How People Voted
34% For, 66% Against
1,878 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1629, The Agent Orange Equity Act of 2011 (4907 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
S. 1629 would amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam.
()
[107 views]
Costs: $ per
and increases their $ share of the national debt by $.
(source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation)
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:22am (report abuse)An aircraft dropping a mist of 300-350 microns will be 88% on size but the other 12% could be larger or smaller. That same aircraft
dropping from 150ft (standard altitude) and allowing for a minimum droplet size of 100 microns will only drift off target 1500ft,
about a quarter mile. The 88% will have drifted only a couple hundred feet. As far as I can tell, most of the load will be dropped on
target and little or none will have drifted offshore. In my opinion, wind drift is nonsense.
HERBICIDES USED IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Robert A. Darrow, Kent R. Irish, Charles E. Minarik
United States Army Plant Sciences Laboratories
Fort Detrick
Fredrick, MD 21701
August 1969
Technical Report SA0Q-TR-69-11078
http://tinyurl.com/22qs7cb
or
http://tinyurl.com/ylrudqc
see document page 29
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:24am (report abuse)Definition: hand·out
–noun Informal.
1.a portion of food or the like given to a needy person, as a beggar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handout
Definition: hand·out
Function: noun
1 : a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handout
Definition: welfare
–noun
3.financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.(initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare
Definition: compensation
–noun
1. the act or state of compensating.
2. the state of being compensated.
3. something given or received as an equivalent for debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compensation
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:24am (report abuse)This Bill has no merit because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any
This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by giving money to those not disabled by military service. IOW, a handout. Something for nothing
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Why do I call this the Veterans Handout Bill? ...because compensation is intended to offset a veterans disabling condition suffered in service to the people. This Bill asks the people to pay veterans money when there is no evidence a loss was incurred in service, IOW, a handout.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation to augment their retirement
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:32am (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:32am (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 11:32am (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
Anti-Welfare
May 1, 2012, 2:18pm (report abuse)STOP THESE VETERAN WELFARE PROGRAMS NOW!
In a time when everyone else is being told to tighten their belts and cut spending the veteran welfare program is asking for a 10.5 percent INCREASE in their budget. That is pure and simple BULL$HIT!
It is far beyond time to put a stop to all this and cut the veteran welfare programs back to more reasonable levels.
There is no reason for this kind of crap. These whining freeloaders are simply scamming the rest of us for everything they can get.
Tell your legislators you are tired of paying veteran welfare. Tell them to VOTE NO!
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 3:32pm (report abuse)Congress needs to revisit the Agent Orange Act and make clear their intentions. They also need to enact legislation which would eliminate the Nehmer court decision.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 1, 2012, 5:10pm (report abuse)This welfare legislation has failed to get out of committee in the last 5 years in each of the houses.
Why do you suppose that is?
Anti-Welfare
May 3, 2012, 8:20am (report abuse)MAKE SURE EVERY VIETNAM VETERAN IS TREATED EQUALLY!
REPEAL THE AGENT ORANGE ACT NOW!!!
It's time to throw this entire welfare scam in the trash. Far too much money is being thrown down this rat hole. The "agent orange made me sick" whine is BULL$HIT. It is all about giving lazy, no-account veterans more welfare payments. There is no longer any pride in being a veteran. Veterans have become just another bunch of greedy scumbags and scammers.
END ALL AGENT ORANGE COMPENSATION!
No more blanket welfare payments. Repeal this welfare giveaway and put an end to the perceived unfairness in the whole thing. Stop paying this welfare to anyone.
Tell your representatives and senators to VOTE NO on this added veteran welfare scheme. Remind them that their job is to take care of ALL the people, not just one small group of greedy entitlement piggies who want more and more welfare.
NO MORE WELFARE!
REPEAL THE AGENT ORANGE ACT NOW!!!
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 3, 2012, 2:07pm (report abuse)This welfare legislation has failed to get out of committee in the last 5 years in each of the houses.
Why do you suppose that is?
FILE
May 6, 2012, 1:23pm (report abuse)WHEN a reasonable doubt arises regarding any point such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. One which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. It also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships.FILE
FILE
May 6, 2012, 1:26pm (report abuse)The cost of war never ends when the last bullet is fired!
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:40pm (report abuse)Clearly a one trick pony
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:40pm (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:40pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:40pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:44pm (report abuse)Stick to the subject
The issue on this forum is whether or not BWN and the other wanna-be welfare scammers should be entitled to a handout for failing to plan for their old age retirement because there certainly is no evidence that their problems were even remotely caused by their miniscule military service.
They spend a year in Vietnam and expect the taxpayer to fund their retirement while they lived the other 65 years of their miserable life here in toxic USA being exposed to every chemical under the sun. No one sues the chemical companies because there's no evidence that would stand up in court, yet they expect their fellow citizens to pony up.
Sounds like welfare to me.
Evidence
It's about the evidence. When ya find the evidence of BWN exposure, get back to us. Congress ain't gonna enact new legislation unless they see evidence of exposure and there ain't any.
Nothing has changed wrt AO in the past several years. It is what it is.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:45pm (report abuse)This Bill has no merit because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any
This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by giving money to those not disabled by military service. IOW, a handout. Something for nothing
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Why do I call this the Veterans Handout Bill? ...because compensation is intended to offset a veterans disabling condition suffered in service to the people. This Bill asks the people to pay veterans money when there is no evidence a loss was incurred in service, IOW, a handout.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation to augment their retirement
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 6, 2012, 6:46pm (report abuse)Definition: hand·out
–noun Informal.
1.a portion of food or the like given to a needy person, as a beggar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handout
Definition: hand·out
Function: noun
1 : a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handout
Definition: welfare
–noun
3.financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.(initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare
Definition: compensation
–noun
1. the act or state of compensating.
2. the state of being compensated.
3. something given or received as an equivalent for debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compensation
I KNOW
May 6, 2012, 11:13pm (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
Fed up with 'takers'
May 7, 2012, 11:41am (report abuse)I don’t mind giving a hand up to someone in need, but for them to constantly have their hand out thinking they are so deserving is insulting to those paying the bill.
Our country cannot continue on its current path of tremendous debt. And it seems to me that these veterans making unfounded claims are a significant part of the downward slide.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 12:29pm (report abuse)...continued
Go ahead file claims you know cannot succeed because they aren't lawful. Clog up an already burdened system with BS claims. The only thing you'll succeed in doing is denying deserving veterans compensation for qualified service connected conditions. Just because you aren't one of us doesn't mean others should be denied. Clogging up the system is not going to advance your cause. Find the evidence and show it to Congress, that's the only thing that will matter.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 2:26pm (report abuse)http://tinyurl.com/6rfsk6w
Dioxin Levels Found In Vietnam Veterans Termed Not Unusual
Preliminary results of a study of 444 Vietnam veterans who may have been exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange show that very few veterans have unusually high levels of dioxin, the potentially harmful chemical in the herbicide, researchers said today.
Blood tests were performed on 444 combat veterans who served in areas where Agent Orange was sprayed. The chemical was used widely in Vietnam to destroy jungle plant cover that concealed enemy troop movements from the air.
Only one of the veterans tested showed a dioxin level higher than the expected range for Americans with no known exposure, the Centers for Disease Control reported. That veteran showed a dioxin level of 25 parts per trillion. The expected range for Americans with no known exposure is from zero to 20 parts per trillion, researchers said.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 8, 2012, 2:26pm (report abuse)...continued
The report said the median level of dioxin exposure in the veterans was 3.8 parts per trillion, meaning that half the veterans had higher levels and half had lower levels. This was virtually identical to the median level of 3.9 parts per trillion found in the blood of people of the same general age who did not serve in Vietnam.
file
May 9, 2012, 1:25am (report abuse)WHEN a reasonable doubt arises regarding any point such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. One which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. It also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships.FILE
I KNOW
May 9, 2012, 7:54am (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 9, 2012, 12:59pm (report abuse)Stick to the subject
The issue on this forum is whether or not BWN and the other wanna-be welfare scammers should be entitled to a handout for failing to plan for their old age retirement because there certainly is no evidence that their problems were even remotely caused by their miniscule military service.
They spend a year in Vietnam and expect the taxpayer to fund their retirement while they lived the other 65 years of their miserable life here in toxic USA being exposed to every chemical under the sun. No one sues the chemical companies because there's no evidence that would stand up in court, yet they expect their fellow citizens to pony up.
Sounds like welfare to me.
Evidence
It's about the evidence. When ya find the evidence of BWN exposure, get back to us. Congress ain't gonna enact new legislation unless they see evidence of exposure and there ain't any.
Nothing has changed wrt AO in the past several years. It is what it is.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 9, 2012, 12:59pm (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 9, 2012, 12:59pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 9, 2012, 1:00pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 9, 2012, 1:00pm (report abuse)...continued
Go ahead file claims you know cannot succeed because they aren't lawful. Clog up an already burdened system with BS claims. The only thing you'll succeed in doing is denying deserving veterans compensation for qualified service connected conditions. Just because you aren't one of us doesn't mean others should be denied. Clogging up the system is not going to advance your cause. Find the evidence and show it to Congress, that's the only thing that will matter.
ANDY IS
May 9, 2012, 3:29pm (report abuse)A INTERNET TROLL,IF HE HAS NO ONE TO ARGUE WITH ,HE CREATES.HE LIVES IN A FANTASY WORLD ,HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES HE CAN CONTROL CONGRESS AND THE VA.HIS MIS GUIDED RETORIC ONLY PROVES HE IS A BIGOT(SMART PHONE ANDY)AND HAS THE BELIEF THAT HE WILL STOP CONGRESS FROM SPENDING ON VETERAN PROGRAMS.THE GREATEST INCREASE IN THE VA BUDGET HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH.HIS JOB EFFICIENTY RATING IS ZERO,ZILCH,NADA,0,NOTHING.
FILE
May 9, 2012, 3:30pm (report abuse)WHEN a reasonable doubt arises regarding any point such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. One which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. It also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships.FILE
I KNOW
May 9, 2012, 3:48pm (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
ANDY SHOW
May 10, 2012, 7:58pm (report abuse)SHOW TIME ! THE TROLL STRIKES AGAIN.
I KNOW
May 10, 2012, 10:27pm (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:27pm (report abuse)I have all the things I need. I'm not begging the public for a handout. He, he...
You loons never cease to amaze me. You have absolutely no evidence of BWN being exposed. So what do you do, well attack AndyJohnson of course. Andy is a fictional web personality. He doesn't really exist. I'm absolutely sure your performance will impress Congress. Really now, in what lifetime do you suppose that will happen?
Plenty of records and research exist yet there is no evidence of exposure. That's what ya needs kiddies. Evidence. Ya got none. The DVA don't believe your emotional clap trap. Neither does the BVA or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even SCOTUS refused to hear your writ. That's why you're here begging Congress for a handout. It really won't matter if Congress eventually caves (In the pigs azz) because it won't be based on the evidence. You aren't one of us and you never will be. It's over. Eight more mos and this bill will also die in committee
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:27pm (report abuse)...continued
Andy doesn't have to stop Congress from doing anything. They've done a fine job of that themselves. He also isn't opposed to all veterans compensation. Only those programs where there is no evidence of harm created by their service and the continual attempts at encroaching the benefits earned by others.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)Go ahead, file claims you know cannot succeed because they aren't lawful. Clog up an already burdened system with BS claims. The only thing you'll succeed in doing is denying deserving veterans compensation for qualified service connected conditions. Just because you aren't one of us doesn't mean others should be denied. Clogging up the system is not going to advance your cause. Find the evidence and show it to Congress, that's the only thing that will matter.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 11, 2012, 12:30pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
ANDY LOST IT
May 12, 2012, 12:08pm (report abuse)A INTERNET TROLL,IF HE HAS NO ONE TO ARGUE WITH ,HE CREATES.HE LIVES IN A FANTASY WORLD ,HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES HE CAN CONTROL CONGRESS AND THE VA.HIS MIS GUIDED RETORIC ONLY PROVES HE IS A BIGOT(SMART PHONE ANDY)AND HAS THE BELIEF THAT HE WILL STOP CONGRESS FROM SPENDING ON VETERAN PROGRAMS.THE GREATEST INCREASE IN THE VA BUDGET HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH.HIS JOB EFFICIENTY RATING IS ZERO,ZILCH,NADA,0,NOTHING.ANDY IS ONLY TRYING TO GET ATTENTION!HE WANTS TO DOMINATE THIS SITE BECAUSE ITS HIS ONLY MEANS OF GRATIFICATION!
FILE
May 12, 2012, 12:13pm (report abuse)An rf burn hazard is a hazardous condition caused by the existence of radio frequency (rf) voltages in places where they are not intended to be. Any ship with high-power hf transmitters is susceptible. Potentially hazardous voltages have been found in many areas. Some of these areas are lifelines, vertical ladders, ASROC launchers, gun mounts, rigging for underway replenishment, and boat davits. Another of these areas is on aircraft tied down on carrier and helicopter flight decks
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 12, 2012, 1:25pm (report abuse)You loons never cease to amaze me. You have absolutely no evidence of BWN being exposed. So what do you do, well attack AndyJohnson of course. Andy is a fictional web personality. He doesn't really exist. I'm absolutely sure your performance will impress Congress. Really now, in what lifetime do you suppose that will happen?
Plenty of records and research exist yet there is no evidence of exposure. That's what ya needs kiddies. Evidence. Ya got none. The DVA don't believe your emotional clap trap. Neither does the BVA or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even SCOTUS refused to hear your writ. That's why you're here begging Congress for a handout. It really won't matter if Congress eventually caves (In the pigs azz) because it won't be based on the evidence. You aren't one of us and you never will be. It's over. Eight more mos and this bill will also die in committee
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 12, 2012, 1:26pm (report abuse)...continued
Andy doesn't have to stop Congress from doing anything. They've done a fine job of that themselves. He also isn't opposed to all veterans compensation. Only those programs where there is no evidence of harm created by their service and the continual attempts at encroaching the benefits earned by others.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 12, 2012, 1:26pm (report abuse)Stick to the subject
The issue on this forum is whether or not BWN and the other wanna-be welfare scammers should be entitled to a handout for failing to plan for their old age retirement because there certainly is no evidence that their problems were even remotely caused by their miniscule military service.
It has nothing to do with AndyJohnson or any other condition. This forum is about legislation, not claims. Try to address the issue. No wonder Congress doesn't pay you any attention
You spend a year in Vietnam and expect the taxpayer to fund your retirement while you lived the other 65 years of your miserable life here in toxic USA being exposed to every chemical under the sun. No one sues the chemical companies because there's no evidence that would stand up in court, yet you expect your fellow citizens to pony up.
Sounds like welfare to me.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 12, 2012, 1:26pm (report abuse)Evidence
It's about the evidence. When ya find the evidence of BWN exposure, get back to us. Congress ain't gonna enact new legislation unless they see evidence of exposure and there ain't any.
COASTAL
May 12, 2012, 4:53pm (report abuse)BUT IT DIDNT GET IN THE WATER.JOKE! Defoliation occurred along waterways, roads, railroads, and other transportation routes to lower the risk of ambush. Extensive spraying was also conducted in the Mekong River delta area around the coastal mangrove swamps, also with the goal of reducing protective cover for the enemy. Operation Ranch Hand peaked in 1967 when 1.7 million acres of Vietnam and Laos were sprayed, 85% for defoliation and 15% for crop destruction.
A small proportion of the herbicides was applied by other means, such as backpacks, spray trucks, helicopters, and boats. The US Army Chemical Corps ground personnel sprayed herbicides from trucks or backpacks around base perimeters; other Army personnel sprayed herbicides from helicopters (Darrow, 1969) and directly from drums along waterways .
The EPA's 1994 Draft Reassessment of Dioxin concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to dioxin even at extremely low levels.look up COASTAL and NO SAFE LEVEL ANDY!
***
May 12, 2012, 7:57pm (report abuse)When the VA granted presumption to NON hodgkins (one of the presumptive diseases)to blue water, they admitted that we were exposed same as boots on the ground!HOW DO EXPLAIN THIS ANDY!STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER.
I KNOW
May 12, 2012, 8:46pm (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
***
May 12, 2012, 8:53pm (report abuse)"HOW DO EXPLAIN THIS"
This is because VA recognizes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as associated with service in Vietnam or the waters offshore of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. It is NOT connected to any herbicide exposure, but simply service in those areas.
Because of the lack of data on environmental concentrations of Agent Orange contaminants, the IOM concluded that exposure of Blue Water Navy Veterans to Agent Orange cannot reasonably be determined.
You want to draw a connection that does not exist and that makes you just another scammer trying to screw the taxpayer out of some free welfare money.
STILLWAITING
May 13, 2012, 8:35am (report abuse)IF NON HODGKINS WAS NOT CAUSED BY HERBICIDES WHAT DID SERVICE OFF THE COAST OF VIETNAM HAVE TO DO WITH IT?LETS PLAY PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEY!
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:17pm (report abuse)Wind Drift
An aircraft dropping a mist of 300-350 microns will be 88% on size but the other 12% could be larger or smaller. That same aircraft dropping from 150ft (standard altitude) and allowing for a minimum droplet size of 100 microns will only drift off target 1500ft, about a quarter mile. The 88% will have drifted only a couple hundred feet. As far as I can tell, most of the load will be dropped on target and little or none will have drifted offshore. In my opinion, wind drift is nonsense.
HERBICIDES USED IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Robert A. Darrow, Kent R. Irish, Charles E. Minarik
United States Army Plant Sciences Laboratories
Fort Detrick
Fredrick, MD 21701
August 1969
Technical Report SA0Q-TR-69-11078
http://tinyurl.com/22qs7cb
or
http://tinyurl.com/ylrudqc
see document page 29
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:17pm (report abuse)Sediment
Contamination Status of Dioxins in Sediments from Saigon River Estuary, Vietnam
(Received 29 January 2009; accepted 30 March 2009)
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/onli…proceedings/ec/02/pdf/ERA4.pdf
or
http://tinyurl.com/29xz3hv
In core sediment analysis, no temporal trend either in total concentration or isomer profile was observed. 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which was present in chemical defoliants, was not detected in any of the layers analyzed.
Folks:
A study 3 years ago showed no dioxin in sediments from the Saigon River Estuary
No dioxin ever escaped the land mass to be distilled with drinking water aboard ship.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:20pm (report abuse)When someone finds 'QUALIFIED' evidence that troops in Thailand and Guam or offshore elements were ever harmed to a degree necessary for presumption please point it out. The VA to date has been unable to find it. Qualified evidence is defined as “statistically significant, capable of replication and has withstood peer review.” The NRCET Study (Australian Study) is none of these. As a matter of fact, the authors later admitted they 'assumed' a certain level of contamination and there has never been evidence any contamination of water in the South China Sea existed.
So where do these ridiculous requirements come from. Well, folks, directly from Congress themselves. These are the requirements congress imposed on VA in their Public Law 102-4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991. If anyone has bothered to read it, it says;
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:20pm (report abuse)...continued
The law provides that whenever the Secretary determines that a positive association exists between exposure to a herbicide agent and a disease, the Secretary will publish regulations establishing presumptive service connection for that disease. The term “positive association” means that the credible evidence for an association equals or outweighs the credible evidence against an association.
In making the determination the Secretary is required to take into consideration whether the results of any study are “statistically significant, are capable of replication and withstand peer review.”
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:20pm (report abuse)...continued
Note the VA is adding three new conditions on the basis of the 2008 IOM study yet the Secretary pointedly left out BWN despite the report. It isn't hard to figure out why. The Secretary did this off the 2006 report when he added Amloidosis and explained he wouldn't include HTN because the studies the IOM relied on weren't qualified.
If Congress takes the trouble to examine the scientific evidence, they will not pass this bogus legislation. The VA OGC says Congress did not intend to include BWN in the AO act of 1991 and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. Haas lost in the courts, that's why we have this pity bill now.
Better find some qualified evidence or this is going down the tubes, or it ought to.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:24pm (report abuse)BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:24pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:24pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:27pm (report abuse)This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by giving money to those not disabled by military service. IOW, a handout. Something for nothing
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Why do I call this the Veterans Handout Bill? ...because compensation is intended to offset a veterans disabling condition suffered in service to the people. This Bill asks the people to pay veterans money when there is no evidence a loss was incurred in service, IOW, a handout.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation to augment their retirement
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 13, 2012, 12:28pm (report abuse)Definition: hand·out
–noun Informal.
1.a portion of food or the like given to a needy person, as a beggar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handout
Definition: hand·out
Function: noun
1 : a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handout
Definition: welfare
–noun
3.financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.(initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare
Definition: compensation
–noun
1. the act or state of compensating.
2. the state of being compensated.
3. something given or received as an equivalent for debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compensation
@STILLWAITING
May 13, 2012, 4:33pm (report abuse)Where's your proof? If you want to be a jackass then let's pin the tail where it belongs. On your scamming @ss!
You want to draw a connection that does not exist and that makes you just another scammer trying to screw the taxpayer out of some free welfare money.
FILE
May 13, 2012, 10:22pm (report abuse)WHEN a reasonable doubt arises regarding any point such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. One which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. It also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships.FILE
I KNOW
May 13, 2012, 10:30pm (report abuse)that BWN wasn't exposed.
I KNOW that all this whining and moaning is nothing more than bull$hit from a bunch of welfare scammers.
I KNOW the BWN and the rest of their ilk do not deserve anything.
I KNOW the congress has refused to accept this bull$hit story in the past.
I KNOW the congress will continue to ignore this bull$hit story in the future.
I KNOW that is the right thing to do.
still waiting
May 14, 2012, 7:26pm (report abuse)IF NON HODGKINS WAS NOT CAUSED BY HERBICIDES WHAT DID SERVICE OFF THE COAST OF VIETNAM HAVE TO DO WITH IT?LETS PLAY PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEY!
STILL WAITING8atey
May 15, 2012, 12:48am (report abuse)Where's your proof? If you want to be a jackass then let's pin the tail where it belongs. On your scamming @ss!
You want to draw a connection that does not exist and that makes you just another scammer trying to screw the taxpayer out of some free welfare money.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 3:59pm (report abuse)Go ahead file claims you know cannot succeed because they aren't lawful. Clog up an already burdened system with BS claims. The only thing you'll succeed in doing is denying deserving veterans compensation for qualified service connected conditions. Just because you aren't one of us doesn't mean others should be denied. Clogging up the system is not going to advance your cause. Find the evidence and show it to Congress, that's the only thing that will matter.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:00pm (report abuse)You can file all the claims you want. BWN is not entitled to presumption because they weren't exposed to herbicide in Vietnam. There's no easy money for BWN. OGC 27-97 precludes the DVA from compensating BWN.
All you do by making claims you know aren't going to fly is to clog an already overburdened system. This prevents real Vietnam veterans and other vets with legitimite claims from getting them processed in a timely manner. Then... considering present company, that may be the objective.
Congress never intended to include BWN under the Agent Orange Act. Regardless what they think, they simply are not entitled to this benefit under the law. The Haas lawsuit took this issue all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost. The Courts said they had no entitlement under the law.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:00pm (report abuse)...continued
When Congress created the Agent Orange Act of 1991 the DVA MISTAKENLY interpreted it to include BWN. Five years later the Secretary asked the VA Office of General Council to evaluate the intentions of Congress. OGC reviewed the Congressional Record and discovered there was no intention to include BWN. The VA had been compensating veterans contrary to the law. OGC then wrote VAOPGCPREC 27-97 which is binding on DVA unless overturned by Congress or the Courts. DVA cannot compensate BWN lawfully and they are not entitled to this benefit
This decision was written in January1997. Congress has had 15 years to tell the DVA they got it wrong. They've also had the past 5 years to create new legislation clarifying their intent by specifically including BWN. They have chosen to let this and similar legislation die in committee. They did that because they don't necessarily want to tell this group they agree with the DVA assesment of their intent
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:00pm (report abuse)...continued
There is no authoritative or qualified scientific and medical research that supports herbicide exposure of BWN. FWIW, the NRCET is not qualified research as it relied on an assumption, not scientific fact.
The Agent orange Act states: "the Secretary shall take into consideration whether the results are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review"
The NRCET s not statistically significant nor was it ever peer reviewed.
You can read the AO Act here: http://tinyurl.com/7uo7hyk
You can read OGC 27-97 here: http://tinyurl.com/6j45s5b
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:01pm (report abuse)Stick to the subject
The issue on this forum is whether or not BWN and the other wanna-be welfare scammers should be entitled to a handout for failing to plan for their old age retirement because there certainly is no evidence that their problems were even remotely caused by their miniscule military service.
It has nothing to do with AndyJohnson or any other condition. This forum is aabout legislation, not claims.
You spend a year in Vietnam and expect the taxpayer to fund your retirement while you lived the other 65 years of your miserable life here in toxic USA being exposed to every chemical under the sun. No one sues the chemical companies because there's no evidence that would stand up in court, yet you expect your fellow citizens to pony up.
Sounds like welfare to me.
Evidence
It's about the evidence. When ya find the evidence of BWN exposure, get back to us. Congress ain't gonna enact new legislation unless they see evidence of exposure and there ain't any.
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:03pm (report abuse)This Bill has no merit because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any
This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by giving money to those not disabled by military service. IOW, a handout. Something for nothing
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Why do I call this the Veterans Handout Bill? ...because compensation is intended to offset a veterans disabling condition suffered in service to the people. This Bill asks the people to pay veterans money when there is no evidence a loss was incurred in service, IOW, a handout.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation to augment their retirement
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:03pm (report abuse)Definition: hand·out
–noun Informal.
1.a portion of food or the like given to a needy person, as a beggar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handout
Definition: hand·out
Function: noun
1 : a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handout
Definition: welfare
–noun
3.financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.(initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare
Definition: compensation
–noun
1. the act or state of compensating.
2. the state of being compensated.
3. something given or received as an equivalent for debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compensation
AndyJohnson
(logged-in user) May 15, 2012, 4:11pm (report abuse)This site states the average human TCDD level in 1970 was 20 Parts Per Trillian , We know Vietnam veterans tested less than 5 PPT.
Wonder where folks that never went to Vietnam got that 20 PPT from?
http://www.dioxinfacts.org/dio…dioxin_tissues/yushchenko.html
You can stick your head in the sand all you want but science tells us that we received a lot more exposure right here in good ole toxic USA than anyone did in Vietnam.