DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1995 No. 106 House of Representatives The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was Nevertheless, I have noticed a great does that 20-percent cut mean? First of called to order by the Speaker pro tem- deal of media discussion again compar- all, is it a 20-percent real cut? Did the pore [Mr. EMERSON]. ing the President's new budget that he President mean that Federal agencies f talked about in his televised presen- will have 20 percent less budget or did tation to the Nation a couple of weeks he mean it will be a Washington cut, DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO ago with the proposed united congres- there will be a 20 percent decrease in TEMPORE sional budget, and by united congres- the amount of new spending? I think The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- sional budget, I mean the House-Senate that is a reasonable question, but there fore the House the following commu- conference report which is coming to is no answer to it. nication from the Speaker: us. Further, does that mean a 20-percent WASHINGTON, DC, Now, I have to say with the utmost cut across the board? That means, how- June 27, 1995. respect: ``What new budget from the ever you define a cut, will every single I hereby designate the Honorable BILL EM- President of the United States?'' agency except for the military and ex- ERSON to act as Speaker pro tempore on this Now, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, cept for the agency, have a 20 percent day. this is a budget. In fact, this is the reduced budget, or does it mean an av- NEWT GINGRICH, President's budget submitted to the erage 20 percent reduction so that some Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congress in February of this year, agencies and some programs will, say, f which, as you can see by its size, goes remain the same and other agencies through each agency and each program MORNING BUSINESS and programs will be reduced by 40 per- and point by point proposes spending in cent? We do not know any of that ei- The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the the next fiscal year and beyond. There ther. order of the House of May 12, 1995, the is no such document from the White So, to give some specific examples, Chair will now recognize Members from House, at least as of this time, which we do not know what the congressional lists submitted by the majority and gives comparable point-by-point pro- proposal is being compared to. Let me minority leaders for morning hour de- posals for spending. give three examples very briefly. First bates. The Chair will alternate recogni- There is, if one contacts the White of all, to start with, my home State of tion between the parties, with each House, available some talking points New Mexico, there has been a great party limited to not to exceed 30 min- about the President's new budget deal of discussion about how the future utes, and each Member except the ma- goals. But talking points are not by funding of the Federal Government will jority and minority leaders limited to themselves a budget. A budget is pro- affect the two national laboratories in not to exceed 5 minutes. gram-by-program recommendations on New Mexico and there has been a good The Chair recognizes the gentleman spending. deal of debate about what the congres- from New Mexico [Mr. SCHIFF] for 5 The fact of the matter is in most re- sional figures will mean in various pro- minutes. spects we do not know what is in the grams. I want to say that all of this is f President's new budget and, therefore, fair commentary, that the national when the media compares the Presi- laboratories, I think, are important WHAT NEW BUDGET FROM THE dent's budget with the congressional programs, but they understand, as ev- PRESIDENT? budget, they are comparing our real eryone understands, that they will be Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, as our col- budget with the President's talking affected as all Federal programs will, leagues are aware, the House and Sen- points, and, as such, there cannot be a in the goal to reach the balanced budg- ate budget committees reached a reso- point-by-point comparison. et. But the evaluation of how they are lution of the differences between the We do not know how the President's being treated by Congress cannot be House budget resolution and the budg- new budget will affect so many pro- made in a vacuum. et resolution of the other body, and we grams that are federally funded. We How will all the national laboratories may get their conference report on the have a brief reference in the Presi- fare in the President's new budget if future budget as soon as this week, and dent's televised address to the Nation the President's new budget is adopted I want to say that they have had to referring to a 20-percent cut in funding as the spending blueprint for the Con- make a number of hard choices, just as for discretionary programs except for gress? Well, we just do not know be- each body, the House and the other the military and except for education, cause we have not seen those figures. body, had to make hard choices within and the President stated he wanted to Nobody thus far can answer that ques- their own budget resolutions. boost spending on education. But what tion. b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H 6313 H 6314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE June 27, 1995 Just this morning, just to show this Let me just share a couple of num- the same way that we use language in applies anywhere, as I was leaving my bers with you that may be helpful. the rest of the country, the public is apartment to come here, I saw one of Total spending for 1995 was $1.531 tril- going to continue to be confused about the national morning news programs. lion; that is, $1.531 trillion. The pro- this. They were centered around the na- jected spending for the year 2000, under Let us look at Medicare as an exam- tional park system, and one of the the Republican conference bill that was ple, because this is where you will hear comments I heard is they said we will just approved by the conference com- the greatest exploitation of these pro- be talking about how proposed congres- mittee, will be $1.778 trillion, that is, jected increases in terms of political sional cuts will affect the National $1.778 trillion. Let us go over those exploitation, and these numbers will be Park Service. again: used to inject fear into the debate, to I just wanted to say, to be a full play- In 1995, $1,531,000,000,000, in 2000, scare senior citizens and, frankly, to er, Mr. Speaker, the President has to $1,778,000,000,000: More than $350 billion confuse for political gain. The reality provide a full proposed budget. more will be spent in the year 2000 by is that in 1995 we are spending $178 bil- f the Federal Government under the Re- lion on Medicare. In the year 2000, publican plan that gets us to a bal- under the Republican budget plan, if COMPACT-IMPACT AID anced budget than was spent or is that is what is finally approved and The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under being spent right now in the fiscal year passed by both the Senate and the the Speaker's announced policy of May 1995. House and then signed into law this 12, 1995, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Now, let me put that in the context coming August or September by the UNDERWOOD] is recognized during of something that the President said President of the United States, we will morning business for 5 minutes. on the CBS This Morning program spend $214 billion, $178 billion in Medi- Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I about 2 years ago, May 27, 1993. He was care in 1995, $214 billion on Medicare in rise today to again call attention to being interviewed by Paula Zahn, and the year 2000. the problem of unrestricted immigra- he said in response to a question about Does that or does that not sound like tion to Guam allowed by the compact the budget he said, ``We have about an increase? Clearly, it is an increase, of free association and the failure of $100 billion in cuts, but they are still and yet you will hear it described as a the Federal Government to fulfill its going up very rapidly.'' I will say that cut. promises to Guam to reimburse our again: ``We have about $100 billion in f local government for the cost of edu- cuts in various entitlement programs, cational and social services that this but they are still going up very rap- ELECTIONS IN HAITI immigration policy causes. idly.'' Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Under This legal immigration allows the Now, what does that mean? Think the Speaker's announced policy of May citizens of the three nations of the about those words.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES No
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 18A1066 ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPLICANT v. ALFRED PROCOPIO, JR. _______________ APPLICATION FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT _____________ Pursuant to Rules 13.5 and 30.2 of the Rules of this Court, the Solicitor General, on behalf of Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, respectfully requests a further 30-day extension of time, to and including June 28, 2019, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case. The opinion of the en banc court of appeals (App., infra, 1a-50a) is reported at 913 F.3d 1371. The court of appeals entered its judgment on January 29, 2019. On April 22, 2019, the Chief Justice extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including May 29, 2019. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). 2 1. Under the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Agent Orange Act), Pub. L. No. 102-4, 105 Stat. 11, veterans who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” during the period when the United States used the herbicide Agent Orange (January 9, 1962 to May 7, 1975), were presumptively exposed to that herbicide, 38 U.S.C. 1116(f), and are presumptively entitled to disability benefits if they develop specified diseases, 38 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Thejewish Thejewish
    THE JEWISH VETERAN Volume 71 • Number 4 • 2017 JWV and Lack of Accountability at the Department of the VA Veterans Affairs Leaves Veterans Flabbergasted Page 14 By Lance Wang, Editor I had the opportunity to interact with limitation of their system, and share my NAZIS ARE NOT the Veterans’ Administration while in frustration. I don’t blame them. WELCOME IN AMERICA! uniform, much more so since retiring Why is it so difficult to bring the from the Army. As with any large or- problems in the VA to solution stages? Commentary By ganization I’ve encountered good and For years the VA has been neither fish PNC Dr. Robert Pickard bad. Certainly the good is the dedicated nor fowl – it did not have the account- functionaries who I encounter, many of ability nor true profit motive that civil- Page 4 whom are themselves veterans. I also ian medical agencies have, nor did it have been particularly pleased with the have the discipline to which a military service of a nearby VA Community- agency was subjected. It was designed Register Now! Based Outreach Clinic which provides to replace a 19th century system which responsiveness that I’ve never encoun- largely put the onus on charitable or- tered from a big city VA facility. They ganizations and local communities to have provided more continuity of care care for veterans. It was never fully re- than I encountered in the military or the sourced to perform its mission, result- The workload for the VA has only civilian world. However the “bad” side ing in fraud and scandals like we saw increased since the editorial was writ- has certainly made itself known.
    [Show full text]
  • Agent Orange Review
    Agent Orange Review Vol. 9, N0. 3 Information for Veterans Who Served in Vietnam September 1992 National Academy of Sciences Project Secretary Edward J. Derwinski Advances on the Agent Orange Issue: VA was cast as the enemy of the veteran. VA had absolutely no credibility on this issue. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is making Finally, in recent months, substantial progress on the Agent Orange project undertaken on we began to defuse much of the behalf of VA early this year. NAS officials have been gathering criticism and suspicion by herbicide literature from VA (including VA's 18-volume granting service connection for literature review) and other sources, making contact with conditions science tells us may scientists and other interested parties throughout the country, have been caused by exposure to and assembling a committee of experts to complete the project Agent Orange--such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft envisaged by Congress in Public Law 102-4, the "Agent tissue sarcomas. Orange Act of 1991." We're still being criticized by some who think we haven't gone far enough, and by some who feel there's not sufficient scientific proof for the decisions we have made. The public reaction~and the general lessening of Initial Committee Meeting tensions~seems to indicate we're right. This may be an important lesson for VA... The NAS Institute of Medicine's Committee to Review Committee Membership the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides held its first meeting on June 26, in Washington, DC. The Committee is chaired by Harold Fallon, M.D., Chair The morning session, which was opened to invited guests and of the Department of Medicine of the Medical College of speakers, was devoted to providing Committee members with Virginia in Richmond, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • In the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for VETERANS CLAIMS
    In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 13 - 3339 _______________ ROBERT H. GRAY, Appellant, v. ROBERT MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Brief of Amicus Curiae, Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association, and Military-Veterans Advocacy John B. Wells LA Bar #23970 P. O. Box 5235 Slidell, LA 70469-5235 (mail) 769 Robert Blvd., Ste 201D Slidell, LA 70458 (physical) 985-641-1855 985-649-1536 (fax) [email protected] Table of Contents Table of Authorities........................................................... ii Interest of the Amicus Curiae....................................................v Statement of the Issues. ....................................................... vi Statement of the Case. ........................................................ 1 Summary of the Argument...................................................... 2 History of the Blue Water Navy Controversy. ..................................... 2 Argument.................................................................... 6 I. The Finding That Da Nang Harbor Was Not Part of Inland or Internal Waters Was Arbitrary and Capricious, Unsupported by Substantial Evidence and in Violation of International Treaties and Supreme Court Jurisprudence.................................................... 6 II. The BVA Erred in Not Finding that the Veteran Suffered Direct Exposure to Herbicides. .................................................. 10 III. The BVA Finding that the Veteran’s Departure from the Ship Was Not Documented in the Deck Log
    [Show full text]
  • The Blue Water Navy Saga Military-Veterans Advocacy Procopio V. Wilkie
    The Blue Water Navy Saga Agent Orange Benefits in the Wake of Procopio v. Wilkie Commander John B Wells, USN (Ret) Executive Director Military-Veterans Advocacy www.militaryveteransadvocacy.org [email protected] 985-641-1855 Military-Veterans Advocacy Non-Profit 501(c)(3) corporation PLitigate, Legislate and Educate on Behalf of Veterans. PAll Volunteer Organization. PWe are on Facebook at Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. PWe are on Twitter at @MVadvocacy. PWeb site www.militaryveteransadvocacy.org Procopio v. Wilkie 913 F3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019) PEn banc decision 9-2. POverruled decade old precedent. < Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008). PHolding of the Court: < Agent Orange Act applied to those who served in the territorial sea of the “Republic of Vietnam.” PRocked the VA to its core. PMajor victory in a 17 year struggle. < Affects up to 80,000 veterans. PPathway for the future. History of the Blue Water Navy Controversy Operation Ranch Hand P USAF sprayed 12 million + gallons of herbicide laced with dioxin throughout South Vietnam War. P Herbicide was nicknamed Agent Orange due to orange stripe on the 55 gallon containers. P Agent Orange and the other “rainbow herbicides” were used to defoliate areas providing cover to enemy forces. P Spraying included coastal areas and the areas around rivers and streams that emptied into the South China Sea. P Legislative and Regulatory History of the Blue Water Navy Controversy Dioxin Act PVeterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act. < Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725 (1984)(the “Dioxin Act”). PDirected the VA to “establish guidelines and (where appropriate) standards and criteria for the resolution of claims” based on dioxin exposure during service “in the Republic of Vietnam.” Legislative and Regulatory History of the Blue Water Navy 38 CFR § 3.311 P Issued in 1985 < 50 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Agent Orange and the Vietnam Veteran
    Agent Orange And the Vietnam Veteran THE HISTORY OF AGENT ORANGE USE IN VIETNAM Background Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand , during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects . A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical . The 2, 4, 5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2, 3, 7, 8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin , an extremely toxic dioxin compound . It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (200 L) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides ". During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed nearly 20,000,000 US gallons (75,700,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand . The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization , destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange: Legislative History, Litigation, and Current Issues
    Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange: Legislative History, Litigation, and Current Issues Sidath Viranga Panangala Specialist in Veterans Policy Daniel T. Shedd Legislative Attorney November 18, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43790 Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange: Legislative History, Litigation, and Current Issues Summary The U.S. Armed Forces used a variety of chemical defoliants to clear dense jungle land in Vietnam during the war. Agent Orange (named for the orange-colored identifying stripes on the barrels) was by far the most widely used herbicide during the Vietnam War. Many Vietnam-era veterans believe that their exposure to Agent Orange caused them to contract several diseases and caused certain disabilities, including birth defects in their children, and now their grandchildren. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received the first claims asserting conditions related to Agent Orange in 1977. Since then, Vietnam-era veterans have sought relief from Congress and through the judicial system. Beginning in 1979, Congress enacted several laws to determine whether exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam was associated with possible long-term health effects and certain disabilities. The Veterans’ Health Care, Training and Small Business Loan Act (P.L. 97-72) elevated Vietnam veterans’ priority status for health care at VA facilities by recognizing a veteran’s own report of exposure as sufficient proof to receive medical care, absent evidence to the contrary. The Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-262) completely restructured the VA medical care eligibility requirements for all veterans. Under P.L. 104-262, a veteran does not have to demonstrate a link between a certain health condition and exposure to Agent Orange; instead, medical care is provided unless the VA determines that the condition did not result from exposure to Agent Orange.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Brief United States Court of Appeals
    APPELLANT’S BRIEF UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS _______________ 15-4082 _______________ ALFRED PROCOPIO, Appellant, v. ROBERT MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Original Brief of Appellant Submitted by: John B. Wells LA Bar #23970 P. O. Box 5235 Slidell, LA 70469-5235 (mail) 769 Robert Blvd., Ste 201D Slidell, LA 70458 (physical) 985-641-1855 985-649-1536 (fax) [email protected] March 27, 2016 Counsel for Appellant Table of Contents Table of Authorities.. iii Citations to the Record Before the Agency. vii Statement of the Issues.. vii Statement of the Case.. 1 Nature of the Case. 1 History of the Blue Water Navy Controversy.. 2 Statement of Facts.. 4 Summary of the Argument.. 7 Argument. 8 I. The Federal Circuit Decision in Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008) reh’g denied Haas v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir 2008) is Not Controlling and Must Be Limited to its Facts Because it Was Not Decided in Accordance with the Accepted Canons of Construction for Veteran’s Cases Pursuant to Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1206 (2011).. 8 II. The BVA’s reliance upon 73 Fed. Reg. 20,566, 20,568 (Apr. 16, 2008)] in Reaching Their Decision Was Clear Error since That Notice Misstates the Facts of Naval Operations off of Vietnam and Has Been Repeatedly Debunked.. 13 III. The BVA Failed to Consider the Issue of Direct Exposure Based on the Presence of Agent Orange in the Waters, Including the Territorial Sea, Off the Mekong River, Through Which the Veteran’s Ship Transited.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13026 Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure ISBN Committee on Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange 978-0-309-16247-0 Exposure; Institute of Medicine 158 pages 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2011) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE Committee on Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure Board on the Health of Select Populations Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations
    Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations Michael F. Martin Specialist in Asian Affairs August 29, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34761 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations Summary Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, there has been a gradual warming of bilateral relations between the United States and Vietnam, culminating in the appointment of the first U.S. ambassador to Vietnam in 1996 and the granting of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Vietnam in 2007. Over the last three decades, many—but not all—of the major issues causing tension between the two nations have been resolved. One major legacy of the Vietnam War that remains unresolved is the damage that Agent Orange, and its accompanying dioxin, have done to the people and the environment of Vietnam. For the last 35 years, this issue has generally been pushed to the background of bilateral discussions by other issues considered more important by the United States and/or Vietnam. With most of those issues presently resolved, the issue of Agent Orange/dioxin has emerged as a regular topic in bilateral discussions. According to various estimates, the U.S. military sprayed approximately 11 million-12 million gallons of Agent Orange over nearly 10% of then-South Vietnam between 1961 and 1971. One scientific study estimated that between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange. Vietnamese advocacy groups claim that there are over 3 million Vietnamese suffering from health problems caused by exposure to the dioxin in Agent Orange.
    [Show full text]
  • Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations
    Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations Michael F. Martin Analyst in Asian Trade and Finance May 28, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34761 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange and U.S.-Vietnam Relations Summary Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, there has been a gradual warming of bilateral relations between the United States and Vietnam, culminating in the appointment of the first U.S. ambassador to Vietnam in 1996 and the granting of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Vietnam in 2007. Over the last three decades, many—but not all—of the major issues causing tension between the two nations have been resolved. One major legacy of the Vietnam War that remains unresolved is the damage that Agent Orange, and its accompanying dioxin, have done to the people and the environment of Vietnam. For the last 30 years, this issue has generally been pushed to the background of bilateral discussions by other issues considered more important by the United States and/or Vietnam. With most of those issues presently resolved, the issue of Agent Orange/dioxin has emerged as a regular topic in bilateral discussions. According to various estimates, the U.S. military sprayed approximately 11-12 million gallons of Agent Orange over nearly 10% of then-South Vietnam between 1961 and 1971. One scientific study estimated that between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange. Vietnamese advocacy groups claim that there are over three million Vietnamese suffering from serious health problems caused by exposure to the dioxin in Agent Orange.
    [Show full text]
  • Dioxin on the Carriers
    Dioxin On The Carriers The Contamination of Aircraft Carriers And Their Crews in the Gulf of Tonkin John Paul Rossie, MA, MS, MBA USNR Vietnam Veteran Raymond G. Melninkaitis, AASME USN Vietnam Veteran AO2 With acknowledgment to VADM E.S. Briggs, USN, Ret. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association PO Box 1035 Littleton, CO 80160-1035 www.BlueWaterNavy.org February, 2012 DIOXIN ON THE CARRIERS Individual Exposure to Dioxin When the United States began using Chemical Warfare in Vietnam, its stated goals were to defoliate jungle coverage to better see the enemy and to limit the enemy’s food supply. All levels of Government Agencies claimed to be unaware of the cost in human death and misery that would result, especially within our own ranks. Unintended as that might have been, another unexpected consequence was that our Government would renege on its obligation to care for service-related injuries to its Armed Forces. This refusal to provide health care to some of the war-wounded continues today, nearly 40 years later. Certain American Vietnam veterans continue to suffer and die from dioxin-related diseases with no assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Yet health care and disability compensation is given to other Vietnam veterans with exactly the same medical conditions. A division in the ranks was created. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), there was no way for dioxin-based herbicide to travel from the land to aircraft carriers offshore. They have directed that all claims for contamination by herbicide exposure from personnel stationed on offshore vessels be denied service-connected benefits.
    [Show full text]