would fall on Pearl Harbor. They knew that an attack on Pearl Harbor could come from aircraft carriers. They knew from their own staffs of the danger of a surprise air attack. They knew from recent events that the idea of a carrier air attack on Pearl Harbor was not new. They made statements prior to December 7 that acknowledged the possibility of an air attack on their forces. Now, that was the finding of the Dorn group here just in 1995. I have it here, some numerous pages of this report.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. For the information of all Senators, the next votes will occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday. It is the hope of leadership that passage could occur by close of business Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. On behalf of the majority leader and, I am sure, the minority leader, we urge our colleagues to do everything they can to make this possible. The distinguished whip.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I likewise commend the esteemed colleague and Senator from Louisiana for an important amendment which will send a signal at this time. It is very timely. I wish to commend my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. It is a very interesting combination of two Senators coming to the floor on an important point.

Mr. WARNER. No. Please go ahead.

Mr. WARNER. I suggest my good friend is making my argument. What I am saying is this is likened to statute law. What the Senator is reading are regulations. How often in the history of our country have regulations just about emasculated the statute?

Mr. WARNER. I want to engage in a few more minutes of colloquy. Other Senators are waiting and we have momentum under this bill. One Senator desires to lay down some additional amendments. I cannot let this opportunity go by. Article 5 of the 1949 treaty laid out in very clear language exactly the reasons for which NATO was established. It could be understood by anyone, whether he or she wears four stars or is a private. It simply says: The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. The word ``attack'' goes all the way through article 5. We will assist the parties so attacked. It was a defensive treaty, whether it was armed aggression across the border against a member nation. That is the only reason that NATO was founded. Now in the Bosnia and Kosovo operation, there wasn't any attack on a member nation but it was unsettling to the security of Europe. There was no attack. They decided it was a non-article 5 military operation. There is no non-article 5 in here. You have to go to a preamble. You have to work a strain for the basis on which we are in Bosnia and in Kosovo. We are there; we are committed as a nation. If in the next decade we want to do something beyond article 5, then let's put it down as a new article. Let's write it as a new article, article 15, and put it down in very clear language so that everybody can understand what it is we want to do, rather than going back and getting a strange interpretation of a preamble to begin to justify putting men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in harm's way. The burdensharing concept: The financial relationship between the United States, which pays 25 percent of the costs of NATO--eventually our committee will get all those costs and spread them out. I think we ought to, plain and simple, start a new article if we want to do something different than article 5 and not go back within the confines of this magnificent document and try to get some strained, whatever it is, to justify military action beyond the borders.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that sum portion of intelligence, I think that all throughout history has been conceded. And these tribunals, particularly the Congress, had that before it. It is for that reason maybe they were not court-martialed and incarcerated, if found guilty.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, in my judgment, predicated on a lot of study in the lifetime of this Senator of the NATO treaty, the doctrine of consensus was predicated on keeping the operations within the borders. And now, under this proposed 1999 Strategic Concept, to take it beyond the borders, I question whether or not the doctrine of consensus will work. What a tragedy it would be if we took this magnificent NATO organization, which fulfilled beyond the dreams of all its mission, as laid down in 1949, which kept the peace in Europe for that half century, and allow it to be pulled apart by a doctrine such as this new Strategic Concept. I think the Senator is quite right. We are in this conflict, in all probability, not because of our national vital security interests but because of NATO. It is because of NATO that we cannot allow our military commanders to promulgate the actions which are necessary to go ahead and win it. I often think, I say to my good friend, as over 50 percent of the airmen are flying tactical missions and over 70 percent of the support missions and the airlift, are we unfairly asking those young aviators to bear the brunt of war disproportionately because NATO did not devise and put in place, concurrently with the air operations, starting a ground operation? Because a ground operation would have transformed this conflict considerably. It might well, in my judgment, have brought about a far earlier conclusion of this conflict and saved the prolonged risk to airmen which is going on today and tomorrow and for the indefinite future, given the absence of bringing together all the force capable of the 19 nations to bear. Indeed, the other nations that do not have the air power, as we have it, could have been the primary components of the ground action, leaving to the American airmen the operations in the sky but they undertake the operations on the ground. It would have forced Milosevic to put in place, making in all probability his ground assets a better target than they are today, widely dispersed and hidden in the villages and towns throughout Kosovo and elsewhere. I think the whole dynamics of this conflict would have been changed had we not limited solely to air but done a ground-air combination, for which our forces have trained these 50 years in NATO, as well as the other NATO nations, for a ground-air coordinated defense. I point out, NATO was always to be a defense treaty.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense Authorization bill tomorrow. Under the order, the Senate will debate several amendments, with the votes on those amendments occurring in a stacked sequence beginning at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday afternoon. All Senators should, therefore, expect at least three votes occurring at 2:15. It is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on this bill as early as possible this week.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.