[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.
____________________