WHEN YOU CAN'T WIN IN THE COURTS, BUY A SENATOR (Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans

COMMENTARY: WHEN YOU CAN'T WIN IN THE COURTS, BUY A SENATOR -- Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Senate Vets' Chair, submits bill for White House that would overturn two key Court rulings favoring veterans' benefits.

Commentary below: Please note that the original version of this commentary did not mention that Sen. Akaka submitted this bill "by request" from the White House. That omission has been corrected.

Sen. Akaka (D-HI) is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Last Thursday (September 6, 2007), Akaka introduced S. 2026 "by request"...that is, "by request" of the White House (see note below). The bill reads as follows:

This legislation would undo two key Court decisions that were very favorable to veterans.

The Nehmer decision (by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) and Haas decision (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims) would be undone if Akaka's legislation were to pass.

This bill is totally opposite of all Akaka has done it the past. His reputation for being pro-veteran, up until now, has been solid gold.

So, who bought Sen. Akaka? Why would he knuckle to White House pressure and submit "by request" legislation?

That information is likely to be determined in the next few days as this story makes the rounds in Washington. At the moment, Akaka has not commented on the legislation so we don't know his reasoning. Once he comments, if he comments, we'll get a better idea.

This legislation is pro-VA (for the money it would save) and very anti-veteran.

The VA lost two key decisions in Court. And, as the Haas ("Blue Water Navy") case drags on in the Court of Appeals, it looks like the VA is going to lose and Haas will be upheld. It only makes sense that the VA would put pressure where pressure can be applied to have these decisions overturned by legislation.

Someone got to Akaka. A favor being repaid? Perhaps. He didn't have to submit this "by request" legislation.

I would like to think that someone slipped this bill on Akaka's desk while he was napping in his office. Or, maybe an aide convinced him it really is the right thing to do. (see NOTE at end of article for explanation)

Akaka is not known as the brightest bulb on the Capitol Hill Christmas tree. He has difficulty speaking without a script and a number of political bloggers in Hawaii have referred to him as "half-senile" or "senile but harmless."

I can't speak to Sen. Akaka's mental condition. But, I have always felt it was his staff who kept him on course when he had a tendency to wander. And, wander he has with this legislation.

Veterans fought long and hard to win the Nehmer and Hass decisions. They used the legal system the way it was meant to be used...and they won.

To have those precious victories overturned by the whim of a single Senator is outrageous.

Veterans cannot let these decisions be overturned. Akaka must be convinced to pull this legislation. Call the Democratic staff office at (202) 224-9126. Or fill out the form on this page...
http://www.veterans.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pageid=1

Call your service organizations. Get hold of your elected representatives. We must not let S. 2026 pass.

(NOTE: Sen. Akaka submitted this legislation "by request." That is, "by request" of the White House.

From the Congressional Research Service (CRS): "A Senator may, however, introduce a bill as a courtesy, such as legislation proposed by the President. In such a case, the sponsor may designate the bill as introduced 'by request.'"

Senator Akaka may have done this as a "courtesy" to the White House, but, he did NOT have to extend that courtesy. This could have been handed to the Ranking Member of the Committee [a member of the President's party] to submit.

As it stands, Akaka is THE sponsor of the legislation. His name is on it. He did NOT have to do this.

Akaka's "courtesy" is not appreciated in the veterans' community.)

FRiends, it has been a trying couple of days.

As a Blue Water Navy Vietnam sailor, to say that I was disheartened to see this commentary on a very reputable veteran-oriented website is to understate the case severely. If Mr. Scott is correct, the President I voted for TWICE, in Miami-Dade County, and the second time in the teeth of his distinctly sub-par nominations for Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Messers Principi and Nicholson), has joined his liberal predecessors in abandoning and forsaking men who served this country in a previous unpopular war.

Yes, FRiends, I too am one of those Vietnam veterans spat upon by people in an airport when I came home. I mean that literally; once in Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport in '70 by a small group of what looked like high-school students calling me a 'baby killer' and mercenary. (One was wearing an Emory University sweatshirt, so perhaps not.) I was in my home town and in uniform and early, so with no one there to pick me up, I said nothing and caught a cab home.

The second time was at Logan International in Boston in '72, where I was accosted by three disheveled, notably uggly (really needs a couple of extra g's) young women who, since they used words like 'Myrmidon' correctly, I surmised were students at one of the colleges in Cambridge. That time, I was saved from having to do something unfortunate by an Airport Cop, who I must admit enthusiastically tossed their bony @sses out of the terminal with some 'prejudice'.

Let me be clear, until 2006 I had zero point zilch idea that my CLL Leukemia was on the 'presumptive' list of illnesses deemed by the DVA to be caused by Agent Orange contaminated by dioxins. I was hospitalized twice, once in '04 and again in '05 with white blood cell counts of over 500,000. (normal is about 8 to 12k) My platelet count was non-existent. I had to be hooked up to a machine to strain out all the immature WBCs before I could even be given 'aggressive' chemotherapy. I was on cytoxan, rtuxan, and fludara at very high rates (I turn out to tolerate these drugs better than most) for three solid days, so hammered by them that my brain was concrete. I then had to have transfusions of platelets for weeks afterward. (one of which gave me a 'super bug', pseudomonas septic infection and put me right back into the hospital!)

The point of all this is that, aside from a grandparent's brother, who died of complications of Yellow Fever in the Canal Zone, and one uncle who died of Alcoholism and terminal fatness, NONE of my family for three generations have ever been diagnosed with ANY form of cancer. They all died of bad age or stupidity, mostly in their early eighties.

My oncologist, one of the best in South Florida, was always curious about the fact that I had two rarely combined auto-immune diseases, Rheumatoid Arthritis and CLL, both of which often run in families. Until a fellow veteran told me about Agent Orange and Dioxin, my own doctor was completely unaware of Agent Orange exposure and cancers. Since I told him of it, he has researched the data and agrees with me that it is most likely the cause of my CLL. (He's also told me, in confidence, that he feels haunted by the question of the number of patients he treated over the years for cancer who were veterans, and unaware of Agent Orange exposure because he didn't know to ask!)

I am truly hoping that some politically astute or connected FReeper can assure me that the White House had nothing to do with S.B.2026, and that this administration does not intend to throw a particular group of veterans off the sleigh to feed the wolves. If it is not true, (and Johnson's Corollary to Unrah's Law—Make them deny it—) aside, someone in the administration needs to clarify this, and quickly!

One other thing; spare me the uninformed opinions about whether Blue Water Navy veterans were exposed to Agent Orange runoff at sea. These studies, (using a statistical universe of 25,000 individuals!) have been done. The fact is that a greater number of Blue Water Navy veterans have sickened and are dying of diseases 'presumed' by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine to be caused by exposure to AO than a similar number of servicemen who served on land in Vietnam. These data exist and are available for analysis. (note: I used the word 'data' and not 'evidence', there is a difference and I know what it is.)

At this point, if I ever felt like my tagline, it's now.

***********************

Navy veterans had the highest rate of cancer, higher than expected by 22-26%... 1997 Mortality of Vietnam Veterans: The Veteran Cohort Study— (Australian Study #1 Summary)

***********************

Specifically, Navy veterans had a higher than expected mortality from lung cancer (39%) and melanoma (56%), whereas mortality from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was 48% lower than expected. Also mortality from mesothelioma was higher than expected based on small numbers. (1997 Mortality of Vietnam Veterans: The Veteran Cohort Study — Australian Study #2 Summary)

***********************

National Service veterans experienced a 23% higher overall mortality than non-veterans, RR = 1.23 (95% CI 1.13, 1.34).( 1997 Mortality of Vietnam Veterans: The Veteran Cohort Study — Australian Study #3 Summary)

***********************

The estimated relative risk for blue-water Navy Vietnam veterans is from the “Selected Cancers Study” conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and published in 1990. It is indeed among the highest risks listed for studies of veterans. On page 542, the 1994 report comments on this subgroup of the 32 cases noted for the Navy overall (RR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-1.32): “No cases occurred among naval personnel stationed on river and near-shore ships, and only four among shore personnel. No explanation is known for the high blue water Navy odds ratio (OR=2.2, CI 1.2-3.9) [for the other 28 cases]. The study’s authors feel that it is unlikely to be the result of occupational exposures aboard ship.” ((This explanation could well be ‘exposure to Agent Orange’ through the ships fresh water supply.)).

Only Navy veterans had a statistically significant increased risk of testicular cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 2.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 to 6.24). 1994 Risk of testicular cancer associated with surrogate measures of Agent Orange exposure among Vietnam veterans on the Agent Orange Registry.)

************************

The highest elevation in mortality was among veterans of the Royal Australian Navy, rather than the land and air forces (Crane et al., 1997a). Dec. 2002, Examination of the Potential Exposure of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Personnel to Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans Via Drinking Water.

***********************

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/gca?gca=150%2F12%2F2473&gca=150%2F12%2F2

As part of a series of investigations into the health of Vietnam veterans, we conducted a population-based, case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma between 1984 and 1988. All men born between 1929 and 1953 and diagnosed as having non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in an area covered by eight cancer registries were considered eligible. Control subjects were identified by random-digit dialing from these same regions and were frequency-matched to men with lymphoma by age. Analyses of 1157 men with pathologically confirmed lymphomas and 1776 control subjects showed that the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was approximately 50% higher among Vietnam veterans (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.0) compared with men who did not serve in Vietnam. Vietnam veterans were also at higher risk relative to (1) men who had not served in the military, (2) other veterans, and (3) other veterans who served between 1964 and 1972. An analysis of the military histories of the 232 Vietnam veterans suggested that the relative risk (1) increased with length of service in Vietnam (P = .10), and (2) was higher among men in the sea-based Navy than among other veterans (P = .11). Little difference in risk, however, was noted according to dates of service, type of unit, military region, or any other characteristics that may have been associated with the use of Agent Orange. Although the cause remains uncertain, results of this study indicate that the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is higher among Vietnam veterans than among other men. The association of selected cancers with service in the US military in Vietnam. I. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Selected Cancers Cooperative Study Group - Center for Disease Control.

That help you? Go to www.BlueWaterNavy.org for more information.

Sorry I took so long, I needed to get some sleep...

I think blaming the anomalies on Agent Orange is a bit of a stretch. We aren’t talking about the littoral Naval personnel. I agree that they are exposed to runoff but the sailors in the deep water fleet aren’t anywhere near contaminated water.

That's nothing, there is a ton of data and reports out there. One of them, I gotta find it again, it was in reference to other types of runoff contamination from rivers to the ocean, but it demonstrated that:

1) fresh water flowing into seawater tends to remain on the surface for tens, and occasionally hundreds of miles out to sea, depending on the sea state and relative temperatures. Ship's evaporators tend to draw it's intake from this layer. (I know this is true because I was a ping jockey, and seawater salinity and temperature can form layers that reflect sonar energy so strongly that a sub can hide underneath it, particularly near the mouths of estuaries.)

2) Contaminates tend to concentrate in the meniscus between air and water due primarily to surface tension. The first couple of feet contain 90% (?) of runoff contaminates until distance and wave action dilute them.

I wish I could find that link, I'll Freepmail it to you when I find it, but at any rate that is one of the Royal Australian Navy tests. It was peer-reviewed in Australia, and accepted by the Aussie DVA. Oddly enough, OUR DVA has yet to reproduce these studies.

That being said, to then accuse President Bush of abandoning the Vets is just irresponsible.

If you read my first post, I didn't say this, Larry Scott did. I posted this here because I REALLY WANT someone who knows to tell me Mr. Scott was talking through his hat!

I just feel that so far, his record of staying on top of veteran's issues leaves a lot to be desired, particularly during war-time. Can you tell me where I'm wrong?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.