[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 105 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9097-S9100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 965. A bill to designate the United States Courthouse for the 
Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, VA, as the Albert V. Bryan 
United States Courthouse; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


              ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to transfer the 
name of the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse to the New Federal 
courthouse in Alexandria, VA.
  The current Federal courthouse at 200 South Washington Street in 
Alexandria, Virginia bears the name of one of Virginia's most 
distinguished jurists, Albert V. Bryan.
  My legislation simply ensures that when the new courthouse is opened 
it shall be known as the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse.
  Mr. President, the recognition of the many accomplishments and 
contributions of Judge Bryan to his chosen profession--the law--and to 
his community is not a new matter for this body.
  On October 9, 1986, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 2890 to 
designate the Federal courthouse in Alexandria in honor of Judge 
Bryan's lifetime of public service. Since 1987, the Alexandria 
courthouse has carried his name.
  Appointed to the U.S. district court in 1947 by President Truman and 
promoted to the appeals court by President Kennedy in 1961, Judge Bryan 
developed a record as a legal conservative and a strict 
constructionist. He was known for his tolerance on the bench, 
demonstrating reluctance to cut off lawyers in mid argument, and 
reacting sternly to those who flouted his judicial orders.
  Throughout his 37 years on the Federal bench, Judge Bryan was known 
to be fair, firm, and thorough. His was a low-key personality, his 
demeanor

[[Page S9098]]

marked by modesty, politeness and courtliness spiked with a good dose 
of dry wit. Chief Judge Harrison L. Winter of the Fourth Circuit Court 
of Appeals once remarked that Judge Bryan represented ``old Virginia at 
its very best.''
  Judge Bryan's renowned wit was further evidenced in his dislike of 
pomposity. He worked diligently to ensure that his writings were clean 
and precise, often laboring lengthily to identify the exact wording he 
sought. Once, seeking a simple synonym for ``gravamen,'' the essential 
part of a legal complaint, he rejected such complexities as 
``quintessence,'' settling instead on the word ``nub.''
  Born in 1899, Judge Bryan grew up in Alexandria just one block from 
the courthouse where he would later preside. He attended Alexandria 
public schools, then distinguished himself at the University of 
Virginia and, ultimately, its law school. He is said to have taken 
great pride in having been named rector of the university in later 
life.
  Returning to Alexandria in 1921, he became something of a fixture in 
the city. He was comfortable riding the bus to his west end home, and 
he was frequently seen taking lunch in modest, small restaurants near 
the courthouse.
  A conservative on racial issues, Judge Bryan, while a district court 
judge, ordered that four black students be enrolled in Arlington's all-
white Stratford Junior High School in 1958. The students' admission the 
following February marked the first day of desegregation in Virginia. 
He also served on the Federal judicial panel that ordered racial 
integration for Prince Edward County's public schools. The Prince 
Edward case later became part of the Supreme Court's historic Brown 
versus Board of Education decision.
  In 1969, Judge Bryan and two additional appeals judges struck down 
Virginia's tuition grant program--the last vestige of massive 
resistance to integration. One year later, he gained considerable 
notice when he rejected an appeal by Yippie leader Jerry Rubin, sending 
the Vietnam protestor to jail for 30 days for disorderly conduct during 
a 1967 demonstration at the Pentagon.
  Judge Bryan is credited with writing 322 opinions as a circuit judge 
and an additional 18 opinions while he was a district judge. He was 
reversed in only four cases--a dramatic record which few could equal.
  Judge Bryan's accomplishments are perhaps best summarized by the 
comments made at the original courthouse dedication in 1987, by Supreme 
Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr.
  He was indeed an exceptionally able and scholarly judge. Every lawyer 
who ever argued a case before the fourth circuit court was happy to 
find Judge Bryan had been assigned to the panel.
  Judge Powell also quoted a beautiful tribute to Judge Bryan made by 
Chief Judge Harrison Winter at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference: 
``Albert Bryan was a man to love, a man to respect, and a man to 
emulate.''
  The new Federal courthouse in Alexandria will be located at 
Courthouse Square South and Jamieson Avenue. My legislation provides 
that when this facility is completed it shall be known as the Albert F. 
Bryan Courthouse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 966. A bill for the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     NATE VANCE PRIVATE RELIEF ACT

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill for private 
relief of a citizen who has fallen victim both to the 1988 Yellowstone 
fires and to an insensitive Government bureaucracy.
  The tragic Yellowstone ``Mink'' Forest Fire of 1988 devastated Nathan 
Vance's outfitting business when it burned through his Teton wilderness 
camp. The fire destroyed essential outfitting equipment, forcing Nathan 
Vance to cancel 12 prepaid trips and to forfeit valuable revenue from 
those trips. Mr. Vance incurred both equipment replacement costs and 
lost revenue, a deadly combination to a small, seasonal business with a 
small profit margin even in the best of times. This legislation would 
compensate him for the equipment losses he suffered--as the Congress 
had intended when it passed the original legislation following those 
tragic fires.
  That law, Public Law 101-302, authorized the Forest Service to settle 
certain personal damage claims from the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Mr. 
Vance mailed his claim on August 19, 1990 to meet the August 23 
deadline. Through no fault of his own, it took 5 business days for Nate 
Vance's letter to travel from Wyoming to Utah--longer than it takes a 
letter to reach Washington, DC from San Francisco, CA.
  The Forest Service officially received the Vance claim less than 24 
hours after the deadline. The Forest Service initially seemed 
unconcerned by the deadline and continued the claim process by asking 
Mr. Vance to provide a detailed accounting of his lost equipment and 
revenue.
  More than 3 months after the Forest Service received his accounting 
and appeared ready to pay the claim, Mr. Vance was informed by a Forest 
Service employee that his claim was invalid because of the missed 
deadline. Mr. Vance has since attempted to appeal to the Forest 
Service, but has been met with repeated refusals.
  Public Law 101-302 states the ``Forest Service is directed to 
negotiate, compromise, and reach a determination on the original 
claims.'' It is clear that the Forest Service failed to negotiate, to 
compromise, or reach a determination even when directly ordered by law 
to do so--all based on unusually slow mail service. The tragic 
combination of a devastating forest fire and Government insensitivity 
has turned Mr. Vance's life upside down. He is still struggling to pay 
the additional mortgages on his home and on the business assets he was 
forced to assume in order to continue his business.
  Nate Vance's story is an unnecessary and an unintended inequity. 
Insensitive Government actions contributed to his hardship through an 
unreasonable and unresponsive process. We should not allow Government 
to forget that we are here to ``serve'' the people, not to impose 
unfair burdens upon them.
  This legislation will allow us to ease part of the unfair burden 
imposed on Nate Vance by requiring the Secretary to pay Mr. Vance 
$4,850 which is authorized under section 1304--the judgments, awards, 
and compromised settlements section--of title 31 of the United States 
Code. This amount represents his equipment loss and is the amount that 
would have been approved if the postal service had taken 4 rather than 
5 days to deliver his claim from Wyoming to its adjacent neighbor, 
Utah.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Faircloth, Mr. Dole, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Warner, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 967. A bill to provide a fair and full opportunity for recognizing 
with awards of military decorations the meritorious and valorous acts, 
achievements, and service performed by members of the Army in the Ia 
Drang Valley (Pleiku) campaign in Vietnam in 1965; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.


                  ia drang valley military awards act

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at 10:48 in the morning on November 14, 
1965, 450 men from the 1st Battalion of the 7th Cavalry hit the ground 
at Landing Zone X-Ray, Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. Over the 
next 96 hours, the fighting men of the 1st Battalion joined by men from 
the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Cavalry, would engage the enemy--over 
2,000 strong. At the conclusion of these 4 days of battle more than 230 
Americans were dead and 240 more were wounded.
  This engagement marked the first battalion-sized engagement of United 
States Army personnel with North Vietnamese regulars. It was a hellish 
battle. Ground was seized. Ground was lost. Positions were overtaken, 
and counterattacks repulsed. The men who fought on that morning were 
stronger than the ground on which they fought. Theirs is a story of 
gallantry, victory, sacrifice--an example of human strength in the face 
of overwhelming odds and a numerically superior enemy.
  But unlike most significant military engagements, this time the 
military recognition for the numerous acts of bravery, sacrifice and 
dignified service to the flag of the United States has largely gone 
unrecognized. It is a

[[Page S9099]]

wrongful shame which should--and must--be undone, corrected and made 
right.
  Only 25 months before Lt. Col. Harold Moore led his troops into the 
teeth of battle at Landing Zone X-Ray, then-President Kennedy addressed 
the students of Amherst College with these words:

       A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, 
     but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.

  Just 2 years after the President spoke these words, the fallen 
Americans of the Ia Drang Valley, Pleiku campaign, and the men who 
served there in November 1965, discovered a void of silence and 
inaction from their government. It was a government which failed to 
heed the words of their President. The Nation's leadership had failed 
to reveal itself--by remembering the men who served--by honoring the 
men who sacrificed.
  But nations also learn from history, and in learning are reminded. 
Now is such a time. From the pages of a book documenting the service of 
those who sacrificed in the Ia Drang Valley in November of 1965--a book 
entitled ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young''--our Nation is 
reminded. Through this account we are now able to remember those who 
fought, who died, who gave and served. Once again, history reminds us 
of our obligation and responsibility. And as we recognize this 
responsibility, the nation can go back and correct the failures of the 
past by honoring those very men who served.
  Today, I am introducing legislation directly aimed to honor the men 
who served, sacrificed, and in many cases died, in the Ia Drang Valley 
in the Republic of Vietnam in November 1965. Joining me as cosponsors 
in this effort are Senators Smith, Shelby, Bingaman, Helms, Hollings, 
Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Inhofe, Dole, Warner, and McCain.
  The bill we collectively introduce today has one singular goal: to 
ensure that the men who served in the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965 
are not forgotten. Over the past 5 years, it has become clear that many 
who fought, sacrificed and died in the Pleiku campaign in the Ia Drang 
were not recognized for their deeds. In some instances individuals 
killed even failed to receive recognition for their sacrifice through 
the award of Purple Hearts. Our Nation can and should do better.
  Under existing law and regulation, the Department of Army refuses all 
award recommendations submitted after 2 calendar years. It is a 
restriction callously enforced without regard to the very confluence of 
circumstances which precluded the assembly of facts in the case of the 
men who led the first of the 7th into battle in the Ia Drang almost 30 
years ago.
  After almost continuous fighting for the better part of 4 days, unit 
commanders lost hundreds of men. Exhausted, they huddled under lanterns 
each night writing letters to parents and wives explaining the loss of 
their sons and husbands who died in battle. In many cases the only 
witnesses to the valor and sacrifice of Americans felled by combat were 
either dead or severely wounded--neither of which were available to 
document the acts which justify recognition.
  Over the intervening years, former commander in the Ia Drang and now 
retired Gen. Harold Moore, USA and Joseph Galloway, a UPI war 
correspondent who was in the Ia Drang in November 1965, conspired to 
write the history of the men served in the Pleiku campaign. After 
conducting hundreds of interviews to research their book, they 
discovered that numerous acts of heroism, sacrifice, and valor went 
unrecognized. Over the years efforts were made to convince the 
Department of Army to reconsider these men for military awards. In each 
instance, these efforts failed.
  On July 6, 1994, the Adjutant General of the U.S. Army wrote Brig. 
Gen. Henry Thorpe, USA, (retired)--himself commander of Delta Company, 
2d Battalion, 7th Cavalry in the Ia Drang in November 1965--to say:

       The Department of the Army has rigidly adhered to the rules 
     pertaining to the two-year time limit and the only recourse 
     available to recognize these soldiers is special legislation 
     by Congress.'' [emphasis added.]

  This bill seeks to fulfill the casual advice of the Adjutant General 
of the Army. While it is unfortunate that legislative action is 
required to correct an oversight of the past 30 years, it should not be 
an insurmountable obstacle. The bill we introduce today removes the 
barricade erected by the Army, not by dictating the award of specific 
medals to individuals, but by directing the Army to waive the 2-year 
restriction and consider awards recommendations under existing Army 
criteria.
  Should my colleagues question the wisdom of this legislation, I 
recommend you read two letters I have received from veterans of Ia 
Drang Valley, Pleiku campaign. At this point, I request unanimous 
consent that two letters supporting this bill be inserted in the 
Record. The first letter is from Joseph Galloway and the other is from 
Jack Smith.
  Joseph Galloway was a 23-year-old war correspondent for United Press 
International when he accompanied elements of the 7th Cavalry into the 
Ia Drang Valley in November 1965. Thirty years later, his words ring in 
reverent tones as he describes the sacrifice of men lost, fallen 
comrades who served yet received no recognition.
  Jack Smith was an enlisted specialist in Charlie Company, 2d 
Battalion, 7th Cavalry. Today, Jack Smith is an accomplished journalist 
with ABC News. His account is perhaps more personal as the book 
describes his experiences on the afternoon of November 17, 1965, on a 
trail to Landing Zone Albany--the extraction point for a tired group of 
soldiers who had already faced the dangers of battle and were weary 
from it.
  As you read these letters, I urge you to envision the faces of the 
hundreds of young men who fought, not so much out of fear, but out of 
duty, honor, and commitment to the men with whom they served. This is a 
history which deserves recognition. And this legislation deserves 
passage, so that our Nation can once again reveal itself by the men it 
honors and the men it remembers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation and 
I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. News & World Report,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1995.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: This letter is to advise that I fully 
     and completely support the Bill which you are introducing to 
     permit U.S. Army consideration of delayed awards 
     recommendations for some individuals who fought in the Pleiku 
     (Ia Drang) Campaign in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam 
     in October and November, 1965.
       I was present on a number of those battlefields as a 
     civilian war correspondent for United Press International, in 
     the campaign which begin with the siege of Plei Me Special 
     Forces Camp on 23 October, 1965, and ended with the tragic 
     clash at Landing Zone Albany, 17-18 November, 1965.
       I personally witnessed repeated acts of valor and sacrifice 
     in three days and nights at Landing Zone X-Ray, 14-16 
     November, 1965, and at that time assumed that such acts would 
     in due course be recognized by the Army by appropriate awards 
     of valor.
       It was not until Lt. Gen. (ret.) Hal Moore and I had begun 
     the detailed interviews and research that would lead to 
     publication of our book, ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . and 
     Young,'' that we realized how many men had been completely 
     overlooked, and why.
       There is, for instance, the tale of the two Charlie 
     Companies, 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry. At 
     LZ X-Ray on the terrible morning of 15 November, 1965, 
     Charlie Company 1/7 Cavalry held the line for all of us 
     against a full battalion of the 66th North Vietnamese Army 
     Regiment, reinforced by another battalion of Main Force Viet 
     Cong. The company began that morning with 5 officers and 107 
     men on its roster. By noon it had no officers and only 49 men 
     left standing. A total of 42 officers and men had died and 20 
     more had been wounded in two and one-half hours of hand-to-
     hand combat. Yet they held the line and saved the rest of the 
     battalion.
       Two days later, two and a half miles away at LZ Albany, 
     Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion 7th Cavalry began the day with 
     112 officers and men. By the following morning, 18 November, 
     there were only eight officers and men present and accounted 
     for. All the others were either dead, wounded or missing in 
     action. The battalion had been ambushed in thick jungle 
     and tall elephant grass; the company commanders had all 
     been called to the head of the column and were not with 
     their men. Of all the companies present, Charlie Company 
     2/7 died on its feet in a desperate charge into the 
     muzzles of the machine guns trying to save the battalion. 
     They died following the bravest of the brave, company 
     executive officer Lt. Don C. Cornett, who died leading 
     them.
       Who knows their stories? Who writes their award 
     recommendations in the shock and immediacy of the moment when 
     battalions are being loaded down with replacements and

[[Page S9100]]

     the few surviving officers sit under gasoline lanterns in 
     base camp tents, night after night, writing letters of 
     condolence to the mothers and fathers, wives and children of 
     those men?
       Three-hundred-six American soldiers and one U.S. Air Force 
     pilot died in the Pleiku Campaign, in the first major battle 
     of the Vietnam War between U.S. and North Vietnamese Army 
     regulars. Ours was a peacetime Army just getting it war legs 
     under it--an Army without even a proper casualty notification 
     system. The families learned news of their loved one's death 
     from telegrams delivered by taxi drivers, often at 2 or 3 
     a.m. This was an Army still operating on peacetime awards 
     policies, miserly and damned proud of being miserly when it 
     came time to recognize the soldier in the ranks.
       All these things conspired to insure that those men, living 
     and dead, who had fought the first and bloodiest battle of a 
     10-year war, would in large measure find that their deeds 
     went unrecognized. And, as for the thanks of a grateful 
     nation, well, we all know how that song went.
       What I found in interviewing the survivors, my battlefield 
     comrades, is that these are the most modest of men. They, 
     each of them, seek nothing for themselves. But each will tell 
     you how his closest buddy sacrificed his life to save another 
     man. Or how the skinny young medic from Washington, D.C., 
     tried to shelter the wounded with his body as enemy guns 
     homed in on them. Or how Charles R. (Doc) Lose, the medic of 
     the Lost Platoon (B Company, 1/7 Cavalry) at LZ X-Ray, used 
     up all his bandages, all his morphine and then used c-ration 
     toilet paper and strips torn off his own tee-shirt and 
     somehow kept 13 badly wounded men alive for 26 harrowing 
     hours under direct enemy fire. Only Doc Lose moved on that 
     tiny knoll surrounded by the enemy, moving ceaselessly from 
     man to man, tending his patients. During that time Doc Lose 
     was himself wounded two times.
       So many of those who would have stepped forward to 
     recommend awards for the heroic actions they had witnessed 
     were wounded and evacuated to hospitals in the United States. 
     Many others had only a few days left on their term of service 
     in the Army when they emerged from the Ia Drang battles. They 
     were processed out and put on planes bound for home and 
     civilian life, beginning one or two days later.
       This legislation seeks no wholesales bemedalling of old 
     soldiers for deeds long forgotten. It simply seeks an 
     opportunity, a window, by which official Army awards channels 
     can legally consider Ia Drang awards recommendations, 
     properly drawn and properly endorsed by witnesses and the 
     officers and non-commissioned officers of the units involved. 
     It is a small opportunity to convey the country's and the 
     Army's thanks and recognition to a few dozen men, living and 
     dead, who did far more than simple duty demanded in the 
     service of the United States.
       These men are America's neighbors. They come from virtually 
     every state in the Union. They are quiet and productive 
     citizens. I was proud to stand beside them in the Ia Drang 
     Valley in 1965, and it is a great honor and privilege to 
     stand up for them and the families who lost loved ones in 
     these battles and urge favorable consideration of this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph L. Galloway,
     Senior Writer.
                                  ____



                                                     ABC News,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: As a decorated veteran of the Battle of 
     the Ia Drang Valley, 14-18 November, 1965, in the Republic of 
     Vietnam, I strongly endorse your efforts to re-open the 
     awards process for the men who fought in that major 
     engagement and in the Pleiku Campaign (October-November, 
     1965) of which it was a part.
       It was at the Ia Drang that US soldiers fought their first 
     pitched battle against North Vietnamese regulars. The 1st 
     Cavalry Division (Airmobile) decisively defeated a North 
     Vietnamese division in one of the fiercest clashes of the 
     war. My company, C company, 2d Battalion, 7th Cavalry 
     Regiment, for instance, suffered 93% casualties. I was 
     wounded twice, and am 20% disabled. (I am now a correspondent 
     for ABC News in Washington, till recently on This Week with 
     David Brinkley, and we have met.)
       The heroism of many deserving friends and fellow-Cav 
     troopers was overlooked in the aftermath of the battle. 
     Partly because of the terrible losses suffered by some US 
     units and the Army's consequent effort to sanitize the battle 
     for public relations purposes, and partly because in many 
     cases there were simply too few survivors to document the 
     heroism that occurred in a timely fashion.
       Even though the Army is now understandably reluctant to re-
     open the awards process for fear of being overwhelmed by a 
     flood of frivolous claims, I believe the fears are 
     groundless. No one is talking about the wholesale revision of 
     awards, rather a long-overdue chance to allow consideration 
     of delayed award recommendations for acts of heroism that 
     went unreported at the time.
       The fighting was so ferocious, the action so important, and 
     the valor of those who fought so exemplary that introducing a 
     bill to do this, as you are doing, is a public service. It is 
     an opportunity to convey the nation's thanks to a few men who 
     answered their country's call and did more than duty 
     demanded, but who afterwards were overlooked.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                       Jack Smith,
     Correspondent.

                          ____________________