Medal of Honor upgrade for Vietnam-era Recon Marine part of new bill
A bill recently introduced in Congress would upgrade a Silver Star Medal to a Medal of Honor for a recon Marine who fought through severe injuries while under attack on a mission in the jungles of Vietnam in 1967.
Retired Maj. Jim Capers received the Silver Star in 2010 for those actions, but supporters believe his valor deserves the nation's highest military honor.
House Resolution 3377, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., was filed — and coupled with a letter to President Donald Trump — on May 13 and remains in the House Armed Services Committee as of Monday.
The letter, signed in February by six U.S. senators and 41 representatives, details Capers' actions and asks the president to review the award for the purpose of an upgrade.
In late March 1967, Marine 2nd Lt. Jim Capers stepped off on a four-day patrol into the jungles near Phú Lộc, South Vietnam.
Capers, recently promoted via a battlefield commission to second lieutenant, led nine 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company Marines alongside a dog named 'King.'
The mission was to observe a North Vietnamese Army regiment and protect the flank of Company M, 3rd Battalion, 26th Marines.
On the final day of their mission, enemy claymore mines exploded, triggering an attack on his team. Capers received multiple wounds from both the explosion and the 'dense barrages of direct and indirect enemy fire' that followed.
Suffering two broken legs and heavy bleeding, Capers continued fighting and directed his team in the counterattack. He coordinated supporting fire and moved his team to the helicopter extraction, which saved their lives.
'While struggling to maintain consciousness and still under attack, Major Capers demanded continuous situation and status reports from his Marines and ensured the entire team was evacuated before himself,' his award citation reads. 'Barely able to stand, Major Capers finally boarded the helicopter and was evacuated.'
Capers twice got off of an evacuation helicopter so it could take off with the other wounded. When he did finally board a helo for extraction, the aircraft crashed. The wreck resulted in another man losing his leg and another individual losing a kidney.
Retired Marine Lt. Col. David 'Bull' Gurfein, CEO of United American Patriots, has compared Capers' story to that of another reconnaissance Marine who did receive the Medal of Honor.
Nearly a year after Capers heroics, 2nd Lt. Terrence Graves, also with 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, was on a deep jungle patrol in the jungles of Quang Tri Province, South Vietnam, where he led an eight-Marine recon team behind enemy lines.
Once his team made contact with a large NVA force, Graves exposed himself to repeated enemy fire to lead assaults, attend to wounded and command the element — all while suffering from a gunshot wound to his thigh.
Shortly after boarding a medevac helicopter, Graves and another Marine got back off to search for another Marine until a second helicopter could arrive to retrieve the three of them. The helicopter that eventually picked up the three Marines was shot down. Graves died in the crash.
Graves received the Medal of Honor for his actions. Capers' award, meanwhile, was initially a Bronze Star Medal that was later upgraded to a Silver Star Medal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The latest GOP push to cut waste and spending: Work requirements
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans are increasingly turning to work requirements as part of a wide-ranging effort to slash spending on welfare benefits - extending GOP messaging around waste and fraud to argue that many people who get federal aid don't deserve it. In late May, the House passed a sweeping tax and budget bill that would impose new work requirements as part of a plan to cut Medicaid. The Agriculture Department is poised to broaden work requirements that already condition access to the nation's largest food assistance program. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development sees work requirements as an 'absolute priority' for rental assistance programs - possibly within President Donald Trump's first year in office - according to an official briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that aren't finalized. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Specific policies could change as the bill heads to the Senate, where multiple Republicans have expressed concerns over work requirements for Medicaid. Yet the proposals reflect a shifting view among Republicans in Washington about who should receive federal benefits. In a New York Times op-ed last month, four top Trump officials overseeing housing, health and food programs wrote that welfare programs were created to help the neediest but have 'deviated from their original mission both by drift and by design.' Even able-bodied adults should look to welfare as a 'short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout,' wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner. Meanwhile, Republican House leaders are also linking work requirements to broader efforts to root out fraud and abuse, and prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing public benefits. 'There are vulnerable citizens of this country who depend on the safety net,' House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told The Washington Post last month. 'The safety net is weakened and is less sustainable when you are allowing these monies to go to people or to stakeholders … and used in other ways outside of supporting those who need it, depend on it and qualify for it.' The proposals have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and left-leaning economists, who argue that work requirements are the wrong tool for this economy. They say the policies risk dropping some of the most vulnerable benefits recipients - such as people who work inconsistent hours, go through bouts of unemployment, struggle with health issues that don't qualify as disabilities or do unpaid work caring for relatives. 'We have never required a 64-year-old single widow who's taking care of her grandchild to work in order to be able to receive SNAP benefits,' said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, referring to the food assistance program for low-income families. 'And I guess that's going to change.' Work requirements for benefits programs have been pushed at various times over decades. President Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to 'end welfare as we know it' and in 1996 worked with the Republican-controlled Congress to overhaul benefits in a landmark law. The measure ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children - which effectively entitled the poorest Americans to federal help - and introduced Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known more commonly as TANF. The number of people receiving federal welfare payments fell by half in four years, to 6.3 million in 2000. And the past few decades have given rise to debates over whether the changes worked, especially since measures of poverty fluctuate with recessions and other economic forces. The new policies under consideration could be even more far-reaching. Under the Affordable Care Act, adults with low incomes and no children or disabilities qualified for Medicaid for the first time, marking a significant expansion of the safety net insurance program. The new Republican plan would require beneficiaries to spend at least 80 hours a month working, training for a job, in school or volunteering to qualify for Medicaid. In May, Kennedy, the health and human services secretary, told the Senate that the changes would primarily affect people fraudulently receiving benefits and 'able-bodied male workers, males, who refuse to get a job.' Work requirements are meant to reduce the number of people on the program: Roughly a third of the $800 billion in health-care savings in the GOP's sweeping tax bill would come from the work rules, which would result in 4.8 million people becoming uninsured, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported by The Washington Post's Fact Checker. SNAP, the nation's largest food assistance program, already carries work requirements. Able-bodied adults between 18 and 54 who don't have dependents must work at least 80 hours a month to be eligible. Those who don't qualify can only receive food assistance for three months in a three-year period. People can be exempt because of homelessness, being in foster care or for other reasons, or states can apply for waivers if there aren't enough jobs in a region. Research is split on whether SNAP's existing work requirements have the intended effects. Bauer, the Brookings fellow, cited a 2021 study of Virginia food stamp recipients that found work requirements caused a large decline in SNAP participation without a corresponding boost in employment. The food stamp benefits 'are not binding disincentives against labor force participation for a population that overwhelmingly has no income,' the researchers wrote. Republicans have said current policies allow states to exempt too many people from work requirements. The GOP bill would alter the rules, raising the cutoff age to 64. It also newly subjects parents with dependent children ages 7 or older to work requirements, though a spouse in a two-parent household can still be exempt. The bill would also restrict place-based waivers to counties with an unemployment rate of over 10 percent: a bar many areas receiving waivers would not meet. A CBO analysis estimates the changes would reduce direct spending for SNAP by $92 billion over 10 years and push 3.2 million people out of the program. Work requirements are the 'right policy at the right time' for those in need and will stop able-bodied adults from being 'idle and disengaged,' Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said in a statement. The path for shifting housing policies is less clear. Most of the nation's 3,600 public housing agencies do not have work requirements. But about 140 are part of a narrow program called Moving to Work that gives local authorities room to test a range of rules that are not usually permitted, including those to boost self-sufficiency. Housing authorities, nonprofit groups, property managers and tenants are eager for details on whether work requirements will be mandatory, how many hours of work would be required and who would be exempt. The HUD official briefed on the matter told The Post that 'everything is on the table' and noted that the White House's proposal for a new two-year cap on rental assistance was another way of preventing long-term dependency. In 2024, nearly half of non-elderly, nondisabled households receiving HUD assistance did not include anyone who worked, said the official, citing internal data. Other research differs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that based on 2022 data, 60 percent of working-age, nondisabled households receiving HUD rental assistance in 2022 included at least one worker. The HUD official said the administration also supports policies that shift power to local authorities and lets them decide which approaches are best. Within the Moving to Work cohort, the official said around 40 public housing agencies already have work requirements, are implementing them or plan to soon, and that such requirements often improve household incomes and employment. Opponents say an increase in work requirements would fall heavily on people who already have a harder time getting work, keeping steady housing or accessing health care. And they say the loss of benefits would be even more extensive given planned cuts to major services. For example, the White House budget proposal would significantly cut rental assistance programs for the fiscal year beginning in October, in part to shift more power to the states. It is unclear whether those cuts would be achieved through work requirements, since HUD's plans are still in flux. That could amount to millions of people losing aid whether they work or not, since many states won't be able to cover those losses. 'What this indicates is that the driver behind this policy isn't this goal of helping people to advance economically,' said Will Fischer, senior fellow and director of housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'The driver is they're trying to cut what they are spending on these programs.' A large share of welfare recipients have jobs. About 32 million people who worked in 2023 got health coverage through Medicaid or food assistance through SNAP, according to a CBPP analysis of census data. In theory, new work requirements shouldn't jeopardize benefits for these recipients. But advocates and left-leaning economists say such requirements do sometimes have that effect - in part because enforcing the rules means enough new administrative burdens that people fall through the cracks. In Georgia, for example, just 12,000 of nearly 250,000 newly eligible recipients received Medicaid after the state implemented work requirements. That was in part because people who worked had a tough time proving it to state officials or their work didn't meet certain qualifications. Finally, those against the policies say even people with jobs sometimes need help making ends meet - so pushing recipients to work wouldn't necessarily solve their household budget problems. Homelessness is worsening among the employed, and inflation often falls hardest on poorer people. At Los Angeles's Downtown Women's Center, which works to end homelessness, regular job training programs are some of the most popular offerings, chief executive Amy Turk said. But even those with jobs need help. A report found that in 2022, nearly 30 percent of homeless women in Los Angeles County were working for pay. Monthly incomes averaged $1,186. In Los Angeles County, though, the average rent is more than $2,000. Analysts at left-leaning think tanks, and some researchers who have studied work requirements, say supporters of the policy have it backward: Health insurance, stable housing and access to food make it possible for people to find work and remain employed. They point to Arkansas, the first state to enact work requirements for Medicaid, as a key example. In 2018, the state implemented its work mandate, which led to 18,000 people losing insurance before a judge in 2019 struck down the requirements in a lawsuit brought by three nonprofits on behalf of some Medicaid recipients. One 40-year-old man lost health coverage after incorrectly reporting the details of his employment and could no longer afford his medication. He suffered complications from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lost his job and struggled to find work again. Others worked odd jobs that did not always allow them to meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement, like a landscaper who struggled to get work in rainy months. 'You cannot conclude that work makes people healthier,' said MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. 'You need to be physically and mentally healthy enough to work, and particularly for poor people, the types of jobs they are doing can create health problems.' Leaders of Opportunity Arkansas, a conservative policy group, said the state's data shows that most people who lost insurance did so because their incomes rose - exactly the goal of requiring work. 'If Congress is serious about restoring Medicaid as a safety net for the truly needy - not a long-term program for able-bodied adults - then policies that encourage work and self-sufficiency, like the one Arkansas implemented, need to be part of the conversation,' J. Robertson, the organization's public affairs director, said in an email. - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Black Democrats fume over 2024 while 'searching for a leader' in 2028 Joy, tension collide as WorldPride arrives in Trump's Washington Kari Lake won awards for overseas reporting. Now she has the job of cutting it.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Budget for NASA Is Absolutely Horrifying
Earlier this year, the Trump administration revealed its proposed budget for NASA's fiscal year 2026, indicating brutal cuts of unprecedented proportions are coming. Now, the agency has released new data about the proposal, painting a dire picture of its future. As SpaceNews reports, the documents reveal that thousands of jobs would be cut, and dozens of science missions would be on the chopping block. The cuts — which would drag the budget to its lowest point since 1961, SpaceNews points out, when adjusted for inflation — would result in the firing of roughly one-third of all civil servants. The budget would also slash the space agency's science budget in almost half, "nothing short of an extinction-level event for space science and exploration in the United States," as Planetary Society chief of space policy Casey Dreier told Ars Technica in March. The extent of the proposed cuts is truly baffling, with the Trump administration basically looking to give up on space science altogether in favor of militarizing the Earth's orbit and sending humans to Mars. The so-called "skinny" budget would result in the cancellation of several key space exploration missions, including NASA's Mars Sample Return mission. Other Earth observation programs would also be ripped up, including missions to monitor the planet's gravity field or study tropical cyclones, per SpaceNews. The budget would also cancel planned missions to explore the surface of Mars, as well as existing operations such as OSIRIS-APEX, which is headed to an asteroid called Apophis. While NASA's next major landmark space observatory, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, wouldn't be entirely canceled, it would be allocated less than half of its previously outlined budget. Meanwhile, the space agency would be doubling down on establishing commercially funded ways to get to the Moon and Mars, highlighting the Trump administration's sometimes-cozy relationship with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose space company is bound to reap the benefits. The budget would clear up north of $1 billion for projects connected to sending humans to the Red Planet, indicating the president is willing to closely follow Musk's lead. The proposed 2026 fiscal year budget is now headed to Congress, where it's likely to meet ample opposition. "No one is eager to cut NASA science," Dreier told SpaceNews. "No one is out there openly defending and saying that this is a great idea." In short, if it were to make it through Congress unaltered — which is unlikely, since the agency is supported by many lawmakers — Trump's NASA budget could deal the country's leadership in space an existential blow, allowing adversaries, most notably China, to race ahead. "It sends a signal that America is stepping back from leadership in virtually every science area, including NASA," former NASA associate administrator for science John Grunsfeld told PBS. "The proposal for the NASA science budget is, in fact, cataclysmic for US leadership in science." "What we see is a full-scale assault on science in America," representative George Whitesides (D-CA) added. "It is probably the biggest attack on our scientific establishment in history." "It's a poorly wielded chainsaw," he added. More on NASA's budget: NASA Disgusted by Elon Musk's Disrespect
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Newark mayor sues New Jersey's top federal prosecutor after arrest at immigration detention site
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Emails seeking comment were left Tuesday with Habba's office and the Homeland Security Department, where Patel works. Advertisement The episode outside the Delaney Hall federal immigration detention center has had dramatic fallout. It began on May 9 when Baraka tried to join three Democratic members of Congress — Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman — who went to the facility for an oversight tour, something authorized under federal law. Baraka, an outspoken critic of Trump's immigration crackdown and the detention center, was denied entry. Video from the event showed him walking from the facility side of the fence to the street side, where other people had been protesting, and then uniformed officials came to arrest him. As they did, people could be heard in the video saying to protect the mayor. The video shows a crowd forming and pushing as officials led off a handcuffed Baraka. Advertisement He was initially charged with trespass, but Habba dropped that charge and charged McIver with two counts of assaulting officers stemming from her role in the skirmish at the facility's gate. McIver decried the charges and signaled she plans to fight them. A preliminary hearing is scheduled later this month. Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility, opened earlier this year as a federal immigration detention facility. Florida-based Geo Group Inc., which owns and operates the property, was awarded a 15-year contract valued at $1 billion in February. The announcement was part of the president's plans to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from a budget of about 41,000 beds this year. Baraka sued Geo soon after that deal was announced. Then, on May 23, the Trump Justice Department filed a suit against Newark and three other New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary policies. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. New Jersey's attorney general has a statewide directive in place prohibiting local police from collaborating in federal civil immigration matters. The policies are aimed at barring cooperation on civil enforcement matters, not at blocking cooperation on criminal matters. They specifically carve out exceptions for when Immigration and Customs Enforcement supplies police with a judicial criminal warrant. The Justice Department said, though, the cities won't notify ICE when they've made criminal arrests, according to the suit. It's unclear whether Baraka's role in these fights with the Trump administration is having an effect on his campaign for governor. He's one of six candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the June 10 election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Advertisement In a video ad in the election's final weeks, Baraka has embraced a theme his rivals are also pushing: affordability. He says he'll cut taxes. While some of the images show him standing in front of what appears to be Delaney Hall, he doesn't mention immigration or the arrest specifically, saying: 'I'll keep Trump out of your homes and out of your lives.' Trump has endorsed Jack Ciattarelli, one of several Republicans running in the gubernatorial primary. Ciattarelli has said if he's elected, his first executive order would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally.
