U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–834 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–371 

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EXPOSURE TO TOXIC 

CHEMICALS ON VETERANS AND THE VA’S 

RESPONSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, Ranking 

Member 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

TOM BOWMAN, Staff Director 

JOHN KRUSE, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

SENATORS 

Page 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Georgia ............................ 1 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Connecticut ... 2 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from South Dakota ......................................... 15 

Tillis, Hon. Thom, U.S. Senator from North Carolina .......................................... 18 

Manchin, Hon. Joe, III, U.S. Senator from West Virginia ................................... 20 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 22 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from Nevada ..................................................... 24 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii ............................................... 26 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Louisiana .................................................. 33 

Moran, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Senator from Kansas ..................................................... 36 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arkansas .............................................. 38 

WITNESSES 

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....................................... 4 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from New York ....................................... 7 

Daines, Hon. Steve, U.S. Senator from Montana .................................................. 8 

McLenachen, David R., Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability Assistance, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Ralph L. Erickson, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H., Director, 

Post-Deployment Health, Veterans Health Administration ............................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Response to request arising during the hearing by: 

Hon. Jon Tester ............................................................................................. 22 

Hon. Mazie K. Hirono ................................................................................... 28 

Response to posthearing questions submitted by: 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ............................................................................ 41 

Hon. Jerry Moral ........................................................................................... 43 

Hon. Thom Tillis ........................................................................................... 44 

Ramos, Kenneth S., M.D., Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Precision 

Health Sciences, Arizona Health Sciences Center, University of Arizona 

and Chair, Institute of Medicine Committee on Veterans and Agent Orange, 

Update 2014, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; accompanied by: Roberta Wedge, M.S., Senior Program Officer, Institute of Medicine, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine ................................................................................................................ 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Wells, John, Commander U.S. Navy (ret.), Executive Director, Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. ............................................................................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Rowan, John, National President, Vietnam Veterans of America ....................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Submission, Faces of Agent Orange ................................................................ 74 

Ensminger, Jerome, Master Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) ........................ 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

APPENDIX 

Blinded Veterans Association; letter ...................................................................... 127 

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association; letter ...................................... 128 

Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, Inc.; letter ................................. 129 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EXPOSURE TO 

TOXIC CHEMICALS ON VETERANS AND THE 

VA’S RESPONSE 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Johnny Isakson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Isakson, Moran, Boozman, Heller, Cassidy, 

Rounds, Tillis, Blumenthal, Brown, Tester, Hirono, and Manchin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Chairman ISAKSON. I am going to call this hearing of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate to order. We have 

three members who will testify first today. One of them is here, 

punctual and on time, former Ranking Member Richard Burr. We 

welcome him. And hopefully by the time the two opening statements by myself and the Ranking Member have been made, Senator Daines and Senator Gillibrand will be here. But we want to 

start promptly so people will know we mean to start promptly 

around here on the Committee. I think that is important. 

This is an important hearing today for a lot of reasons, most importantly because we want to determine the presumptive nature of 

certain exposures to our veterans that could cause debilitating and 

deadly diseases. We want to hear testimony from the Veterans Administration. We are going to hear testimony from toxic experts 

and we are going to hear testimony from three members of the U.S. 

Senate. 

For me, it is very important that we have a thorough examination of what it takes to get to a presumptive conclusion that a disease or a disability has been caused by an exposure, that it be as 

scientific as it can be so it is absolutely, unequivocally clear. I am 

not an expert at that type of thing. I am a salesman. I am not an 

expert in science or technology or anything else, but I am here to 

learn, as I know the Ranking Member is, as well. 

I want to particularly thank Senator Burr and Senator Tillis for 

what they have done at Camp LeJeune to bring this issue forward 

over the last several years. I look forward to moving toward a successful conclusion in terms of presumption on that particular issue. 

2 

With that said, today we will have three panels. First, the three 

Senate members that are here to testify, then the VA, then we will 

have a final panel to testify on the nature of toxic exposure and 

causation. 

With that said, I will turn to Senator Blumenthal, the Ranking 

Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing to examine 

the multi-faceted harmful impacts of toxic exposures and the need 

for additional legislation, including the extension of the Secretary’s 

authority to grant that presumptive coverage for service-connected 

disabilities based on exposure to herbicides. 

I very much regret that this authority, which Congress has provided the Secretary for the last 15 years, was not included in the 

extenders package that the Senate passed last week. I understand 

that this omission was based in part over the Chairman and other 

members’ concerns regarding its possible scoring implications for 

the larger package that has bipartisan support to move before 

these vital authorities expired. 

Given our very mutual concern for veterans exposed to toxic 

chemicals in conflicts today and in prior years, I am hoping that 

the Chairman will assure me, as he has done privately, that he will 

give full and favorable consideration to legislation that I have introduced to ensure that the Secretary will regain this specific authority and, in the interim, work with me to encourage the Secretary to use his general rule to make authority as needed for all 

veterans who may have been impacted by these exposures. I am 

hoping that those assurances will be forthcoming at some point 

today or in the near future. 

To this end, I have introduced S. 2081, which would extend the 

Secretary’s authority for an additional 15 years. It also ensures 

that there are no impediments in extending compensation to veterans exposed to herbicides, as medical evidence, research, and 

studies support. I have a letter from the Blinded Veterans Association expressing support for this measure and I ask that it be included in the record for this hearing. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is in the Appendix.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from 

all of our witnesses about this measure, along with other important 

issues including helping Blue Water veterans and all those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with toxic exposures. 

Potential exposure to toxic chemicals during military service 

raises serious and complicated questions. While the impact is undeniable, establishing and qualifying a clear link between the exposures and health effects has become an intolerably long and complex process. 

As a result, I am hopeful that the Committee will continue to 

drill down and dig down and monitor the recommendations made 

by the Institute of Medicine’s biennial updates on the health effects 

3 

of Agent Orange exposure to ensure that the VA responds appropriately. 

In its report, Veterans and Agent Orange, 2012 Update, IOM 

stated, ‘‘The amount of research providing reliable information on 

the consequences of paternal exposure is extremely sparse not only 

for Agent Orange, but for the full array of environmental agents 

that may pose threats to the health of future generations.’’ 

Here is what we know about the modern battlefield. There are 

all sorts of toxic substances out there, many more than are imaginable to the layperson, whether it is depleted uranium, pollutants 

from burn pits, or nerve gas in unexploded ordinances. We know 

that the modern battlefield includes perils even for the veteran who 

has not been engaged in combat. 

When a veteran signs up for duty, he or she has not signed up 

their children or grandchildren. Risking their own lives does not 

mean volunteering the next generation for neurological conditions, 

cancer, or other life-threatening conditions. 

So, earlier this year I introduced legislation with Senator Moran 

that is one step only, one step in the right direction. It says that 

we need to know a lot more because we know so little about the 

effects of these toxic substances on veterans and their families. We 

need to know more through a research center that can do the kind 

of fact-finding and fact-gathering and other kinds of medical and 

scientific research that will show us the way to better diagnose and 

treat the effects of toxic exposure. 

We need an advisory board of experts that can tell the secretaries of VA and HHS and other responsible government agencies 

they can do better. The IOM’s 2011 report entitled, Blue Water 

Navy Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure, failed to find sufficient 

evidence to connect Blue Water Navy service with exposure to 

Agent Orange sufficient to merit a presumption, and led the Secretary of VA to issue a determination of no presumption in 2012. 

But this issue warrants and demands further investigation. 

In particular, the VA needs to follow up on an Australian Government study that established the possibility that so-called Blue 

Water Navy ships off the coast of Vietnam ingested water contaminated by Agent Orange through their distillation systems that produced drinking water for their crews. 

Finally, I was deeply troubled and perplexed by Secretary 

Mabus’s recent remarks dismissing links between Camp Lejeune 

water and the higher incidence of a number of illnesses of veterans 

who served in that area. We cannot be cavalier about the risks that 

our servicemen and women have taken. 

I know that Navy Secretary Mabus is also deeply concerned 

about this issue and I thank him for his concern. But many others 

in positions of authority have failed to demonstrate those kinds of 

concerns. My hope is that we will hear more from our witnesses 

that will bolster and substantiate the ongoing and increasing efforts to do more and do better in dealing with toxic exposure to 

dangerous chemicals on our battlefield and elsewhere in our military. I look forward to the opportunity for this important conversation. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

4 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Ranking Member. In reference to 

his opening statement, I commit to him, as I have privately, then 

we are going to see to it that we explore thoroughly the causation 

of various diseases that take place, and when we find conclusive 

scientific evidence, we will move accordingly. I look forward to 

working with him on that effort as we improve the lives of our 

veterans. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I would like to welcome our three guest Senators. As is the tradition on the Committee, we will not ask questions of them, but we will ask for their testimony. I would ask that 

each of them try to keep their remarks within 5 minutes, if possible. We welcome our first alumni, Richard Burr, the former Ranking Member of the Committee. Senator Burr, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for 

the opportunity to give the Committee my perspective on the effects of toxic exposure on our Nation’s veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ often inadequate and frustrating 

response. 

Mr. Chairman, this has been a long road and I ask for the Committee’s indulgence because I am not sure that I can give you this 

very long history in 5 minutes; it may take 6 minutes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. We will be easy. 

Senator BURR. To my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, I wish I 

could hold Secretary Mabus in the same regard that you do, but 

if there has been an epiphany that has happened lately as it relates to his concern over whether the appropriate documents were 

available, and many cases they have made it as difficult as it possibly can be. 

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize Master 

Sergeant Jerry Ensminger, U.S. Marine Corps, retired, from White 

Lake, NC, who is here today and who has been a relentless advocate for Camp Lejeune, for its veterans for over 15 years. Let me 

just say, Jerry, we would not be here today if it was not for your 

fidelity, your courage, and your commitment. 

Mr. Chairman, during my time on the Committee, one toxic exposure issue continued to garner our attention because of its scope, 

its severity, and the intense public interest. That is the contamination of the water supply at Camp Lejeune, NC. 

From 1953 to 1987, we know Camp Lejeune residents were exposed to poisoned water from industrial dumping on the base and 

contamination from a dry cleaner off base. This 34-year event has 

been called the worst incident of environmental exposure in our 

Nation’s history. Hundreds of thousands of servicemembers, their 

families, civilian workers, drank and bathed in water that had 

been exposed to mixed cancer-causing chemicals that, in one case, 

took the life of a 9-year-old girl, Janey Ensminger, who was born 

on base. 

Once metabolized, the chemical in the water could cause birth 

defects and increased risk of multiple cancers. The Government scientific investigation into Camp Lejeune began in 1989, but we have 

5 

only seen significant progress in the last 5 years spurred by the uncovering of critical Navy and Marine Corps records and the completion of a long overdue study on the effects of the contamination. 

Along the way, I went to great lengths to reveal the truth about 

Camp Lejeune and hold the military and the VA accountable. To 

this day, I remain appalled at how the U.S. Government has treated these servicemembers and their families. Our Government rewarded the sacrifices of these patriotic men and women by negligently poisoning them and their families and by engaging in a 

decades long cover-up. 

It was not until 2011, after significant Congressional pressure, 

that the VA began consolidating all disability claims at one VA regional office in coding and tracking them. During the time I introduced the Janey Ensminger Act, named in honor of Master Sergeant Ensminger’s late daughter. The law was passed and signed 

into law in 2012. It has provided the much needed and overdue 

medical relief to veterans and eligible family members seeking 

health care for cancers and conditions associated with toxic exposure at Camp Lejeune. 

Janey’s Law was based on scientific findings required by Congressionally mandated review, because within the VA, there was 

neither the expertise nor the resources to explore the science of 

toxic exposure. The Government studies on Camp Lejeune conducted by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, are based on test results from water samples 

taken at Camp Lejeune over successive years. 

The study shows some of the highest levels of recorded toxins in 

any U.S. water system and it reached the taps in houses, barracks 

and offices. ATSDR has found that Camp Lejeune residents experienced higher rates of mortality at a younger age than those from 

an unaffected Marine Corps base, higher incidence of birth defects 

in children born on the base, and a statistically high number of 

male breast cancer survivors. 

In fact, several chemicals found in Camp Lejeune water are now 

classified as known human carcinogens by the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

Mr. Chairman, the resistance inside the VA to the scientific data 

and the fact that Camp Lejeune demonstrates how VA has dealt 

with the scientific facts of toxic exposure overall. In the case of 

LeJeune, their approach ranged from scare tactics like issuing 

over-inflated estimates on long-term cost of care to this Committee 

for benefits, and suggesting the Department of Defense should take 

care of Camp Lejeune families instead of VA. 

They produced passive aggressive rebuttals of the scientific findings, have sought additional scientific studies, and created a bizarre procedural hurdle for Camp Lejeune veterans to overcome in 

the disability claims process. 

To this day, Lejeune veterans from across the country contact my 

office and relate demoralizing accounts of ignorant VA doctors in 

the claims process that is frequently deaf and blind to scientific evidence and medical opinion. This summer, Secretary McDonald indicated he wants his people to back away from this adversarial approach, work with veterans with a history of toxic exposure, and 

6 

begin by engaging Congress and Government scientists to develop 

sound policies for Camp Lejeune veterans. 

In July, Senator Tillis and I sat down with the Chairman and 

Secretary McDonald to raise some questions that were very serious 

about a VA team of clinicians reviewing Lejeune veterans’ disability claims before final decisions were made on service connection. 

These VA doctors were, in various cases, cherry picking the 

science, misrepresenting or misinterpreting scientific studies, using 

questionable sources, and overruling the opinions of veteran oncologists. 

In the glaring case of one Marine, Norman Mcilhenny, suffering 

from kidney cancer, a VA clinician stated that there was no evidence of the chemicals at Camp Lejeune water, the carcinogen 

TCE, which was known to cause kidney cancer. VBA later denied 

the claim. When VA was later shown evidence that the exposure 

to TCE is widely accepted as a cause of kidney cancer, VA removed 

the citation and the denial notice, then reissued it, then denied the 

claim again. 

Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable, but sadly true. There are 

many other Camp Lejeune veterans with similar stories. Mr. 

Chairman, at our July meeting, Secretary McDonald, to his credit, 

openly and fully recognized the fact that the science on Camp 

Lejeune was undeniable and he agreed to work with ATSDR to 

compile data for a presumptive disability policy soon afterwards. 

Soon afterwards, VA publicly announced support for three cancers that would be covered. Last week, ATSDR submitted its 70- 

page report to VA detailing at least six cancers where sufficient 

evidence of causation from toxic exposure at Lejeune exists and 

several other conditions where moderate evidence of causation 

exists. 

Secretary McDonald has taken the first step to acknowledge 

ATSDR, and other key agencies must play an integral role in helping VA confirm and understand toxic exposure. But I am not convinced the olive branch from the Secretary will result in good policy 

beyond Lejeune if VA ultimately decides on polishing its image 

more than the scientific merit. 

When it comes to confirming toxic exposure like those at Camp 

Lejeune, make certain that VA heeds the best science, will be required strong and engaged leadership from Secretary McDonald, 

and, Mr. Chairman, rigorous oversight from this Committee. Congress must ensure VA health and benefits policy is based on fact, 

not conjecture or emotion, so those veterans who have been harmed 

by toxic exposures are properly cared for and compensated for their 

suffering. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. I thank you for 

the indulgence of the Committee and I trust the Committee will 

continue its very important responsibilities. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Burr. Thank you for 

your focus on Camp Lejeune, as we continue to work with you until 

we get a solution on all those problems. Thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

7 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Blumenthal. I am grateful for this hearing and 

for the bill that you recently introduced. I want to thank Senator 

Daines for joining me today. He has been a tremendous partner in 

this push to give our Blue Water veterans the coverage that they 

have earned and deserve. 

During the Vietnam War, thousands of American servicemembers were exposed to Agent Orange, servicemembers like Keith 

Martel from upstate New York. Keith was a sailor in Vietnam for 

3 years, from 1967 to 1970. A few years after he got out, he joined 

the New York Army National Guard and stayed with them for decades. On September 11 he answered the call of duty and went to 

Ground Zero. Then 2 years later in his 50s, Keith was sent to Iraq. 

Keith was exposed to Agent Orange when he was in Vietnam and 

now he has prostate cancer, which has been linked to Agent Orange. So, what do you think the Department of Veterans Affairs 

did when Keith first went to them for coverage? They said, sorry, 

your boat was here, not here, so we cannot help you. Sorry, you did 

not have boots on the ground. 

All those Blue Water Navy veterans like Keith, we are letting 

them down. The U.S. Government has recognized the dangers of 

Agent Orange since 1960. Congress passed the Agent Orange Act 

in 1991, which allowed all Vietnam veterans to receive presumptive 

coverage if they had Vietnam service medals and could prove symptoms related to Agent Orange exposure. 

But in 2002, the VA decided to change the intent of Congress 

and halted its coverage to an estimated 174,000 veterans, including 

those who had served in the Blue Water just off Vietnam’s coast. 

Since then, instead of treating every Vietnam veteran who suffers 

from a disease caused by Agent Orange, the VA is only treating 

those veterans who stepped foot on Vietnamese soil or his boots— 

or whose boats were patrolling Vietnamese rivers. 

This distinction, which excludes the veterans who served on 

boats in Vietnam’s bays and harbors, was recently ruled by the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as arbitrary and capricious. 

We are seeing veterans who did serve, who were exposed to Agent 

Orange and are now sick being denied coverage because of this arbitrary bureaucratic decision by the VA. 

The science does not support the policy. The Australian Department of Veterans Affairs recently commissioned a study specifically 

about the Navy’s water distillation process. In the study, ships in 

near-shore marine waters collected water that was contaminated 

with the runoff from areas sprayed with Agent Orange, and they 

found that the distillation methods used on their ships, the same 

methods used on the American Navy ships, actually concentrated 

Agent Orange in the drinking water. 

Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. We have to pass the Blue 

Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015, and because of the urgency of this issue, I request that your Committee mark up our legislation and expeditiously report it favorably to the floor for consideration by the full Senate. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

8 

Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and my colleagues on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee for allowing me to testify in this very important hearing on 

examining the impact of exposure to toxic chemicals on veterans 

and the VA’s response. 

Montana veterans have strongly voiced concerns about the VA, 

that they have not acted in the best interests of our Vietnam veterans exposed to dangerous toxins, especially those who served in 

the Navy. While I continue to call for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to clean up its poor record, the VA has not made substantive changes to the care of the men and women who defended 

this great nation when they were asked. Instead, the VA has chosen to exclude specific groups of veterans from receiving their medical benefits directly leading to deaths caused by Agent Orange-related cancers. I hope that today, in this Committee, we can convince the Department of Veterans Affairs that avoiding the care of 

those who have protected us is not how our Government should 

treat those who have given so much to defend our Nation and our 

fellow citizens. To address this unfair disparity, I have introduced 

Senate Bill 681, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 

2015 with Senator Gillibrand. I want to thank Senator Gillibrand 

for her leadership and her excellent testimony here today. 

In 2001, the Veterans Administration abruptly cutoff funding for 

benefits of these fully deserving Navy veterans. It has been called 

arbitrary and capricious. I urge the Committee to dig into why this 

decision was made and what was the basis of the decision in 2001 

when these benefits were so abruptly cutoff. 

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. had sprayed more than 19 

million gallons of herbicides to defoliate the dense forests of Vietnam, with Agent Orange being the most commonly used herbicide. 

Dioxin is the most harmful chemical found in Agent Orange and 

has been proven to cause a variety of cancers, Parkinson’s disease, 

coronary issues, and many more deadly diseases for those that 

come into contact with it. 

I am disturbed that those tasked with the ultimate responsibility 

of taking care of our veterans will be so callous as to remove their 

benefits. To this day, I have not been persuaded that the VA had 

a legitimate reason to do so. 

Within the last year, two Montanans living in the northwest part 

of my State, and using the Kalispell Veterans Service Office, applied for medical benefits. Both of these men are Blue Water Navy 

veterans, one of them having served on a patrol boat, the other on 

a destroyer. Both of these veterans have been diagnosed with cancers and diseases that the VA has readily admitted result from 

coming into contact with Agent Orange. 

Unless we pass legislation to include Blue Water Navy veterans 

like these two Montanans, they will be denied critically important 

VA care for diseases that our own military exposed them to. As the 

son of a Marine, I understand the importance of keeping the promises made to our veterans. Our bill would simply reinstate medical 

9 

benefits for Blue Water veterans who served on ships within the 

territorial waters of Vietnam. 

These Blue Water Navy veterans should have access to the best 

medical care and not be ignored by the VA. This sort of indifference 

to our veterans is unacceptable, especially when combined with the 

constant failure by the VA to do its job. Our nation should not hesitate to invest in the care of these veterans and correct this wrong. 

So, I ask you to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and quickly pass it out of the Committee and the Senate so we can restore 

the medical benefits our veterans rightly deserve. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, Senator Daines, thank you for your 

testimony. Senator Gillibrand, thank you for your testimony. Senator Burr, thank you for being here. As I said, we have a tradition 

on the Committee of not questioning our Members. We do not question their testimony, nor do we try and trip them up with questions, but we appreciate your testimony. 

We are committed as a Committee to see to it that causation and 

presumption is an issue that we solve. We understand what you 

have testified to, each of you, and we will work very hard to do it 

expeditiously before the end of this year. Thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I wanted to do cross-examination, but the 

Chairman forbade me to. 

Chairman ISAKSON. He is just a reformed lawyer. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you all. It was excellent. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Our next panel will be made up of Dr. 

McLenachen—not Doctor, I am sorry—David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Director for Disability Assistance, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, accompanied by Ralph L. Erickson, who is a doctor 

and Director of Pre-9/11 Era Post-Deployment Health, Veterans 

Health Administration. So, if you will take your seats. Mr. 

McLenachen, you are recognized for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. McLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH L. ERICKSON, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H., DIRECTOR, POST-DEPLOYMENT 

HEALTH, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs process for establishing service connection presumptions. I am accompanied by 

Dr. Ralph Erickson, Director of Post-Deployment Health at the Veterans Health Administration. He is a doctor and I am not. 

VA’s authority to establish presumptions derives from statute. 

Many statutes relate to a particular event or location or set of circumstances. The VA can also craft presumptions under its broad 

regulatory authority also established by statute. 

These statutes and the regulations that implement them allow 

VA to deliver disability compensation to veterans when evidence of 

service connection might otherwise be incomplete. When considering circumstances unique to the experiences of Vietnam and Gulf 

War veterans, VA relies on reports from the National Academy of 

10 

Sciences (NAS) and other sound medical and scientific information 

to establish presumptions. 

At VA’s request, NAS reviews existing scientific and medical 

studies and summarizes the strength of evidence supporting association and causation. VA does not solicit and NAS does not make 

recommendations concerning the establishment of presumptions. 

Dr. Erickson can provide more insight on how this NAS review 

process works. 

Upon receipt of the finished NAS reports, VA staff review the 

findings and other available evidence, then make recommendations 

to the Secretary regarding the determinations of presumptions. The 

Secretary reviews staff recommendations and decides to create or 

not create presumptions. If the Secretary determines that a positive association between some circumstance of service and subsequent disability, VA issues a proposed regulation for public 

comment. 

The proposed regulation outlines the eligibility criteria to qualify 

for the presumption and the scientific evidence supporting the presumption. Once VA has received and reviewed the public comments, VA publishes a final regulation establishing the presumption, if appropriate. 

Through the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and subsequent amendments, Congress created a presumption that veterans who served 

in the Republic of Vietnam during the period January 9, 1962, to 

May 7, 1975, were exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides 

that are now associated with 14 diseases. 

VA’s current policy, established through notice and comment 

rulemaking in 1994, extends this presumption of exposure to veterans with duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam, including 

its inland waterways, but not off Vietnam’s coast during that period. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed 

and upheld this policy in its 2008 Haas vs. Peake decision. 

However, in response to the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims’ recent decision in Gray vs. McDonald, VA has begun the 

process of thoroughly evaluating and clarifying its policies regarding this distinction between inland waterways and offshore service. 

Similarly, VA recently announced that it will amend its regulations to establish presumptions of service connection for certain 

conditions resulting from exposure to contaminated water at Camp 

Lejeune. We intend to establish a presumption for three diseases 

that are known to be related to chemicals that were in the water 

at Camp Lejeune from 1953 through 1987. 

We are working with the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and possibly other scientific experts, to identify additional diseases that may have an association with exposure to chemicals in the water at Camp Lejeune 

during this period. 

This is in addition to the health care that VA already provides 

qualified Camp Lejeune veterans and the health care reimbursement it provides to their family members as a result of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families 

Act of 2012. 

Regarding S. 901, the Toxic Exposure Research Act, VA continues to oppose the bill for the reasons stated in our written and 

11 

oral testimony earlier this year. Mr. Chairman, VA takes very seriously its obligation to care for disabled veterans, their families, and 

their survivors. We look forward to resolving these complicated 

legal and scientific matters through coordination with Congress 

and other concerned stakeholders. 

In particular, whether they are created by statute or regulation, 

new presumptions can significantly impact VA’s workload and 

delay the processing of claims for all veterans. For this reason, the 

consideration of a presumption must include a careful analysis of 

the additional resources that VA will require to timely deliver benefits to exposed veterans. 

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. We would be 

pleased to address any questions that you or the other Members of 

the Committee might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McLenachen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

OPENING REMARKS

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 

(VA) process for establishing service connection presumptions. My testimony will 

provide an overview of presumptive service connection and explain the types of presumptions, the legislative authority for establishing presumptive service connection, 

regulatory implementation of presumptive service connection, and the science and 

rationale behind presumptive service connection. I am accompanied by Doctor Ralph 

Erickson, Director, Pre–9/11 Era, Post Deployment Health. 

OVERVIEW OF PRESUMPTIVE SERVICE CONNECTION

Service connection requires medical evidence of a current disability; lay or medical 

evidence establishing the occurrence of an injury, disease, or event during active 

military, naval, or air service; and, medical or scientific evidence establishing a link 

or nexus between the two. A presumption of service connection relieves the Veteran 

of the burden of producing evidence that directly establishes one or more of these 

elements. These presumptions fill an evidentiary gap in cases where VA knows that 

necessary facts may not be documented in the Veteran’s individual records. They 

are generally only rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. This 

is a high bar, and they are rarely rebutted. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR PRESUMPTIONS

VA’s authority to establish presumptions derives from statute. There are statutes 

specific to a particular event, or location, or set of circumstances, such as those addressing status as a former prisoner of war or participation in radiation risk activities (38 U.S.C. § 1112), exposure to herbicides in the Republic of Vietnam (38 U.S.C. 

§ 1116), and service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian 

Gulf War (38 U.S.C. § 1118). These statutes establish presumptions that allow VA 

to deliver disability compensation where otherwise-necessary evidence of exposure 

or incurrence of injury or disease might be incomplete. 

Section 1112 establishes several presumptions, each applicable to a different cohort of Veterans. Paragraph (a) establishes entitlement to service connection for 

chronic or other listed disease if manifest to a compensable degree within a specified 

number of years following separation from service. This presumption is available to 

every Veteran with 90 or more days continuous active service during a period of war 

or after December 31, 1946. Paragraph (b) establishes former prisoner of war entitlement to service connection for listed disabilities if manifest to a compensable degree at any time following separation from service. Paragraph (c) establishes entitlement to service connection for listed radiation-related disabilities if manifest at any 

time following participation in a radiation risk activity, which is also defined in that 

section. Under this statute, once the Veteran establishes qualifying service, the law 

provides a presumed nexus to that service for any listed disability. 

12 

Section 1116 codifies the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and subsequent amendments. 

This section establishes a presumption of herbicide exposure for Veterans who 

served in the Republic of Vietnam from January 9, 1962, through May 7, 1975, and 

charges the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with prescribing regulations which provide 

a presumption of service connection for diseases related to those herbicides. It covers both the in-service incurrence and the nexus elements necessary to substantiate 

a claim for service connection. 

Section 1118 charged the Secretary with prescribing regulations that provide a 

presumption of service connection for diseases related to exposure to biological, 

chemical, or other toxic agents, environmental or wartime hazards, or preventive 

medicine or vaccine associated with service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. 

Based on the mandates set forth in sections 1116 and 1118, VA relies on reports 

from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other sound medical and scientific information, where available, to establish presumptions of service connection. 

Upon review of such information, if the Secretary determines that a positive association exists between service in a given location and exposure to a particular agent, 

hazard, or other foreign substance, VA issues, to the public for notice and comment, 

a proposed regulation regarding the presumption. The proposed regulation outlines 

the scientific and/or medical basis for the presumption, as well as the eligibility criteria to qualify for the presumption. Once VA has received and reviewed the public 

comments, VA publishes a final regulation establishing the presumption. 

SCIENTIFIC BASIS

In preparing its reports for both Agent Orange and Gulf War health issues, NAS 

committees conduct comprehensive searches of all medical and scientific studies on 

the health effects of the environmental exposure being reviewed. In the course of 

this literature search and review, it is not uncommon for these committees to cover 

thousands of abstracts of scientific and medical articles, eventually narrowing their 

review to the hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles which are the most relevant 

and informative to the question at hand. At this stage, the NAS committee scores 

the strength of the total medical and scientific evidence available by utilizing broad 

categories of association such as ‘‘inadequate or insufficient evidence of an association’’ or ‘‘limited or suggestive evidence of an association’’ or ‘‘sufficient evidence of 

an association.’’ Of note is that the NAS committees do not make direct recommendations for new presumptions. 

Upon receipt of the finished NAS reports, VA establishes task-organized technical 

work groups comprised of experts in medicine, disability compensation, health care, 

occupational and environmental health, toxicology, epidemiology, and law. These 

technical work groups, along with senior VA leaders who comprise a standing task 

force for this purpose, review in detail the NAS reports and all available scientific 

and medical information before making recommendations to the Secretary regarding 

the determination of presumptions. These recommendations to the Secretary are 

based on the strength and preponderance of the medical and scientific evidence. 

REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION

VA, like other Federal agencies, must draft regulations to implement the authority granted by Congress. VA’s regulations describing the requirements for service 

connection are generally located in sections 3.303 through 3.318 of title 38, Code of 

Federal Regulations. Regulations implementing presumptions are generally found 

here as well. 

The Secretary also has at his disposal a general rulemaking authority, prescribed 

in section 501, title 38, United States Code. Section 501 authorizes the Secretary 

to prescribe any rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws 

administered by the Department. Under this broad authority, VA has used the rulemaking process to craft numerous presumptions necessary to streamline its delivery 

of benefits to certain Veterans, including: 

• former Reservists with regular and repeated contact with contaminated C–123 

aircraft used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam who are presumed to have been 

exposed to herbicides and are entitled to benefits as Veterans (38 CFR 

§ 3.307(a)(6)(v) (published June 19, 2015)); 

• Veterans serving on the Korean demilitarized zone who are presumed to have 

been exposed to Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides between April 1, 1968, 

and August 31, 1971 and are thus entitled to service connection for Agent Orange 

disabilities on a presumptive basis (38 CFR § 3.307(a)(6)(iv)); and 

13 

• Veterans with full body exposure to mustard gas who are entitled to a presumption of service connection for certain respiratory and other disorders (38 CFR 

§ 3.316). 

VA also uses regulations to prescribe the rules that are necessary to fully implement broad statutory authority, such as the determination under section 1116 that 

Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam are entitled to a presumption of 

exposure to Agent Orange. 

AGENT ORANGE

VA’s current policy, established through notice and comment rulemaking, extends 

the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to Veterans with ‘‘duty or visitation’’ 

within the Republic of Vietnam, or on its inland waterways, between January 9, 

1962 and May 7, 1975. The ‘‘duty or visitation’’ requirement was incorporated in VA 

regulations issued in 1994 to implement the Agent Orange Act of 1991. Prior to 

2002, internal VA policies allowed receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) to 

be accepted as proof of Vietnam service. That medal, however, was awarded for 

‘‘support’’ of the Vietnam War in various geographic locations rather than for service 

in Vietnam itself. In 2002, VA revised its internal policy to clarify that ‘‘duty or visitation’’ in Vietnam refers to presence within the Republic of Vietnam, on land or 

inland waterways. 

This rationale and interpretation of Vietnam service was upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 

(2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1149 (2009). VA’s position on various legislative proposals that would extend the presumption of exposure to Veterans whose only service was on Vietnam’s offshore waters, such as S. 681, 114th Cong., has been consistent with VA’s current policy. 

Under the general policy described above, VA necessarily has distinguished ‘‘inland waterways’’ from ‘‘offshore waters.’’ In April 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims issued its decision in Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313 

(2015), which required VA to review and clarify its policies for determining whether 

coastal bodies of water, such as Da Nang Harbor, constituted ‘‘inland waterways’’ 

or ‘‘offshore waters’’ for purposes of applying the presumption of herbicide exposure. 

Shortly after the court’s decision, VA began the very deliberate process of thoroughly evaluating and clarifying its policies regarding such determinations. 

CAMP LEJEUNE

Similarly, VA recently announced that it will start the process of amending its 

regulations to establish presumptions of service connection for certain conditions resulting from exposure to contaminated drinking water at the U.S. Marine Corps 

Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. This process is in addition to the healthcare 

VA already provides for 15 conditions to eligible Veterans who were stationed at 

Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987, 

as a result of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012. VA also provides reimbursement of healthcare expenses for those 

15 conditions to eligible family members who resided at Camp Lejeune during that 

time period. 

The diseases that are currently being reviewed for potential presumptive service 

connection include kidney cancer, angiosarcoma of the liver, and acute myelogenous 

leukemia, which are known to be related to long-term exposure to the chemicals 

that were in the water at Lejeune from the 1950s through 1987. The chemicals are 

Benzene, Vinyl Chloride, Trichloroethylene and Perchloroethylene, which are known 

as volatile organic compounds, used in industrial solvents and components of fuels. 

VA is working with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and 

potentially will work with NAS, to evaluate the body of scientific knowledge and research concerning exposure to these chemicals and potentially related diseases. 

VA will carefully consider all public comments received when determining the 

final scope of any presumptions. Because there is no specific statutory authority for 

this undertaking, VA will draft necessary and appropriate rules under the general 

rulemaking authority prescribed in section 501. 

The Department has previously provided its views on S. 901 to this Committee 

on June 24, 2015. 

CLOSING REMARKS

VA takes very seriously its obligation to care for disabled Veterans, their families, 

and their survivors. Some of the tools we use are the laws authorizing presumptive 

service connection. These laws fill a critical evidentiary gap when suspected expoVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:04 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\092915.TXT PAULIN
14 

sures to toxic substances cannot be specifically documented in a Veteran’s service 

records or by other contemporaneous evidence. We look forward to resolving these 

complicated legal and scientific matters through continued partnership with Congress, NAS, and other concerned stakeholders. 

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to address any 

questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you for your testimony. Let me begin 

the questioning by asking you, why are you acting in your title? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Sir, the position was vacated by a senior executive that retired. I have been acting in this position, as well as 

the Director of VBA’s Pension and Fiduciary Service. I permanently 

fill the position as of next Monday. 

Chairman ISAKSON. As of next Monday? You will be permanent 

next Monday? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. How long have you been Acting Deputy? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Fourteen months. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Why has it taken 14 months for you to go 

from acting to permanent? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I do not have that information, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. It is not a trick question, but for the Members of the Committee, I have gotten on Secretary McDonald a lot 

about this, there are far too many responsible positions in the VA 

where the title is acting. That does not send the right signal to our 

veterans nor the people they work for, so I am glad that you are 

going to become permanent next week. I hope we will have a more 

expeditious permanent determination by the VA in their appointments in the future. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Now, in your objection to S. 901, the Toxic 

Exposure Research Act, as I understand it from your testimony, 

you call it duplicative. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, because I am not the 

medical professional here and do not have that expertise, I am 

going to defer to Dr. Erickson to take the question. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Fair enough. Dr. Erickson. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. Our 

concern—the primary concern is not one of duplication of effort, but 

rather that perhaps there are other Federal agencies that are 

better postured, equipped, resourced, and staffed to actually answer some of the more difficult questions that are in the legislation. Being able to look at multi-generational effects suggests looking at pediatric populations; likewise, doing fairly complex genetic 

studies. 

Now, it is certainly true that VA is involved in doing genetic research, and at times asking questions concerning the health of children of veterans. However, we recognize that there are other parts 

of the Federal Government that actually have greater capability 

than we have in this regard. To that end, we would rather collaborate with them than be the primary lead. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, I understand the duplicative statement 

that was made, but, you know, when we have the National Institute of Health, we have the CDC, we have a lot of other organizations, and it seems to me like—I am just an observer, this is SenVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:04 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\092915.TXT PAULIN
15 

ator Blumenthal’s bill, not mine—but there does not seem to be a 

catalyst to bring people together. 

I mean, you can have all the great research institutions in the 

world, but if they are not communicating, they are not coordinating, if there is not a unified mission, then you never get a result. You get a lot of separate research that are in desperate need 

of coordination. 

The reason I ask the question is, it seems to me like one of the 

things I have heard, particularly for Camp Lejeune—I think Senator Tillis would agree with me—we get competing information. We 

get maybe this is a causation, maybe this is an association, maybe 

it is not, and if we had a central clearinghouse that was a catalyst, 

we would all be better off. That is my only reason for asking that 

question. 

On the Camp Lejeune question, I will ask, the CDC, as I understand it, has said there are six health conditions that should be 

presumptions now? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Actually, as of the last meeting on September 

22, they provided us information as, I believe, Senator Burr mentioned, about a number of conditions. The Secretary has already 

decided that he is going to create a presumption regarding three 

of those. That was before we had this additional information from 

ATSDR. Now that we have it, he has directed us—we work very 

closely with the VHA, Dr. Erickson’s staff and others in VHA, to 

review this information. 

But, just for your information, there were 17 conditions that 

were listed in the information that ATSDR provided to us. We are 

not talking about three conditions or six conditions. We have got 

all of that information. We are going to look at it and make the 

right decision about which conditions are covered. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Collectively? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, that would be my recommendation. I 

would like the record to reflect that while the Ranking Member 

was gone, I spoke favorably about his legislation. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am going to pass on questions right now. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Rounds. 

HON. MIKE ROUNDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just curious. 

I think you make a point, sir, when you suggest that perhaps the 

VA is not the appropriate entity to be doing the research and, in 

fact, I suspect that if I was one of the individuals suffering with 

this, I would have a lot more confidence in getting something done 

if we had a different agency doing the research, but with a clear 

understanding that the response and that the entity responsible for 

responding to and providing services afterwards would be the VA. 

Would you have an objection to Senator Moran’s proposal? I 

think that is S. 901, if I am not mistaken, that we are speaking 

of. Would you have an objection to that bill if the appropriate agencies who do that type of research were the responsible entities for 

actually getting it done, completing it, and then delivering the results to the VA? 

16 

Dr. ERICKSON. Yes, Senator Rounds, thank you for the question. 

This is as a quick statement and background. I served in the U.S. 

Army for 32 years on active duty, went to war a number of times. 

The last assignment I had on active duty, I was fortunate to be the 

commander of the DOD’s largest biomedical laboratory, that being 

the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, which is not too far 

from this location. 

I certainly have experience in being able to run a very large, 

what I would say, well-funded research laboratory that deals with 

soldier/veteran issues. I understand that we need to work across 

the interagency frequently. A recent experience with ATSDR has 

underscored for me that, in fact, they have significant experience 

and expertise that we simply do not have. 

I understand, certainly, your point that you need a single bellybutton. You need someone who will be responsive, who will manage 

this. The point I was trying to make is, there are others who can 

do some of the cutting edge research that is necessary in a more 

efficient way than we can. 

The epigenetic research that is called for is very new. The existing background and evidence for that is such that if there is going 

to be a significant amount of laboratory and benchwork that will 

be necessary, that this is not something that we necessarily have 

the expertise within VA to be able to manage. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. I agree and, in fact, I think the 

cleaner we get the processes within the VA the better off we are 

going to be. We have got a bureaucracy which is as big as anything 

in the Federal Government today. 

With regard to the issues surrounding the Blue Water soldiers 

and sailors that we are talking about in Vietnam and thereabouts, 

do we have a disagreement with what has been found with the scientific studies that were reported just a minute ago on terms we 

discussed, in terms of what the country of Australia was able to determine? 

Can you share with us the thought processes with regard to the 

analysis that was done there versus the analysis, or if there has 

been an analysis done in terms of researchers within our own country on the same issue? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Let me just address initially consideration of 

the policy issue there. What the IOM study did do is validate the 

lab study that was done regarding the Australian Navy exposure. 

In other words—— 

Senator ROUNDS. You say it validated it? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. They concluded that if there was water 

taken in that was contaminated, they validated that was a way 

that there could be exposure. Our policy was based on Navy directives instructing that ships take on water far offshore. So, there is 

a lot more that goes into the policy rather than just the fact that 

yes, U.S. Navy used desalination processes similar to Australia, but 

they did take on water far offshore, and the IOM had no evidence 

to suggest that that water was contaminated. As far as the specific 

science behind that process, I will defer to Dr. Erickson. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, I think you will be hearing more about 

this in great detail from the following panel, from our IOM colleagues. We, of course, commissioned the study of Blue Water Navy 

17 

in asking the IOM to deal with the questions that you and others 

have proposed concerning the exposure, potential exposure of these 

individuals. As I think you are aware, the IOM conclusion was that 

they had neither sufficient evidence in favor or against being able 

to rule, being able to advise us. 

To that end, and with additional information that has become 

available to our Secretary, that is now being considered at the VA. 

That is something that both Mr. McLenachen and myself have participated in a small workgroup with the Secretary to discuss and 

it is presently at a deliberative point. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator 

Blumenthal wants to reclaim his time after which I will go to Senator Tester to restore our order, then we will go to Senator Tillis, 

then we will go to Senator Manchin. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I have just two quick questions. First of 

all, I take it from your testimony that Secretary McDonald has sent 

to Congress a request for legislation to reauthorize the extension 

of the Secretary’s authority to determine presumptions for service 

connection of diseases. 

Would you, therefore, think it is important and necessary to approve Senate Bill 2081, which, in effect, extends this authority for 

an additional 15 years? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It is the Department’s position that we would 

support that bill. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We have seen the draft bill and would support it. One point I want to make, though, Senator, if I may, is the 

bill would reauthorize a specific process or procedure for getting information from the National Academy of Sciences and it has specific time limits for the rulemaking process. In our view, those rulemaking time limits are unreasonably short given the current Federal agency rulemaking process, so I just ask that the Committee 

consider whether those are appropriate. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am sure we will take that point under 

consideration. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Second question. In preparing for this 

hearing, I heard from the Blinded Veterans Association, the BVA, 

regarding an eye cancer called choroidal melanoma. I understand 

from the BVA that this type of cancer is rare in the civilian population, but it is ten times more common among Vietnam era veterans and currently is not being considered for an epidemiological 

study. 

I would like you to commit that you will consider it and tell the 

Committee the process by which the VHA decides to subject a particular issue to such a study. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Senator, I am not familiar with that particular cancer, but we will certainly take that for the record and 

get back to the Committee, unless Dr. Erickson has anything he 

would like to add. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, certainly we have epidemiologists that 

work in my shop, so following this meeting I will take that up with 

them right away, and we will get back to you. 

18 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What is the process by which you consider 

whether to do an epidemiological study? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. If it is a large study, certainly funding is always an issue. If it is a study that we can accomplish in-house 

using existing data from our health care system, in that case the 

funding issue is less of a major consideration. Initially, the consideration is going to basically be feasibility. Can we get to the data? 

Will there be enough cases for us then to be able to study to be 

able to answer some of those questions? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Is Senator Tester coming back? I messed up 

the order a minute ago when I got a pass over here and I should 

have gone to Senator Tester then, which I apologize for. I think I 

will go to Senator Tillis and then Senator Manchin, then when 

Senator Tester gets back, I will go to him. How about that? 

Senator TILLIS. You need to put that in a spreadsheet, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I will tell him our decision. 

HON. THOM TILLIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator TILLIS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate you calling this Committee. I want to start by something I am going to do in every 

Committee meeting until we get closure on it. Your point about too 

many acting positions in the VA is spot on. First among them is 

the Inspector General. It is unacceptable and irresponsible not to 

have that position filled by somebody and I call on the Administration to do their job. 

Now, I want to talk about you all doing your job. I think you all 

know that, for the most part, I come into these Committee meetings highly supportive of the VA. I have gone out to the VA facilities and made sure that those folks know that I am there to help 

them. But, we have got a big issue here. It came from a conference 

call that I just had on Friday and I think we are conflating issues 

at the expense of taking ground where we can take ground. 

When I hear a comment like, well, we have got the Agent Orange 

and Blue Water issues solved before we can really move forward 

on a holistic basis with the Camp Lejeune exposure, that is unacceptable. There is not a single veteran that has ever served in the 

armed services who will say, we will not fight one battle until we 

can win them all. We have six of these diseases confirmed by the 

CDC that say that there is sufficient evidence of causation, period. 

We should look at the others and figure out whether we should do 

more. 

We should figure out a methodology and when everything is 

equal, the tie goes to the veteran. We need to get the Lejeune issue 

solved quickly. I was told 2 months ago that any claims for the diseases related, the three at least, would be delayed and not denied 

until we came up with a policy. 

The reason that we needed to do that is if you get a claim denied, 

then the veteran has to go through the process again. Whereas, if 

we just delay the decision until after we have the policy, they can 

move through the process in the order that they should. Conflating—look, my wife’s uncle’s name is inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. He died from Agent Orange exposure. 

19 

I have great sympathy for what Senator Blumenthal and everybody else is doing. I want this Lejeune problem solved. I think Secretary Mabus should be ashamed of the statement he made this 

week because he has taken the eye off the ball of solving this 

problem. 

So, I would like to get an assurance, first and foremost—I have 

not cited you two personally. I thank you for your service and I appreciate the work that you are doing. This is a process that is broken. We have got to solve the problem, not only with the three diseases, because I continue to hear about the three, but the CDC 

says six. So, let me start there. What has the CDC presented on 

the six conditions that they say there is sufficient evidence of causation that the experts in the VA think are wrong? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I will defer to Dr. Erickson about that. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator Tillis, thank you for the question. I was 

fortunate to be a member of the VA team that has met with 

ATSDR professionals. We met on August 19 and September 22. We 

think we will be at the final meeting sometime prior to October 13. 

Our ATSDR colleagues provided us with a 67-page document that 

was very well received. It involved a tremendous amount of work 

summarizing, aggregating the body of information that is available—not just ATSDR studies, but all of the occupational environmental studies within the scientific literature. 

Again, not wanting to usurp the authority of my big boss, Secretary McDonald, I can really tell you that we are moving from 

that work, that smaller work group that has been meeting with 

ATSDR, to a deliberative process that will, I think, move relatively 

quickly in bringing recommendations to the Secretary. I was able 

to listen in on that phone call that you had with the Secretary, 

Senator, and I very much appreciate the urgency to get this settled. 

As a veteran, I very much feel that as well. 

Senator TILLIS. Let me—because my time is about to expire—I 

would like to get an assurance from you all. I thought that I had 

that assurance in July, according to my staff, which I may be 

wrong and if I am I will come to the next Committee and say that 

I am. But, I have been told that there have been claims denied 

since I was given an assurance that they would not be for at least 

the three types of diseases. 

What I would like is an assurance for at least the six conditions, 

where we have sufficient evidence of causation, that there is not 

going to be another denial, and if there is, you know—I know that 

I have ratcheted up my temperature in this meeting which will not 

compare to the next one if that happens because we owe it to these 

veterans. 

I will just finish my statement, Chairman. I will try to go quickly 

because I meet with you all on a regular basis, there are a lot of 

things you are doing that is good work. This is just not one that 

I am pleased with the progress. 

I want to make sure, but there is another piece here that we 

need to talk about. The disability benefits are mandatory spending. 

We will spend whatever we have to when we find out we have an 

obligation. I have heard on a couple of occasions about the operational impact and I get that. If we have to serve more veterans, 

we have to serve more veterans. 

20 

Somebody is saying, well, we need to be careful because we do 

not want to hold up the backlog because that will create bad optics. 

I do not care. If we need a backlog to be created because we have 

people who may have legitimate claims, create the backlog and 

then we will figure out how to fund the operation to draw down the 

backlog. But let us not have policy being driven by optics that politicians just need to deal with. 

I will be honest with you all and I will stand up for you all. If 

you start putting processes in place where we are serving more veterans and it requires more people, I will be one of the first ones 

to do whatever I have to do to provide you all with the resources 

to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Tillis. 

Senator Manchin. 

HON. JOE MANCHIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can tell, it 

is very emotional for all of us because we have had people that 

served that we have lost—people who were very dear and near to 

us. 

History has shown our actions in combat, and we are finding 

even on our installations, no matter how necessary or well-meaning, have often carried unintended consequences. I think we just 

heard Senator Tillis talk about Lejeune, burn pits, all the issues 

decades-old. 

The thing that we seem to be fighting over is or the delay is 

based on what we call presumption. I would like to know how you 

all intend or what have you learned from past experiences and 

what you are doing now because we know with all the conflicts we 

have been involved with in the last ten or more years, this is going 

to come to roost in 10, 20, 30 years from now. 

What have you done that we have learned from the past that we 

did not do which we are calling presumptive and not taking care 

of anybody to make sure this does not repeat itself? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. First, let me just address the point of developing policy. As science develops, so must our policy, which I think 

is really the issue that you are raising. As the science develops to 

the point where we can create a presumption, we should be creating a presumption. What we have learned is it is often a lengthy 

process to create the presumption. We have to go through rulemaking. We need to find ways to streamline that as much as 

possible. 

Senator MANCHIN. No, I think what I am saying is, that we have 

been engaged for almost two decades in the Middle East and our 

soldiers have been exposed. We know that. We know there has 

been chemical and a host of other exposures. You all have to be 

aware of that or they have to be, I would say, communicating with 

you all that you are preparing and building a case now. 

When they come to you 10, 20, 30 years from now, we have already set the stage. We do not have to go through this process we 

are going through, this timely process now. I think that is why you 

are seeing the compassion that Senator Tillis has and all of us 

have. How can we keep from repeating this? 

21 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We get regular information from, for example, 

the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to that, I am sure 

that Dr. Erickson can give you more detailed information about 

what his staff does as far as—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Are you all connected with Department of Defense right now knowing what soldiers that are basically—I mean, 

my goodness, we have had four and five deployments just in West 

Virginia from our National Guard. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, we work very closely with the Department of Defense. We share a lot of staff in directing research that 

goes directly to those very issues you have talked about. I sit and 

co-chair with the DOD partner, the Deployment Health Work 

Group, that helps to guide much of this. 

But even more so, I will tell you, we are trying to be proactive 

so that we are not 10 and 20 years from now caught in this situation. In particular, we are working with Department of Defense to 

create what is called the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, 

the ILER. This, in fact, will be a database which will collect all of 

the exposures for every servicemember through the course of their 

entire career, and basically then be available to VA so that when 

an individual comes to us years later after faithful service and they 

say, I have this disease, I have this condition, we will be able to 

reach into the ILER to be able to say, yes, you were exposed here, 

you were exposed there, we have got great evidence, we have got 

background to work with, we are going to take care of you. 

Senator MANCHIN. If we were able to come to an agreement with 

you all, all of us agree to give presumptiveness to some or all of 

the claims being brought forward, how would that affect your 

claims process; and does a presumptive finding speed up your 

workload or does it increase in numbers so greatly that it slows it 

down? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It generally increases the workload significantly. It depends on the presumption. The best example is the 

2010 addition of three presumptive conditions for Agent Orange exposure which was, to a large extent, part of the cause of our backlog that we have been dealing with, which is, you know, down to 

about 75,000 claims, whereas at one point it was 611,000 claims. 

Those are the kind of problems that we have, and what the Secretary is suggesting, he is not suggesting that policies should be 

based on that. He is saying, if we know that that is going to happen, he wants to work with the Congress to make sure that we 

have the resources we need to timely process all claims regardless 

of whether it is one of the presumptive conditions or one of the 

more than one million claims we receive every year. So, it does 

have a large impact on our workload and it depends on the presumption. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would concede my time to Senator Tester since he has been waiting so long. 

Chairman ISAKSON. We will take in order the following: Senator 

Tester, followed by Senator Heller, followed by Senator Hirono, followed by Senator Cassidy, followed by Senator Moran. 

Senator Tester. 

22 

HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are way 

kind and I would tell you it is always dangerous to agree with the 

good Senator from West Virginia. 

I have got some questions. How many Blue Water vets are out 

there still living? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Our estimate, Senator Tester, is about 

174,000. That is the population that we started with. 

Senator TESTER. How many do you think have symptoms? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We track this information. Of those 174,000, 

about 40,000, we believe, are already covered by our current policy; 

that is the policy where if a ship sent personnel ashore, we have 

a presumption. 

Senator TESTER. There were boots on the ground. How many 

left? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. About 80,000. 

Senator TESTER. 80,000 that maybe would have symptoms. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Well, those are 80,000 that are still alive. Of 

those we tracked a little over 20,000 that were denied benefits 

based on Blue Water service. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Have you guys developed a cost for this? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We are working on that. 

Senator TESTER. Can you give me a ballpark? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I can get that to you, Senator. Let me take 

that for the record. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. JON TESTER TO

DAVID R. MCLENACHEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Response: 

• General Operating Expenses Costs: 

– 2016—729 FTE 

– By 2025—Reduced to 200 FTE 

– 2016—$77.7 million 

– 5 years—$208.3 million 

– 10 years—$357.7 million 

• Mandatory Costs: 

– 2016—$1.3 billion 

– 5 years—$3.0 billion 

– 10 years—$5.3 billion 

Senator TESTER. It is important and I will tell you why it is important. I would like to know what happened in 2001, too. I would 

also like to know what happened to the Priority 8 vets. It took 

them out. My guess is it was not a bureaucrat sitting in a room 

with no windows in it. It was probably somebody, maybe on this 

Committee or maybe in the Administration, that said, you guys 

have got to figure out ways to save some money. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I could answer that question for you, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, please. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. This has been our policy since 1994. Prior to 

2002, the policy was based on receipt of the Vietnam service medal. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. The Vietnam service medal was awarded to 

individuals who provided support in places other than Vietnam. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

23 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. For that reason, we changed the policy at 

that time to ensure that the presumption actually relates to the 

risk of exposure, and that is why the policy was changed. It was 

changed by regulation, by VA. 

Senator TESTER. So, it was VA that directed that? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. The Secretary? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It was. It was a regulation issued by VA. 

Senator TESTER. OK. All right. So, getting back to it, do you believe these Blue Water vets had an exposure to Agent Orange? Do 

you believe that a certain percentage of them present suffered some 

health problems? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. We already cover 40,000 of them, according to our estimates. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So, you agree that this bill should go forward? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. If you are referring to S. 681, the Department 

does not support that bill, did not support it. 

Senator TESTER. Why? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Because the Air Force did not spray herbicides over offshore—off the shores of Vietnam. Now, that is not the 

end of the policy issue. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. As the Secretary has instructed us, based on 

the Gray decision that we received from the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims, he has directed us to take another look at all of 

our policies. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would just say, look, this is heavy duty 

stuff. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Absolutely is. 

Senator TESTER. Let me tell you about stuff we spray on ‘‘ag’’ 

land. Agent Orange blows this out of the water. I can tell you that 

when they spray, especially from an airplane, two or three miles 

away from my house, I can smell it, and those are ag chemicals. 

That is not Agent Orange. 

So, I think direct application to a human being is not necessarily 

what needs to be the standard. This is a farmer talking, not an 

M.D., not a researcher. I will just tell you, just because they did 

not get it—and look, I want people to get benefits who deserve benefits. If you do not deserve the benefit, you should not get it. OK? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. That is our mission. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, that is exactly right. So, when we are talking about this, it is really important that we talk about reality. I 

am not being critical of the VA, by the way. I tend to be more on 

your side than others. Tell me about the guys who ran the airplanes. Are they covered, the C–123 folks? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, they are. We issued a regulation recently 

establishing a presumption of exposure and service connection for 

that. 

Senator TESTER. That is good. Let me talk a little bit about genetic research. Dr. Erickson, I think you said that you did not have 

the capacity to deal with it. I am not speaking for Senator Moran 

here, but I do think the Chairman is right. There needs to be a 

lead dog. Do you have the capacity to contract out? 

24 

Dr. ERICKSON. The short answer is yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So, you could really be the overseeing agency and contract the research out so you make sure you get the information back if we were to do this? 

Dr. ERICKSON. We could. 

Senator TESTER. OK. I think, you know, we are talking about 

veterans and we are talking about generational things which is 

pretty complex. I get it that you do not have the capacity. I think 

we had this discussion on the building in Denver, as a matter of 

fact, and I think that there are certain areas where it is good for 

you guys to contract stuff out. 

Do not be opposed to it because you do not have the capacity 

when you can contract out and get that capacity. Are you guys opposed to this bill, the presumptive care one—not the presumptive 

care one, but what we talked about, the generational impact. 

Dr. ERICKSON. It is VA’s position that we are opposed to it. 

Senator TESTER. Is VA opposed to it because you do not have the 

capacity? Is that why? 

Dr. ERICKSON. That was the primary point. Again, we do not 

have the capacity; we are not postured as well as other Federal 

agencies. There is concern that it could be a distractor because language within the legislation, as I read it, talks about us assigning 

one of our medical centers as being the hub for this. 

Now, there is also language within the bill, if I read it correctly, 

that talks about provision of care to descendants, which is a little 

bit of a move away from our traditional role at VA of taking care 

primarily of veterans. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. But if the research shows that this 

is a problem, do you not think it is right? Not to put you on the 

spot. 

Dr. ERICKSON. It would always be right to do the correct thing 

for veterans and their families. 

Senator TESTER. All right. You guys do what you want, but if I 

were you guys, I would work with the bill’s sponsors to figure out 

how you can make this bill work from a VA perspective. Then, if 

the sponsors agree and this Committee agrees, we are probably off 

and running. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Heller. 

HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing. 

I know that there are a lot of veterans watching this hearing closely, and I would like to share with the witnesses some of the questions that they have. I am no different than any other Senator in 

this Committee or any Senator regarding the number of phone calls 

that we receive from our veterans and their concerns for these 

issues. But I want to thank you both for being here. And congratulations on your new status, by the way. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Thank you. 

Senator HELLER. I guess what strikes me most about this hearing is not only exposures to toxins and how they can be linked to 

certain diseases for our veterans, but as important is the birth defects and other problems that affect the children and grandchildren 

of these veterans. 

25 

Mr. Chairman, I am a son of a disabled Navy veteran, brother 

of a retired Navy veteran. Fortunately for our family, neither of 

them are Blue Water Navy veterans and we are grateful for that. 

But I share the concerns with veterans back home and their concerns about having been exposed to some of these toxins. They deserve more from us. And as a father and grandfather, watching 

what they are dealing with, I can truly sympathize with the issues 

that they have and their concerns. 

I want to share with you an issue just last month of a Vietnam 

veteran from Las Vegas. He wrote to me about his battle with bladder cancer. He pointed out that many other veterans who served 

in Vietnam also are suffering from bladder cancer and that may be 

due to toxic exposure. 

I just want to raise the same questions to you that he raised to 

us and hopefully, he and they can get some answers because I 

know they are watching intently on this hearing. Is there a venue 

for veterans to tell the VA that certain diseases are more common 

and see if theirs may be related to toxic exposure? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Well, as far as a venue for them specifically 

to do it? We get the same communications all the time and raise 

issues and discuss them with VHA and the experts over on Dr. 

Erickson’s staff. In addition to that, you will hear from the Institute of Medicine about the very detailed work that they do in this 

area as far as what does the science show about the association between exposure and specific conditions, and as the science develops, 

we get information about it. 

Senator HELLER. Doctor. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator Heller, we have regular meetings with 

VSOs and with veteran advocates. That is certainly a great avenue 

to approach us. Over 30 percent of veterans have expressed, in a 

recent survey, that they are very concerned about environmental 

issues, so we want to hear from them. 

We have had veterans groups assist us in updating our web 

pages such that the information we are posting is the most current, 

the most useful both to veterans and to providers. We recently created an environmental exposure app for the iPhone which veterans 

can use and which providers can use. It is free on the Apple Web 

site, free for download. 

We have a number of newsletters that we send out. We have registries which help us to link-in veterans so we can, on a regular 

basis, reach out to them. Likewise, at the local level, we have environmental health clinicians and coordinators who help to make 

sure that all the providers at those facilities are kept abreast of the 

latest information made as policy decisions. We look to have a multilayered approach to reach veterans such as the one you have 

mentioned. 

Senator HELLER. And that is great and I appreciate the answer 

to that. Doctor, let me ask you one other question. When these veterans do raise these concerns, and all these opportunities that you 

claim are available to them, how do you ensure that the VA talks 

to the Institute of Medicine to look into these specific claims? 

How can they be guaranteed this? You go through this whole 

process. How can you assure them that their concerns are going directly to where they need to go; IOM, as an example? 

26 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. If we understand the question correctly, you 

are asking, once we get that information, essentially what do we 

do with it? 

Senator HELLER. Right, sure. They go to VA hospitals. This is not 

the same question. This is not a repeat of the same question. What 

they are saying is they come and talk to you and you hold all these 

clinics and you have all these hearings and then they want to know 

where the information goes. That is what they want. They want to 

be assured, they want to be assured that you are taking this information, their concerns and their problems, and making sure that 

there is a follow-up on it. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Right. Senator, maybe I can give you two examples, and this is by no means a promise that 100 percent satisfaction will be reached. However, for instance, the National Gulf War 

Resource Center President, Mr. Ron Brown, has worked with us 

very closely for Gulf War veteran issues. He collects those issues, 

brings them to us. 

He worked very closely with us to make sure that the newsletters we published this year addressed the very issues that those 

Gulf War veterans he represents were, in fact, included in the 

newsletter; that we, in fact, found SMEs to write the articles to answer those questions. Likewise, he worked with us to update our 

Web site. 

Concerning Fort McClellan, which is an emerging issue, we have 

had a lead advocate from Fort McClellan meet with us on a regular 

basis so that we are regularly fed information. To the degree that 

we can, we want to be responsive. We owe this to the veterans. 

Senator HELLER. OK. Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you. 

Senator Hirono. 

HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that it is 

very challenging to determine the causal effect of exposure to a 

substance and subsequent health of concerns. In the meantime, 

though, veterans who argue that their medical condition is servicerelated by exposure to some kind of a chemical or a substance, 

what is the burden that they bear, assuming that there is no presumption of connectedness? What is their burden? Do they have to 

show by clear and convincing evidence? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. No, we do not apply that high of a standard, 

but in situations where there is not a presumption, we determine 

service-connected conditions based on the information that we receive. So, on a case-by-case basis, the veteran can establish, whether it is providing us information or it is us obtaining information 

through our duty to assist, that the veteran was actually exposed 

to a harmful herbicide, for example, and actually developed a condition, we will service-connect that condition. 

The presumption makes it easier for us because then neither the 

veteran nor VA has to go out and find evidence that there was— 

this exposure actually occurred in service or that their disability 

developed in service. 

Senator HIRONO. It seems as though if there is no presumption, 

then it is a pretty high burden for the individual veteran to make 

27 

the connection claim. I have heard concerns from the Hawaii VFW 

about veterans who were exposed to radiation during the atomic 

debris cleanup of the Marshall Islands in the 1970s and 1980s, and 

several thousand of our troops were exposed as they were doing 

this cleanup. 

I think we already have evidence as to what kinds of medical 

conditions are connected to exposure to radiation, so when a veteran or, let us say, a number of veterans present with similar 

kinds of medical conditions, and we already know through other research, particularly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what would 

happen. Does that help to create a presumption? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. Actually, the Congress has a very long 

history of creating presumptions. They date back to chronic disabilities that develop after service. We can trace it all the way back 

to the 1920s. Radiation exposure is one of the presumptions that 

Congress has created for veterans and we do grant benefits on that 

basis. 

Senator HIRONO. On the other hand, for these service people who 

were engaged in the cleanup, they are not categorized as—I think 

you have a presumption category called ‘‘atomic veterans’’ and they 

are not included. Why is that? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I think that—— 

Senator HIRONO. Because we know that exposure to the environment, especially after 9/11 and what happened to the 9/11 first responders, all kinds of health issues that arose. I think we were convinced that that was as a result of their efforts after 9/11. So, here 

is another group that were exposed to radiation as a result of 

cleanup. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I believe Dr. Erickson can address it. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, some of the more recent radiation exposure events, Tomadochi, Marshall Islands cleanup, et cetera, there 

were actual measurements taken of what radiation was present at 

the time. 

Individuals that are actually filing claims are reviewed on a caseby-case basis, and based on where they were, how many days, et 

cetera, there is actually a risk profile that is developed following 

established standards to then determine, you know, whether or not 

now the disease that they are filing the claim for is more likely 

than not to have been caused by the radiation. So, there actually 

is a rigorous process that is followed in the absence of there being 

a presumption. 

Senator HIRONO. Have some of these service people who have 

made these claims who were involved in the cleanup of Marshall 

Islands, have they been provided the health care services as service-connected? 

Dr. ERICKSON. I would—we would have to get back to you to give 

you the exact numbers. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, is it some, is it zero? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It is not zero; it is some. As Dr. Erickson said, 

we go out and we get actual information which we use to rate the 

claim based on the dose exposure to adjudicate those claims. 

Senator HIRONO. Considering that this is another group that is 

seeking a certain kind of status as atomic veterans, then I would 

be interested to know how many people you have already assessed 

28 

as having shown that connection. If there is a significant number 

of them, then I would think that would raise an issue for you all 

as to whether they ought to be categorized as atomic veterans. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We will take that for the record and get that 

information to you. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO

TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Response. VA is unable to provide the requested data because we do not have a 

method for identifying claims related to Marshall Islands cleanup during the 1970s 

and 1980s. Statutory and regulatory provisions do not include these Veterans as 

participants in a ‘‘radiation risk activity’’ and thus presumptively ‘‘radiation exposed.’’ Veterans who participated in the cleanup of Enewetak Atoll, part of the 

Marshall Islands, are not considered radiation-exposed for the presumption of service connection for disabilities because the cleanup project was a tightly controlled 

radiological work environment. Personnel that entered radiologically contaminated 

areas were monitored for both external and internal exposure. Of over 12,000 individual dosimetry records, only four exceeded 0.050 rem, and the highest of these 

was 0.070 rem. Throughout the cleanup project, over 760,000 cubic meters of air 

were sampled on the controlled islands. Nearly 5,200 air samplers’ filters were analyzed by the lab. No significant airborne radioactivity of any type (including beta) 

was detected. Extensive recording of all radiation safety data was accomplished. In 

addition to recording personal doses in each individual’s military records, a permanent computerized database of all radiation safety information has been established 

at Defense Nuclear Agency’s (DNA) Field Command in Albuquerque. The exhaustive 

data accumulated over the 3 years of the project do not indicate any area or instance of concern over radiological safety. All doses, internal and external, were 

minimal. (Taken from chapter 4 of DNA 1981—‘‘The Radiological Cleanup of Enewetak Atoll.’’ http://www.dtra.mil/Home/NuclearTestPersonnelReview/EnewetakAtoll 

CleanupDocuments.aspx) 

However, VA takes seriously its obligation to care for Veterans exposed to ionizing 

radiation and has special processes to both verify exposure and establish service 

connection for Marshall Islands cleanup. These processes are described in 38 CFR 

3.311, which is attached. For such claims, the Veterans Health Administration 

(VHA) Office of Public Health provides the Veterans Benefits Administration with 

a medical opinion concerning the likelihood of causation. VHA considers data from 

several publicly available reports on the cleanup from DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)/Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR). DOD DTRA/NTPR has 

requested funding from Congress to further investigate radiation doses due to Veterans’ participation in the cleanup. 

29 

ATTACHMENT—38 CFR 3.311 


929q3VA3-311-1.eps

3.311-1 ~3.311 Claim:. based on expo~ure to ioniLing radiation 3.311-1 

§3.311 Claims based on exposure to ionizing radiation. 

(a) Determinations a/exposure and dose: 

( l) Dose assessment. In all claims in which it is established that a radiogenic 

disease first became manifest after service and was not manifest to a compensable degree within 

any applicable presumptive period as specified in §3.307 or §3.309, and it is contended the 

disease is a result of exposure to ionizing radiation in service, an assessment will be made as to 

the size and nature of the radiation dose or doses. When dose estimates provided pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section are reported as a range of doses to which a veteran may have been 

exposed, exposure at the highest level of the dose range reported will be presumed. (Authority: 

38 U.S.C. 50l(a)) 

(2) Requestfilr dose infimnation. Where nccessmy pursuant to paragraph (a)( I) of 

this section, dose information will be requested as follows: 

(i) Atmospheric nuclear weapons test participation claims. In claims based 

upon participation in atmospheric nuclear testing, dose data will in all cases be requested from 

the appropriate office of the Department of Defense. 

(ii) Hiroshima and Nagasaki occupation claims. In all claims based on 

participation in the American occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan, prior to July I, 1946, 

dose data will be requested from the Department of Defense. 

(iii) Other exposure claims. In all other claims involving radiation 

exposure, a request will be made for any available records concerning the veteran's exposure to 

radiation. These records normally include hut may not be limited to the veteran's Record of 

Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (DO Form 1141), if maintained, service medical 

records, and other records which may contain information pertaining to the veteran's radiation 

dose in service. All such records will be forwarded to the Under Secretary for Health, who will 

be responsible for preparation of a dose estimate, to the extent feasible, based on available 

methodologies. 

(3) Reji?rral to independent expert. When necessary to reconcile a material 

difference between an estimate of dose, from a credible source, submitted by or on behalf of a 

claimant, and dose data derived from official military records, the estimates and supporting 

documentation shall be referred to an independent expert, selected by the Director of the National 

Institutes of Health, who shall prepare a separate radiation dose estimate for consideration in 

adjudication of the claim. For purposes of this paragraph: 

(i) The difference between the claimant's estimate and dose data derived 

from official military records shall ordinarily be considered material if one estimate is at least 

double the other estimate. 

(ii) A dose estimate shall be considered from a "credible source" if 

prepared by a person or persons certified by an appropriate professional body in the field of 

("o. 50 2/25 02) 
30 


929q3VA3-311-2.eps

3.311-2 *3.311 Claims based on exposure to ioniLing radiation 3.311-2 

health physics, nuclear medicine or radiology and if based on analysis of the facts and 

circumstances of the particular claim. 

(4) Exposure. In cases described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section: 

(i) If military records do not establish presence at or absence from a site at 

which exposure to radiation is claimed to have occurred, the veteran's presence at the site will be 

conceded. 

(ii) Neither the veteran nor the veteran's survivors may be required to 

produce evidence substantiating exposure if the information in the veteran's service records or 

other records maintained by the Department of Defense is consistent with the claim that the 

veteran was present where and when the claimed exposure occurred. 

(b) Initial review of claims. 

(I) When it is determined: 

(i) A veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of patticipation 

in the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan 

from September 1945 until July 1946 or other activities as claimed; 

(ii) The veteran subsequently developed a radiogenic disease; and 

(iii) Such disease first became manifest within the period specified in 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section; before its adjudication the claim will be referred to the Under 

Secretary for Benefits for further consideration in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 

If any of the foregoing 3 requirements has not been met, it shall not be dctcnnincd that a disease 

has resulted from exposure to ionizing radiation under such circumstances. 

(2) For purposes of this section the term "radiogenic disease" means a disease that 

may be induced by ionizing radiation and shall include the following: 

(No. 50 2/25 02) 

(i) All forms ofleukcmia except chronic lymphatic (lymphocytic) 

leukemia; 

(ii) Thyroid cancer; 

(iii) Breast cancer; 

(iv) Lung cancer; 

( v) Bone cancer; 

(vi) Liver cancer; 

(vii) Skin cancer; 

(viii) Esophageal cancer; 

(ix) Stomach cancer; 

(x) Colon cancer; 

(xi) Pancreatic cancer; 

(xii) Kidney cancer; 

(xiii) Urinary bladder cancer; 

(xiv) Salivary gland cancer; 
31 


929q3VA3-311-3.eps

3.311-3 ~3.311 Claims based on exposure to ionizing radiation 

(xv) Multiple myeloma; 

(xvi) Posterior subcapsular cataracts; 

(xvii) Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease; 

(xviii) Ovarian cancer; 

(xix) Parathyroid adenoma; 

(xx) Tumors of the brain and central nervous system; 

(xxi) Cancer of the rectum; 

(xxii) Lymphomas other than Hodgkin's disease; 

(xxiii) Prostate cancer; and 

(xxiv) Any other cancer. 

3.311-3 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 50l(a)) 

(3) Public Law 98-542 requires VA to determine whether sound medical and 

scientific evidence supports establishing a rule identifying polycythemia vera as a radiogenic 

disease. VA has determined that sound medical and scientific evidence does not support 

including polycythemia vera on the list of known radiogenic diseases in this regulation. Even so, 

VA will consider a claim based on the assertion that polycythemia vera is a radiogenic disease 

under the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section. (Authority: Pub. L. 98-542, section 

5(b)(2)(A)(i), (iii)). 

(4) If a claim is based on a disease other than one of those listed in paragraph 

(b )(2) of this section, VA shall nevertheless consider the claim under the provisions of this 

section provided that the claimant has cited or submitted competent scientific or medical 

evidence that the claimed condition is a radiogenic disease. 

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (b)(l) of this section: 

(i) Bone cancer must become manifest within 30 years after exposure; 

(ii) Leukemia may become manifest at any time after exposure; 

(iii) Posterior subcapsular cataracts must become manifest 6 months or 

more after exposure; and 

(iv) Other diseases specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must 

become manifest 5 years or more after exposure. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a); Pub. L. 98-542) 

(c) Review hy Under Secretarv.fin· Benefits. 

(I) When a claim is forwarded for review pursuant to paragraph (b)( 1) of this 

section, the Under Secretary for Benefits shall consider the claim with reference to the factors 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section and may request an advisory medical opinion from the 

Under Secretary for Health. 

(i) If after such consideration the Under Secretary for Benefits is 

convinced sound scientific and medical evidence supports the conclusion it is at least as likely as 

not the veteran's disease resulted from exposure to radiation in service, the Under Secretary for 

Benefits shall so inform the regional office of jurisdiction in writing. The Under Secretary for 
32 


929q3VA3-311-4.eps

3.311-4 ~3.311 Claim:. based on exposure to ioniLing rndiation 3.311-4 

Benefits shall set forth the rationale for this conclusion, including an evaluation of the claim 

under the applicable factors specified in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(ii) If the Under Secretary for Benefits determines there is no reasonable 

possibility that the veteran's disease resulted from radiation exposure in service the Under 

Sccrctmy for Benefits shall so inform the regional office of jurisdiction in writing, setting forth 

the rationale for this conclusion. 

(2) If the Under Secretary for Benefits, after considering any opinion of the Under 

Secretmy for Health, is unable to conclude whether it is at least as likely as not or that there is no 

reasonable possibility, the veteran's disease resulted from radiation exposure in service, the 

Under Secretary for Benefits shall refer the matter to an outside consultant in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (c)(!) of this section, "sound scientific evidence" 

means observations, findings, or conclusions which are statistically and epidemiologically valid, 

are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and withstand peer review, and "sound 

tncdical evidence" means observations, findings, or conclusions which arc consistent with 

current medical knowledge and are so reasonable and logical as to serve as the basis of 

management of a medical condition. 

(d) Reji?rralto outside consultants. 

(I) Referrals pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall be to consultants 

selected by the Under Secretary for Health from outside VA, upon the recommendation of the 

Director of the National Cancer Institute. The consultant will be asked to evaluate the claim and 

provide an opinion as to the likelihood the disease is a result of exposure as claimed. 

(2) The request for opinion shall be in writing and shall include a description of: 

(i) The disease, including the specific cell type and stage, if known, 

and when the disease first became manifest; 

(ii) The circumstances, including date, of the veteran's exposure; 

(iii) The veteran's age, gender, and pertinent family history; 

(iv) The veteran's histmy of exposure to known carcinogens, 

occupationally or otherwise; 

(v) Evidence of any other effects radiation exposure may have had 

on the veteran; and 

(vi) Any other information relevant to determination of causation of 

the veteran's disease. 

The Under Secretary for Benefits shall forward, with the request, copies of pertinent medical 

records and, where available, dose assessments from official sources, from credible sources as 

defined in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, and from an independent expert pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(3) The consultant shall evaluate the claim under the factors specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section and respond in writing, stating whether it is either likely, unlikely, or 

(No. 50 2 25102) 
33 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Cassidy, followed by Senator Moran. 

HON. BILL CASSIDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator CASSIDY. So, I have got a bunch of questions. I think, Dr. 

Erickson, you mentioned that the Australian data was perhaps not 

directly—somehow it did not relate necessarily to the American 

data because they may have taken their water on board to distill 

at different locations. 


929q3VA3-311-5.eps
34 

I have read that in Australia, the drinking water was taken in 

relatively small estuaries closer to the shore and that for the boilers was even further out. What were the policies for the U.S. Navy 

in terms of where they would take on water to distill? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I can answer the question, Senator. It is our 

information that the Navy had a directive that that water was to 

be taken on offshore and I believe it was 11 or 12 miles offshore. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, if you are 11 or 12 miles off of the 

Mekong Delta, that would still be an estuary type situation, so do 

we know that they had requirements to be—and I presume they 

would often be off that estuary. In that situation, did they need to 

be further out? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I do not have any information on that, Senator. 

Senator CASSIDY. Do we know the amount of particulate matter, 

organic matter which is normally suspended in the waters off of 

the Mekong Delta? Do we know that? Relatively easy to find out. 

That is why I am asking. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I will defer to Dr. Erickson, but I believe the 

IOM study did address that to a certain extent. 

Dr. ERICKSON. I would defer to the next panel because I would 

have to look that up, Senator. I just do not have that available. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, I read from the Australian data that if 

there is organic material, that they tend to retain—you have a 

greater distillation effect, as much as 70 percent distillation within 

the first process. Now, again, this seems relatively easy to ascertain. Maybe we have to wait for the IOM. Do you know if that has 

been ascertained again; what is the organic material, et cetera? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. No. I believe my non-scientific reading of the 

IOM report indicated exactly what you are saying, which is if that 

process was used, would it enhance essentially the strength or the 

degree of the—— 

Senator CASSIDY. But we are not sure about that? Do we have 

any banked tissue samples or serum samples from veterans, men 

and women who served at the time? Do we have any tissue banks 

or serum banks from their service? 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, we certainly have for the Air Force members who were participating in the spraying of Agent Orange. The 

Institute of Medicine, in fact, is working with us to make those 

specimens available for study. But I am not aware of any specimens that would have covered anyone who was serving in the 

Navy. 

Senator CASSIDY. OK. I noticed in the eligibility for current benefits, basically, somebody could have been in Saigon at a desk job, 

but they would be eligible for Agent Orange benefits even if they 

plausibly never had an exposure, correct? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. That is correct. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, the Blue Water folks are saying, listen, 

there was transport, there were vessels going on and off from the 

mainland to these vessels, and plausibly there could have been 

cross-contamination. I do not know. 

How was the chemical transported? Was it in boats or was it 

flown over? I do not know that. 

35 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It was flown, is my understanding. I do not 

have any additional information on that. 

Senator CASSIDY. I am seeing people in the back shake their 

heads. It makes sense to me that if you are transporting tons, you 

would be more likely to do it by boat than by air, because it is not 

like you needed it acutely. You are going to use it, you know, a 

planned use. 

So, if the guy on the desk job in Saigon is eligible, but there is 

transport in boats and there is loading in boats and there is X, Y, 

Z in boats, plausibly it seems as if there should be—I can see why 

the Blue Water guys are a little upset. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Senator, if we have information on ships that 

were hauling it and veterans had access based on serving on those 

ships, they would be on the ship list and that we would be recognizing as having the potential for exposure. 

Senator CASSIDY. Got you. Now, last, in the VA system, clearly 

you all have large epidemiological databases potentially, and have 

you been able to look back at the incidence of dioxin-related conditions in the Blue Water vets relative to the Air Force or relative 

to those who were boots on the ground? 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, the answer is that there has not been a 

study of the Blue Water Navy by VA. The high-risk groups that we 

studied and have been studied for decades now were the Army 

Chemical Corps. 

Senator CASSIDY. I get that. 

Dr. ERICKSON. And—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, the Australians did that and they actually found an increase incidence of certain tumors within the Blue 

Water group. Granted, we do not know where they got their water, 

vis-a-vis, us, but I guess it kind of begs the issue of why have you 

not? If this is out there and we have got all this data, it seems— 

if the Australians can do it—you see where I am going with this? 

Dr. ERICKSON. In the case of Blue Water Navy, Senator, we 

would have to go get the data. We would have to launch a rather 

large survey which would reach out to those individuals. 

Senator CASSIDY. You cannot just take your subset of Naval veterans who have sought their care in the VA and compared them 

to a cohort of Army and Marine and Air Force veterans? 

Dr. ERICKSON. If we felt that particular group was representative 

of the entire Navy experience, then that would be a good study design, sir. 

Senator CASSIDY. I can tell you there is a statistician that knows 

how to correct the variables, you know, some sort of regression 

analysis. It just seems like if we have all these unanswered questions, that study should have already been done. Maybe the IOM 

has done it. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Part of the challenge, Senator, if I may, is there 

is a lot of mixing of these populations. There would have been people who— 

Senator CASSIDY. I accept that it is dirty data, but the Australians did it. 

Dr. ERICKSON. What I mean by this, sir, is that individuals who, 

during one tour, might have been way off shore. The next tour they 

may have come into port. Once they came into port, then they, 

36 

under the presumption rules, you know, they are covered, so now 

they are enrolled in VA. Some challenges—and your point is well 

taken. 

Senator CASSIDY. I am way over time. Thank you for your indulgence. I yield back. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Moran. 

HON. JERRY MORAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this 

hearing. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. Let me, 

first of all, express my support for a bill I am a cosponsor of and 

that is the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015. I will 

generally confine my remarks and questions to the bill that Senator Blumenthal and I introduced related to toxic exposure. 

First of all, let me express my concern for family members of 

those veterans and for the veteran who encountered that toxic exposure. It seems to me that those who served our country in the 

military, who were drafted, who volunteered, they have an expectation of taking certain risks associated with their military service. 

But I cannot imagine that any one of those men or women expected that their service would result in health care concerns for 

their children or their grandchildren. What a terrible burden that 

must be if you now believe that something that you voluntarily did 

has a consequence for people who were yet to be born, your children and grandchildren. 

I think this is an issue that is so deserving of the VA’s attention 

and certainly of Congress’s attention. My understanding is that— 

I am not certain, Mr. Secretary. You on behalf of the VA oppose 

that bill, is that true? That is your testimony today? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. VA opposed that bill, yes. 

Senator MORAN. And you do that by referring to testimony that 

was given previously. Your testimony indicates the Department has 

previously provided its views on S. 901 to this Committee on June 

24, 2015. When I read the testimony of that date, everything that 

is said about the VA’s opposition is related to what it believes is 

a duplication of efforts previously and currently underway at the 

VA or at other agencies. 

My impression, I think probably this comes from what Dr. 

Erickson said this morning, is that is no longer your position. So, 

I mean, you denied, discounted the duplication and now, as I understand it, oppose the bill because the focus needs to be 

headquartered someplace other than the VA. True? 

Dr. ERICKSON. If I may, Senator Moran, for me the overriding 

concern—and yes, the VA position—is that there are other agencies 

that are better positioned to do this. But the duplicative effort—let 

me speak to that. There are some things at VA we do very well. 

We do large surveys, large epidemiologic studies of veteran cohorts. 

We have been in consultation with Vietnam Veterans of America 

to put together a Vietnam morbidity study, which is getting ready 

to be launched. As part of that study, we will be looking at the 

health of their children, but not the epigenetic piece. That is a little 

beyond the scope of the morbidity study. Likewise, there is an upcoming OEF/OIF veterans health study which will also be including questions of children, of veterans’ children. 

37 

I think the issue here is, again, perhaps this new recognition 

that VA and veterans in particular benefit considerably when we 

partner with the right Federal agency. Again, I use the ATSDR collaboration to which we have alluded as it relates to Camp Lejeune, 

as being a very strong example of how that can benefit veterans. 

Senator MORAN. Well, I cannot imagine that is anything but 

true. We ought to be encouraging collaboration. There are agencies 

and departments who have expertise. There are outside experts 

who we ought to rely on. So, I do not think you are saying anything 

contrary to what common sense, perhaps, would suggest to be true. 

What Dr. Jain stated in that reference, the day of that testimony, the current VA activities include collaboration, et cetera, 

work being done by the National Institute of Health, Environmental Health and Sciences. It talks about studies and yet, I mean, 

the VA believes, as I understand, that there is insufficient evidence 

for benefits to accrue. 

Let me say it differently. There is insufficient evidence to tie the 

conditions that we find in children or grandchildren of veterans to 

the exposure of their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, or grandfathers. So, if that is a true statement, that the VA cannot find the 

connection, the scientific evidence, then it seems to me that the VA 

ought to be terribly interested in making that determination. 

It ought to be insufficient for the VA to say there is insufficient 

evidence. You ought to be determining whether there is evidence 

or not, scientifically, medically, for that condition. Is that true? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Senator, if I might, one of the issues here is 

the extent of our current authority. Congress has given us authority, in limited situations, for example, spina bifida, to pay benefits 

to, say, a descendent of somebody who was been exposed. Other 

than that, our authority is very limited. We pay benefits to survivors based on the veterans’ exposure. We allow survivors to substitute in a veterans’ claim and we pay accrued benefits. 

Senator MORAN. So, would you support—would the VA support 

the authority to do exactly that? I mean, what this bill does is to 

set the parameters by which that conclusion can be reached. Then 

I assume that you would endorse the idea that those benefits 

should be paid if that scientific evidence, medical evidence is prevalent? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. If Congress determines that that is what the 

Government should be doing and asks VA for its views on that, 

Senator, I feel very confident we would provide our views, let you 

know what they are. 

Senator MORAN. Even though you provide the legislation designed to accomplish that? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Well, if it is a bill that is introduced into the 

Congress and not one of our own legislative proposals, we would 

provide our views on it on that basis. If it is something that we 

would propose, yes, we would definitely propose something that we 

support, which this may happen to be what it is. 

Senator MORAN. My point is, you oppose the bill that is designed 

to give us the standing in which we have the credibility to give you 

the authority; yet, you oppose the bill that creates that opportunity 

for us? 

38 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I understand what you are saying. It would 

be helpful to have the research before you decide whether that is 

a benefit that should be provided. 

Senator MORAN. My time has expired. I have just a couple of 

summations. Certainly everything that I have read by other agencies indicate that there is a need for additional evidence, scientific/ 

medical research and that any suggestion that the VA or anybody 

else has reached the necessary conclusions, necessary evidence to 

draw a conclusion, is inadequate, is inaccurate. 

So, when the VA talks about duplication, there is plenty of room 

for scientific and medical evidence to be determined that has not 

been researched or studied previously. 

At then second, I would appreciate an answer to Senator Rounds’ 

question which, I believe the question was, if the focus was elsewhere—somebody else is in charge of this program—would the VA 

then support the legislation, the concept contained in this legislation? I do not think that Senator Rounds’ question was answered. 

Dr. ERICKSON. The answer is yes, Senator. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. I would highlight what Senator 

Tester had to say which was—and I cannot speak for Senator 

Blumenthal, but I have no doubt that what I, and I would guess 

Senator Blumenthal would be very interested in is finding the right 

place to house this effort. I would think we would start with the 

premises that we want to be housed by somebody who wants to do 

it so that the right attitude and approach is taken. 

Again, if we find the right place to do this, I then assume that 

the VA would be supportive of this effort. Is that accurate? 

Dr. ERICKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you both. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Boozman. 

HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Senator Isakson, and again, 

thank you so much for having this so important hearing. I apologize for being late. I am going to have to run out and then come 

back in the middle of the next panel in working with the budget 

issues that we are facing now, trying to help get some of those 

things sorted out. Mr. McLenachen? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Did I get that right? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, you did. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good, very good. I am proud of myself. On a 

separate issue of alleged toxic exposure, in Arkansas, we have a 

significant number of Gulf War 1 veterans who allege chronic illness due to toxic exposures. The Arkansas National Guard’s 39th 

Infantry Brigade deployed in the Gulf in 1990, 1991. 

Some of these folks have some real health issues now. Many of 

these veterans claim that they were exposed to toxic substances 

like benzene due to the oil fires that the Iraqi military set, and 

have issues like Agent Orange exposure and the Camp Lejeune 

water contamination situation. It takes a significant amount of 

time and research to fully grasp the effects and causal connection 

of such exposure. 

39 

Can you give me an update? Can you give all of us an update 

on what efforts the VA is continuing to pursue to help these Gulf 

War veterans? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Since that is a medical science research issue, 

I will defer to Dr. Erickson on that. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Certainly. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

We continue to partner with Gulf War veterans, veterans service 

organizations in particular, the National Gulf War Resource Center 

which is headed up by Mr. Ron Brown. He has worked very closely 

with us to make sure that our Web sites are accurate and our 

newsletters are actually useful by topic. 

He and his partner, Jim Bunker, have actually recommended to 

us research that they think is necessary for us to be able to answer 

some of these questions. And literally, while we sit in this room, 

the Gulf War Research Advisory Committee, which is, in fact, a 

Federal advisory committee, is meeting at VA headquarters. As you 

probably know, that committee, in fact, provides advice concerning 

the research to fill the gaps in a Gulf War illness. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you. Mr. McLenachen, with 

the Camp Lejeune water situation, it is my understanding that the 

VA representatives went down to North Carolina and explained 

how the disability claims process worked and the steps that people 

needed to take in order to file a claim and receive compensation. 

However, VA added another layer of bureaucracy to the process by 

adding subject matter experts into the adjudication process. 

I guess, you know, I would like to know if that was correct and 

if it is correct. Adding these SMEs into the adjudication process is 

unique to the Camp Lejeune situation. Is that correct? Then, the 

other question I have is, why was this done? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Senator, I would not say it is unique because 

in every compensation claim that we adjudicate, we are required to 

obtain current, through our duty to assist, an examination or a 

medical opinion as required to properly adjudicate the claim. Sometimes we will get private evidence that does not require us to do 

that through VHA, but if we need an opinion, we often go to VHA 

and ask for an opinion. 

Our adjudicators are not the medical experts. They are the adjudicators who weigh the evidence that they are given. So, I would 

not say that it is unique that we have individuals providing us 

those kinds of opinions. However, in this case, recognizing that this 

is a special issue, we consolidated all those claims down to our Louisville Regional Office and we did collaborate very closely with the 

Veterans Health Administration to make sure that we were achieving a level of consistency that these veterans deserve. 

The way we did that was consolidate in Louisville and then 

working with VHA to set up a system with the special SMEs, subject matter experts, to help us with getting those opinions. I think 

Dr. Erickson could probably talk a little bit more about the SMEs 

themselves and what their qualifications are. 

Dr. ERICKSON. Senator, I am going to divide this into two pieces. 

One is the health care law that Senator Burr gave testimony to, 

the other would be the SMEs as it relates to presumptions. As Senator Burr appropriately said, he pushed legislation that was passed 

in 2012, and when that was enacted on the 6th of August, 2012, 

40 

VA immediately started providing health care for 15 different conditions to Camp Lejeune veterans. 

I am proud to say that to date, we have provided health care to 

21,154 veterans who had served at Camp Lejeune. Of these, 7,506 

veterans have been treated specifically for a Camp Lejeune condition that is included in that law. Likewise, on the family member 

side of that, we have had 997 family members who have applied 

for the program. 

Again, this program is a little newer. 176 family members are 

both administratively and clinically eligible. To date, there have 

been 906 family members whose medical claims have been paid for, 

65 unique family members for a total payout of $176,000. 

On the health care side, we have moved out smartly on the bill 

through the legislation that Senator Burr gave testimony to. 

On the presumption side, yes, there was a need for us to move 

beyond the cadre of compensation and pension examiners such that 

we would have a group that was more specially trained. We selected about 20 of these individuals, also in the fall of 2012, made 

sure that they were residency trained in occupational medicine, environmental, toxicology. 

They received, as Mr. McLenachen said, additional training at 

the VBA facility in Louisville to make sure they understood the 

complexity of the issues. Currently they have regular telephone 

conferences to discuss cases, especially the more difficult cases, so 

as to provide a certain level of peer review for those cases. They 

also continue to build and work with a comprehensive bibliography, 

the goal being to reduce variability in the decisions that are made. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Hirono has a follow-up question. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. I realized that the VA, in seeking to conclude that there is a service connection, relies on information from 

the Department of Defense. I do have a concern that with regard 

to Vietnam, that maybe not all of the information that you have 

is accurate in terms of things such as where Agent Orange was 

sprayed, where the water may have been contaminated. So, there 

is that issue. 

Dr. Ramos, who is on the second panel, notes in his testimony 

that veterans of the Blue Water Navy received a presumptive service connection as recently as 2002 before VA implemented a policy 

change. I assume that policy change meant that they no longer 

enjoy this presumption. Can you tell me if that is accurate, where 

you actually did— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. I believe that relates to my conversation 

with Senator Tester earlier. Our policy, dating back to 1994, was 

essentially consistent with what it is now, except to the extent that 

we used the Vietnam service medal for purposes of determining eligible Vietnam service. What we discovered was that medal was not 

a good way to do that because it is provided more broadly. 

It is provided to individuals who provided support during the 

Vietnam era, rather than actual duty in the Republic of Vietnam. 

The statute requires being in the Republic of Vietnam and that 

was the issue. So, that point is when we changed our regulation 

to clarify that issue. 

41 

Senator HIRONO. So, basically, it was a pretty fundamental 

thing, whether they were even in Vietnam serving at that time? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. You might have had, for example, veterans in the Philippines who were providing support. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 

clarification. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Hirono. I want to thank 

our two panelists for their extensive testimony and thank the Committee for their participation. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Blue Water Navy Veterans Disability Claims—While VA does not 

allow the presumption of service connection to veterans who served in the territorial 

seas (12-miles) of the Republic of Vietnam, the Committee received a response to 

a pre-hearing question that indicated claims can be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. VA considers claims from Blue Water Navy veterans on a case-by-case basis. 

Has the Department granted any of these claims, and if so how many? 

Response. While the statute creating the presumption of Agent Orange exposure 

for Veterans who served ‘‘in’’ the Republic of Vietnam (38 United States Code 

(U.S.C.)§ 1116(f)) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulation addressing the same (38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 3.307(a)(6)(iii)) do not extend 

a presumption of Agent Orange exposure to ‘‘Blue Water Navy’’ Veterans, as these 

Veterans are not considered to have served ‘‘in’’ Vietnam, VA does recognize a presumption of exposure for Navy Veterans whose ships served on inland waterways 

while they were aboard, and for Navy Veterans who went ashore in Vietnam even 

for a brief stay. Those circumstances are among the ‘‘case-by-case’’ bases previously 

described. VA does not track, and has no method for tracking, grant rates for these 

claims. Additionally, a claimant who does not qualify for a presumption of exposure 

must seek to show that they were actually exposed to Agent Orange in service to 

establish service connection for a current disability. VA also is unable to track grant 

rates for cases of that nature. 

Question 2. Camp Lejeune Water—In his written testimony Mr. McLenachen stated that VA is in the process of amending its regulations to allow presumptions for 

conditions related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune to include kidney cancer, angiosarcoma of the liver, and acute myelogenous leukemia. Provide a status 

report, to include a timeline, on VA’s progress to date in amending its regulations. 

Response. A draft recommendation for the Secretary, which is based on additional 

information provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, is 

currently under review within VA. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) will 

begin the process of amending regulations as appropriate after the Secretary considers the recommendation and makes his final policy decision. Although this policy 

analysis is a high priority for VA, there is no timeline for final VA action on the 

matter. 

Question 3. Camp Lejeune Claims Processing—The Committee received testimony 

that in 2013 the Department consolidated Camp Lejeune claims processing at the 

Louisville, Kentucky Regional Office. What was the denial rate for Camp Lejeune 

claims before the consolidation and what has it been since? What qualifications are 

required and what special training do these ‘‘subject matter expert’’ claims processors receive who adjudicate Camp Lejeune water decisions? 

Response. VA consolidated the processing of claims based on exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune to VBA’s Louisville Regional Office in December 2010. 

At that time, VBA attempted to identify any claims previously decided with service 

at Camp Lejeune being implicated as the cause of disability. We were able to identify 195 claims that VA decided between 1997 and 2010, with an 83 percent denial 

rate. 

Following a 2012 review of completed decisions, VA determined medical professionals with expertise in occupational and environmental health are required to obtain the best possible medical opinion evidence for adjudication of claims by Veterans exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. VA identified these experts and provided them with three days of training on Veterans’ exposure to the 

water at Camp Lejeune. To date, the grant rate for primary disease categories associated with exposure to water at Camp Lejeune (renal cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, etc.) is 11 percent. 

42 

Question 4. Agent Orange Presumptive Authority—The Secretary’s specific authority to grant presumption of service-connected disabilities based on exposure to herbicides in the Republic of Vietnam (38 U.S.C. § 1116) lapsed as of September 30, 2015 

after having been in effect for 15 years. Provide a summary of the presumptions the 

Secretary granted under this specific authority during that 15-year span. 

Response. Although VA’s authority under section 1116 expired on September 30, 

2015, the Secretary has general rulemaking authority under 38 U.S.C. § 501, which 

will allow him to establish appropriate presumptions of service connection should 

it become necessary in the future. 

The Agent Orange Act itself established an association between Agent Orange exposure and: 

(1) Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; 

(2) Soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, or mesothelioma); and 

(3) Chloracne or another acneform disease consistent with chloracne. 

Subsequent associations and dates established by VA regulations include: 

(4) Porphyria cutanea tarda [February 3, 1994]; 

(5) Hodgkin’s disease [February 3, 1994]; 

(6) Respiratory cancers of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea [June 9, 1994]; 

(7) Multiple myeloma [June 9, 1994]; 

(8) Prostate cancer [November 7, 1996]; 

(9) Acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy (later replaced by (16)) [November 7, 1996]; 

(10) Type 2 diabetes mellitus [May 8, 2001]; 

(11) Chronic lymphocytic leukemia [October 16, 2003]; 

(12) AL amyloidosis [May 7, 2009]; 

(13) Ischemic heart disease [August 31, 2010]; 

(14) Chronic B-cell leukemia [August 31, 2010]; 

(15) Parkinson’s disease [August 31, 2010]; and 

(16) Early-onset peripheral neuropathy [replaced (9)] [September 6, 2013]. 

Question 5. Exposure Research—Throughout the testimony at the hearing, VA witnesses frequently stated other Federal agencies would be better suited to conduct 

research about indirect exposure. Please elaborate on that point and also provide 

details about the specific agencies that would be better positioned to conduct this 

research. 

Response. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), one 

of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), has capacity, expertise, and a strong record of accomplishment in understanding environmental effects on epigenetics and epigenetic regulation of biological and developmental processes. Understanding both low-dose effects 

and the developmental windows of susceptibility will be critically important for determining the level of risk posed by indirect and transgenerational exposure. In addition, the National Toxicology Program, headquartered at NIEHS, is well placed to 

coordinate toxicological research from across agencies. 

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is another NIH entity that has a specific and focused interest 

in the development of molecular level tools and multi-institutional collaborations to 

support analyses of gene expression and genetic pathways to explain 

multigenerational effects that may result from myriad environmental factors. 

(NICHD—http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/epigenetics/researchinfo/pages/ 

goals.aspx) 

VA does not have the capacity and expertise in place to perform multigenerational 

studies, including research such as highly specialized epigenetic analyses. 

Question 6. Epidemilogical Studies—Does VA have plans to conduct an epidemiological study on Chorodial Melanoma? If yes, please provide details regarding a 

timeline for such research and if no, please provide detail regarding why this issue 

is not being considered. 

Response. There are 200 cases of choroidal melanoma in the VA Central Cancer 

Registry from 1995 to 2013, about 11 cases per year. There are an additional 113 

melanoma cases located in the eye for a total of 313 ocular melanoma cases over 

this same time interval. This represents less than 0.05 percent of all cancers in the 

registry. The rarity of the cancer makes an epidemiological study infeasible without 

a very large risk. 

VA’s National Program Director for Oncology found nothing in the literature or 

reference materials to support a claim of association between Veterans, military 

service, or Agent Orange and choroidal melanoma. Known risk factors for uveal 

43 

melanomas (which are mostly choroidal) are host pigmentation factors, cutaneous 

and iris nevi, and ultraviolet light exposure. 

VA research does not currently have a study focused on the epidemiology of 

Chorodial Melanoma; primarily because we support investigator initiated research, 

and we have not reviewed an application on the topic that would be currently funded. However researchers from the Tampa VA recently published a paper as a case 

report, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26066556 

Further, VA maintains a comprehensive database of cancer incidence in the VA 

Healthcare System in the VA Central Cancer Registry: http://catalog.data.gov/ 

dataset/veterans-administration-central-cancer-registry-vaccr 

There is a non-VA citation, in the U.S. National Library of Medicine to a 2012 

update from the Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of 

Exposure to Herbicides (see chapter 8, subchapter Skin Cancer) that includes this: 

This is the first update in which any information on ocular melanoma has 

been identified. The case-control study of Behrens et al. (2012) found some 

increases in the incidence of uveal melanoma in association with unspecified herbicides; this is not the degree of herbicide specificity required for 

results to be considered fully relevant. A Vietnam veteran submitted information (Data from Rutz [2012] available in the National Academies Public 

Access Records Office [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/Manage 

Request.aspx?key=49448]) received in response to a Freedom of Information 

Act request to VA about the frequency with which choroidal melanoma (a 

specific type of uveal melanoma) was diagnosed in VA facilities; the document indicated that a large number of such cases had been seen, but the 

lack of documentation explaining how the VA had gathered the data and 

exactly what they represented prevented the Committee from being able to 

assess their import. Because literature searches did not identify any epidemiology studies of ocular melanoma in association with the COIs, the Committee submitted an inquiry to Carol and Mark Shields, who responded 

(Data from Shields [2012] available in the National Academies Public Access Records Office [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/Manage 

Request.aspx? key=49448]) that their analyses of more than 2,000 cases of 

uveal melanoma had not revealed any association with the COIs. 

Question 7. Gray v. McDonald—During the hearing, the Committee received testimony that cited a recent Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision in Gray v. 

McDonald that found VA’s demarcation between inland waterways and offshore waters to be ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ Provide a status report, to include a timeline, 

on VA’s progress to date in complying with the instruction of the Court to the Department to review and clarify its definition of inland waterways and offshore 

waters. 

Response. In April 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued its 

decision in Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313 (2015), which required VA to review 

and clarify its policies for determining whether coastal bodies of water, such as Da 

Nang Harbor, constituted ‘‘inland waterways’’ or ‘‘offshore waters’’ for purposes of 

applying the presumption of herbicide exposure. Shortly after that April 2015 decision, VA began the process of reviewing and clarifying its policies regarding such 

determinations. Secretary McDonald has directed that this important issue merits 

very deliberate and thorough evaluation by VA, which is ongoing. Although this policy analysis is a high priority for VA, there is no timeline for final VA action on 

the matter. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JERRY MORAN ON

S. 901, THE TOXIC EXPOSURE RESEARCH ACT OF 2015 

Question 8. Please provide the VA’s rationale for opposing further research into 

the effects of toxic exposure on a servicemember’s progeny, when the VA has acknowledged that the science behind this topic is insufficient. 

Response. VA fully agrees that the science behind the effects of toxic exposures 

on a servicemember’s progeny is presently insufficient to guide evidence-based policy. VA does not oppose further research into this important issue, but rather suggests that other Federal agencies are better equipped and postured to conduct this 

complex work. 

Question 9. The VA has stated they should not be the institution to oversee and 

carryout this research. Please provide specific changes and recommendations for 

S. 901 that would place the research and responsibilities in the appropriate 

agencies. 

44 

Response. This important research mission should be fully-funded by Congress 

and assigned to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 

VA and the Department of Defense (DOD) should be directed to provide full cooperation and collaboration in the conduct of NIEHS multigenerational/epigenetic studies 

of the toxic environmental exposures experienced by Veterans (and in some cases 

their families) and their progeny. VA and DOD would be able to provide historical 

documents, medical records, and personnel lists (when available) as the needed 

foundation for these studies. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOM TILLIS TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 10. By what date will the VA announce presumptive disability coverage 

for veterans with conditions for which ATSDR has determined that there is ‘‘sufficient evidence for causation’’ by exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune? 

By what date will the VA announce which of the diseases designated by the ATSDR 

as showing ‘‘modest evidence for causation’’ will be included in the presumptive disability program? 

Response. Although the complex policy analysis associated with creating presumptions of service connection for diseases associated with exposure to Camp Lejeune 

drinking water is a high priority for VA, there is no timeline for a VA announcement regarding this complex matter. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I now invite our second panel to come 

forward. We are fortunate to have—I see five people, but I have 

only got four names. What am I missing? Ms. Wedge is accompanying Dr. Ramos. Now I understand. 

Welcome to our second panel. Doctor Kenneth Ramos, Chair of 

the Institute of Medicine Committee on Veterans and Agent Orange; Commander John Wells, Executive Director of the Military 

Veterans Advocacy, Inc.; John Rowan, National President of the 

Vietnam Veterans of America; and Jerry Ensminger, Master Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired. I want to thank all of you for 

being here today and we will start with Dr. Ramos. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. RAMOS, M.D., PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PRECISION HEALTH SCIENCES, ARIZONA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, 

AND CHAIR, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE, UPDATE 2014, THE NATIONAL 

ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE; 

ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERTO WAGE, M.S., SENIOR PROGRAM 

OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE 

Dr. RAMOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am Ken Ramos, as was stated. I am a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, and I 

also serve as Associate Vice President for Precision Health Sciences 

at that institution. The reason that I am here is because I also 

serve as Chair of the last Update for the Veterans and Agent Orange Committee, which is currently finalizing its report. It is the 

last report following completion of a 20-plus year series, as most 

of you know. 

I am here to speak, to represent the voices, I think, on the recommendations of multiple IOM committees and, of course, in some 

instances, I will also provide some comments which reflect my own 

thoughts and impressions regarding the issues at hand. My initial 

remarks will focus on IOM efforts to assess exposures to Agent Orange among Blue Water Navy veterans and the degree to which its 

exposures and long-term health outcomes are comparable to those 

45 

of Brown Water Navy veterans and troops on the ground, which I 

think is one of the issues that has been debated this morning. 

As indicated in the 2011 report that the IOM committee provided 

from the IOM, the conclusion was made that given the lack of environmental monitoring that took place during and shortly after the 

war, and the variability and uncertainty in the fate and transport 

information for dioxin, and it is not possible to estimate the likely 

concentrations of dioxin in marine waters and air and at the time 

of the deployment for these veterans; therefore, quantitative measures of comparisons across three military populations of interest 

could not be made. 

I think this is an issue that certainly has posed a lot of problems 

with regards to decisionmaking because the science itself does not 

really actually support any specific conclusions in that sense. This 

said, the committee did identify possible pathways of exposure, 

which of course, included the distillation efforts on board ships 

which has been discussed, I think, a number of times in the course 

of testimony provided. 

I think that particular route of exposure is certainly important 

given efforts by the Australian Royal Navy looking at reconstruction experiments in which distillation experiments were completed 

establishing that, in fact, if dioxin was present in those waters, it 

would be concentrated through the process, and in so doing, making it available for exposure. 

On the basis of those findings, which were actually ratified by 

the 2008 Veterans Agent Orange committee, the conclusion has 

been made that we do not have any evidence either for inclusion 

or exclusion of Blue Water Navy veterans from coverage under the 

Agent Orange Act; therefore, this conclusion needs to be considered 

in further policy decisionmaking. 

Over the 20-plus years which have taken place since the veterans 

and Agent Orange series has been initiated, only a single epidemiological study has been completed that actually reported specific 

findings for Blue Water Navy veterans, showing, in fact, a higher 

incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Blue Water Navy veterans 

and the highest and most significant risk across all branches of 

service for this adverse health outcome. This, I think, directly addresses one of the points that was raised in the previous discussion 

regarding findings for Blue Water Navy veterans in particular. 

Although this particular finding for epidemiological correlation 

does not directly address questions related to exposure, especially 

in light of the quantitative deficits which I described before, this 

is, in fact, considered a hallmark of disease for dioxin exposure, one 

of the signature cancers for dioxin, and therefore, health outcomes 

alone presumed by the VA to be service-related to the Blue Water 

Navy veterans. 

In reference to Senate Bill 681, which has been discussed here, 

it should be noted that in the judgment of all IOM committees 

which have taken on studies related to this, it is highly unlikely 

that any future scientific research will provide any additional information that would resolve questions related to exposures given the 

limitations which I described before, including those which were 

connected to service in the territorial waters of Vietnam. 

46 

Whether or not the claims of Blue Water Navy veterans are to 

be processed like those of other Vietnam veterans, that is ultimately a policy decision and not one that can be answered on the 

basis of science. 

Given the lack of exposure information collected during or immediately after deployment for many of the conflicts that we have to 

deal with, I do not expect that new data will become available, you 

know, from past conflicts given that the collection of exposure information was not completed during that particular episode, and oftentimes what we find ourselves doing is trying to reconstruct exposures on the basis of statistical models that, as good as they 

might be, certainly will never provide complete answers, either at 

the population or the individual level. 

In my opinion, plans to extend the Agent Orange Act under 

House Resolution 3423, cited as the Agent Orange Extension Act 

of 2015, to complete an additional cycle is an excellent proposition 

that would not only ensure continuity in the monitoring of the 

health status of Vietnam veterans, but perhaps more importantly, 

provide all of us an opportunity to set a path forward on how to 

establish that area of evaluation processes that would be coherent 

across multiple military situations. 

I think we should learn from the experiences of the—you know, 

the mistakes that have been made in the past, certainly put in 

place, I think, resolutions that will enable us to move forward in 

a way that is going to be informed by actual data. 

I think it is also important to note that renewing the biennial updates as has been completed up until now probably is not going to 

be advisable given the fact that the needs that we have right now 

are needs for data rather than continued updates that probably 

sort of slow the process. 

Last, in reference to Senate Bill 901, Toxic Exposure Research of 

2015, I think it is important to know that plans to establish a National Center for Research on the diagnosis and treatment of 

health conditions of the descendants of veterans exposed to toxic 

chemicals during service in the Armed Forces, although very important and highly significant and laudable, I believe it is actually 

premature at this point in time in light of the scarcity of scientific 

and medical data to support the contention that toxic exposures to 

veterans, particularly male veterans, can be transmitted to descendants across one or multiple generations. 

I think the danger in moving forward perhaps prematurely could 

certainly add confusion to an already very crowded environment. 

That said, I think efforts to create an advisory committee charged 

with overseeing the assessment and handling of possible health effects from all military exposures would be highly desirable in order 

to increase continuity and coherence of efforts across various situations. 

I thank you for inviting me to be here and I look forward to a 

dialog with you on this and issues that you may want to discuss. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ramos follows:] 

47 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. RAMOS, M.D., PH.D., ASSOCIATE VICE PRESI- DENT FOR PRECISION HEALTH SCIENCES, ARIZONA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, UNI- VERSITY OF ARIZONA AND CHAIR, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON VET- ERANS AND AGENT ORANGE, NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Kenneth Ramos. I am Associate Vice President for Precision 

Health Sciences at the University of Arizona and a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine at the Arizona 

Health Sciences Center. I also act as Director of the Center for Applied Genetics 

and Genomic Medicine and am Director of the College of Medicine M.D.-Ph.D. Program. Previously, I held faculty positions at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Texas A&M University, 

and at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. I am currently serving as 

chair of the Committee that is preparing the last update in the Veterans and Agent 

Orange (VAO) series of Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports mandated by the Agent 

Orange Act of 1991 (PL 102–4) and renewed in the Veterans Education and Benefits 

Expansion Act of 2001 (PL 107–103). Today I will be talking about the VAO series 

of reports, but I will begin by discussing another IOM report that attempted to assess the exposure of Blue Water Navy (BWN) Vietnam veterans to Agent Orange. 

In 2010, an IOM committee completely separate from the VAO committees was 

tasked to study whether the Vietnam veterans in the BWN experienced exposures 

to herbicides and their contaminants that were comparable with those of the Brown 

Water Navy Vietnam veterans and troops on the ground in Vietnam, with a focus 

on Agent Orange and dioxin exposures. The Committee was asked to compare the 

possible routes of exposure of BWN veterans on ships and of ground troops in Vietnam, and the potential mechanisms of herbicide exposures (such as water exposure 

from contamination of potable water, air exposure from spray drift, and food and 

soil contamination). It was also asked to compare the risks of long-term adverse 

health effects in ground troop veterans, BWN veterans, and other ‘‘era’’ veterans, 

and to review any studies that addressed adverse health effects specifically in BWN 

veterans. I will focus on the exposure aspects of the resulting 2011 report Blue 

Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure, but first I should note 

that, just prior to the initiation of this Committee’s work, the VAO committee for 

Update 2008 had made a statement about the BWN controversy (based on a less 

extensive review of details of exposure estimation and its understanding that the 

BWN Vietnam veterans had previously been included) to the effect that available 

scientific information did not support making a decision to exclude them from coverage under the Agent Orange Act. 

The BWN committee gathered information on how Agent Orange had been used 

in Vietnam and the quantity and geographic range of its application. The Committee also considered data on the magnitude of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange. After reviewing information on releases of Agent Orange to the environment, 

the Committee explored its fate and transport in air, fresh and marine water, sediment, soil, and food to assess the plausibility of Agent Orange and dioxin exposure 

of military personnel who did not actually handle the herbicide themselves. The 

Committee attempted to identify any monitoring data on dioxin had been gathered 

during or shortly after the Vietnam War. The Committee also considered fate and 

transport models that could be used in conjunction with the limited available data 

to examine the plausibility of exposure of ground troops and BWN veterans to the 

chemicals. The Committee attempted to determine where BWN ships were during 

the war, their missions, how close they came to the Vietnamese coast, and the activities conducted aboard the ships by the sailors. 

Many data sources and methods were identified and pursued by the Committee, 

including published peer-reviewed literature, models for assessing the environmental concentrations of Agent Orange and dioxin, anecdotal information from veterans and other interested parties on veteran experiences during the war and afterwards, and such other information sources as written and published accounts of the 

war (including memoirs), government documents, and ships’ deck logs. 

To determine whether BWN personnel had exposures to dioxin comparable with 

those of ground troops and Brown Water Navy personnel, the Committee sought to 

determine whether there were plausible exposure pathways between releases of 

Agent Orange (specifically, the spraying of Agent Orange during the Operation 

Ranch Hand missions) and the three populations. 

The Committee considered using a mathematical model to estimate likely dioxin 

concentrations based on Agent Orange inputs to the environment, but it found that 

input data and, importantly, data with which to evaluate model performance, were 

48 

not available. The Committee did make the assumption that Agent and dioxin 

would have entered waterways from riverbank spraying or as runoff from soil, particularly in the Mekong delta area that was heavily sprayed and that experienced 

frequent flooding. The amount entering the rivers would be highly diluted by river 

flows. 

The concentration of dioxin in marine waters would be reduced to a great extent 

by dilution in river water and by dispersion in air, as well as by further dilution 

in the coastal waters. Given the total lack of monitoring information conducted during or shortly after the war and the variability and uncertainty in the fate and 

transport information on dioxin as it pertains to Vietnam, the Committee concluded 

that it is not possible to estimate the likely concentrations of dioxin in marine waters and air at the time of BWN deployment. 

The Committee was also tasked with comparing exposures among three military 

populations that served in Vietnam: troops on the ground, Brown Water Navy personnel, and BWN personnel. Since the 1970s, IOM committees and other groups 

have attempted to reconstruct Vietnam veterans’ potential exposure to Agent Orange and dioxin. Given the lack of exposure data on ground troops, the uncertainty 

of exposure models, and the limited knowledge about exposure among BWN veterans, the Committee concluded that it was not possible to make quantitative exposure comparisons among the three military populations of interest to the VA. Therefore, the Committee evaluated the plausibility of exposure of the three populations 

to Agent Orange and dioxin via various mechanisms and routes. Several plausible 

exposure pathways and routes of exposure to Agent Orange—associated dioxin in 

the three populations were identified. Plausible pathways and routes of exposure of 

BWN personnel include inhalation and dermal contact with aerosols from spraying 

operations that occurred at or near the coast when BWN ships were nearby, contact 

with marine water, and uses of potable water prepared from distilled marine water. 

Large US Navy ships—such as aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers—had 

their own distillation systems to produce potable-water and distribution systems 

that included water-treatment processes. The issue of distillation of marine water 

is important because the VAO committee for Update 2008 found that BWN veterans 

could have been exposed to dioxin via contaminated potable water. This conclusion 

was based on an Australian Department of Veterans Affairs report that determined 

that Royal Australian Navy personnel who served offshore in Vietnam were exposed 

to Agent Orange—associated dioxin because the distillation systems aboard the 

ships were thought to be able to concentrate the dioxin in marine water into the 

potable water during the evaporative process. If Agent Orange—associated dioxin 

was present in the marine water, distilled potable water would be a plausible pathway of exposure for BWN veterans. 

The 2011 committee concluded that, qualitatively, ground troops and Brown 

Water Navy veterans had more plausible pathways of exposure to Agent Orange— 

associated dioxin than did BWN veterans. But one exposure mechanism was specific 

to BWN ships: possible dioxin contamination of potable water from onboard distillation plants. However, without information on the dioxin concentrations in the marine feed water, it is impossible to determine whether BWN personnel were exposed 

to Agent Orange—associated dioxin via ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation of 

potable water. 

In the course of their work over 20 years, VAO committees have only found a single epidemiological finding specific to BWN veterans. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma was 

among the selected cancers addressed in CDC’s 1990 case-control study assessing 

the role of Vietnam service as a risk factor. As shown in the table below from VAO 

Update 2012, BWN veterans have been found to have a higher incidence of nonHodgkin lymphoma than other naval Vietnam veterans and had the highest, most 

significant risk across all branches of service for this adverse health outcome. 

Deployed 

Veterans 

Odds Ratio 

(95% Confidence 

Interval) 

US CDC Selected Cancers Study—case-control study of incidence of non-Hodgkin 

lymphoma (Dec 1, 1984–Nov 30, 1989) among US males born 1929–1953 ................ 99 1.5 (1.1–2.0) 

Army Vietnam veterans ................................................................................................ 45 1.2 (0.8–1.8) 

Marine Vietnam veterans ............................................................................................. 10 1.8 (0.8–4.3) 

Air Force Vietnam veterans ......................................................................................... 12 1.0 (0.5–2.2) 

Navy Vietnam veterans ................................................................................................ 32 1.9 (1.1–3.2) 

Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans ............................................................................. 28 2.2 (1.2–3.9) 

49 

Although this does not address the question of dioxin exposure directly, this disease is considered a signature cancer of dioxin exposure, and so this health outcome 

alone is presumed by VA to be service-related for BWN veterans. 

Ultimately, the BWN committee, like the VAO committee for Update 2008, was unable to state with certainty that BWN personnel were or were not ex- posed to Agent Orange and its associated dioxin. Owing to a lack of data on 

environmental concentrations of Agent Orange and Agent Orange—associated dioxin 

and an inability to reconstruct likely concentrations, as well as the dearth of information about relative exposures among the ground troops and Brown Water Navy 

personnel and BWN personnel, it is impossible to compare actual exposures across 

these three populations. Thus, the judgment of both these IOM committees was that 

exposure of BWN Vietnam veterans to Agent Orange—associated dioxin 

cannot reasonably be determined and no future scientific research is likely 

to provide additional information that would resolve the issue. Whether or 

not the claims of BWN veterans are to be processed like those of other Vietnam veterans is ultimately a policy decision. 

In fact, the paucity of reliable information on toxic exposures that military personnel may experience has been a problem not just with respect to the BWN situation. One of the three tasks assigned by the Agent Orange Act for each health effect 

evaluated by a VAO committee was to determine ‘‘the increased risk of disease 

among those exposed to the herbicides during service in the Republic of Vietnam 

during the Vietnam era.’’ After several updates that remarked individually for each 

of the dozens of health outcomes reviewed that such risks could not be calculated 

due to the lack of exposure information, VAO committees eliminated the individual 

sections in favor of a generic statement at the beginning of their reports. (This is 

an example of a legislative requirement that remained inconsistent with reality, 

even after two more decades of scientific progress.) IOM committees assessing the 

possibility of health consequences in other veteran cohorts (e.g., Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc.) have lamented the lack of information collected during or 

immediately after a deployment that might shed light on the frequency, duration, 

and intensity of the exposures that veterans experienced. In the case of Agent Orange, great efforts have been made to gather exposure estimates retrospectively, 

such as gathering blood sample from Air Force veterans who served in Operation 

Ranch Hand and modeling an exposure opportunity index for individual veterans 

based on melding information abstracted from records of spray missions and troop 

movements. The results of these exposure estimation efforts have largely proven to 

be frustrating; at best they have provided a very rough estimate of potential exposure for a particular group of services members. In response to repeated recommendations from VAO and other IOM committees, DOD has been attempting to develop 

ways to avoid repetition of this situation going forward, but anticipating what 

should be collected in various circumstances is exceedingly challenging. For example, collection of biologic samples from each servicemember before and after deployment might be ideal for some exposures such as depleted uranium, but useless for 

those that leave no detectable marker in a person. Unfortunately, I do not expect 

data will become available from past conflicts that will permit more accurate reconstructions of those exposures nor that the actual exposure of individual servicemembers is ever likely to be known. 

In addition to highlighting the difficulty of obtaining useful exposure data on veterans, the production of the series of VAO reports has been a constructive learning 

experience in other respects. Theoretically, the procedure set out in the Agent Orange Act and adopted in other instances when troops have possibly experienced 

toxic exposures might be expected to anticipate health problems that might ultimately prove to be more prevalent in a particular set of veterans. In practice, however, the approach of culling results from existing epidemiologic studies for adverse 

effects characteristic of the ‘‘suspect’’ toxic agent in a given situation and then periodically iterating the procedure for more recent findings has been fraught with challenges and conveyed a sense of delayed response to the veterans. The process is contentious and time-consuming, and the underlying rationale is somewhat circular. Although answers prior to the manifestation of harm in veterans would be desirable, 

a shift in emphasis toward monitoring the veterans themselves more closely might 

ultimately be more definitive. Unfortunately, an improved approach is not readily 

apparent, especially not one that would smoothly transition from established procedures. 

Renewing the biennial AO updates may not be the optimal way to move forward, 

but extending it temporarily would at least ensure continuity to the monitoring of 

the health status of Vietnam veterans as they continue to age and a guaranty of 

periodic consideration of their situation. Production of one more VAO update after 

the one currently nearing release would provide time to re-evaluate the current 

50 

process of identifying and assessing possible service-associated health problems in 

veterans and their families for compensation. Before legislating changes for which 

the scientific basis may be premature, this could be an opportunity to define a process that would be more coherent across various military situations. 

Thank you for asking me to join you today. If you would like additional clarification of any of the points I raised, I would be happy to answer your questions. 

References 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1990. The association of selected 

cancers with service in the US military in Vietnam. I. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Archives of Internal Medicine 150:2473–2483. 

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

IOM. 2011. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 

IOM. 2014. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you for your testimony. 

Commander Wells. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WELLS, COMMANDER, U.S. NAVY, RETIRED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MILITARY VETERANS ADVOCACY, INC. 

Commander WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Blumenthal. Thank you for the opportunity to come talk to you 

today on the theme of examining the impact of exposure to toxic 

chemicals on veterans and the VA’s response. That gives rise to 

two questions; both deserve a straightforward answer. 

First off is the impact of toxic research. Toxic exposure has been 

horrendous and the VA response has been disappointing, to say the 

least. Why do we need Senator Moran’s bill and Senator Blumenthal’s bill? 

Because—and this whole Blue Water Navy situation is a good 

reason why, because this started not with the United States, not 

with the Navy, but with the Government of Australia who has toxic 

exposure research, does toxic exposure research, outreached, and 

found there was a 22 to 26 percent increase above the norm in cancer research among Navy veterans compared to the 11 to 13 percent above the norm for Army veterans, and I think it was 7 to 9 

percent for Air Force veterans. 

They discovered that. They are the ones who initiated the University of Queensland study that you have heard so much about on 

water distillation that actually showed that the distillation process 

did not remove the Agent Orange dioxin; it enriched it. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I was a Navy engineer. I was chief engineer on three different ships. I spent 22 years in the Navy. Water 

was my business. We made it, we distilled it, we used it for the 

boilers, we used it for drinking, and the first thing I would like to 

mention is, the VA is sending you out on a wild goose chase with 

this policy that says you cannot make water close to shore. 

What the policy actually said was that you should not make potable water close to shore unless it was necessary. That is the exact 

wording out of the water bill. It became necessary quite often in 

dealing with the tropics because people drank a lot of water, 

showered a lot, and used the water. 

51 

But more importantly, it does not matter because there was no 

restriction on making water for the boilers. They called it feed 

water, which was the same distillation system all the way down to 

the final distribution manifold. 

So, if they sat in Da Nong Harbor and made water for the boilers, that entire system was contaminated; and if they went 12 

miles, 20 miles, 100 miles out to sea, that system was still contaminated. The VA knows that, and yet, they continue to bring that excuse to you and it is—I cannot think of a nice polite word to say 

it, so I will not. OK? 

Like the same thing, oh, we never sprayed over the harbors. 

Guys, we did spray over the harbors. There were defective spray 

nozzles. Senators, when I say guys I am talking generically. It is 

just a habit of mine. There were defective spray nozzles and sometimes they were dumping it making a landing. But again, it does 

not matter. 

Now, it is a tough concept for the VA to understand. It was 

mixed with petroleum. Petroleum floats. It would wash into the rivers, plus we sprayed the river banks and would go out to sea. 

Again, another tough concept for the VA. Rivers run out to sea and 

it would get out into the harbors, out into the South China Sea. 

How do we know this? The IOM, bless their hearts, did a good— 

some good work for us. They missed one thing. There was a report 

done by the Russians on Nha Trang Harbor, where they actually 

took bottom sediment samples in the Cau River downstream from 

where it was sprayed—your Committee staff has this report. They 

actually found that there was Agent Orange in the bottom sediment. All right? 

Then they went out and they took transepts coming out from the 

river and found more Agent Orange throughout the coral, which 

killed the coral, by the way. That is why they went in, to figure 

out what was going on, and they found it still in the bottom sediment. So, it kind of proves the point that rivers run out to sea. 

I have this, by the way, 5-minute temporally prepared statement 

which I have kind of thrown aside, so let us talk about one other 

thing, the original decision. They said, Well, it was not in the Republic of Vietnam, so therefore, we could not include the sea. Well, 

guess what? In 1954 in the Geneva Accords, the United States recognized Vietnamese sovereignty over the territorial seas. 

They did the same thing in the 1973 peace agreement. The Joint 

Chiefs of Staff recognize the 12-mile limit. And that, by the way, 

is not off the mainland; that is off the outermost islands. You will 

see it on the chart on the written testimony. 

So that whole opinion was in violation and we are flaunting 

international law. What is the problem with the VA? Well, you 

know, I met with Deputy Secretary Gibson twice. Good guy, you 

know, I like him a lot. But I basically said to him, Mr. Secretary, 

the people that you have studying this issue do not have any surface ship experience, do they? He admitted that was the case. 

That is the problem. That is why we need the Toxic Research 

bill, to get people, along with their subject matter experts, and yes, 

it should be the VA. You do not take jobs away from them for bad 

behavior, and quite frankly, DOT and HHS is not much better. 

They just have not hit the headlines yet. 

52 

1The red line on the chart is known as the base line. Vietnam uses the straight baseline 

method which intersects the outermost coastal islands. The dashed line is twelve nautical miles 

from the baseline and represents the territorial seas. The bold line marks the demarcation line 

for eligibility for the Vietnam Service Medal. Prior to 2002, the VA granted the presumption 

of exposure to any ship that crossed the bold line. S. 681 will restore the presumption only to 

a ship that crosses the dashed line. 

We need this bill. We need S. 901. We need S. 681. We need to 

restore the benefits to these people who earned them. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I ran over time. Thank you again for 

allowing me to come here. 

[The prepared statement of Commander Wells follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMANDER JOHN B. WELLS, USN (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, MILITARY-VETERANS ADVOCACY INC. 

INTRODUCTION

Distinguished Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member Richard 

Blumenthal and other Members of the Committee; thank you for the opportunity 

to respond to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs on the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 

Veterans Act (S. 681). 

AGENT ORANGE AND THE BLUE WATER NAVY

In the 1960’s and the first part of the 1970’s the United States sprayed over 

12,000,000 gallons of a chemical laced with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) 

and nicknamed Agent Orange over southern Vietnam. This program, code named 

Operation Ranch Hand, was designed to defoliate areas providing cover to enemy 

forces. Spraying included coastal areas and the areas around rivers and streams 

that emptied into the South China Sea. By 1967, studies initiated by the United 

States government proved that Agent Orange caused cancer and birth defects. Similar incidence of cancer development and birth defects have been documented in 

members of the United States and Allied Armed Forces who served in and near 

Vietnam. 

Throughout the war, the United States Navy provided support for combat operations ashore. This included air strikes and close air support, naval gunfire support, 

electronic intelligence, interdiction of enemy vessels and the insertion of supplies 

and troops ashore. Almost every such operation was conducted within the territorial 

seas. 

The South China Sea is a fairly shallow body of water and the thirty fathom curve 

(a fathom is six feet) extends through much of the territorial seas. The gun ships 

would operate as close to shore as possible. The maximum effective range of the 

guns required most operations to occur within the territorial seas as documented in 

the attachment.1 Often ships would operate in harbors or within the ten fathom 

curve to maximize their field of fire. The maximum range on shipboard guns (except 

the Battleship 16 inch turrets) required the ship to operate within the territorial 

seas in order to support forces ashore. 

53 

It was common practice for the ships to anchor while providing gunfire support. 

Digital computers were not yet in use and the fire control systems used analog computers. By anchoring, the ship’s crew was able to achieve a more stable fire control 

solution, since there was no need to factor in their own ship’s course and speed. It 

was also common for ships to steam up and down the coast at high speeds to respond to call for fire missions, interdict enemy sampans and other operational 

requirements. 

Small boat transfers were conducted quite close to land. Many replenishments via 

helicopter took place within the territorial seas. Small boat or assault craft landings 

of Marine forces always took place within the territorial seas. Many of these Marines re-embarked, bringing Agent Orange back aboard on themselves and their 

equipment. Additionally mail, equipment, and supplies staged in harbor areas were 

often sprayed before being transferred to the outlying ships. Embarking personnel 

would take boats or helicopters to ships operating in the outlying ships. Embarking 

personnel would take boats or helicopters to ships operating in the territorial seas. 

The Agent Orange would adhere to their shoes and clothing as well as to mail bags 

and other containers. It would then be tracked throughout the ship on the shoes 

of embarking personnel and the clothing of those handling mail and other supplies 

brought aboard. Their clothing was washed in a common laundry, contaminating the 

laundry equipment and the clothing of other sailors. 


929psMVAexh.eps
54 

2 VA Op. Gen. Counsel Prec. 27–97 (1997). 

3 66 Fed.Reg. 2376 (January 11, 2001). 

4 66 Fed. Reg. 23166. 

5 Chen, Liu et. al, Signature of the Mekong River plume in the western South China, Sea revealed by radium isotopes, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, (Dec. 2010). 

Flight operations from aircraft carriers often occurred outside of the territorial 

seas. As an example, Yankee station was outside of the territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam. Dixie Station, however, was on the border of the territorial seas. 

Some carriers, especially in the South, entered the territorial seas while launching 

or recovering aircraft, conducting search and rescue operations and racing to meet 

disabled planes returning from combat. Aircraft carriers also entered the territorial 

seas for other operational reasons. Many times these planes flew through clouds of 

Agent Orange while conducting close air support missions. These planes were then 

washed down on the flight deck, exposing the flight deck crew to Agent Orange. 

Mail for the ships positioned throughout the combat area was staged at air fields 

and docking facilities throughout South Vietnam. Mailbags were often in sprayed 

area and the Agent Orange not only contaminated the bag, but leeched through to 

some of the mail. This mail was transported to the ships by carrier onboard delivery 

(COD) aircraft or helicopters. The boat or helicopter crews were exposed to the 

Agent Orange and carried it throughout the ship. Additionally, the mail itself was 

distributed to divisional mail petty officers and passed on to individual sailors. 

AGENT ORANGE ACT OF 1991

In 1991, the Congress passed and President George H.W. Bush signed, the Agent 

Orange Act of 1991, Pub.L. 102–4, Feb. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 11. This Federal law required VA to award benefits to a veteran who manifests a specified disease and who 

‘‘during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.’’ 

In 1997 the VA General Counsel issued a precedential opinion excluding servicemembers who served offshore but not within the land borders of Vietnam. The opinion construed the phrase ‘‘served in the Republic of Vietnam’’ as defined in 38 

U.S.C. § 101(29)(A) not to apply to servicemembers whose service was on ships and 

who did not serve within the borders of the Republic of Vietnam during a portion 

of the ‘‘Vietnam era.’’ The opinion stated that the definition of the phrase ‘‘service 

in the Republic of Vietnam’’ in the Agent Orange regulation, 38 CFR 

§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), ‘‘requires that an individual actually have been present within the 

boundaries of the Republic to be considered to have served there,’’ and that for purposes of both the Agent Orange regulation and section 101(29)(A), service ‘‘in the 

Republic of Vietnam’’ does not include service on ships that traversed the waters 

offshore of Vietnam absent the servicemember’s presence at some point on the 

landmass of Vietnam.’’ 2

After lying dormant for a few years, this General Counsel opinion was incorporated into a policy change that was published in the Federal Register during the 

last days of the Clinton Administration.3 The final rule was adopted in Federal Register in May of that year.4 Comments by the VA concerning the exposure presumption recognized it for the ‘‘inland’’ waterways but not for offshore waters or other 

locations only if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation within the Republic of Vietnam. 

Historically the VA’s Adjudication Manual, the M21–1 Manual, allowed the presumption to be extended to all veterans who had received the Vietnam service 

medal, in the absence of ‘‘contradictory evidence.’’ In a February 2002 revision to the 

M21–1 Manual, the VA incorporated the VA General Counsel Opinion and the 

May 2001 final rule and required a showing that the veteran has set foot on the 

land or entered an internal river or stream. This ‘‘boots on the ground’’ requirement 

is in effect today. 

HYDROLOGICAL EFFECT

The Agent Orange that was sprayed over South Vietnam was mixed with petroleum. The mixture washed into the rivers and streams and discharged into the 

South China Sea. In addition, the riverbanks were sprayed continuously resulting 

in direct contamination of the rivers. The dirt and silt that washed into the river 

can be clearly seen exiting the rivers and entering the sea. This is called a discharge 

‘‘plume’’ and in the Mekong River it is considerable. Although the Mekong has a 

smaller drainage area than other large rivers, it has approximately 85% of the sediment load of the Mississippi. In two weeks, the fresh water of the Mekong will travel several hundred kilometers.5 Notably, the Agent Orange dioxin dumped off the 

55 

6 Belton, et. al, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pFuran (TCDF), In Blue Crabs and American Lobsters from the New York Bight, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (November 12, 1988). 7Pavlov, et, al, Present-Day State of Coral Reefs of Nha Trang Bay (Southern Vietnam) and 

Possible Reasons for the Disturbance of Habitats of Scleractinian Corals, Russian Journal of Marine Biology, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2004). 8Mueller, J; Gaus, C, et. al. Examination of The Potential Exposure of Royal Australian Navy 

(RAN) Personnel to Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans Via 

Drinking Water (2002). 

9 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 

east coast of the United States was found in fish over one hundred nautical miles 

from shore.6

By coincidence, the baseline and territorial seas extend further from the mainland 

off the Mekong River. At its widest point off of the Mekong, the territorial seas extend to 90 nautical miles from the mainland. This was due to the location of the 

barrier islands owned by Vietnam. Given the more pronounced effect of the Mekong 

plume, however, the broader area off the Mekong Delta is appropriate. The force of 

the water in this area is greater than the river discharge in other parts of the country. 

Eventually, the Agent Orange/petroleum mixture would emulsify and fall to the 

seabed. Evidence of Agent Orange impingement was found in the sea bed and coral 

of Nha Trang Harbor.7 During the Vietnam War, the coastline, especially in the harbors and within the thirty fathom curve was a busy place with military and civilian 

shipping constantly entering and leaving the area in support of the war effort. 

Whenever ships anchored, the anchoring evolution would disturb the shallow seabed 

and churn up the bottom. Weighing anchor actually pulled up a small portion of the 

bottom. The propeller cavitation from military ships traveling at high speeds, especially within the ten fathom curve, impinged on the sea bottom. This caused the 

Agent Orange to constantly rise to the surface. The contaminated water was ingested into the ship’s evaporation distillation system which was used to produce 

water for the boilers and potable drinking water. Navy ships within the South 

China Sea were constantly steaming through a sea of Agent Orange molecules. 

THE AUSTRALIAN FACTOR AND THE DISTILLATION PROCESS

In August 1998 Dr. Keith Horsley of the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs met Dr. Jochen Mueller of the University of Queensland’s National Research 

Centre for Environmental Toxicology (hereinafter NRCET) in Stockholm at the 

‘‘Dioxin 1998’’ conference. Horsley shared a disturbing trend with Mueller. Australian VA studies showed a significant increase in Agent Orange related cancer incidence for sailors serving offshore over those who fought ashore. Based on that 

meeting, the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs commissioned NRCET to 

determine the cause of the elevated cancer incidence in Navy veterans. 

In 2002, as the American Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was beginning to 

deny the presumption of exposure to the United States Navy veterans, NRCET published the result of their study.8 Their report noted that ships in the near shore marine waters collected water that was contaminated with the runoff from areas 

sprayed with Agent Orange. The evaporation distillation plants aboard the ships codistilled the dioxin and actually enriched its effects. As a result of this study, the 

Australian government began granting benefits to those who had served in an area 

within 185.2 kilometers (roughly 100 nautical miles) from the mainland of Vietnam. 

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (IOM) REPORTS

In June 2008, Blue Water Navy representatives presented to the IOM’s Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides 

(Seventh Biennial Update) in San Antonio, Texas. That Committee report 9 accepted 

the proposition that veterans who served on ships off the coast of the Republic of 

Vietnam were exposed to Agent Orange and recommended that they not be excluded 

from the presumption of exposure. The Committee reviewed the Australian distillation report and confirmed its findings based on Henry’s Law. The VA did not accept 

these recommendations. Instead then Secretary Shinseki ordered another IOM 

study. On May 3, 2010, Blue Water Navy representatives testified before the Institute of Medicine’s Board on the Health of Special Populations in relation to the 

56 

10 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange 

Exposure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 11 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2010. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 12 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2014. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 13 United States Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Limits in the Seas 

No. 99 Straight Baselines: Vietnam, (1983). 14 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, [1958] 15 U.S.T. 1607, T.I.A.S. No. 

5639. 15Gray v. McDonald, No. 13–3339, 2015 WL 1843053 (Vet. App. Apr. 23, 2015). 

project ‘‘Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure.’’ 10 They 

concluded: 

(1) There was a plausible pathway for some amount of Agent Orange to have 

reached the South China Sea through drainage from the rivers and streams of 

South Vietnam as well as wind drift, 

(2) The distillation plants aboard ships at the time which converted salt water to 

potable water did not remove the Agent Orange dioxin in the distillation process 

and enriched it by a factor of ten, 

(3) Based on the lack of firm scientific data and the four decade passage of time, 

they could not specifically state that Agent Orange was present in the South China 

sea in the 1960’s and 1970’s, 

(4) There was no more or less evidence to support its presence off the coast than 

there was to support its presence on land or in the internal waterways, and 

(5) Regarding the decision to extend the presumption of exposure ‘‘given the lack 

of measurements taken during the war and the almost 40 years since the war, this 

will never be a matter of science but instead a matter of policy.’’ 

Notably this report did not contradict the findings of the Seventh Biennial report 

that the Blue Water Navy personnel should not be excluded from the presumption 

of exposure. 

The IOM’s Eighth Biennial Update recognized that ‘‘it is generally acknowledged 

that estuarine waters became contaminated with herbicides and dioxin as a result 

of shoreline spraying and runoff from spraying on land.’’11 The Ninth Biennial Update stated that ‘‘it is generally acknowledged that estuarine waters became contaminated with herbicides and dioxin as a result of shoreline spraying and runoff 

from spraying on land, particularly in heavily sprayed areas that experienced frequent flooding.’’ 12

LAW OF THE SEA

The Agent Orange Act of 1991 provides that: 

* * * [A] veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service in the 

Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and 

ending on May 7, 1975, and has*** [Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2)] shall 

be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide 

agent containing dioxin*** unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 

38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3). (Emphasis added). 

Vietnam claims a 12 mile territorial sea. The United States has consistently recognized Vietnamese sovereignty over the territorial seas of Vietnam. This recognition was expressly incorporated into the 1954 Geneva Accords Art. 4 which established the Republic of Vietnam. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/genevacc.htm 

(last visited June 6, 2014). It was confirmed again in Art. 1 of the 1973 Paris Peace 

Treaty which ended the Vietnam War. http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/ 

TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Paris_Peace_Accord_1973.pdf (last visited June 6, 2014). During the war, the United States recognized a 12 rather than a 3 mile limit. See, The 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the War in Vietnam 1960–1968, Part II which can be found 

at dtic.mil/doctrine/*** /jcsvietnam_pt2.pdf at 358. 

Vietnam claims as internal or inland waters the landward side of the baseline.13

Additionally, bays such as Da Nang Harbor are considered part of inland waters 

and under international law are the sovereign territory of the Nation.14

The Secretary has recognized the presumption of exposure for those who served 

onboard ships who were in ‘‘inland’’ waters. The VA definition only includes inland 

rivers and does not cover the bays and harbors. Recently the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims has rejected the VA’s exclusion of Da Nang Harbor from the definition of inland waters as irrational and not entitled to deference.15 In this case, the 

Court reviewed the case of a veteran whose ship was anchored in Da Nang Harbor 

57 

16 Congressional Budget Office, Comparing the Costs of the Veterans’ Health Care System With 

Private-Sector Costs (December 2014). 

but who did not set foot on land. Da Nang Harbor is surrounded on three sides by 

land and is considered inland waters under international law. The VA is now required to rationally specify what they consider to be inland waters. 

COST OF S. 681

In October 2012, the Congressional Budget Office provided a preliminary estimate 

that the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act would cost $2.74 billion over ten 

years. The estimate is currently being recomputed based on information provided 

in a meeting between CBO and MVA. CBO originally used a gross exposure population of 229,000 people. This estimate was based on the number of veterans serving 

within the Vietnam Service Medal area. The Navy Historical and Heritage Command and the Congressional Research Service estimated that the number of sea 

service veterans serving inside the territorial seas was 174,000. Of the 713 ships 

deployed to Vietnam, however, there is documentation that 330 have entered the 

inland rivers. An MVA analysis provided to CBO estimates 83,000 sea service veterans are already covered under the existing inland waters provision. Of the remaining 91,000 veterans, 1100 are covered under a different provision of the law 

for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. MVA estimates another 10% of the crews actually set 

foot in Vietnam. This includes crew members who went ashore for conferences, to 

pick up supplies, equipment or mail and those who piloted and crewed the boats 

and/or the helicopters that operated between the ships and shore. Additionally, 

some personnel went ashore to see the doctor, the dentist, the chaplain or the lawyer. They called home. Shopped at the PX and departed on emergency leave or permanent change of station orders. Additionally, men reporting to the ship would 

often transit though Vietnam. Finally, a number of ships that were at anchorage 

would send a portion of the crew ashore for beach parties or liberty. 

Although the official CBO report has not yet been issued, informal liaison indicates that the cost will be $1 billion or less. The VA has estimated a ten year cost 

of $4.4 billion but has not provided any data to support the conclusion. In a meeting 

between MVA officials and Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson held on September 1, 

2015, the VA estimate was discussed. MVA provided the Deputy Secretary several 

considerations which might affect the score. CBO remains confident that their $1 

billion or less estimate is correct. 

Irrespective of what the cost is, MVA understands the need for a ‘‘pay for.’’ There 

will be some automatic offsets in both discretionary and mandatory spending. There 

will be a dollar for dollar offset for Navy veterans currently receiving a non-serviceconnected pension as well as those receiving non-service-connected medical treatment at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. Additionally, under concurrent receipt laws, some veterans who are also military retirees will have a dollar 

for dollar offset due to waiver of their Title 10 pension (less Federal tax liability). 

As most Blue Water Navy veterans are in their 60’s they are Medicare eligible 

or will become Medicare eligible during the ten year cost cycle. In a previous report, 

the CBO has compared the cost of Medicare treatment with treatment at a VHA 

facility.16 One of the key findings of this report was that private sector Medicare 

services would have cost about 21 percent more than services at a VHA facility. 

When dealing with retirees, the cost would be greater since Medicare only provides 

coverage for 80% of the cost. TRICARE for Life provides an additional 20% coverage 

for military retirees. 

Should the cost of the bill approach $1 billion, enactment of round downs would 

generate the required $1 billion. Round downs were in use for two decades through 

2013 until they were discontinued by then Chairman Bernie Sanders. Round downs 

require disability payments to be ‘‘rounded down’’ to the nearest dollar. This would 

result in a maximum loss of $11.88 per veteran per year. The average loss per veteran would be $.49 per month or $5.88 per year. In a poll of almost 500 veterans, 

authorized by Military-Veterans Advocacy via the Blue Water Navy Awareness 

Facebook site, 90% of respondents supported the use of round downs. In a separate 

poll conducted by the Fleet Reserve Association of 1148 veterans revealed that 

73.52% supported the use of round downs. Informal liaison with several veterans 

organizations found that these organizations will not oppose round downs if that is 

the only means available of funding S. 681. 

While Military-Veterans Advocacy understands and appreciates the reluctance of 

some Senators to enact round downs, it is a small price to pay to restore earned 

benefits to tens of thousands of veterans. If the VA will not extend coverage to the 

58 

bays and harbors and the territorial seas, Military-Veterans Advocacy urges the 

Committee to incorporate ‘‘round downs’’ as an offset. 

IMPACT OF THE GRAY V. MCDONALD DECISION. 

In April of this year the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decided Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313 (2015). In Gray, the Court found that the VA’s exclusion of bays and harbors was irrational and that their stated reasoning was arbitrary and capricious. 

The time period for appealing the Gray decision has passed and the VA must now 

re-write their regulation. A draft regulation continued to exclude the bays and harbors and was used to deny at least two claims at the Board of Veterans Appeals. 

That regulation should not have been released and when called to the attention of 

the Deputy Secretary was quickly rescinded. The Board of Veterans Appeals has 

since been cautioned to not rely on that draft. Military-Veterans Advocacy estimates 

that if the bays and harbors, as defined by the 1958 Convention on the Territorial 

Seas and the Contiguous Zone, are included under current law, the actual cost of 

S. 681 will be reduced to $100 million over ten years. If the VA extends the presumption to the territorial sea and beyond, the cost of the bill will be reduced to 

zero. MVA officials met with VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson on July 6, 2015 and 

September 18, 2015. Both meetings were productive and the Deputy Secretary 

seemed to be responsive to the presentations. Although no decision has been 

reached, MVA is heartened by the willingness of the Deputy Secretary to meet and 

listen to our position and we look forward to further consultations. 

LITIGATION POST GRAY

The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association had previously brought suit 

against the Secretary under the Administrative Procedures Act in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columba. The court dismissed that case for lack 

of jurisdiction, after recognizing that the plight of the Blue Water Navy veterans 

was of concern. An appeal of that jurisdictional ruling is pending before the United 

State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

The case of Trumbauer v. MacDonald, concerning Da Nang Harbor is now pending before the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The Secretary’s brief is due 

October 5, 2015. Military-Veterans Advocacy has file an amicus brief in this case. 

Another appeal, Johnson v. MacDonald, concerning Nha Trang Harbor is pending 

before the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The initial brief is due October 19, 2015. Military-Veterans Advocacy is representing the veteran. 

The case of Crisp v. McDonald, involving Da Nang Harbor, will be filed by Military-Veterans Advocacy on behalf of the veteran. This is one of the two cases where 

benefits were denied using the prematurely released draft regulation. That appeal 

must be filed before Thanksgiving. As a sign of good faith, MVA has not yet filed 

the appeal to give the VA an opportunity to resolve this issue amicably. 

ADDITIONAL TOXIC EXPOSURE CONCERNS

Unfortunately, exposure to toxic substances is part of life in the military. Some 

of these exposures are not preventable, while some could be prevented. Irrespective 

of whether there is any fault or negligence, the important issue is how we take care 

of our veterans who are victims of this exposure. 

The Agent Orange problem will not end with the Blue Water Navy and S. 681. 

Other ships that remained outside of the territorial seas were exposed through aircraft embarkation, contaminated personnel, equipment, mail etc. Veterans were exposed in Guam, Johnston Island, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Okinawa and 

even sites in the United States such as Gulfport Mississippi and Fort McClellan, 

Alabama. 

Additionally, Agent Orange is not the only toxic exposure that requires the attention of the Congress. Asbestos contamination, radiation, the Camp Lejeune water 

tragedy, depleted uranium, petroleum fumes and open air burn pits have exposed 

hundreds of thousands of veterans to toxic materials just as dangerous as chemical 

weapons. 

The Toxic Exposure Research Act, S. 901, is an important step to become 

proactive in the worked of toxic exposure. S. 901 will establish a center at an existing VA facility to research the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions of the 

biological children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of individuals exposed to 

toxic substances while serving as members of the Armed Forces that are related to 

such exposure. It further directs the VA to conduct a national outreach and education campaign directed toward members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their 

59 

family members to communicate information on incidents of exposure of members 

of the Armed Forces to toxic substances, health conditions resulting from such exposure, and the potential long-term effects. It also requires DOD and the Department 

of Health and Human Services to assist the VA in implementing such campaign. 

Congressman Tim Walz has also introduced H.R. 3423 to extend the Institute of 

Medicine’s Biennial Agent Orange Committee for two years. It is expected to pass 

the House. Military-Veterans Advocacy recommends making this Committee a permanent entity and expanding its charter to include all toxic exposures. Working 

closely with the research facility envisioned by S. 901, the United States can take 

a proactive approach to quickly identify and treat veterans who have been exposed 

to toxic substances. 

CONCLUSION

MVA continues to urge the adoption of S. 681. It will restore the earned benefits 

to tens of thousands of Navy veterans that were taken from them over a decade ago. 

This bill is supported by virtually all veterans organizations including the American 

Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, Reserve Officers 

Association, Fleet Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Association of the U.S. Navy and other groups. We have always enjoyed the support 

of the Military Coalition. Enactment of this legislation is overdue and Military-Veterans Advocacy most strongly supports its passage. 

MVA further supports the enactment of S. 901 and H.R. 3423 to require research 

into toxic exposure treatment for veterans and their descendants. 

SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. WELLS, COMMANDER, USN 

(RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MILITARY-VETERANS ADVOCACY

Distinguished Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member Richard 

Blumenthal and other Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to supplement out testimony on the question of: ‘‘Examining the impact of exposure 

to toxic chemicals on veterans and the VA’s response.’’ 

A response to the two questions is fairly straightforward. The impact of toxic exposure has been horrendous and the VA response has been disappointing to say the 

least. 

Military-Veterans Advocacy has taken the lead in petitioning Congress for relief 

for the Blue Water Navy veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange through their 

potable water supply. Our Australian allies discovered that the evaporation distillation systems did not remove the Agent Orange dioxin during the distillation process—it actually enriched it. Instead of embracing the findings of our Allies, the VA 

attacked the study until its science was confirmed by two separate committees of 

the Institute of Medicine. 

The Blue Water Navy situation was especially tragic since they were granted the 

presumption of exposure to Agent Orange prior to 2002. The VA General Counsel, 

in an opinion that flaunted international law and domestic policy interpreted the 

provisions of the Agent Orange Act requiring service ‘‘in the Republic of Vietnam’’ 

as meaning the land mass. Although the General Counsel used the terminology ‘‘inside the borders of Vietnam,’’ the VA rejected the inclusion of bays harbors and the 

territorial seas. This is despite the fact that the United States recognized Vietnamese sovereignty over these waters in the 1954 Geneva Accords and the 1973 

Paris Peace Treaty. It was an irrational decision and was partially invalidated by 

the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the landmark case Gray v. McDonald. 

Military-Veterans Advocacy proudly filed an amicus brief in that case. The court listened. That appeal period has expired and the VA is re-writing their regulation. Due 

to other pending court decisions we expect and hope for a positive decision this Fall. 

I do want to take a moment to thank the VA for finally agreeing to cover our 

brothers in arms who flew the C–123 aircraft after the war. Although not entirely 

satisfied with the effective date of the new regulation, I do believe it is a step I the 

right direction. I also want to mention to the Committee that I have met twice with 

VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson and General Counsel Leigh Bradley on the Blue 

Water Navy issue. We have shown them how the Agent Orange, mixed with peritoneum, floated out to the bays barbers and territorial seas. They reviewed the report showing the presence of Agent Orange in Nha Trang Harbor. Hopefully, we 

have finally put to the rest the old VA misrepresentation that the Agent Orange 

never left the landmass. Petroleum floats and rivers run out to sea. A tough concept 

maybe, but a truism none the less. Both Secretary Gibson and General Counsel 

Bradley were interested in this matter and I thank hem for their courtesy. 

60 

Currently pending before this body is S. 681 which will restore the presumption 

of exposure to the territorial seas. Military Veterans Advocacy urges its enactment. 

In doing so, we are not unaware of the offset requirements of the Pay as You Go 

Act. We have identified sufficient funds to pay for the bill through round downs. 

This would require the disability checks for all veterans to be rounded down to the 

nearest dollar. The most it would cost a veteran is $11.88 per year. The average 

cost is $5.88 per veteran per year. 

We understand and appreciate the resistance to round downs but the bottom line 

is that we need to ensure that these sick and disabled veterans are covered. Many 

are dying. Many had to leave the work force early. Some will leave their families 

destitute when the die. These veterans earned their benefits and we ask that you 

provide to provide them. While it is possible that the VA will grant the Blue Water 

Navy veterans partial or complete relief, we must be prepared to act if they do not. 

Accordingly, Military-Veteran Advocacy asks that you markup S. 681 and if the VA 

does not grant relief, send it to the floor using round downs as a pay for. 

This will not resolve the toxic exposure problem. The Blue Water Navy is a large 

part of the problem but not the entire problem. Agent Orange was also used on 

Guam, Johnston Island and in Thailand Laos and Cambodia. In the United States 

Agent Orange was used in the Canal Zone, Fort McClellan and Gulfport MS. Other 

veterans have been exposed to PCBs, depleted uranium, petroleum and other toxic 

fumes, asbestos and the latest killer, open air bum pits. 

Toxic exposure is a personal battle to me. My step-daughter Joanne has suffered 

birth defects due to Agent Orange. Her natural father was an Australian soldier 

fighting beside the United States in South Vietnam. She lives in Australia where 

she receives better services than she could get in the United States. 

Personally, I have been exposed to asbestos after working for years in shipboard 

engineering spaces. Through the grace of God I have not developed symptoms. Many 

others have. 

Open air burn pits have been called the Agent Orange of the 21st Century. Troops 

berthed downwind of these hellish pits were exposed to all types of toxic fumes. 

Worse, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found, even 

when incinerators were available at places like Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, 

open air burn pits were used. Military-Veterans Advocacy is currently representing 

a Lieutenant Commander who was sexually assaulted and then forced out of the 

Navy just shy of her retirement availability for raising the issue of open air bum 

pits at Camp Leatherneck. LCDR Celeste Santana is fighting with MVA to gain the 

retirement she lost for trying to do the right thing. 

And of course, Sen Burr’s comments on Camp LeJeune hit home. Like the Blue 

Water Navy the Marines and their dependents were poisoned via their drinking 

water. 

The problem is that no one knows the extent of the damage caused by toxic exposure and whether or not it is generational. A central toxic exposure research facility, 

located at a state-of-the-art VA medical facility will allow the United States to assess the harm caused by these exposures and to reach out to those harmed. This 

will allow the VA to become proactive rather than reactive and stop this senseless 

adjudication on a case by case basis. As this program gains traction it will eliminate 

much of the backlog and ensure that those who truly need the benefits receive them. 

Military-Veterans Advocacy also recommends that the IOM Agent Orange Biennial 

Committee to be expanded to include all toxic exposures and to be made permanent. 

As you know we are currently standing up a state-of-the-art facility in New Orleans. This new facility would be a fantastic site for the new facility S. 901 will authorized. Southeastern Louisiana has significant toxic exposure experience most recently with the BP Oil spill but also through our familiarity with ‘‘cancer alley.’’ 

Universities such as Tulane and LSU will stand ready to work with the Federal 

Government to pursue the needed scientific research and evaluation. Our local industries would step forward to engage in private-public partnerships. 

Perhaps the location of the site is a bit premature, but the identification of the 

problem is needed. This bill is needed to address he many toxic exposures that have 

placed our veterans in jeopardy. It is a form of chemical warfare that is even more 

egregious than Saddam Hussein, because most of the chemicals come from out own 

side. 

Military-Veterans Advocacy appreciate the issues surrounding costs and are the 

first to admit that the Pay as You Go Act has been of tremendous assistance in arresting th trillion dollar deficits that were common place not that long ago. But 

today the Congress is funding several trillion dollars worth of expenditures. Taking 

care of veterans is part of the responsibility of raising a military force, That is Constitutionally mandated. Many of the things we spend Federal dollars on are not 

Constitutionally mandated. I do not want to get into specifics because, again, I do 

61 

not want to give rise to partisan disputes. But, we believe, as citizens, that Congress 

should fund their constitutional mandates first. 

Military-Veterans Advocacy is a grass roots organization. We are all volunteers. 

No one gets paid. We come to you not to address a political agenda but to ask you 

to keep faith with the veterans. I have met many of you and I respect all of you. 

We recognize that you are good people trying to do the best job that you can. In 

the long run, S. 901 will help us to take care of our veterans and streamline the 

bloated and inefficient adjudication system. Accordingly, we urge you to adopt 

S. 681 and S. 901. If this requires a modification of the Pay As You Go Act, or an 

exception thereto, we ask you to take that action. 

One final thought—the exposure to toxic substances does not just affect veterans. 

Agent Orange dumped off the coast of New Jersey was found in seafood several 

years later 150 miles off the New York bight. Agent Orange that is being rededicated today near Da Nang airport, with U.S. Taxpayers dollars I might add, is finding its way back into the areas where fish farms are located. And by the way, FDA 

does not test Vietnamese seafood for the dioxin. Next time you go out to eat, you 

might want to check where the seafood comes from. Just a thought. 

Again thank you for allowing us to present our written and oral testimony and 

may God bless you, God bless the United Sates of America and God bless the military and veterans who have kept us safe. 

Chairman ISAKSON. You did just fine. 

Mr. Rowan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. ROWAN. Good morning still, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Barely. 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator Blumenthal, Senator Moran, Senator 

Hirono, nice to meet you all. We have prepared testimony which we 

have submitted for the record. It is long and I am not going to get 

into all that. Let me just get to the heart of this. 

First of all, I wish we had an Individual Longitudinal Exposure 

Record when I was going through Vietnam. It would have been 

very interesting. I was interested about the Senator talking about 

the folks sitting in Saigon. 

Amazingly, how many of those people who sat in Saigon got exposed in all kinds of strange ways, not the least of which was the 

food they were eating every day or the water they were drinking 

every day. That stuff was pretty pervasive all over the place. Actually, I would guarantee you there were probably more Agent Orange exposure in the base camps and in the air bases than there 

was out in the bush. 

We did not go out in the bush and try to defoliate the entire jungle, but we certainly defoliated everything that grew around the air 

bases and around the base camps. And I would contend that my 

exposure to Agent Orange came from the three showers I took a 

day in the 130 degree heat in June and July 1967. 

I cannot believe it has been 48 years since I tromped through 

Vietnam. In the 48 years since I came home, they have done nothing in the VA to study anything related to Agent Orange exposure. 

Everything we do is we are always relying on somebody else’s testing and somebody else’s, you know, research, which is ridiculous. 

The key to the 901 bill is the national center. That is the key. 

I contend that before they set the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder up, they did not know a whole hell of a lot 

about that either. 

Yet, somehow that is now the quintessential place to go to get 

information on PTSD. I would like to see this new national center 

62 

be the place to go for research on toxic exposure for everyone going 

down to the children and grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren. 

Unfortunately, Vietnam veterans are now old enough to have 

great-grandchildren and we see the causes. We have held town hall 

meetings in 42 States all over the country, about 200 or more. Over 

2000-plus families have come to us telling us about all kinds of horrific situations with their progeny. 

This research must be done, it just has to be done. Doctor, it is 

far from premature when it has been 50 years since we had been 

exposed and we do not have a clue about what is going on relating 

to anything that ever happened to us 50-plus years ago or 48 years 

ago. 

VVA obviously supports the Blue Water issue. By the way, the 

Air Force did spray the ships. I had—one of the people who is very 

involved in our organization was an Air Force crew member on the 

Ranch Hand cruise. He said, if they had a lot of excess stuff in the 

plane when they were coming in for a landing and they had to 

dump it out to sea, they dumped it out to sea. If there was a Navy 

ship there, they believed it would be more fun to dump it on them. 

You know, a little inter-service rivalry there. So, God knows how 

many times that was done. 

S. 2081, the new bill that Senator Blumenthal has brought up, 

is also important. Again, because of this lack of research over all 

of these years—I am now 70—it has taken so many years now to 

get information about what has happened to me and my colleagues 

who were Vietnam veterans 50 years ago. We are still finding out 

every day more and more and more as more and more research 

gets done. 

So, it is very important that the process of the ILER, the 1991 

bill continue and that this extender go on. You are optimistic going 

to 2030. I have no idea how many of my colleagues will still be 

around in 2030, but hopefully some of us will be. It is important. 

It is also important that 901 does not talk just about us, but it 

talks about the vets who came after us, the Persian Gulf War and 

the new wars. 

Unfortunately, the more we learn about the new wars and with 

the exposures we have over there, I think the horrors are starting 

to show up already. And God knows what is going to happen 20 

or 30 years from now. So, it is important that these bills get done. 

We are also looking to do a new bill which will take the Agent 

Orange Act of 1991 and expand it to include the other wars, frankly, so that they will be coming along like us and get the same research done. Research is the key. It needs to be done, it has never 

been done, we need it done, and that is the bottom line. 

You know, the other thing that concerns me is the CBO. I know 

Congress is having fun yelling at the VA bureaucracy, but the Congress has so little bureaucracy with the Congressional Budget Office which is giving us such a hard time about scoring which should 

be a simple bill. It is a research bill. 

It is not determining what comes out of that research; it is a research bill. We need them to tell us how much it is going to cost 

to do the research, which we do not think is astronomical and is 

within the VA’s existing budget. Thank you. 

63 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT/CEO, 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

Good morning, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and other Senators on this distinguished and important committee. Vietnam Veterans of America 

(VVA) very much appreciates the opportunity to offer our comments concerning several bills affecting veterans that are up for your consideration. Please know that 

VVA appreciates the efforts of this Committee for the fine work you are doing on 

behalf of our Nation’s veterans and our families. 

I ask that you enter our full statement in the record, and I will briefly summarize 

the many of the important points of our statement. 

S. 901, Toxic Exposure Research Act of 2015, introduced by Senator Jerry Moran 

(KS), and cosponsored by Richard Blumenthal (CT), would establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs a national center for research on the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions of the descendants of veterans exposed to toxic substances 

during service in the Armed Forces that are related to that exposure, to establish 

an advisory board on such health conditions, and for other purposes. 

Among the invisible wounds of war are those brought home by troops, some of 

which may not manifest for years or even decades after the toxic exposure(s) while 

in military service to America. Most tragically, they may also pass on the effects 

of these toxic wounds to their progeny. No one can argue that our children and 

grandchildren should have these burdens visited on them. S. 901is a multigenerational, multi-exposure bill. It provides a common vehicle for evaluating potential transgenerational effects of toxic exposures, from Camp Lejeune and Fort 

McClellan to Agent Orange in multiple locations, to the toxic plumes that sickened 

thousands of Gulf War veterans. 

Toxins, such as TCDD and 2,4D dioxin, are believed to cause birth defects in children of military personnel who came into contact with these toxins—in-country 

troops during the Vietnam War, as well as the several thousand Reservists who 

rode in and maintained aircraft that had been used to transport the toxins. Because 

the various herbicides used in Vietnam were generally mixed with kerosene or JP– 

4 or an admixture of these two petroleum products so that they would cling to 

leaves better, the toxins became suspended at or near the surface as run-off in 

streams then into rivers and ultimately the South China Sea. For this reason, these 

chemicals were taken in by the desalination units on Navy ships to make potable 

water for the ship’s boilers and other purposes. The desalinization units had the 

perverse effect of concentrating the dioxin up to 30 times over. Navy personnel who 

served off the coast of Vietnam were exposed in this manner to even greater concentrations of these toxins than some of the ground personnel. 

For Gulf War veterans, the exposure was to chemical weapons in Iraqi ammo 

dumps containing chemical and biological agents that were blown up by U.S. Forces 

at the end of the Gulf War; pesticides and burn pit smoke and possibly tainted vaccines and medicines ingested by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq may also have 

proved toxic. 

This is a simple and straightforward proposal that will begin to address the needs 

of the progeny of every generation of veterans, because the health conditions seen 

in some are so heartbreaking to so many families who wonder, ‘‘Did my service 

cause my children (grandchildren) to suffer?’’ (Please see ‘‘Faces of Agent Orange’’ 

at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Faces-of-Agent-Orange/187669911280144) 

VVA unequivocally supports S. 901. 

Vietnam Veterans of America applauds the leadership of Senator Jerry Moran 

(KS), working with his colleague Senator Dick Blumenthal (CT), to construct and 

introduce this bipartisan bill to begin to properly address the situations outlined 

above. 

Let me address a few important issues within this legislation: 

First, the National Center envisioned in this bill belongs in the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. Doctrine, law, and precedent all dictate that, since the time of 

Abraham Lincoln, the concerns of veterans and their progeny are vested in this department. This Center for Excellence is a small entity that will functionally manage 

the activities to assist the Advisory Board in overseeing research. 

Second, we agree with VA testimony earlier this year that the VA lacks the internal capability, capacity, and experience in the intergenerational research that will 

be required. The Advisory Board provides the VA Secretary with knowledge and scientific expertise to obtain research required by the legislation. 

64 

Third, we believe that the VA does have the capability, capacity, and experience 

to contract with any number of governmental, quasi-governmental, academic, scientific, or non-profit research organizations skilled in the research and administration outlined in the legislation; and further, such organizations would be able to 

achieve the intent of the legislation in a timely and cost-efficient way. 

Fourth, the legislation gives the VA Secretary a strong, independent Advisory 

Board—of unpaid professionals—to provide diverse perspectives and technical expertise, assuring that the VA is provided with research-based outcomes that are respected and acknowledged by the military, our veterans and their descendants, and 

the scientific communities. 

While VVA’s exploration into the health complications of veterans exposed to toxic 

substances during their service has centered on the families of Vietnam veterans, 

the veterans of more recent wars also report health issues in their children. For this 

reason, VVA is calling for more research on the generational legacy of toxic exposures for all veterans who have been exposed while serving in the Armed Forces. 

The Toxic Exposure Research Act of 2015, embodied in S. 901 and H.R. 1769, does 

just that. This Act directs the Secretary of the VA to select one VA Medical Center 

to serve as the National Center for the research and diagnosis into health conditions 

of descendants of individuals exposed to toxic substances while serving in the Armed 

Forces. 

The Toxic Exposure Research Act now has 18 bi-partisan co-sponsors in the Senate and 97 bi-partisan cosponsors in the House. The Act also has significant support 

in the community. The support from the military and veterans community has been 

overwhelming. Both the Military Coalition (representing 31 military and veterans 

groups) and the National Military and Veterans Alliance (representing 32 military 

and veterans groups) have publicly endorsed the Act. The National Association of 

Counties passed a Resolution supporting the Act, as did the National Association 

of County Executives. The National Federation of Republican Women also recently 

passed a Resolution supporting this Act. (Please see the appendices to this statement.) 

VVA agrees with VA testimony before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee 

on Health on April 23, 2015, that this bill will be funded from the Research & Development line item of funding already accorded to VA. Frankly, the VA and the 

Department of Defense should have been funding good research in this area for the 

last forty years, so it is only fitting that part of this appropriation go to the Center 

of Excellence and to promising research proposals from within or without of the VA 

that will move us toward better understanding of the effects of these toxins or combinations of same. 

It is time that the Congress takes this meaningful step toward justice for every 

generation’s progeny. It is our hope that this legislation will be passed in 2015 so 

that the research can begin, and science can provide the answers so desperately 

needed by our veterans and their families. 

S. 681—Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015, introduced by Senator 

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)—This legislation would restore presumptive coverage for 

service-connected ills that afflict thousands of naval personnel who served in the 

Vietnam theatre of operations—coverage that the Department of Veterans Affairs 

abruptly ended in March 2002. 

As noted on page 2 of this statement there is now no longer doubt of how the 

Navy personnel were exposed. Those who claim the toxin in the waters could not 

get out as far as the aircraft carriers should take a look at all of the highly radioactive debris from the Nuclear plant disaster in Japan that is now washing up on 

the western shores of the United States, having been carried more than 3,000 miles 

by the ocean currents. 

During the Vietnam War, some 20 million gallons of ‘‘Agent Orange’’ and other 

toxic substances was sprayed to remove jungle foliage around fire bases and to deny 

the enemy the ability to grow or harvest crops. Toxic chemicals in these herbicides 

have been linked to several afflictions, including non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, various 

cancers, Type II diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 

empowered the VA Secretary to declare certain illnesses presumptive to exposure 

to Agent Orange, enabling veterans who served in Southeast Asia to receive health 

care and disability compensation for such health conditions. 

In March 2002, however, the VA ceased awarding benefits to any of the 534,300 

so-called blue water veterans, limiting those eligible under provisions of the Agent 

Orange Act only to ‘‘boots on the ground’’ Vietnam veterans. 

Blue water veterans afflicted with any of the presumptive service-connected maladies that the VA acknowledges to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange 

ought not be excluded from receiving healthcare services and disability compensaVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:04 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\092915.TXT PAULIN
65 

tion for which their boots-on-the-ground brother and sister veterans are eligible. 

They, too, served honorably and well, and S. 681 introduced by Senator Gillibrand, 

will accord them benefits that they have earned. 

VVA fully supports S. 681. 

CAMP LEJEUNE

When President Obama signed into law in early August a bill 2012 enabling the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to provide health benefits to veterans and families 

diagnosed with diseases related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina, thanks in no small part to the energy and passion of Senator Richard 

Burr (NC), it culminated a more than fifteen-year struggle by families who believed 

something toxic at Lejeune had been behind the maladies that had taken the 

health—and the lives—of their loved ones. 

‘‘I think all Americans feel we have a moral, sacred duty toward our men and 

women in uniform,’’ President Obama said before signing the Honoring America’s 

Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 in the Oval Office. The 

law covers those with conditions linked to water contamination that occurred at 

Camp Lejeune between 1957 and 1987. 

The military is a collection of very dangerous occupations beyond the obvious of 

hostile fire from our Nation’s enemies. Therefore VA should operate as an occupational health care system that researches and diagnoses and treats maladies, illnesses, and conditions that may result from events or exposures that may have occurred during the veteran’s military service. 

VVA thanks you for the opportunity to share our views on the vitally needed legislation that you are considering today. I will be pleased to answer any questions 

you might have. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Rowan. 

Master Sergeant Ensminger. 

STATEMENT OF JEROME ENSMINGER, MASTER SERGEANT, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS, RETIRED 

MSgt. ENSMINGER. Yes. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. 

Chairman. My name is Jerry Ensminger. I served faithfully in the 

U.S. Marine Corps for nearly a quarter of a century. Of my four 

children who all were born during my military career, my daughter, Janey, was the only one to have been conceived, carried, or 

born while we lived aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, 

during the years of the water contamination. 

When Janey was 6 years old, she was diagnosed with leukemia. 

She fought a valiant battle against her disease, but she eventually 

lost the war. She passed away on 24 September 1985 at the age 

of nine. That is correct. The 30th anniversary of her death was just 

five short painful days ago. 

Janey is but one example of the multitude of tragedies suffered 

by former Camp Lejeune families who were exposed by this negligence. It was not until August 1997 that I became aware of the 

contaminated tap water within Camp Lejeune. The Department of 

the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps did their very best to conceal 

the truth, but eventually that genie escaped its bottle. 

At first, the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps reported 

that the contamination had reached only a few of the base’s water 

supply wells and they had immediately taken those wells off-line. 

There was absolutely no mention that the contaminants had 

reached our taps. When that fact was finally revealed, authorities 

with the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps publicly described the levels of contaminants that we were exposed to as 

minute, trace, small, or minuscule. 

66 

Many years later when the truth was finally revealed, Camp 

Lejeune’s contaminated tap water is now known as the worst and 

largest tap water contamination incident of a major water system 

in the history of our Nation. I would say that is a far cry from our 

leaders’ description of the contaminant levels as minute, trace, 

small, or minuscule. Would you not agree? 

Mr. Chairman, I will now address my years of experiences with 

the Veterans Administration concerning the Camp Lejeune contamination issue. I would like to preface my detailed comments 

with this one statement which I feel encapsulates the VA/Camp 

Lejeune saga. Agents within the VA system have expended more 

effort, time, and money devising methods to deny Camp Lejeune 

victims their rightful benefits rather than providing them. 

During our April 2010 Camp Lejeune community assistance 

panel meeting, Mr. Brad Flohr of the VBA, described in great detail the VA claims process which Camp Lejeune veterans needed to 

follow when submitting a claim for service-connected benefits. A 

court-recorded transcript is available on ATSDR’s Web site of that 

meeting. 

In 2013, the VA changed the rules and the requirements for 

Camp Lejeune claims. They had created an entire new step in the 

adjudication process for Camp Lejeune claims only. This step was 

called subject matter experts, or SMEs, who were selected from existing VA medical staff. 

These so-called SMEs were neither scientifically or medically 

qualified to make the judgments or evaluations that their VA handlers were tasking them to make. The fact that the VA has veered 

out of their lane of providing health care and benefits and into 

areas of expertise for which they have no business venturing, 

raises some very troubling questions for me. 

First and foremost, what is the motivation for VA staff in their 

incessant pursuit in denying veterans their benefits? Most of the 

VA staff involved in this VA/Lejeune debacle are or were retired 

military medical officers and their actions exhibit an almost maniacal desire to deny their fellow veterans their benefits. 

Second, we need to determine if a Congressionally-approved 

standardized VA claims process exists which veterans can confidently follow when making a claim. Apparently, the current policy 

allows the VA to modify the claims process at their whim without 

Congressional oversight. This allows the VA to create insurmountable obstacles in the claims process for which most veterans do not 

have the knowledge or the finances to overcome. 

In layman’s terms, this amounts to authorizing a sports team to 

change the rules at any time they desire even during a game. How 

could anyone be successful in such a scenario? They cannot. For example, I have witnessed many Camp Lejeune veterans claims 

where these so-called VA SMEs completely ignored and even challenged the veterans’ attending oncologists and other medical specialists. 

Third, Mr. Chairman, in light of the VA’s Camp Lejeune/SME fiasco, with their demonstrated desire to rely on outdated science 

and their refusal to recognize and utilize the most up-to-date scientific studies available, I must personally oppose Bill S. 901 in its 

current form. 

67 

S. 901 would not only be dangerous to the welfare of our veterans and their families, it would create a conflict of interest and 

a duplication of efforts which other existing Governmental agencies 

are tasked, staffed, and equipped to perform. I would be in favor 

of a modified S. 901 which would mandate one or a combination of 

these existing agencies to perform the tasks outlined in this bill. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, no other military toxic exposure incident in our history has been documented or studied as thoroughly 

as Camp Lejeune. Much of the science is already in and more is 

coming in future study reports. Many Camp Lejeune veterans and 

their families have waited, suffered, and yes, some even died waiting for this scientific evidence. 

They should not need to wait any longer for the help that they 

deserve. We were all at Camp Lejeune to serve and protect our Nation. None of us ever expected nor deserved to be poisoned, especially here on our own shores. 

Now, the VA representative you heard earlier brought up this VA 

app, exposure app that they have got. One of my colleagues just 

went to that app. The information on the Camp Lejeune page is incorrect. It is outdated science. It says TCE may cause kidney cancer. That app is like a computer; it is only good as what you put 

in it. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Master Sergeant Ensminger follows:] 

68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME M. ENSIMINGER, 

MSGT U.S. MARINE CORPS (RET.) 


929psJME1.eps
69 


929psJME2.eps

"minute," "trace," "small," or "miniscule." Many years later 

when the truth was finally revealed, Camp Lejeune's contaminated 

tap water is now known as the worst and largest tap water 

contamination incident of a major water system in the history of 

our nation. I would say that that is a far cry from our leaders 

description of the contaminant levels as "minute," "trace," 

"small," or "miniscule," don't you agree? 

Mr. Chairman, I will now address my years of experiences with the 

Veterans' Administration (VA) concerning the Camp Lejeune 

contamination issue. I would like to preface my detailed comments 

with this one statement which I feel capsulates the VA/Camp 

Lejeune saga. "Agents within the VA system have expended 

more effort, time, and money devising methods to deny Camp 

Lejeune victims their rightful benefits rather than providing 

them!" During our April2010 Camp Lejeune, Community 

Assistance Panel (CAP) meeting Mr. Brad Flohr of the VBA 

described in great detail the VA claims process which Camp 

Lejeune veterans needed to follow when submitting a claim for 

service connected benefits. (court recorded transcript is available at 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov Camp Lejeune page). 

In 2013 the VA changed the rules and the requirements for Camp 

Lejeune claims. They had created an entire new step in the 

adjudication process for Camp Lejeune claims only. This new 

step was called "Subject Matter Experts" (SMEs) who were 

selected from existing VA medical staff. These so-called SMEs 

were neither scientifically or medically qualified to make the 

judgments or evaluations their VA handlers were tasking them to 

make. The fact that the VA has veered out of their lane of providing 

health care and benefits and into areas of expertise of which they 

have no business venturing, raises some very troubling questions 

for me. First and foremost, what is the motivation for VA staff in 

their incessant pursuit in denying veterans' their benefits? Most of 
70 


929psJME3.eps

the VA staff involved in this VA/Lejeune debacle are or were 

retired military medical officers and their actions exhibit an almost 

maniacal desire to deny their fellow veterans their benefits. 

Secondly, we need to determine if a congressionally approved 

standardized VA claims process exists which veterans can 

confidently follow when making a claim. Apparently, the current 

policy allows the VA to modify the claims process at their whim 

without congressional oversight. This allows the VA to create 

insurmountable obstacles in the claims process for which most 

veterans don't have the knowledge or finances to overcome. In 

layman's terms this amounts to authorizing a sports team to change 

the rules at anytime they desire, even during a game. How could 

anyone be successful in such a scenerio? They Can't! For example, 

I have witnessed many Camp Lejeune veterans' claims where these 

so-called VA SMEs completely ignored and even challenged the 

the veterans' attending oncologists or other medical specialists! 

Thirdly Mr. Chairman, in light of the VA's Camp Lejeune SME 

fiasco, with their demonstrated desire to rely on outdated science 

and their refusal to recognize and utilize the most up to date 

scientific studies available, I must personally oppose the bill 8.901. 

In it's current form, 8.901 would not only be dangerous to the 

welfare of our veterans and their families, it would create a conflict 

of interest and a duplication of efforts which other existing 

governmental agencies are tasked, staffed and equipped to perform. 

I would be in favor of a modified 8.901 which would mandate one 

or a combination of these existing agencies to perform the tasks 

outlined in this bill. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, no other military toxic exposure incident 

in our history has been documented nor studied as thoroughly as 

Camp Lejeune. Much of the science is already in and more is 

coming in future study reports. Many Camp Lejeune veterans and 

their families have waited, suffered, and yes even died waiting for 

this scientific evidence, they shouldn't need to wait any longer for 

the help they deserve. We were all at Camp Lejeune to serve and 

protect our nation, none of us ever expected nor deserved to be 

poisoned ... especially here on our own shores! Thank you. 
71 

Chairman ISAKSON. Without objection, we will include your comments about the VA app so they are part of the hearing record. I 

appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate all of your testimony. 

Mr. Ensminger, our hearts go out to you in the loss of your 

daughter. Our admiration goes to you for taking the time to come 

here and testify today in a very forthright and powerful way. I am 

pleased to tell you that Senator Burr, Senator Tillis, and this Committee are working hard on the Camp Lejeune situation. 

I think progress is being made with what CDC has now come 

back with and hopefully we are finally going to bring a resolution, 

far too late, but a resolution nonetheless, on that case. I thank you 

very much for your testimony. 

MSgt. ENSMINGER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Dr. Ramos, I am going to say something and 

this is one of those yes or no things. You have got to tell me I have 

got it right or I have got it wrong. 

Dr. RAMOS. Sure. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I was taking notes fast, though I do not 

write well. You said the lack of monitoring—talking about the Blue 

Water Navy off of Vietnam, there is no quantitative science to support and it would be unlikely in the future that enough data could 

be gathered to determine whether or not exposure to Blue Water 

Navy would or would not have been a cause of cancer. Is that 

correct? 

Dr. RAMOS. That is correct, quantitatively. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Quantitatively. Dr. Ramos, you said it is 

strictly a question not of science, but of policy. Is that correct? 

Dr. RAMOS. I did say that, correct. 

Chairman ISAKSON. In other words, the Congress of the United 

States has to make the decision, are we going to award those benefits or not. Is that correct? 

Dr. RAMOS. That is correct. 

Chairman ISAKSON. There is not a scientific accumulation that 

could be anticipated because of the lack of collection that could certify it otherwise? 

Dr. RAMOS. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. OK. Make a note of that back there. (I am 

talking to my staff.) 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I will make a note of it, too. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Commander Wells, you were actually in the 

business of purifying water on a ship, is that right? 

Commander WELLS. Yes, Senator. As an engineer on the ship, we 

had responsibility for the water distillation storage and distribution 

systems. 

Chairman ISAKSON. This is a wild question but just out of curiosity, because I know this was 40 or 50 years ago, but just out of 

curiosity, when you were in the process of doing that, did it ever 

occur to you that you might be processing water that could be a 

problem for soldiers to ingest? 

Commander WELLS. Not at all, sir. I mean, we had several criteria tests for purity, but that was based on what could possibly 

damage the boilers. As far as potable water, there was actually a 

lot less testing. The only thing we had to do was add chlorination 

72 

to it and do cultures sometimes to make sure there was no bacteriological contamination. As far as anything dealing with Agent 

Orange, nobody ever even thought of it, to be honest with you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I think, Dr. Ramos, a fair statement to say 

is at the time that he was processing that water, he said the 

science would not have been there to have told us that would have 

been a problem anyway. Is that correct? 

Dr. RAMOS. No. Actually if the question had been asked, that experiment could have been done back then, but it just was not 

asked. 

Chairman ISAKSON. So, that is your testimony, it was not asked 

and the experiments were not done? 

Dr. RAMOS. That is correct. The experiments were actually completed post in reconstruction studies. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Ms. Wedge, you have been sitting there patiently for a long time. Did you have anything you wanted to contribute to this conversation? 

Ms. WEDGE. Only that I concur with everything Dr. Ramos said. 

I was a study director for the Blue Water Navy study and we 

looked very, very hard for any kind of sampling data that had been 

collected during or shortly after the war. We found none of it. 

Chairman ISAKSON. It was nonexistent? 

Ms. WEDGE. Nonexistent. 

Chairman ISAKSON. So, you corroborate your boss’s testimony? 

Ms. WEDGE. I do. 

Chairman ISAKSON. That is a smart employee. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank all of you for being here today. I recognize that each of you 

has invested a substantial part of your personal and professional 

lives in this cause, and I particularly appreciate the passion and 

urgency that you bring to this debate. This nation needs to understand, with passion and urgency, the importance of this issue. It 

affects veterans of every era. 

There may be new toxic substances and chemicals on the battlefield, but the principle is the same, that anybody in the vicinity of 

combat and many who may only be near it can be exposed to this 

type of insidious and pernicious chemical harm. And future generations bear the burden. 

The passion and urgency of this issue has to be understood by 

our Nation. The research that would be authorized by the bill I 

have introduced is long overdue, and I say that almost as a completely inadequate characterization that is so often used around 

here in these halls, long overdue. 

In this instance, it is almost criminally overdue because Congress and the country have simply chosen to look the other way. 

Whether it is Agent Orange or the chemicals in the water that you 

processed or the depleted uranium, pollutants from burn pits or 

nerve gas in unexploded ordnance found on the battlefields in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, our men and women in uniform have suffered, 

they continue to suffer, and their children and grandchildren will 

suffer. 

So, I am grateful for your advocacy and for the personal pain 

that you have brought to this forum. As a parent and a citizen, I 

73 

want to thank each and every one of you; as a parent of two sons 

who have served and one now serving. I believe this Nation has an 

obligation that it has shirked unwisely and unforgivably, and I am 

determined that we will move more quickly with the measures that 

have been proposed to remedy this issue and with others that I intend to introduce. 

I think the stories you have brought here are the most powerful 

part of your testimony. So, I would like to ask Mr. Rowan and the 

Vietnam Veterans of America, first thanking you for your support 

for this measure and your advocacy. 

I understand that you have stories from families available that 

could be submitted for the record and that they would help to bolster support for S. 901 and some of the other measures we are considering. I would like to ask that those stories be submitted for the 

record. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Without objection. 

Mr. ROWAN. We will be happy to do so. It is called ‘‘Faces of 

Agent Orange.’’ We have a whole compilation of all the—distillations of the hearings we have been holding over the years. 

[VVA’s Faces of Agent Orange stories follow:] 

74 


929psRSD1.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

together," 

It took a long time before he could 

do the math, and even after the 

metaphorical numbers in his Agent 

Orange equation added up, he qil\ had 

difficulty talking about it. He doc<; to 

thi~ day. 

"Talking about it now. you just get 

choked up:' he ~aid. "Sometimes you 

want to punch something, you know? 

You ju-;L keep blaming your:.elf. I 

went to two Agent Orange town hall 

meeting~ and li~tened to other fathers 

talking about their children, and it just 

gets very emotional. It's very difficult to 

listen to them and then to speak about 

your own children. It's very hard.'' 

Joe served with the First Infantry 

Division in 1969-?0.ln 197\,hemet 

the woman who was to be his wife. In 

1972, they married. Hi~ wife would 

~utrcr through several miscarriages. but 

eventually they had six children. one of 

whom lived for only a brief time. 

"My wife nmied our daughter for 

seven months. and something happened 

that caw .. ed the baby to break away 

from her:· he said. "She lived for a day 

and a half. maybe t\vo days. Then she 

died:· 

One year later, another daughter, 

Katie, wa\ born. At bi1th, she was 

diagnosed with an "imperforate anus'' 

and scolio~is. A specialist performed 

emergency surgery that saved her life; 

several months later a ~econcl ~urgery 

came. The physicians wanted to move 

her to another hospital for the initial 

surgery. the same ho~pitul in which 

Joe's daughter had died the year before. 

He couldn't bring himself to take 

another infant through those hospital 

doors./\ different hospital was chosen. 

In the course of Katie's hospitaliLations, 

a physician showed Joe pictures of his 

daughter's spine. 

''It looked like a bag of bones," he said. 

"It wa~ just a whole thing of bones, 

and none of them were together or 

connected.·· 

Katie would not be the only Ingino 

child with longstanding health 

problems. All of his children have 

a"thma: all of them ~bowed learning 

di~abilitie" in their school In later 

years, Katie would Inginos 

a grandson. but he. too, would be 

diagnosed with health i~sues - hearing 

difficulties and autism. 

None of the birth defects or illnesses 

had shown up anywhere in Joe Ingino 's 

family medical history or his wife's. 

Joe had been going to the VA for many 

years. On one visit, after routine blood 

Joe Ingino, 1968, 

Fort Mead, Maryland 

The Ingino Children 

(l tor, hack to front): 

Annmarie, Joseph Jr., 

Stephanie, Lisa, and Katie 
75 


929psRSD2.eps

work was done. his PSA numbers came 

back alarmingly high. He went to see 

a urologist. He was diagno~ed with 

prostate cancer. It was the beginning of 

a long decline. 

"I had prostate surgery," he said. '"Then 

everything escalated - diabetes. 

coronary problems, hypertension. a 

pacemaker.'' 

The residual issues often related to 

pro\tate surgery forced him to give 

up his job as a truck driver for a local 

municipality. but he was still active in 

VVA. He served as president of Chapter 

~Q. Na\\au County, Long Island. He 

attended conferences and town halls, 

li~tening to other veteran~ speak of 

Agent Orange-related issues for them 

and their families. He began to see his 

own health problems and his children's 

in a different way. 

"I thought I was just another regular 

Vietnam vet with ~orne PTSD problems 

and stuff;' he said. ''Then everything 

started weighing on me more \vith my 

children." 

An in~idious side effect- guilt- came 

with the knowledge of Agent Orangerelated health i~sues. He blamed him~elf 

for his children's health problems. 

''We blame ourselves," he said. "It 

bothered me immensely. It really 

bothered me. Ju~t the idea of it." 

doesn't feel like it. We all feel like we 

brought this stuff to our families. I don't 

have to tell you how much it pisses us 

off." 

He continues to be active in VVA, 

encouraging veterans to learn 

everything they can about Agent 

Orange and its effects. He said that in 

hi\ time as pre-;ident of Chapter l:Q he 

frequently received calls from veterans' 

wives with quc-;tions about their 

husband's health after they read Agent 

Orange ~tories in The VVA Veteran. 

He visits congressional offices 

whenever he can, often finding young 

aides who want to be helpful but who 

know little or nothing about Agent 

Orange. They've heard of it. but often 

just hearing of it is the extent of their 

knowledge. 

"I ju~t \vant Vietnam vets to plea~e 

get checked out." he said. ''Learn 

everything you can about Agent 

Orange. Go to the VA or find a service 

officer and a~k questions. There's lots 

of information at VA hospitals. There 

are a lot of things the VVA has about 

Agent Orange. Vets need to get their 

stories out about children. and let the 

country know what they're going 

through. and what their children are 

going through." 

Sign{ficant munhers r?f Vietnam 

veterans have children and 

A veteran~' coun~elor told him of "false grandchildren with birth defects 

guilt,'' assuring him that he had done 

nothing wrong. His family supported 

him unequivocally. a unified ~tam! for 

which he is appreciative. But he still 

speaks of guill with difficulty. 

''Everyone said, 'You didn't do 

anything wrong,' but it's still this guilt 

you have and you're blaming yourself." 

he said. "It might be ·false guilt,' but it 

relmcd ro exposure to Age/If Orange. 

To alert legislators and the media to 

this ongoing leg({(y o.fthe war. \\'e are 

seeking real stories about real people. 

f1 you H"i.'lll to .<,hare 

due to !\gem Orange/dioxin, send an 

email to mporter@l"l'a.org or ccl11301-

585-4000, Ex/, 146, 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

WA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

John Weiss 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

Assodates of Vietnam 

Veterans of America 

Dan Carr 

Kenneth Porizek 

AVVA Chapter 862 

WA Illinois State Council 
76 


929psRSD3.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

Han~cn 's son. Adam. had been 

then. Karl not given the herbicide a 

thought mall the years that followed hi:. 

Vietnam tour of duty. But after Adam's 

death. he found himself reconsidering 

not only the that befell his ~on, 

but health by other of his 

children as well. 

Burkitt'" lymphoma, a form of cancel 

so rare that only 

reported in the United 

Adam's death. He was 25 years old. 

answers and began rc~earching Burkitt's. 

It was in the course of that search that 

Agent Orange unexpectedly entered the 

discu~sion. 

Karl served with the Army in Vietnam in 

1968-69. He remembered the 

but thought little of it, even 

in Vietnam. 

"I didn't have a clue." he said. ·1 knew 

I was there. What caught my attention 

was the ~lUJT I :-mv on the Internet and 

after I joined VVA and "aw "ome of the 

articles on Agent Orange being \vritten." 

Karl and his wife had "ix children 

- four daughters. then Adam. then 

another daughter. a birth order that was 

something of a family joke. because 

the opposite of Karl's 

parents. His Navy veteran. also 

had ~ix children. But ti.r~t came four 

hoy._, then a girl. then a hoy. 

Karl said Adam \vas a '·,vonderful kid." 

Neither a smoker or drinker. he steered 

clear of the trouble a boy might find 

growing up. He was student and 

built a reputation worker in 

every job he took on. At 25. he was a 

newlywed with a good job in Provo. 

Utah. managing the care of model home~ 

for one of Utah\ largest home builder<;. 

He \vas in his la~t semester at Brigham 

Young University and due to graduate. 

Karl was so proud of hi~ son. who would 

be the fir~t in the family to graduate from 

co!lcge. 

Around Mother's Day 2005. Karl heard 

that Adam had been sick. He went to 

a doctor \vho diagnosed some kind of 

parasite. 

But the problem persisted. Adam's 

stomach became distended. and on a vi<;it 

to one of hi~ ~i~ters. she was shocked at 

the sight. 

"When she ~aw him. she told him 

something \\HS 

smd. "She ~aid, 

growing in you:· 

wrong." Karl 

got ~omething 

He \vent to a doctor again. and this time 

Adam with Mom and Dad; 

despite all, he fought with 

a smile 
77 


929psRSD4.eps

··r had never heard of it until I found out 

about Adam," Karl said. 

Treatment wa" diftlcult. In the first 

round of chemo, Adam had 

emboli..,m. The ho~pital 

kept him alive, and after a week in 

the TCU. he showed ~igns of recovery. 

Then came the ..,ecoml round of 

chemotherapy. It would be even \Vorse. 

Severe neurological problem~ 

him from performing the 

movements. His eyes began to move in 

different direction..,, and the neurologist 

didn't know what was wrong. After 

two weeb. a nurse from a different 

depattment asked 1f anyone had tested 

for toxins in hi~ blood. A test showed an 

ammonia level several hundred times 

higher than normal. 

·There was nothing they could do for 

him." Karl said. "We had to let him go." 

After Adam's death, Karl began the 

search for answers. In that search, he 

came acros~ Agent Orange for the first 

time. 

''I ran acro~s ~omething about someone's 

son who had died of Burkitt'-;, and a 

doctor told him several !'ir~t-born ~ons 

of Vietnam veterans had died of it." Karl 

~aid. "The doctor wouldn't document 

it. So I don't know if it was someone 

shooting off hi~ mouth, or if there was 

something to it. But it made me start 

thinking more about Agent Orange. 

I remembered at the base camps and 

fircba~e.., l spent time at that there was no 

foliage in the immediate area. There was 

a lot of dirt. but no foliage." 

In The VVA Veteran, he read about the 

affected areas. 

Two of Karl Han~en ·s daughters wffer 

from Raynaud'-;. One ha'> had it for 

several years: the :-.econd wa:-. diagno-;ed 

only month<; ago. 

Karl has been concerned about tremors 

in his hands. He worries that the coming 

years will make them only \vorse. He 

has anothe1 as \Veil: One of his 

daughters has from similar 

tremors for several year~. 

No one in his family or in his wife's 

family has any history of any of the 

di~eascs that have afflicted Karl and his 

children. 

"What make<; me sick is when l think 

about Agent Orange possibly having 

something to do w1th thi~ and what it did 

to my kid~." he "aid. "Itju:-.t tears you 

up. I don "t know if any of this will be 

to my grandchildren. I have 

grandchildren. I think there"s a 

good chance that all of this 

to Agent Orange.'' 

to Agent OrangeldirHin. send an email to 

mporter@<'l'a.org or calf 301-585-4000. 

Ect. 146. 

Manr Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Bucke_ve State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefzts Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

John Weiss 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Famil_v Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

Associates of Vietnam 

Veterans <~f America 
78 


929psRSD5.eps

By Jim Bclsfnnr 

He h:t'>l\\tl Liaughtl'r:--- Kim, horn \Yhik· he \\:IS in \cictn:nn and 

:-,h:mnun, horn after his return. Kim i» lw,dthy. Sh.mnon 1» not She h:t» 

IK'cn diagno..,cd \\-cllmto :ldulth(JOd \\ith numcn1u» hlood-boJnc di'>C:hc.'> 

and dy~function:-- of her autnumnune <>y.'>tl'm One of these dheascs h~l'> so 

clisfJgured her bee. she em not bring lwr..;l·lf to lc.l\ c her home. Hc1 no-.c 

hao., \ llltull) dL'><lJ'Pl':lrvd 

She :Jcbm:mtly rdu~ed to h:l\"C her pKlllrl' induckd 111 thio. ~lory until 

pcr.-.u:lccd lO do ~o hy hn tatlwr 

'lhc "as a hc.mtitul young ,,·om:m. he s<~id. '"To me. o.,hl's o.,ttlllll':lutifuL 

and l l<•\"l' her. But I hope '>he ne\·er :-.ec..., thi.o., story or these pt( turcs. 

\k said ·\gem Or:mge came to mind imnwdiatdy ''hen ~hannon hqpn 

h:l\ ing health probkm~ 

·r madt: tho.._· .\gent Orange connection prctl) much <t'> o.,oon ao., she '>t:uted 

h,t\ing problems. he ~aid. ·one born ''hik I \\as 111 \CJetn:ml. :1nd o.,hc' . .., 

tinl'. the second. horn :1ltn \'ictnam. and shl'" not line It \\a.-.n·r too h.trd 

lor !1ll' io come up\\ ith .1 connection lhcrl' 

l-Ie ha.-. his o\\"Il Agent Orangl' comwct1on in :1 mcbnnm:1 remo,·<xl hom 

h1s h.1d::. He seiYCd in \"ic!rum trom 19(JN-(l9 :1~ :Ill IllLtntryman \\'lth the 

1st He ha'> no memory of being -.prayed directly. hut there i.~ no 

doubt h.' .-.pent ,1 )C;\I in an area that ~;m o.,praying 

·Jn th<--' carl~ ycc~r.-.. ': ou had to p10\ c you \\ere ..;pr,Jyed, hut } ou no 

longl't h:nc to do tlut. he '>:ud. "'lou hmc to pro\c on!} that you 

\\Crc in \'wtnalll Thl') sent me :1 map\\ tth till' loc.\tion;, \\ lwre m~ untt 

opn:lll':L Till') h.1d :tn mcrl:t) that o.,hm\cd \\here Agent Orangl' \\';Jo., 

spr:tyed Three of them \\'l't"C right\\ here \\"C \\Cl"l'. 

Dan Grij}in, N68 

Dan Griffin. 1992 
79 


929psRSD6.eps

1-!v rcccl\cd a dwck from thv ,\gvnl Urangc st•ttlcn1l.'nl 

·j got my 'i(J(J() check,"" he ~aid ·Did you kno11· ~ou gt·t the .~ame ~tmount il you die'" 

lit:-. h:tllk nm1 is on beh:tU of Shannon. Slw ts .m 1e:1r~ old. Her qu:dity of life 

1'- poor She is ;t\\\":1~~ titvd. ah1·:rys hL";ct with k1·crs. Her lather :-.aid shL's been 

dugno.~cd \\ ith }Ltn~L·n·~ ( leprus; l: Sjugrcn\ ~yndrume (:m autounmunc th:-.L·:t-;c J. 

.\litLtl 1ah-e probpSL' \1\hen tlll' l~th"e hetl\"lTn the hc:trt"-; ldt upper chambet 

:Lrld the lefl lo11 L'r chamhct doe-.n·t dose ptopcrl~ l: H.t~ tuud .~ dt~L':ISL' (chscoloution 

of 1lw c·drctnlttc~ ctuscd by blood 1 c-.sd <.p:t'>llh. H;'>ultlllg Ill cold and l:tck of 

sen'>:ttton 111 the finw·r-; :md toe:-. l. :tnd · :-.:tddk· no'>e 

She·.-. gone t(J Jll'it ~1houte1er~ -.peci:lh<.;t there i-.. ,tnd 1ll(J'>t ofthl'lll ..,,1}. 

\\"ell. \\e"tc Jll'>l not .'>Ute, he -..ttd ·one dt:-.c:~:-.c i'> di'>Jntcgr:lling the cutiLtge in 

the lnp. ankle. heart. and no'>c The no:-.c i'> gone. B<t'>icall~. '>lll' doc.-.n"t h:l\l' ;1 

no'>L'. And not ju:-.t lwcau:-.c I'm her f:1ther. hut :-.he ,,-~ts a 1 er~ :tllr:KtiH' IYom:m. 

:md nm1 sl1L' \Yon·t lca\"e her home. 

The\ cannot get in.-.ur<I1KC nlleragc for the d:un:tgc !o the llO'>l'. hec,llt'>C lll'>ur,tncL' 

companic-. '>~1\ thl' :-.urget) i.'> · Ul'>llll'll( 

fTc ha.~ lud no di'>cU~'>ion \lith the YA about hi:-. d.~ughtL'L C\L'11 though he is 

mon·than f:und1ar \\Jtlllhc theory tlut say:-. lrc :-.hould put in a cLum ,tnd \\ait 

to '>l'l' if 11 i'> granted 

·You look at the di.-;e:hcs thl') "rc compen:-.ating \"L'tcran.~ for .tnd it"s ,\ long li.'>l 

he '>aid. ·]t\ common nm\ lo .~ec gu\S rn:tking claim.'> conncned to .\gent 

01.111gv. 1\ c been to a lot of tuner,! b. too .-\ l(Jt of guy:- l kn(J\\ died \\ tth an 

\gent Or:tnw·-rcla!cd disc~t..,l' 

Bllt they th1n t g1ant compcn~~ttion to the children of m:tle \cter:rn-; \k h;h 

hccn ltl\(Jhcd in \L'Icran . ..,· :t!Tairs for lll~lll) ~car.-. and I'> the eM'cutt\e (hrcctot 

ol \"\"A -0 1!1 \\"estch(:''>tn. 11h C\.pcricnce in \l'ter,tn'>· aff:tlr:-. le~11es 

h1111 .thout :m\ fonhcormng help from the \"/\ for the children of 

\'ieln~tm \'l'tcrans 

1tkv '>O Ill :til\ (Jthct \ cter:nl-; 11 llh children su!Tvting ft(l11\ C\.otrc dr'>c:J-.c'> \\ 1th 

no bmih l11stor~ to connect them \\ith :--uch disease'>. nm (;riftin the\~\ 

mu:--t conduct .'>tudJc-. on the di.'>etse:-. and Agl'llt Orange. He doc<. not ex pet t 

th:tt to h:1ppcn until the \A culture b c hangL·d. 

1 k '>:t\"'> \\hat 1.'> needed is .~omc kind of collection pomt. a telephone numhct 

or c-matl :tddrt•ss. 11 lwrl' \l'll'l",tn'> l'otl\d ctll to tvport hirth-dd"cct problems 

He pornts to the impon:tJKl' of knm1 mg the numhl·r:-. ot children ,md grandchildren in the \"l'tcrans community\\ ho .~utTct from thseases .tnd h1rth dL'fects 

lih.el) conn<.xtcd to .\gent Or.tngc 

"The 11holt' nll'ntalily a! the VAt:-- :-.a\e \lone\. lw s:tid ·They're :-,](l\\h t,tkrng 

ctrL' of u~ \"l'tL'r,tns. hut they're not doing anythtng for children with hath 

dek·cts. c;.,_ccpt for sp111:1 hif1cb I thought nuyhc after they did th:ll 11 1\"nukl 

open the doo1. hut there ha~ hecn nothing added for children. And it\ hecn 

)Car.'> ll(J\1 

Many Thanks 

to Our Sponsors 

I "1:1 H!!CI.'t!\'(' ~-!tilt' Ci!III!CJ! 

lcl/1 .\"orlb !Jako!tl 

\'f(ffcColll!(lf 

\'ctei<IIIS 

Flliuf 

\J{.\SOllr! \'!diW/il 

letenms Foundatwu 

\"ic!IIOJ/1 \demus<!(lfJcb(t;(/1/ 

\'Jc!Jit/111 li.'lcnllls !'erne 

Juitiatil'e 

17() 

lt/[1/()/:\· 

.\oua /Jcar 

Prni!Crn: 

/)all Stenl'U!d 

llerh 1\(n·tbil!,t;lo/l 

john Weiss 

Susau (.'arsol/alld the 

Carson Famifr Fouudatum 

Chaj)fer 63 5 

0CUIIUJIIOU'UC. \FiSCOJ/Silt 

A~:mciates (!f' netnam 'v'etemns 

of America 

Signijlcant numbers of Vietnam 

ueterans bat'e children and 

grandchildren with birth dejects 

related to exposure to Agent 

Orange. To alert legislators 

and the media to this ongoing 

legacy of the war, we are 

seeking real stories about real 

people. if you wish to share your 

family's health struggles tbat 

you believe are due to Agent 

Orange/dioxin, se11d an email 

to mporter@vva.org or mll 

301-585-4000, Ext. 146. 
80 


929psRSD7.eps

By Linda May 

and grandchildren of Vietnam veterans. 

After a domestic violence episode, JD 

and Sheila divorced. but she is not buying 

the a:::.sumption that Post-traumatic Stress 

Oi:,ordcr is the only cause of antisocial 

behavior in some Vietnam veterans. 

She was married for about nvo years to "I knew JD and his brother from 

Jcny Fox. whom she called "JD." He was teenagers. They weren't l!kc that back 

in the U.S. Anny and served in Vietnam then. Plus, Vietnam veterans were not 

196g-69. at the ::,amc time as his brother, 

Rick. now 62. who \vas a Marine. 

JD died in 1994 at thcagcof41. 

".!D's brother is dying, as we speak," 

she said. 

Sheila and JD married after his tour 

of duty. 

"I knew them a long time. JD and Rick 

\VCrc happy. nonnal teenagers. They'd go 

fishing together and thmgs were fmc. But 

they came back ve1y different.'' she ~aid. 

"My ex-husband quickly disintegrated 

after he came back from Vietnam. He 

was bloated-looking. From the chest 

dovm, he was huge. He looked 20 years 

older." 

Her belief is that an herbicide like Agent 

Orange affected his internal organs. 

"lie \Vas only a teenager when he went 

over. It gradually ate away at him," she 

said. "When he died, they figured IllS 

heart just exploded." 

all on the front line. but that didn't mean 

they were not exposed to Agent Orange," 

she said. ''They could have been working 

in the motor pool and not on the DMZ. 

Some have no horror stories, but so many 

of them came back acting the same 

as those that did, looking older than 

they arc." 

JD's brother performed a supply job in 

the Marine Corps. and now he is only 

middle-aged, but he is deathly !II. 

Sheila has a friend upstate from her 

Michigan home who surrounds himself 

with Vietnam paraphernalia and speaks 

in phrases he learned in-country. lie 

neglects hi~ health and keep~ to himself. 

'Tm from a tiny lakeshore tO\vn, and I 

personally know at least five people v.ho 

arc messed up or who d1ed from this 

chemical. I would like to know what's 

going on inside of these people." 

Jt was at her friend's home that she 

pte ked up a copy of The VVA Veteran 

Rick Fox and family. 

The Fox brothers 

before Vietnam: 

Jerry "JD" Fox (front, center); 

Rick Fox (back row, r;ght). 
81 


929psRSD8.eps

magazine and read about Agent Orange 

and saw the number of obituaries of 

Vietnam veterans in their 60s. 

Suddenly her list oftlvc names seemed to 

grow cxponentmlly. 

''Looking at this magazine, all the 

emottons came back. I was sittmg there 

thinking, here l go again. You think you 

put it away, and then something happens 

that keeps it commg back. Was I meant to 

read this?" she said. 

Sheila (who retired from nursing because 

offlbromyalgia) and JD had one child, 

a son who is nO\\ 38 years old. lie has 

two daughters, who are II and 14. Her 

son has had bouts with Bell's palsy, and 

he has increasing patn in Ius joints and 

muscles 

Sheila is proud of his children. her 

A-student granddaughters. But her eldest 

granddaughter was born with "lazy eye" 

and had to vvear special eyeglasses. She 

took sci7ure medication for a time and 

has been referred to a lung specialist for 

intermittent !1uctuauon:. in her oxygen 

level. She was subjected to multiple 

EEGs and undenvent sleep studies. 

Sheila's younger granddaughter 'v\as 

born \Vith galactosemia, a rare genetic 

metabolic disorder severely affecting the 

body's ability to break down enzymes. 

If left untreated. galactosemia can cause 

brain damage. an enlarged liver, or 

kidney failure and the child can die. It is 

likely to be passed on to her children. Her 

younger granddaughter also has severe 

allergies 

"Are they doing genetic testing? Are they 

doing blood tests? When did that gene 

kick in and mutate"? My son's blood work 

showed that he passed it on," she said 

Sheila thinks that miraculous things can 

happen now because of gene therapy. and 

she would like to sec a nmss1vc registry 

of blood and tissue samples and the 

results put into a research databank. 

"Collect 1t and log it until something pops 

up in the research," she said. "Figure out 

these connections. It's not tar-fetched. 

It's also not about compensation; it's 

about relief. Just do the testing and the 

studies. It's possible now to alter the 

course, to manipulate a gene, to fix it or 

stop something from happen mg. There 

has been enough hemiache already. V/e 

need to stop this now. We can't afford to 

have it affect our future generations. With 

the medical advances of today, \\·e can 

deal with it. The time has come to stand 

up and admit \\hat has happened. We can 

no longer brush this under the rug." 

Significant numhen of" Vietnam 1·eterans 

have children and grandchildren ~~·ith 

hirth defects related to exposure to Age111 

Orange. To alert legislators and the 

media to this ongoing legac:r of the mn; 

H·e are seeking real stories ahout real 

people. !f)"ou 11'/Sh to share .vour /(1mily :1' 

health .\tmg~/es that you believe are due 

to Agent Orange/dioxin. 1·end an email to 

mportcr@vm.org or ca/1301-585-4000, 

Ext. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Famil_v Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 
82 


929psRSD9.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

country'? There is nothing to justify that." 

Her husband. Henry, served in Vietnam 

vvitb the Army in 1968-69. He is diabetic 

and the recipient of a VA-approvcd 

claim related to Agent Orange. One of 

her grandchrldrcn, born \Vith multiple 

and devastating birth defects, died a few 

months af!cr her first birthday. When 

the founder of the Agent Orange Quilt 

of Tears, Jennie LeFevre, died in 2004, 

Shc\ia and Hcnr} took over, travelling 

with the Quilt. and sharing information 

about the horrific effect~ of Agent 

Orange. 

Jt wasn't until the late 1990s that Shclia 

became aware of the Agent Orange 

i~~ue:-. veteran.<, and their families had 

been dealing with for many years. Her 

bus band. Henry. had met a Vietnam 

\'etcran. Jack Griffin. in an online chat 

room and over time forged a close 

fricnd~hip. Because the chat line \va~ 

voice, not typed, Shelia often picked up 

bits of the conversation while at home 

with Henry. 

Both men came from Michigan. and there 

\vas much talk about hunting and fishing 

and other thing~ they had in common. 

One day one of tho~c commonalities 

caught Shclia's car. 

''Jack told Henry aboul Agent Orange." 

diabetic. He used to drive a truck for a 

living, but once he became diabetic, he 

had to stop. Jack told him he needed to 

make a claim with the VA. He wa~ just 

on him and on him and on him about 

having that checked out. Fina!ly. Henry 

got tired of hearing Jack pu~h. and he 

went to the VA.'' 

Henry put in a claim for diabete~. Shelia 

ca!led it a "lifesaver:' becau~e it a !lowed 

both of them to educate thcmselve~ about 

Agent Orange. Jack advised him on what 

to do and how to handle the VA. When 

Henry·s claim finally 

though, the celebration 

Jack Griffin hat! serious health iso.ues of 

hi~ own- non-Hodgkin·~ lymphoma. 

"Jack died of Agent Orange-related 

cancer almost to the day that Henry got 

the letter from the VA saying that hi:-. 

claim had been approved,'' Shelia said. 

'-Henry went into a terrible slump when 

Jack died. It was like Jack was part of 

our family. Hi~ voice was in our house 

every wa:. very strange for me. 

Henry I had lost parents together. and 

I never saw the kind of reaction I was 

getting after Jack pas"cd away:· 

she said. "At that time Henry hud become and the legacy of Agent Orange that 
83 


929psRSD10.eps

afflicted them. 

The second per\on \Vas Jennie LeFevre. 

the widow of a Vietnam \ eteran and 

the creator of the Agent Orange Quilt 

of Tears. (On the Web it i~ at www. 

agcntorangequiltoftcars.com) 

After the death of Jack Griffin. Shc\ia 

read about the Quilt of Tear~ traveling to 

a tmvn not far from the Snyder's Florida 

home. She thought \he might get ideas 

for making a qui!! in remembrance of 

Jack. l! took some doing on her pmt 

to talk Henry into gomg. but he finally 

acquie;,ced. 

Shclia took the Wilcox book with her. 

When she finally got a chance 

with Jennie LeFevre. Jennie was 

\vith other people. Shelia nnd Henry 

waited on the peripher). Then Jennie 

noticed the book in Shelia's hands. 

"She looked at my book and "aid, 'Oh, 

I have the 

It was not the only coincidence. 

''It was really weird, because ~he 

thumbed through iL and she had started 

to tell me how she had highlighted 

certain areas of the book." Shclia snid. 

''I opened my copy of iL and l hnd done 

exactly the same thing. It was strange." 

a brain stem. Babies such as this me 

expected to die at or shortly after birth. 

Hope Nicole would live more than a year. 

Agent Orange ... but she honestly didn't 

seem to have a clue about dioxin. After 

I explained some about Agent Orange, 

the counselor dismissed the subject 

quite quickly, which I didn't really like, 

but I was becoming too ovenvhelmed 

with the options and decisions that \Vere 

being explained to my son and pregnant 

daughter-in-law." 

The possible Agent Orange connections 

to birth defects in the children and 

grandchildren of Vietnam veterans is 

want 

to ~cc 

happening in the future,'' 

don't want to sec this happening to 

generation after generation. The VA 

need~ to pay attention to birth defects. 

There's research and information others 

have done. Legitimate .<.ciC'ntists a whole 

lot ~marter than I am have done a lot of 

work on the\e question\. The VA needs to 

pay attention to these people. All of thi~ 

information has been there for years. and 

they ju~t keep shoving it under the carpeL 

They pay no attention to it. ., 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

Caltfornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

The beginnings of their friembhip "broke 

the icc'' with Henry, and he started 

coming out of the dcprc;,\ion that had 

come with the death of Jack Griftln. 

Shclia found herself working \Vith Jennie 

on the Quilt project. an effort she found Chapter 635 

to have great importance. Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

"Now I feel like the Quilt is Henry's 

PTSD therapy," she said. John Weiss 

In 2004, their granddaughter. Hope 

Nicole. wa~ born. Before the birth, the mportl!r@l'l'a.org or call 301-585-4000, 

family faced a grim prognosis. Tests Fxt. 146. 

showed that the infant had no brain, only 
84 


929psRSD11.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

being 

that rum in the family. 

Her Vietnam veteran hu:-band, Philip. 

\vork.cd in the car bu~incs~ for 37 years. 

When Bobbie first sib dmvn \\Jih a 

cu~tomcr. ;,he like~ to "break. down the 

walls:· make the customer comfmtablc. 

and create an atmosphere in which 

conversation io. open and ca.<,y-going. 

It helps her to sell a car. It helps some 

cuo.tomcrs in way;, she hadn't dreamed. 

"You have no idea what happens when I 

talk to some of the men:' she said. 

They talk to her about things they don't 

di~cus~ Wlth men who sell cars. When 

the sales associate is a man. it's all 

bu~incss. Everyone in the cubicle is there 

to discuss buying a car-intcrc::.t rate:., 

down payment\. monthly payments. lt"s 

a!! busincso.. 

When the sal eo. associate is Bobbie. other 

matters come up. 

"There was one guy. he came in to buy a 

ut1lity vehicle." she said. "'So \Ve got to 

talking, and all of a ~udden. he's telling 

me about problems he's having with his 

leg-; and with his diabetes." 

When the conversations turn this way. 

there i~ she alway<: asks: 

"Were you Vietnam'?" 

The man with diabetes .said yes, he had 

been in Vietnam. She steered the talk 

to Agent Orange and told the cu~tomer 

where he could lind more information on 

it and hO\\ if he 

qualified 

He called the next day and ;.,aid he was 

coming in to talk about the payment 

schedule on the vehicle. His wife came 

with him. She pulled Bobbie aside. 

Bobbie recalls what the man';., wife said: 

·'She said. ·Do you know why he came 

back? It wasn't about the payment. It 

wa;., because you talked to him about 

Vietnam.·· 

He wound up joining VVA Chapter 862. 

to which Bobbie's hu;.,bnnd belong~. 

Bobbie said the ''light bulb" on Agent 

Orange came on a year ago at the AVVA 

Leadcr~hip Conference in Loui;.,ville. 

Kentucky. where -;peakers at a town hall 

meeting ;.,poke about Agent Orange and 

its effects, not only on veterans. but on 

their children and grandchildren. Veterans 

spoke, too, telling of health problems 

suffered by their children. 

Bobbie could not help but think of her 

daughter, Dara Rae. who has been deaf 

from birth. 37 years ago. She now has 

three leaks in her heart. Doctors worry 

that she may not be up to the surgery 

bccau~c of other health problems. 
85 


929psRSD12.eps

Thinking about her daughter inevitably ''I wanted to know if they could tel! me 

brought tears. Her AVVA regional one thing they wished they'd had:· she 

director savv her crying and asked if ~he said. ''They all said they didn't have 

was all right. 

''I told her about Dara, and <;he said, 

'You're not alone, "'Bobbie said."[ 

always thought I was." 

Before the town hal! meeting switched 

on the Agent Orange "light bulb," Philip 

and Bobbie hadn't given herbicide a 

had rccci vcd 

to "in-country" Vietnam veterans. Philip 

served with the Air Force in Thailand. 

After the convention. Bobbie struck 

out on a search to gath~r as much 

information as she could. She found that 

Agent Orange, thousands of barrels of 

it, were stored at Korat Air Base, where 

Philip was stationed. 

Her brother. 100 percent disabled and a 

Vietnam veteran, told her that when he 

first ltn"ived in Vietnam, he thought it 

wet. He was 

was the 

The Air Force wa~ spraying. 

"A year ago. all ofthi~ came together 

for me," Bobbie said. "We need to get 

information out to as many people as we 

can. I sec myself \Vorking on this for a 

long time. This is something I'm going 

to continue with. First and foremost is 

Beaver County. because I live here." 

To that end. she and others held a second 

annual Veterans Day balloon release to 

generate publicity in the !oull media and 

dra\v attention to the Agent Orange is~uc. 

While working on an AVVA project, 

she called \vidows in her chapter\\ hose 

hmbands had died from Agent Orangerelated diseases. 

enough information on Agent Orange. So 

I guess what dri\'es me now is to get the 

information out. That"s what they need.'' 

Bobbie said her bo<;~. Keith Edwards. at 

Morrow Ford Lincoln & Mercury. is very 

release. 

''My bo~~ says people tel! me 

everything.'' ~he said. ''He doesn't know 

1vhat it i~. but they ~it at my de,<,k, and 

they tell me everything. WelL I think 

people arc ca!!cd to do different things. 

I am honored when veterans open up to 

me and talk to me about Vietnam. I have 

tremendous respect for all they have gone 

through-their phy~ica!, spirituaL and 

mental suffering, and if I can help just 

one per~on, I've done some good." 

Sign!ficallf /lumbers (l\"Cteran.\ hm•e 

children and grandchildren 11·irh birth 

defect.\ related to exposure to !\gent 

Orange. To alert lcgi.1lator.\ a11d the 

media to tlu.\ ongoi11g legacy o.fthe nnr, 

1re arc seeking real storie.\ ahout real 

people. N you wish to share _wurj(uni/y's 

health struggles that you hefin·e are due 

to Agmt Orange/dioxin, send (//1 email to 

mporter@\"\"a.mx or mil 301-585-4000. 

Ext. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

John Weiss 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

Associates of Vietnam 

Veterans ojAmerica 
86 


929psRSD13.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

The Petrosky's story is brought to you by 

Chapter 178, Centralia, Illinois. 

Tlm~c .. t110 kid~" 11 ho c:tmc were h1~ 

cmcrmg the roof ofhc1 mouth. He rcmcmbc1~ 

Pete believe" he knows I\ hat cau~cd the bit1h 

men, not mc.lt male~ no scn~c to me. This 

for 

He ~ened at Bien Hoa in 67/68 during the 

TET Often~i\e m the Air Force. He worked in 

"We had a ~cr1 icc that 1\cnt out on the 

killer. 

Kimberly 
87 


929psRSD14.eps

In 1973. Kimberly \\lb born w1th a cleft hp. 

\Yho \\-a~ then ~IX month~ old 

At nine month~. ~he nearly died. 

Pete\\\ ife called him at \York. She couldn't 

emergency room 

But K1mberly wu~ far from bemg out of the 

wood~ 

nee{led to be rounded. Year-; later. a~ ~he 

children. 

Sunh. The Marine told him one of h1s ~ons 

The VA h<1s awarded him adis<1hi!tty due to 

PTSD 

''I \it in on meeting~ \\ith veteran~ from al! 

for~ometimenmv" 

"'She's ne\er dn\ell a car. ~he"s deaf, ~he 

era\\ I~ around on the tloor. and tho\e two 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

WA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stem·old 

Herb Worthington 
88 


929psRSD15.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

\Vent 

Vietnam Veterans of America 

Leadership Conference in Orlando, he 

needed to buy an extra suitcase to take 

back all of the Agent Orange materials 

pressed upon him by those at the 

conference who had been involved \\ith 

the issue for many years. 

Butch. too. stresses the importance 

of communication when it come:. 

to :.uch matter:.. It i:. critical that 

Vietnam veterans know they may be 

due substantial assistance from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

concerning diseases related to Agent 

Orange cxpo:.urc. 

''When they gave me that material, I 

copied and copied and cop1cd, until J 

finally had to buy a S60 suitcase to bring 

all the stuff back for my fellow veterans 

in St. Peters VVA Chapter 458," he :.aid. 

He had a special, compelling interest 

in the Agent Orange material. the most 

~triking being that after years of battling 

disease himself and having gone through 

the heartbreak of ~eriom medical 

difficulties \Vith hi-; daughter_ he had been 

unaware of the VA help available to him. 

He hadn't even con:..idcrcd contacting the 

VA about it. 

He was. in fact, exactly the kind of 

veteran to which he now finds himself so 

dedicated 

"People in VVA gave me the 

information,'' he said. ''And I read 

atticles in The VVA Vt'teran. I've got 

a couple of guys in my chapter with 

problem:- or their kids or grandchildren 

have problem-;. I'm reading al! thi~ stuff. 

and I know something's not right. And 

people from VVA arc telling me I needed 

to make a claim with the VA. Well, I 

hadn't done any of that." 

Over the years. he had spent $10,000 of 

his own money on insurance. and $5.300 

for medicines. 

"The people at VVA were flabbergasted." 

he said. "T didn't figure the government 

owed me anything. and boy. they jumped 

all over my butt." 

He served in Vietnam in 19613 as a radio 

operator with the 1st Air Cav. In addition 

to the workaday exposure to Agent 

Orange. he remember-; reading in later 

years about chemicals involved with the 

dic:-e! fuel used to burn human waste. 

"I remember \Vearing gloves but no 

ma~k:' he said. --J remember that black 

smoke curling up all over the place. We 

all had to take u turn at it. It was a detail 

like KP or guard duty.--
89 


929psRSD16.eps

About eight years ago. hi>, heart problem>, 

began. Today, he's on hi" second 

pacemaker. A third back operation in 

2002 ended his career in construction. 

Then in December 2007. he had a terrible 

pain in his groin area. He couldn't shake 

it for weeks and finally \Vent to sec a 

doctor. 

Blood tc~ts were ordered and aCT scan 

done on his stomach area. There was no 

hernia. But there was leukemia. 

Admitted immediately to a hospital in SL 

Louis, chemotherapy began. Then a bone 

marrov,. tran>,plant when it \\a>, found that 

hi" >,i\ter \Vas a perfect match. He lost 33 

pounds. 

''It was quite an ordeal for me and my 

si>,ter," he said. "I got the transplant and 

spent three weeb. and three days in the 

ho~pital. I've \Un·ivcd two years this past 

July.'' 

Long before his own health deteriorated, 

he and his wife faced a long. difficult 

battle with a brain tumor diagno>,ed in 

their toddler daughter. Emily, in 1978. 

She was 2 Y.! years old. A neurosurgeon 

told them Emily would not live to sec her 

tenth birthday. 

Today, \he is 32. marned and a marine 

biologist at the Mayport Naval Base in 

Jacbonvi!lc, Fla. But she mu~t deal with 

severe handicaps as a result of the brain 

tumor and the efforts to control iL 

"We fought it for !8 year<' Butch "aid. 

''They'd bore holes in her head and run 

te~t.~. They put in a \hunt that became 

infected. and finally they went after it 

with a Gamma Knife. They took out all 

of the tumor, except for one little piece. 

She'>, handicapped now. She ha~ a terrible 

limp. her right foot i~ turned inside. her 

hip gives out, and she lost the me of her 

right arm." 

Butch\ father give~ in>,ight to his 

granddaughter. 

"My dad said, 'That daughter of yours 

has the most incredible drive and 

determination. She 'II work four hours to 

do a job that would take you or me two 

minutes.'" 

Butch has three claim" pending with 

the VA. Jn addition to his VVA friends, 

his own doctor insisted on him making 

the claims when she found out he wa>, a 

Vietnam veteran. He's on YouTubc. too, 

doing everything he can to spread the 

word. 

"If nothing else. rm hoping that sharing 

my \tory will help." he said. ''I just tell 

people this is what I had, and I had it 

bad." 

He comes from an extended family with 

many children. He is unique among them. 

''I'm the only one who has these 

cancers," he said. 'Tm the only one who 

has a pacemaker. And I'm the only one 

who >,erved in Vietnam." 

Significant numbers nft·eteran.\ hm·e 

children mul grondchildren wi!h {?irth 

defects related to cxpo.1w·e to Aw-nt 

Omnge. To alert !egi.1lators and the 

media ro this ongoing legacy (?f"the war, 

we are .1eeking real .1torie.1 about real 

people. Ifyou 1rish to slwre .nmr.f{Hnily's 

health 1·truggles that you believe are due 

to Ag('}lt Omnge!diwin, send {/II /:'mail to 

mporter@\-va.org or call 301-585-4000. 

E.\1. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Beneftt'i Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

John Weiss 
90 


929psRSD17.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

Dayna and Keeyan's story is brought to you by 

The Missouri Vietnam Veterans Foundation. 

it for answers. She scours the Internet 

looking for such answers and finds only 

tantalizing clues, or more to the point. 

one clue. one connector between her 

son and the vanous abnormahties that 

have been visited upon him. The clue 

repeatedly shows itself. but never to the 

that "he can say it is the answer 

any certainty. 

''E\ cry timeT put m one of Kccyan '<; 

abnormalities with that information about 

"Esophageal Atrc~ialstricturc 

''Dyslexia and learning disabilities 

··speech and hearing problems 

''A>.thma and allergic~ so sc'vcrc that 

Kceyan i~ on Xolair injections (normally 

for people who arc 12 year;, of age or 

older accordmg to the Xolair Web site) 

''lllccolitis (a form ofCrohn's disease) 

"Premature Ventricular Contractions 

(heart disease)." 

Her father. a Vietnam veteran who served 

in the Army. is under treatment for 

father was in an area that was 

~prayed \Vith Agent Orange." 

she "He·:-, been through a lot. l 

don't knO\v how he would handle it 

if we found out this kind of thing was 

transferred from his body to us. It would 

have a powerful emotional effect on him. 

I would hate for him to blame himself. 

What I'm domg now is just 

answers. You don "t know who else 

there with the same problems."" 

Dip in anywhere in her letler and 

·'powerful emotional effect" becomes 

under:.tatement. 

coming home with hi~ sugar levels and 

body temperature. We ~tayed in NICU 

(Ne\\born Intensive Care Unit) for five 

day~ before allowing us to go home. He 

then came home to vomiting. choking, 

and almo~t losing him in our home. 

Dayna and her son Keeyan 

- Keeyan is 8. He weif?hs 48 

pounds 
91 


929psRSD18.eps

wa.~ 

the c:.ophagus. It lasted two weeks 

before collap<>ing again. So in September 

2000. only 4 weeks old, a thoracotomy 

wa~ done. They would cut out the 

narrowed part and resection the damaged 

e:-.ophagus." 

As her letter continues. it takes on a 

mothers to under~tand medical terms and 

procedures that would leave most people 

:-.cratching their heuds. 

This i:. not the case \Vith the mothers 

of children like Kecyan Theriot. They 

understand the complications. because 

the complications become the stuff of 

daily life. 

''After the procedure was done. he 

assured us that Kceyan would be fine.'' 

she writes. ''He then began vomiting. 

choking. and the esophagus wus so 

irritated that it began to bleed. We began 

PH probe :,tudie:, to find out \Vhat \V<\S 

going on. The studies shO\vcd reflux and 

it was really bad. So they put him on a 

with 

''We went to sec a Pediatric Surgeon 

for Rare Anomalie:.. He 

fewoptiom. 

fundoplication/nissen so he not be 

able to vomit. The procedure wa:. done 

1/2 ... only to be discouraged by 

bleeding. " 

Some of the questions Dayna asks arc 

the same questions asked by the wives of 

other Vietnam vetemns exposed to Agent 

Orange: 

+If the children of \VOmen vctcram 

arc determined to :.uffer from such 

were born with condition:. that arc on the 

list for children of women 

+Studies show more defects in women 

than men. Why? 

+There are cases of second and third 

generation~. but no proven studies. Why? 

+Are there more ~tudies p!anned for 

future generation~·? 

+In the .~mall ~tudy of 24 Vietnam 

a!l had some type of 

was the 

study stopped? 

It i~ a proven fact. Dayna points out, 

thut more children of Vietnam veterans 

suffer learning disabilities. health iswes. 

asthma/a!lergie:-.. birth defects. and other 

health i~sues. 'They a !I seem familiar to 

me," she say:-.. Kid~ arc abo born \vith 

rare di:.ordcrs that may :.how up later" 

"Jt's been rough." :.he said. "You always 

have in the back of your mind that 

would leave you with some 

you would be done with this. 

T mean. you have to live with it. but at 

least you know why and you say. OK. 

this i~ the way life is going to be. We're 

to have to live with it. like it or not. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
92 


929psRSD19.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

"! rcmemher heing sprayed sen!ral times. 

We didn't hare any idea 1rhat it1ras the1· 

11·ere <;praying. When li"e H·erc out on 

the road be!IICf!/1 Pleiku and Dak To, we 

m?re recorenng a couple (?f tanks and a 

bu/ldoze1; am/ they sprayed us. A bunch 

ofplanes, C-130s, I think, come m·er 

Tlu:r were 1praying along the mad " 

-Tommy Thornton 

Tommy Thornton had four children, al! 

daughters Tracy, Hope, Angela. and 

Chclscy 

Tracy was born in 1970. She had 

numerous problems from birth. She 

stayed sJCk for about the first six months 

of her !Jfc. Thornton says he never really 

got an answer as to why. Eventually. 

Tracy abo wa:; found to suffer from 

SC\ ere dyslexia. But by then, she had 

been labeled. 

"Retarded,'' he said. "I3ut she wasn't·· 

She died in 2002. 

"She had ~urgcry on her back." he said. 

'"They say she committed suicide, but 

I don't believe it. She woke up m pain. 

took some medication. went back to 

sleep. Woke up in pain again, took more 

medication, went back to sleep and didn't 

\vake up. I think she overtook her pain 

medication. It's easy to do, especially 

\\hen they give drugs that arc dangerous. 

She was 33 or 34. My memory's 

crap, man. When I need to remember 

something, I can't.'-

Hope was born a year after Tracy. She, 

too, suffered from numerous problems. 

He prO\ idcd a list 

Migraines, seizures. chemical 

imbalance causing syncopal episodes, 

BmTctt's Esophagus in first stage, gcrd 

(gastroesophageal reflux disease), acid 

reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, polyps, 

colitis, mitral valve prolapse. asthma, 

bronchial spasms. chronic bronchitis. 

chrome pneumonia, interstitial cystitis, 

diabetes. neuropathy in legs, ccn ical 

cancel~ cancerous tumor removed from 

abdominal wall, cancerous tumor removed 

fi·om left breast, losing hair and teeth. 

''This is the short list ~o far:· he said. 

"There may be more to come." 

Angela, born two years after I lope, is 

a cancer sun 1vor and unable to have 

children of her own. 

·'She's doing OK, but f'yc kind oflost 

contact with her,'' he said. 

The youngest. Chelscy, is 15 years old. 

"She's losing her hair. clumps of it come 

out," he ~aid. "'And she has bad pain in 

her legs that hasn't been diagnosed." 
93 


929psRSD20.eps

He served in Vietnam in 1967-68. He 

said he worked on recovery teams and 

spent a lot of time out on Vietnam's 

roads. bringing back helicopters, tanks. 

trucks, APCs. and e\en men killed 

in action. 

"I traveled on every road you can name 

in Vietnam for one reason or another," 

he said 

When he returned to the states. and 

after his release from the Army, he had 

digestive problems for about two years. 

He ~utl"cred from acne as well. He 

continues to sutTer from chronic fungus 

infections, athlete's foot, and other 

related problems. 

'Tm on the Agent Orange Reg1stry with 

the VA, but I didn't get nothing out of it," 

he said. "1 had skin problems all 

the time." 

He's 61 years old and lives alone, about 

fourteen miles outside of Woodville, 

Texas. 

"I didn't connect any of it to Agent 

Orange until way later, because nobody 

ever said anything about it" he said. 

"I didn't know nothing about it until 

somebody said I \vas showing stgns of 

stuiT connected to Agent Orange.'' 

Those com•ersations were a long time 

coming for him. He clidn 't talk much 

about Vietnam. 

"You have to understand that for a lot 

of years I didn't talk to people much.'' 

he said. "That was a lot of my problem 

getting my VA benefits.! didn't talk a 

lot about what I did, and I didn't talk a 

lot about what I went through. It wa:;. 

eating me rrom the inside out. And \\hen 

I did try to tell someone about what was 

bothering me. they'd say things like that 

didn't happen. They'd say I was lying. 

Those people don't understand. They 

didn't care. So I was diagnosed as being 

paranoid schizophrenic and all kinds of 

v.cird stuff. But I \vasju~t suffering." 

He said he's talked to the VA about his 

children but that nothing comes of it. He 

is haunted by the guilt he feels ror having 

"caused" the problems for his chddren, 

and he 110\\ worries about grandchildren 

and the possible health problems they 

may face as they grow older. 

"I stay pretty much to myself.'' he said. 

"I haven't worked since !9):{6. l'\e had 

back problems ~incc I got back from 

Vietnam. and they tell me the pain in my 

legs is peripheral neuropathy, and it's 

directly related to Agent Orange, but I 

don't knov,, and I don't care. But when it 

starts showing up in my ktds , . man. it 

sucks. l don't get it. But I gues:o. it's how 

our government v. orb- denial, denial, 

denial." 

Significant nwnben o(Vif'tnam l"eterans 

have children and grandchildren with 

birth defects related to exposure to Age11t 

Orange. To alert legislators and thr! 

media to this ongoing legacy of the 1\"ar, 

11·e are .veeking real storie.'> ah(mt real 

people. ((vou \!"Ish to share J"Our j(unily :~ 

health stmggles that mu believe are due 

to Agent Orange/dioxin. 1·end an email to 

mporter(f/;1·va.mx or call 301-585-4000. 

Ext. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

CeJUralia, illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 
94 


929psRSD21.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

an Agent Orange diagnosis relate everything he had to Agent 

first confronted Sherri Wise's Orange. His main reaction was to worry 

about the family. His first question 

fact of it. was: 'Could I pass any of this on to 

"He '>aid this io;, our country. that our 

government would not do this:' she 

said. 

He went into the hospital t\VO days 

before 9111. On that fateful day. Sherri 

and her mother rode a ho~pital tram 

to visit him. They found themselves 

surrounded by veterans. 

''We saw these men who were 

disfigured, emotionally distraught. 

physically incapable of fighting, .. she 

said. ''But the minute that first plane 

hit. you could see the wheels tuming 

in their heads. When the ~ecoml plane 

hit. \VC \verc sunuunded by men \vho 

said they would protect us. We were 

never in danger, but it was the most 

touching thing. The \Vhole time we 

were there, everywhere we walked, 

there \va~ a man trying to rea<>sure us 

that everything would be OK.'' 

Soon the fact of her father's condition 

became too much for him to denyheaJt attack, stroke, diabetes. eye'>ight 

failing. kidneys failing ... 

·'It was one thing after another." she 

~aid. ''The VA doctors said they could 

my kids?' We were all born after his 

exposure 

He served in Vietnam with the 82nd 

Airborne in 1966-67. 

''He had such faith that our country's 

government would make it right.'' ~he 

said. ''I'm angry. We're all angry. But 

he kept saying: 'They'll make it right. I 

did what I had to do in Vietnam. I'd do 

it alt over again.' That amates me.'' 

Sherri has undergone 13 back surgeries. 

Diagnosed with degenerative back 

di<,c~ at 20 years old, her doctors 

expressed disbelief that it could happen 

to someone so young. 

·'J have fibromyalgia. neuropathy. Type 

2 Diabetes, arthriti~. and depression." 

she said. "I'm 35 years old. The doctors 

said there is no reason for me to have 

degenerative discs at this age. I was 

born with a leg out of socket, as well." 

Her older brother ha~ been diagno.;;ed 

with degenerative disc~ and severe 

depression: her younger sister suffers 

from depres~ion. 

Sherri's youngest child was born with 

a congenital heart defect; her oldest is 

SherriS mom and dad: Vietnam 

veteran Ronald Steve Harrison 

with his wife, Reba Harrison 

Sherri, with daughter Andrea, 

and Grandpa Harrison 

The Harrisons: Ronald. Reba, 

Sherri, and baby Ginger 
95 


929psRSD22.eps

bipolar. There is no family history of 

such things. 

''llook at them, and I wonder ifl 

passed thi~ on," she ~aid. "Deep down, 

I know I did, and it just breaks my 

heart. Any time any little thing comes 

up with them. I'm really hit by the fact 

that I did this to them.! know logically 

I didn't, but it nmkes no difference. 

The VA won't do anything. They either 

don't know how or don't care.'' 

She praise<, one doctor the family has 

met throughout the years. the first 

doctor to diagnose her father. She 

said he \vas an older man who was 

~traightforward about Agent Orange 

and the fact that )0 little research has 

been done to determine its effects 

on the children and grandchildren of 

Vietnam veterans. 

"That man sat with u~ and talked to us 

about it, and I think he was the most 

hone~t man \ve met.'' 

In May 2008, her father entered the VA 

hospital for the last time. She said he 

died a~ a result of an allergic reaction 

to a drug and that his last I I days were 

spent in confusion.unablc to respond to 

those around him, unable to eat. 

"It was very difficult,'' she ~aid. "But 

he never stopped saying. 'They'll take 

care of it. They 'II make it right.' Until 

the day he died. he believed that our 

government would take care of it.'' 

She said she was consumed with anger 

when he died and that her anger did not 

tinct a release until she became involved 

\vith Agent Orange Legacy. an Internet 

suppm1 program for the families of 

Vietnam veterans. She began meeting 

and talking with other family members 

who~e experience tracked with hers. 

"It was strange talking to other people 

who had gone through it. and I started 

realizing all the things that cotTclatcd.'' 

she said. "These people were going 

through the exact same things and 

experiencing the exact same things 

\vith their loved ones." 

She stres~es the importance now of 

~preading information about Agent 

Orange. Like so many others, she is 

adamant that the VA must research the 

question of links between the veterans· 

Agent Orange di::-.eases and health 

issue) ari<>ing in their children. 

"It needs to be talked about." she said. 

"Somebody ha~ to talk about it. The 

biggest thing to tell the government is: 

You did this. Now help us. Honor these 

veterans.'' 

Sign(jicant number.\ (?l rctcrans han' 

children and grandchildren •vith hirth 

def"ects related to exposure to Agent 

Ora!lf?e. To alert legislators and th(' 

media ro this ongoing legacy of the 

H"ar, we are seeking real stories about 

real people. If you H"ish to .\hare your 

fami!y:s health strugxles that you 

beliere are due to Agcn1 Orange/dioxin, 

send an email to mporter@l'va.org or 

call301-585-4000, Ea. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

John Weiss 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

Associates of Vietnam 

Veterans of America 
96 


929psRSD23.eps

Gary Jones's story is brought to you by the 

California Veterans Benefit Fund. 

The word~ are at once the core and 

the conundrum of hi~ Agent Orange 

experience. 

"The problem \\ ith all this Agent 

Orange discus~ ion is that e\erything is 

circumstantiaL'' Jones ~aid "We can't 

He pulled t\\O tours of duty in Vietnam. 

one blue. the other br<m n. The first for the 

he .\aid, no one knew much about the 

defoliant. 

"We didn't have a clue:· he said. "You 

could smell the stuff. I thought it was 

:md used it as a barbecue. 

Garv Jones in Vietnam 

Jones and family 
97 


929psRSD24.eps

two problems, and both arc immunede!lcJency related.·· 

mean"?""' 

Then his oldest son developed the :-,ame 

His 

in the1r immediate or extended families 

with either of the medical diagnose~ given 

their ~ons. 

advocate for the VA." He's heard all the 

horror storie1> about VA health care and say<; 

he believes them. but he abo believes that. 

for improvement and change~. 

He .~aid ~tatiqic~ .~how that XO percent of 

veteran.~ don't u~c the VA ~ystem at all. He 

would like to 1>ee the VA work closer w1th 

civilian doctors so the general practitioners 

\\ill be more likely to make inquiric1> of 

veteran~. 

··In all the intake interviews I've done with 

new Civilian doctors, I have ne\er been 

asked: Are you a veteran? Where did you 

\en·e? What were you exposed to?'" he 

'aid. 

Jone<; \Vant~ the VA. and the government in 

general. to recognize that men and women 

Jone' doe:-.n't think the VA can do thi~ by 

ihelf. He :-.ee:-. a need for civilian health 

profe:-.~10nals to be part of the :-.ystem 

·'If what I'm wgge:-.tmg IS too much for 

the VA to do. and I'm inclined to think that 

Sign{ficant nwnhers r(/ Vietnam veterans 

emndch;/c,lmc with 

to Agent Orange!dioxm. send an email to 

mporter@v,·a.org or call 301-585-4000, 

Ext.l46. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

Cal(fornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

(4Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
98 


929psRSD25.eps

The Worthington's story is brought to you 

by The Missouri Vietnam Veterans Foundation. 

crb Worthington\ e-mail. meant 

to provide background on hi~ 

own Agent Orange-connected 

disease::. and the di:-.ca~c::. now afOicting 

his children. is not yet two sentences long 

before the words leap off the page. 

"It rips me apart with self-hatred every 

time 1 tell it," he write:,. "I get so sad, 

the tears flO\\ like a stream. and it makes 

it that much more difficult. because the 

keyboard i:-. totally blurred." A::.ked about 

it later. he says, ·'I hate myself. Why? 

For bringing all this pain and suffering to 

my children. They don't dcscn-c it."' He 

has not spoken to hi:-. children about it. ''I 

don't have the courage." he said 

Hi~ daughter, Karen, 35. suffers from 

multiple ::.clerosis (MS). His ::.on. 

Michael, :n. has suffered from bronchitis 

and allergies since infancy. Michael's 

own children also have been diagno~ed 

\Vith chronic bronchitis, and Herb 

~ay~ the grandchildren aho display 

uncontrolled ami inexplicable tits of 

anger. Herb, himself. is 100 percent 

"terrible" Peripheral Neuropathy, which 

the VA recognize~ as a scrvJce-connccted 

condition. 

"It starts out as a tingling. like pin1> 

and needles,'' he said. ''Hand~ and feet 

get cold. You think they're enid, but 

they could be warm to the touch. As 

it progrc~~cs. they go numb and have 

stabbing knife-like pains. They say 

it'~ a circulation problem. a secondary 

condition u1>ually to diabetes. Now the 

VA in Newark is trying to deny guys 

because of self-medication becau~e 

the disease is also ~ymptomatic to 

alcoholism." 

Married for 41 years to Angela 

Son·entino ("She wpports me 10 million 

percent''). he is President of the New 

Jersey State CounciL They met in high 

schooL Both went to college. Herb 

working a full-time factory job to stay in 

school at the New York Phoenix School 

of Design in Manhattan. They married 

in 1968, the summer before their senior 

year. Five days after he graduated in 

disabled, diagnosed with Agent Orange- 1969. he was drafted. After completing 

caused Type II Diabetes. He suffers from A IT, he received orders to Vietnam as 

1970: Herb at afire support base in 

the Plain of Reeds near the Cambodian Border 

children, Michael and Karen 
99 


929psRSD26.eps

a Light Weapons Int~mtryman. He was 

assigned to the 2/60 Rccon Battalion, 

3rd Brigade, 9th ID. He found himself in 

··charmingly named hell holes" such as 

the Pan·ot\; Beak. Tan Tnt, the Plain of 

Reeds, and then with the 25th ID in Cu 

Chi. "What is ~ignilicant of such places 

i~ the amount of Agent Orange dumped 

on the Plain of Reed~ and the barren dust 

bowl camp known as Cu Chi." he said. 

Three years after he came home. he and 

Angela started a family, the fir<>tborn 

being Karen. who would gnnv into 

such an attractive \\Oman that strangers 

~topped her on the sidewalks of New 

York to ask if ~he were a model or an 

turn to anger in a second. T can see the 

physical change in them when they do 

it. I can sec it coming. because I watch 

them like a mother hen.l'm looking for 

anything. you kno\v T 

He has worked as a veteran:. service 

officer and ha:. visited the VA to discuss 

his diseases and the illness of his 

children. He come~ away angry. ''I went 

to doctors I knew in the VA.'' he said. 

"1 went to the regional office and <>poke 

with people I knew. and I asked if there 

was anything, and there was nothing. You 

talk to these doctors, and you memion 

the pos~ibility of Agent Orange, and they 

·yc<>' me to death and say, 'Oh, that's 

actress. "She was talented. played two intere:.ting.' ' He doe~n 't know what 

instruments, wa:. an athlete (all state the future will bring. In the present. he 

softball catcher), and an A student," he carrie~ a great anger toward the VA and 

said. "Everything went we !I until her the government and the Vietnam War. ''I 

senior )Car of high :.chool, \vhen she had a map set out for me (his life). and 

started getting migraine headache~." the war ruined almost everything," he 

Several MRI's and doctors later, she was said. ''It ruined whatever chance I had to 

diagnosed with MS. She m~l!Tied, then do in tifc: it ruined my health: it ruined 

divorced. and swears she \viii never have my children·~ heal! h. The VA hate:. me. 

children for fear of pas:.ing the di~ease 

to them. ·'She still works. but :.he uses 

a cane. anJ the right "ide of her face is 

numb,'' Herb said. ''Now ,.,he's beginning 

to fall down. She goes to the MS center 

in New York. She's :.ecn ~o many 

specialists and tried different treatments. 

but I think most of it is a bunch of crap. 

It'~ so sad to see her like thi:..'' 

He sees '>igns of disease in his 

grandchildren, too. His son. Michael, 

has two children, one 3 years old and 

the other soon to be 5. "Both suffer 

from bronchitis.'' he said. '·And they can 

They will tell you that I have an acid 

tongue. Thi" thing has consumed my life 

like no one can imagine." 

Si;..:n{ficant numbers r?f" Vietnam n'terans 

hm:e children and grandchildren with 

birth defects related to e\l)().l"l!re to Agent 

Orange. To alert legislator.\ and the 

media to thi.\ ongoing legacy r!lthe war, 

1rc are scel<.ing real stories about real 

people. If you wish to share your family:\· 

health stmggle.\ that you he/iet·e ore due 

10 Agent Orange/dioxin, send an email to 

mporter@v\·a.org or cal!301-585--I-OOO, 

E,·r.J46. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

WA Buckeye State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundati011 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
100 


929psRSD27.eps

f there is a moment that represents 

the long battle Betty Mekdeci fought 

to shine a light on the origin~ of birth 

dcfecb. it might be when n court's 

representative wrote to her about an 

Agent Orange project she proposed. She 

wa~ told it wa:, far beyond her ability. 

It was .~imply too big. ·'Awe~ome."" the 

letter said. She could not possibly do it. 

"That made me so angry.'" she said. "You 

just didn't tell me that I couldn't do 

something. It made me really mad." 

She had been engaged in the fight for 

birth defect information for some years. 

She \Vas the co-founder and executive 

director of Birth Defect Research 

for Children. Inc. She had been in 

courtrooms, going up again-;t highpmvered opposing attorneys and, in 

some cases, even her own attorneys. She 

didn't do well in those court ca~es. Then 

someone told her she wouldn "t do well 

on her own. either. 

"I had been thinking a lot about birth 

defect research globally. \vhy we couldn't 

learn anything. why typical studies didn't 

work. and how the major causes of birth 

defects had been di:,covered. They had all 

been di:,covered by cluster identification 

or what we call an Alert Practitioner. who 

is someone who starts :,eeing a number of 

unusual birth defects. Then they look into 

the background of the'>e cases and find a 

common factor." 

Bi1th Defect Research for Children is a 

non-profit organization providing parents 

with information about bi1th defect:, and 

support ~ervice~ for ch1ldren. The BDRC 

sponsors the National Bi1th Defect 

Registry, a research project that ~tudies 

the link~ between birth defects and a 

note to Vietnam veterans. 

Her interest in bi1th defects began in 

! 975. when her son was born with birth 

defects. Eventually. ~he \vould link those 

defects to a drug she had been prescribed 

(along with many other women) 

- Bendectin. Her eff01ts would lead to 

the remoYal of Bendcctin from the world 

market. The initial search for information 

began with Betty and her mother. 

In ! 982. :,he and her hu~band. Mike. 

founded the A~~ociation of Birth Defect 

Children. nmv called Birth Defect 

Research for Children. 

"'We decided to ~tart the organization 

because there was nothing for families 

with children who had birth defects, and 

it wa:- very difficult for familie~ to get 

information." :,he said. "I don't e'>en 

remember how in the world I had the 

audacity to even suggest it. People are 
101 


929psRSD28.eps

so hungry for someone to be concerned 

when their child ha~ a problem." 

Since 1986, when the 

Class Assistance Programs 

BDRC has worked with Vietnam vetcram. 

and their families. It time 

that work wa~ begun on 

Birth Defect Regi~try. a unique form of 

data col!cction on families with birth 

defect:'.. 

Working with the New Jer<>cy Agent 

Orange Commission to develop the 

Vietnam veterans' exposure section of 

BDRC 

families. It found a con<>istcnt pattern of 

disnbilitic~ in their children 

In !992. the a~sociation presented a 

rep011 to the House Committee on 

Veteran" Affairs and the National 

Academy of Science Committee on 

Agent Orange. 

''With the Vietnam veterans· children. 

we found immune-endocrine problems:' 

she said. ·'We've found learning and 

attention problem~, thyroid problem~. and 

childhood cancer~ ... 

She ~aid studies of Gulf War veterans 

found a "structural, observable, and 

birth defect, a cranial-facial 

Today, she i" working on a new approach 

\Vith Vietnam veterans that will allow the 

veterans and families to come to a central 

location for extensive evaluation. 

"The problem is there arc so many people 

affected." she said. Tve thought about 

I've \VOrked 

years. What 

new research. Familic~ would be given 

vouchers so they have a place to ~tay and 

can be evaluated. There's a lot going on 

but veterans don't have acce~s to it." 

Much more detailed information on 

Birth Defect Re~earch for Children may 

be found on the organi;.ation 's Web site 

- ''"'ww.birthdefects.org. E-mail ~houid 

be sent to: staff@birthdefects.org. The 

mailing address: BDRC. 800 Celebration 

Avenue. Suite 225, Celebration. FL 

34747. Telephone: 407-566-8304. 

When ~he began her search for 

birth defect~ information. she never 

she would be in contact with thousands 

of people. 

'·Ifs a big dream. but when we stat1ed 

this. people "aid you can't get Bendectin 

off the market, but we darn well did:' she 

s;:ud. '·They said you can't \tart a birth 

defects registry, but we darn well did ... 

Sign{ficant numbers (lVietnamFetaans 

hm·e children and ::;nmdchildren with 

birth dejects rt'lated to npmure to Agent 

Oran[;e. To a/err !egislaton and the 

people. !{you wish to shnrc yourj(lmily :~ 

health s1m::;g!es thm you hclin·e arc due 

to Attent Oran::;cidioxin, send an email to 

mportcr@vra.org or cal1301-585-4000, 

l::a. 140. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Bucke.ve State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stem·old 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carso11 Family Foundation 
102 


929VVAfao29.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

\en \\hen the let!er came in l9S4. 

Sharon Perry and her late husband. 

Reuben ··Bud" Perry TIL dtdn't 

make any connection with Agent Orange. 

No red !lag~ were rai~cd about what \va" 

happening in their home. happening to 

him. happening to their daughters. The 

oldest. Danicllc. would he sick all her 

life. The youngc"t. Li~bcth. would be 

diagnosed wtlh auti~m - but not until 

she wa<., 26. Lisbeth would have a "on 

and he, too. \VOtlld be diagnosed with 

autism. Hud would die in 2005 after 

many difficult year" of dealing with the 

afterrrath of the Vietnam War. 

But in 19R4. they :-.tood in the kitchen. 

reading the letter about a cla\~-action suit 

brought on behalf of veteran"' who may 

be :-.uflCring from the lingering cffecb of 

Agent Orange. They didn't think it had 

anything to do \\ ith them. 

"Til n:\'vH)~ remember ~tanding in the 

kitchen and looking at one another and 

~aying to him. ·you're not sick:" ~he 

said. 

She ~;1ved the letter anyway. 

··1 put it <may because you ne\er know:· 

she said. "After that it was alway~ in the 

back of my mind:' 

Bud pulled two tour~ in Vietnam. ench 

\\ ith the "'brown water" )./avy, working 

in the war·~ river~. When he came home, 

new batllcs aro'-e. He \\Ould eventually 

receive a 70 percent di\ability for PTSD 

and 30 percent for his unemplo)ahility 

He put in a later cl,\im for peripheral 

neuropathy for the lo'>~ of the usc of hi~ 

feet. Lmver amounb \Vere <.l\varded fm 

disabi!Jty in both arms. He turned to 

alcohol to ea~e the pain. His ~iqer \Vrote 

the VA a letter in '>Upport of the PTSD 

claim 111 1999. She ~aid the family did 

not recogni.~:e the young man \\ ho came 

home from V1etnam. Something was 

wrong. She ~aid hi~ soul ~eemed to have 

been ripped from imide him. 

Sharon ~aid. ·'He had a real rough 

time dealing \Vith his PTSD. and selfmedication was how he dealt \Vith it. 

They wanted to blame hi~ trouble" on 

that." 

Sharon tried to \ee a VA administrator. 

When her path wa'> blocked. <;he chewed 

out hi.\ ~ecrctary. She never did get in to 

~cc hun. but ~he did get to ~peak \Vith 

someone in charge of claim'>. He set up 

an appointment with a neurologist. The 

phy~ician <;aid the peripheral neuropathy 

likely \\<IS cau~ed by Bud\ dtabetc~. a 

trail that led back to Agent Orange. 

""What the Vi\ doesn't want to 

acknowledge j<; that it"s all caused by 

Agent Orange becau'>C there's a link 
103 


929VVAfao30.eps

Stephanie Holybee, fir~t diagnosed at 17, 

suffer'> from all three. She was in ~pecial 

education cla~~es until her junior year 

in high ~chooL when. her mother said. 

:-.he wa<; moved into "'bottom cla\<;e<;'' to 

fini~h her high \Chool education. 

Sonja Holybce :-.aid her daughter 

ha;., never ~urrendercd to any of the 

afJliclton~. 

"'All of a ~udden it just hit." she said. 

·'They diagno~ed her \Vith one thing 

after another. all one on top of the other. 

But thi-.. girl force~ herself to lead a \ery 

active life. She \vorb two JObs. She'.\ 

a grocery clerk at Safe\vay and work'> 

in a daycarc facil!ty, too. She bO\vl~ on 

Thursday\, becaU\C ~he ju-..t won't give in 

to it. She :-.ay;... 'It'~ not going to kill me.' 

When ~he wa;.. Hr-..t dingno~cd, the life 

wa-.. 10 )Car~. Sheju;..t \von't 

in:· 

Sonja·~ ;.,econd daughter. Melisa. wa;., 

born \Yith an extra ankle. She can turn her 

foot "in really weird position;.,." The extra 

bone that made thi;., happen ha;., been 

removed. Kine year~ ago, at age 24, ;.,he 

unden\ent '>urgery for supraventncular 

tachycardia (a rapid heart rhythm). 

Mel! sa's thumb<; arc <;hort and ;.,tubby; 

When ;.,he 1ir;.,t ~touted text messaging. ~he 

found \he could do it better than most. 

A friend noted that her unu:-.ual thumbs 

\Yorkcd quicker on the key-.. bccau:-.c of 

their :-.izc. 

"Mcli~a work;.. wtth di;.,ablcd children in 

group home:-.:· Sonja ;.,aid. "She"s been 

doing that ever since ;.,he got out of high 

;.,chool. She enjoys it."" 

Her youngeq ch1ld. Dan, 30, a sheet 

metal \Yorker. is qerile. 

None vfthc children arc married. 

"No one in the extended family ha\ 

ever been diagnosed with any of these 

disea<;c~ ... Sonja said. 

She ~aid her hu~band. Ken. is "one of 

those people who keep'> everything 

in-.. ide. but he feels he gave all thc\C 

problem-.. to hi:-. 1-..id-... He doe-..n 't think 

they \\OUid have them if he hadn"t been 

expo;..cd to Agent Orange ·· 

Sonja Holybee believe;., the gm-ernment 

needs to acknowledge that the children ol 

male Vietnam \eterans ;.,uffer from rare 

disorder~. 

"They '>hould, at the very lea;.,t. be treated 

for the ~ame condit1om a;.. the children 

of female Vietnam veterans," she said. 

"If you're the child of a male veteran. 

there·~ no chance that you'll be taken 

care of. More than ju-,t acknowledgment. 

kid:-, like Stephanie c.hould get ;..omc kind 

of treatment. Stephanie would love it 

bceau;..e her mcd;.. eo;..t a fortune every 

month."' 

The Holy bees live in Forestville. a ~mall 

town in northern California';., wine 

country not far from San Francisco. Long 

ago, Sonja '>aid. her hu~band went to the 

VA and di\cm'>ed their ~ituation with a 

doctor. 

"Kenny n~ked thnt VA doctor about 

Stephanie, and that doctor -..aid there·~ no 

wny that Agent Orange had anything to 

do with Stephanie';.. condition. r\o wny." 

Signift("(lnt m1mhcn of Vietnam \"etcran\ 

hare children and grandchifdren \l"ith 

hirth def"ect\ refuted to e_\jJOS/11"1! to Agem 

Orange. To alert fegislator.1 and 1/re 

media 10 thi.1 onr.;o111g legw y t!f"lhe 1rar, 

we are .\ccJ..inr.; real 110rics ahout real 

people. {/you lt'i1/r 10 1hare your jumily\ 

heallh llru!f_g/cs that you bclict·c are due 

to Agent Orml!f_c/dioxin, 1e11d {II/ cmoil to 

lllfHirter@l"m.org or m/1301-585-4000, 

E\t. !46. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

Cal(fornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

r~f"Michixan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
104 


929VVAfao31.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

t is hard to know\\ hen a group of 

coakscc in the 

too little \\eight to describe the moment 

\\hen clarity came to Bob Cummings. 

"It's hard to come to grips \\ith," he said 

He ha:, been married twice. From his first 

He send Cole's henri ddCct hns been more 

th<~nJUSt a physic<~! detriment to his son. 

"Cole ts scared to death to get married." 

he said. '"It terrifies him no end to have a 

d1dd with a bmh defect. especially after 

me· 

Curmmngs said he is grateful his son srokc 

\\ith him about it 

In 1971-72, he served with the 101 st 

Airborne cmd 1st Cm. He remembers clearly 

to 1\s toxic effect on hwmm bcmg~ 

he never thought to connect 

Orange. 

(icorgc Cia>.. ton got a VA cbim ror him .. 

His first m<HriJgc didn "t sun ivc the stress of 

Robbw nor that of the\\ ar itself. He said he 

alcohol1s111 

''11 

, 
105 


929VVAfao32.eps

understand th.;~(.: emotiOns,. 

He remarried 

was born with a 

he sa1d. Then Cole 

Now 25, Cole has 

difficulty finding\\ ork. lkcausc of insurance 

It \\as \\hen he and others began a VVA 

disconnected C\Cnts of IllS life began to take 

on the Agent Owngc issue. 

strang!.' di~cases. 

\~here or \\ ho to go to for 

"! ah\ays told them to contact 

then· veterans sen 1cc representatives in then· 

areas. But lot of sen icc reps in 

small I grew up in on 

out 

to these small communities'? To\\ ns of a I ,000 

--one of the kid~ asked me \\hen I was going to 

sta1t spending some time with them." he said. 

llc :-.md it wa~ "like running mto a wall.''llc 

VcteransofAmcnca 

'"I \\ant to find out \\hat's happened 

Orange since I wns gone," he said. "It 

but it's a slow 

time bomb ins1de of them. and \\e don't kmm 

\\hen I! \\ill rear its head 

\\ho arc the innocent \ictim~ 

of this \\ar? \\'c, ns Vietnam \ctcrans. ha\c an 

help 

w1th u~ through thick and thin. They arc calling 

for help." 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

Cal(f"ornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

qj"Michixan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter 635 

Ocmwnwwoc, Wiscon.-;in 

John Weiss 
106 


929VVAfao33.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

ike Dcmskc remembers well 

the difference in Vietnam·~ 

riverbanks before Agent Orange 

and after the herbicide \Va~ ~prayed. 

The riverbanks provided excellent 

cover for the gum. trained on the Navy 

Swift Boats. 

about 1 5 years ago. \vhcn he came 

home from a softball practice and 

couldn't get enough water to slake hi~ 

thir~t. He went to hi~ doctor. He \Va~ 

diagno<;cd \\ ith Type 2 diabetes. 

That ~arne year. he attended a VVA 

National Lc<ldcrship Conference. Of the 

"We \vcre ju~t getting annihilated," he :30 veteran~ meeting to discu~:-. Agent 

:-.aid. Orange, five had received the :-.arne 

Then 1\dm. Elmo Zumwalt ordered the 

river banks sprayed. 

'Til never forget the lir<;t time we 

went down a river \Vhcrc the bank 

had been ~prayed." Mike <;aid. ''It was 

like looking at the moon. There \Vas 

nothing:· 

He also remember:-, no attention \Vas 

paid to the effect~ of Agent Orange 

on the health of the boat crew:-,. That 

Vietnam·~ rain~ might wa<;h the 

chemical into the river wa:-, of no 

con<;cquence to the Swift Boat crew~. 

"A lot of time~ we· d tie our clothe.;; to 

a rope and run them in the prop \\'a"h 

to do l)Ur laundry. not thinking that the 

river \Va<; tilled \Vith the <;tuff and it was 

:-,oaking into our clothes," he ~aid. "'We 

were all 19 and 20 year<; old. We didn't 

h.nmv any better." 

After his tour of duty. he wouldn't give 

Agent Orange another thought until 

diagno~i:-. of Type 2 diabctc:-.. 

"Everyone wa~ telling me to file a 

claim with the VA." he said. ''It wa<;n't 

li~ted as a pre"'umptive disease then, 

but once it wa~. I received ~orne 

compemation." 

But hi~ health problems \Vere ju~t 

beginning. On the same day he \vas 

diagno~ed with diabetes, he al~o 

\Vas found to have p~oriasis. Then in 

January 2009, he wa<; found to have 

Fournier·~ gangrene. An infection 

~rread to hi~ groin area. and he 

eventually had surgery that removed his 

~crotum. 

Health complications \voulclnot be 

limited to him. 

His son. Scott, born in 1973. began 

having <;eizure~ while ~erving in the Ail 

Force and was medically retired. He i:-, 

a school teacher today and ~till wffcr" 

from the <,eizurcs. Doctor~ told him 

Mike Demske, 1969 

David and Scott Demske, 1990 

David (with fish) 
107 


929psRSD34.eps

that an abnormality in his frontal lobes 

disrupted electrical ~ignab in the brain. 

causing the :.eizures. 

A second son, David. born in 1978. was 

diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at the 

age of ten. Diligent with his medical 

care, David was able to partieipute 

in his high ~chool and college tennis 

teams. Scheduled to graduute from 

college in May 2001, he died of 

myocarditis (un infbmmation of the 

heart muscle) in January of that year. 

''For a long time. I made no connection 

between Agent Orange and Scott and 

David's problems," he said. ·'I probably 

:.tarted thinking about it after David 

died. It was really a tragedy. He was a 

:.enior in college. going to graduate in 

May.·· 

At a VVA meeting in Silver Spring, he 

was able to question the then- Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs. 

"I asked him if he was aware of any 

studies that would link our exposure to 

dioxins to problems with our children 

and grandchildren. and he looked at 

me like a deer in the headlights. He 

couldn't re:.pond. He had no idea." 

"The VA secretary had an aide there:· 

Mike :.aid. ·'He wa:. writing everything 

down and basicully told us. ·We'll 

get back to you.' Which of course is 

bullshit. That's why we're trying to 

get enough evidence to prove there's a 

problem out there and to do something 

about it." 

Because the VA refuses to conduct 

:.tudies on the question:.. the 

evidence gathered is anecdotal. But 

Mike Demske llnds the anecdote~ 

compelling. 

"Money is one reason they won't 

con~ider guys in the blue water Navy," 

he said. ''So many of those guy~ served 

on crews that worked on jets that flew 

through that stuff and brought it back to 

the aircraft carrier~. We have one guy in 

our chapter who was on a crew. Those 

crews normally were made up of five 

guy~. WelL four of the five guys on this 

crew have diabete:.-and the VA won't 

even look at them.'' 

At the very lea~t. like so many other 

Vietnam veterans who have had to face 

similar health problems, he ~ays the 

VA should fund studies to see if a link 

exists. 

"I would want them to do decent 

studies of what the effect:. are on the 

children and grandchildren," he ~aid. 

·Tm sure there\ .;;orne kind of effect. 

My oldest son. Scott, ha~ ADD. and his 

:.on has it, too. I never thought Agent 

Orange would be pm1 of it. either. but 

everyone at that meeting was talking 

about problems their children and 

grandchildren have.·· 

defects related to exposure ro Auent 

Oranue. To alert leuislators and the 

nU?dia to this onuoint; lef?acy of the" 

war, we are seeking real storie"s about 

wish to share your 

stmggfes that you 

to Agent Oranxeldioxin. 

send an C"mail to mporter@rnl.org or 

ca!l30J-585-4000, E.\t. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

Stote Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

John Weiss 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 

Associates <~{Vietnam 

Veterans of America 
108 


929psRSD35.eps

Linda May's story is brought to you by the 

Vietnam Veterans ol America Buckeye State Council. 

Nine days before the Christmas of 1982. 

Linda May looked upon her ncwbom 

son, Steven Burdette Shaffer, and 

mourned the los~cs to come. 

''He suffered horribly:· "he ;.,aid. ''I think 

I grieved for him from the moment I tir;.,t 

saw him. because I knew I wouldn't have 

him long.'' 

She would never sec him walk or hear 

him talk. There would be no high school 

graduation, no college diploma. He 

\vould not marry. She would ha>vc no 

grandchildren. 

··J was grieving all those losses even 

though I still had him:· she <;aid. 

Today. on the CdLS-USA Foundation 

Web page, characteristics of the Cornelia 

dcLmgc ~yndromc may be found, 

;.,omc of them low birth weight, 

stature. ;,malt head 

Doctors told her he would not !i\'C 

through the night then they said the 

week; then the month. 

··After about a year of them :-aying not 

to expect a long 

up and said I'm 

this any more," my own 

thoughts, my own instinct, I didn't expect 

him to die in the hospitaL I expected to 

have h1m for year.~ longer ... 

Steven died on Jan. ! 5, 1998. a few 

week~ after his 15th birthday. 

"Our pediatrician knew what kind of 

syndrome he had:' she said. ''It was very 

unusuaL Many doctors \Vcre not familiar 

with the :-,yndrome. at lea~t at the time. 

But the pediatrician wa:-, very well read. 

He b a \'vOnderful man." 

Her then-husband. Larry Shaffer, was 

not a pediatrician. He was a former Air 

Force mechanic "tationed in Thailand 

during the Vietnam War. He told her of a 

chemical that sometimes dripped on him 

from aircraft he walked beneath, on his 

way to fixing instruments on the F-105 

Tlmndcrchiefs. 

"The first \Vords out of his mouth when 

he saw Ste\'cn \Verc ·Agent Orange,"' she 

said. 

diabetes connected to Agent Orange. 

Larry Shaffer in 1968 stationed at 

McConnell AFB in Wichita a few 
109 


929psRSD36.eps

··He was a friend of our pediatrician, 

and \vhcn our pediatrician had no more 

went to the VA hospital and had all these 

thing::. documented, and for him. there 

wa:-. help in the form of a paycheck.'' 

She believes the VA should commis::.ion 

a :-.tudy to ::.ee if there is a link between 

A friend \Vho wa::. a Vietnam veteran with Agent Orange and the children of 

a son who had Down syndrome went to 

sec the pedwtrician. too. 

really 

to this. We have all of these odd things 

going on with children. and they just 

happen to be the children of Vietnam 

veterans."'" 

Five years after Ste\'en wa::. born. the 

maniage between his parents ended. 

Linda said her former husband had 

undergone 

though he was 

they split up. 

drink heavily. and his temper became 

explo-;ive. She believe-; he then was 

diagnosed with PTSD and awarded 100 

percent d1sability by the VA. About a 

year after he left her. his physical health 

rapidly went dO\vnhill. 

Around 1988, he was diagno::.ed with 

lung cancer. He :-.aid during a Friend 

of the Court hearing that he developed 

Lmda has had no interaction with the 

VA. though she remains convinced that 

Vietnam \etcrans. 

boys compared to the number of girls. Ifs 

probably anecdotal stuff. but that \Vas the 

first thing I noticed. Vietnam vets have 

an amazing number of girls. but they 

seemed hardly to ever have boy:-.. And 

the boys at this 

disabilitie::.. I 

thing:-. they need to pay attention to. and 

they're trying to avoid it." 

She wishes now that over the years she 

had written down the events of her l!fc, 

kind of running journal, so 

would have at her fingertips all of the 

details. 

But some details don "t need to be written 

down. Some arc not easily forgotten. 

"'I miss my baby very much, .. :-.he ::.aid. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

WA Buckeye State Council 

WA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
110 


929psRSD37.eps

By Jim Be/shmr 

II \\a'> not '>aid jok.ingl~ It came from the link ])()~ ·-, heart. He meant 

en_•n word of tl. \nd e\lT\ \\ord (Jf it stunned ).J:tyn:lrd J\ade1lik 

The \\ord-, carried a '>:tdne'>s that ddled de~cription or definition 

"Th<lt one real!\" hit home.' 1\adcrlik saKI. "All hi'> lire. ill' h<JS been 

degraded hy other children \\ ho chd not rcali/.e hi'> k<lrning cb;lhility " 

It \\ ould hit home :~gain \\hen K:1Lkrlik n'<id tlK' hook. Jlr F(t!bcl~ 

.l!rSon h\ Admir:1l Elmo ?:um\\;dl. It \Y.l~ then that Kadcrlik heg;m 

making comwctions het\Yccn the difficult lt\-es led hy b1~ children 

;md his expo'-,ure to Agent Orange in \"ictn;nn 

.\dm. F!rno Zunm alt lud orde1ed the Agent Orange dcfoiLnion to protect 

rJ\ellllC .'>allor'> :1nd other'> from :ltt<td,-, along the hea\ ily \egetatcd 

rhetlxJ.nk.-, (Jf \ ll'tnalll. ZunL\\ .dr.., _-,on \\a.-, (JI1e of those men. Ali:et 

\'il.'ln<tm. hi.-.. ::-.on (k.'\ciopvd t\\O kind~ of termin<d V<lll(l"l. and his 0\\11 

.-..on \\<I'> horn \\"ith a "l'\Cte karning di.'>ahilit~ 

When :\laynarcl Kadcrlik president of the \linnL''>Ota State Council. rc:td 

the book. he took note that each boy \Ya~ the <;;nne .1ge and that each 

father had .~l'!Yed m the ~.nne arc,\ of \'ictn.un. L1dcrhk ,~cn·cd fort\\ o 

~cars off the coa<;t ofYictnam .md another }C.Ir in the \lckong DelLa on 

ri\·cnnc duty with the \LI\")" and the 9th Infantry Di\'i'>ion of the Army 

· i'.um\\:llt felt the '>Jlraymg took hl'> -.;on·-, lifl'. Kadcr!Jk ~aid. ··\'\"lll'n I \\as 

there, it \\a::> pretty obnoth \Yhat b:1d hcen spr:l)"L'LL Smnething th:ll had 

been green \\:1.., all gra~- ;md de:1d. \\'c drank the \\atcr on the rl\L'L~ :md 

b:lthcd mit 

h.adcdik\ health lud been good until 2010. \\hen he \\:1'> diagnosed \\ith 

prostate Cll1CL'l. a di~l'cl'>e conncncd to Agent Orange exposure I !c 

])dle\L"'> l1i..; d11ltlren pa1cl f(Jr that l''<p(J'>Urc llJllg l1cf(Jre that 

Joshua Kadcrlik, 1994 

Melissa and Ja.rda 
111 


929psRSD38.eps

Jo~h lud .tlway.;; h~1d a rough time in school. fle JS 12 tod.1y. and the road 

!u.;; not gotten any smoother 

Totb). he '>till .-,ttuggic'> in the \\orkforce. \\hich em be \e1\ nucL he -,aid 

Tn .Kkhtton to being born\\ ith ~~ dt~loc1tcd hip requiring him to ,,·car 

:1 metal br.tcc to put the hip back m place, Josh w;Js born ,,·ith :1 se\ ere 

learning chsahilny. After the cbj he came home to ;mnounce th;rt he\\ a~ 

real!) dumb . .Jo~h·s ]Xlrenh decided to transfer him to~~ Crtholic -;chool 

though tlw expen~c \\:1'> difficult to be;Jr. 

The Catholic :-.choo\ tatlored .Jo..,h's cbs~es to hi~ abilitit''>, :1nd \\ithm :1 )Car 

Ills father ~,1\\ ch:1nge~. 

·Jt hdpc:d .1 grc:at deal \\"1th hi.-, self-e-,teem." }.I;)~ rurd said ··After one year. Jmda 

it real!: soa1ed. 

Hh daughtet. ~\Jdh'>a. did better m '>dmol thanJo.-,h, hut h:1d her 0\\11 p10hlcm'> 

too. She i.~ the mother ofJayd-1. 7\LJynan:J K.tderlik"s gr:mddaughter. Jayda h.1s 

been di:1gnosed '' ith :~utism. KKkrhk pays for the l11'>Ur,1nce that keep;, hi.., 

granddaughter in a progi~Im ottering tlK·r.1py e1ght hour.'> cby. fl\"l' daYs a \\"Cck. 

·Jt",.., a ch:11lengc for he1 mother .mel he1 grandpa. he s.1id. "'But -,he's gettmg 

hcl!er ! pa) for the im111;1ncc ~o .~he can he 111 rhe progl:llll. and I \\otdd 

spend nl) la-,t nKkd to keep he1 111 it .'lhe 1~ such ,1 lm mg :111d thoughtful 

clnld For her. learning h.t'> been ;1 huge ch.Jlknge The ("0.'>1 of the pmgwm 

1'> \ety high. hut J"d do an) thing to help her 

.\'>it is with so many other \"H.:tn;tm \etet~m" whoc;c children and grandchildren 

hmc struggkd \Ytth l'XOtk: disca~e-.. karning disabtliuc~. and other hc:tltb 

rrohlem.'>. K:1dedik find'> it d1f!kult to f:Jcc the prosrect that it \\aS his 

cxro~ute to >\gent Orange th;n ,dl1icts them 

""It make:> you fed h.1d that her di-,ahdity \\·as caused hy my .'>eJYice 

111 \'ietn.un and what my country :-.pra1cd on ll'> \dwn we \\·ere there." 

he "<<id. ""She's []aycLt] gomg: to be J. \\'ondl'Jful pcrvm in thl'> \\odd. 

llc has no doubt :dmut the l.".~. gmcrnmcnt\ rcspon'>Jhiht\. not only to 

th 'eteran..,. hut to their chlldren ,mel grandchildren 

\\c \\ent off to "L'r\'c our countr'_<. :tnd no\\ <Jllr g<J\crnment that ordered 

the spr.t)ing c;hould t:dzc care of the children and gunckhddrcn of the \"Cteuns. 

hecau'>e 1ts affected us in one \\:1\ 01 another. he said. ""The \eteJ:uh arc 

1n the founh quarter of their li\c'>. hut the children h:t\C their ll\es .\head 

of them. The) should he COlll]X'll'>.lted 111onetard) and nxet\ c the spenal 

cue :1nd eduotion the) need '>O thq on .'>Ur\ i\ c 111 the wmld 

S(r:,n{lh·mlt 11111/Jbers o(f'ietJW/11 1'eterm1s hm·e children awl grandchildren 

ll'itb birth t/(1i•cts related to c.\1HJSU!l' to Agent Omuge. To alert legislators 

and the media to th1s onp.uhl,f.!. !ega()' (~f the If'( I/: 1/'e are seek lug real stories 

afmut realjxojJ!e. !(you ll'ish to share yourjlnni~r's health struggles that 

you befh't'e an' due to Agent Orange/dio.Yill, send an email to 

mporter@l'l'a.or;g <Jr calf 301-585-4000, Ext. 146. 

Many Thanks 

to Our Sponsors 

I'U Huckeve State Council 

1.-1:;:4,\'ortb na/.:uta 

S'!a/e Council 

itfis:w1tri FietJitlm 

T'ctemns Foundatio11 

Vietnam Veterans Peace 

fniliative 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Sterwold 

Herb Worthington 

john Weiss 

Su:;"an Carson and the 

Carson Fami{V Foundation 

Chapter635 

OconomowoG, W'isconsin 

Veterans 
112 


929psRSD39.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

arc some of the things Sharity 

Keith-Rcichmd wrote on an Agent 

Orange \Vcb page: 

• I was 2 when they diagnosed me with 

Alopecia Univcrsalis (loss of scalp and 

body hair) 

• l was 11 the first time someone tried to 

pul! off my wig. 

• I \Vas almost 16 when they told me 

I would never han~ children and 

that I would have to undergo either 

a "procedure" for many months or 

surgery to have a "'normal" sex life. I 

had never even had a date. 

• 1 was 21 before I could even talk to a 

therapist about the embarrassing thing 

that was wrong \Vith me. 

• I was 34 when I H.mnd out my condition 

actually had a name- Mullerian 

Aplasia. 

• I am 39 and I am still sad sometimes 

that I w!ll never have a child. 

fhcrc is no htstory on either side of her 

family that accounb for any of this. The 

only knO\vn potential environmental 

factor was her father's exposure to Agent 

Orange in Vietnam. lie died in March 

2009 of Agent Orange-related cancer. 

She \Vas 25 year:-. old before :-.he met hun 

for the first time. 

She speaks\\ ith a strong voice, the sound 

vibrant and energetic. It is much like her 

laugh and her sense of humor. 

Her father was a Marine in Vietnam. He 

and her mother never lived together. She 

dtd not meet her father until after her 

mother died of cancer 

"There was a Jot of secrecy," she smd. 

''My mom dtdn't like to talk about my 

dad. I had seen one picture of him in 

profile. I \Vent through a period mmy 

teens when 1 was intensely curious about 

my dad, but my mom \vouldn 't answer 

any questions." 

Shortly after her mother died, Sharity 's 

father contacted her. A relative had called 

telling him about her mother's death. 

They exchanged letters for a few months. 

They tape recorded a few eonver:-.ations. 

When ::.he thought she was ready. she 

called him. 

"I had typed out a list of 40-something 

quest tons that ranged from what color arc 

your eyes to what's your favonte food." 

she said. ''I couldn't say what we talked 

about. We talked about everything. \Ve 

talh:d for ctght or nine hours. Where I 

had been, where he had been. When I 

actua11y went to meet him a few months 
113 


929psRSD40.eps

later, I found out that I walk like him. 

I talk like him, rm a little ve1sion of 

my dad, from my coloring. to my facial 

~tructure, to everything. It was amazing. I 

went to his house to meet him. and when 

I sat down, the first thing my stepmother 

said she noticed was that my father and 

I arranged ourselves exactly the same 

\\Uy." 

They talked about her surgery and, in her 

words, "You can't miss the bald thing." 

They didn't talk much about Vietnam. llc 

didn't like talking about it. He told her to 

look forward, not backward. He sutTercd 

tfom PTSD. and once became so angry 

with her that the two of them wound up 

speaking to a VA counselor. 

They talked about her physical 

difficulties and the long journey it has 

been for her. She tried speaking w1th 

the VA about Agent Orange and the 

possibility that it played a role in her 

health problems, but she said she never 

rccci\cd a response from the VA. 

She has been married for two years. She 

and her husband have been together 

since 2001. 

"My life has been full of highs and 

lows," she said. "'I can't say ['ye always 

handled it beautifi.ll!y. I set goals in life. 

I have a master's degree in Special Ed. l 

don't sec the things that have happened 

to me as reason~ to stop trying to ha\C a 

life. I've gone down black holes. I've had 

to rebmld my life a couple of times. I've 

been largely blessed with good friends 

and people who love me. I guess, though, 

that it's mostly been a one-woman show. 

Yes. I have a husband ... a stepchild .. a 

stepmother ... cousins- nonetheless. 1 

feel a little alone and a little scared." 

She \viii be 40 this year. Regardless of 

what the VA docs about Agent Orange 

research, she sees no help coming in time 

to make significant changes in her life. 

Nonetheless, she recognizes that others 

m1ght benefit from such research, and she 

hopes the VA will at least study the Agent 

Orange questions. 

"I'm hoping one day that they will 

research it," she said. "'I'm about 40. I'm 

not going to make my hair grow. and I'm 

certainly not going to go back and grO\v 

a uterus so I can give birth. But there arc 

a lot of people out there who will have 

children and grandchildren who will be 

affected by this stuff. I worry that the 

same things that happened to VJCtnam 

\ cterans will happen to veterans of other 

\\ars. These thing~ need to be addres~cd 

and a policy put in place. They need 

to take responsibility for those they're 

responsible for." 

Significantmmlhers of Vietnam 1·eterans 

have children and grandchildren with 

hirth dejects related to nposure to Agent 

Orange. To alert legislators ami the 

medw to this ongoing Iegan· of the wm; 

lH' are seef..ing real stories about real 

people. f{nm wish to share yourj(rmi~v \· 

health struggles that you helie1·e are due 

to Agent Orange/dio\i/1, send an email to 

mportcr@,1·1·a.01g or call 301-5?15-4000, 

Ert. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

Ca!tfornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 
114 


929psRSD41.eps

The May's story is brought to you by the 

Vietnam Veterans ol Michigan. 

1S 

a face given to smiles -until 

photo appears. and one of those beautiful 

brown eyes disappear~. In its place is an 

emptiness. a di~colorcd pinki~h tissue 

where the eye once was. In the other 

three photos. it i~ impos:-.ible to tell that 

the right eye i:-. a prosthetic. The baby's 

real eye is gone. 

"I happen to know 

that there arc ~cvcral people in thi:-. arcJ 

(Buffalo. N.Y.) vvho arc Vietnam vets 

whose grandchildren have had similar 

problems. He had the eye removed and 

now he has a prosthetic. He constantly 

ha:-. to be checked. every four months, to 

make sure it hasn't :-.pread to the other 

He abo has asthma, which rcyuires 

to take medicine every day. We have 

no family history of anything like this 

before Isaiah. I haven't talked to the VA 

at all about him because they haven't 

done anything." 

He said he wa~ going to try to get his 

his 

contact Vietnam Veterans of America. 

He has had other conversations with 

the VA, all of them concernim~A!!ent 

Orange, which he is positive lies ;t the 

heart of Isaiah's cancer 

But before trying to get the VA to 

consider Isaiah. he had to get the VA to 

consider himself. 

He served in the Nav) and was classed as 

''blue water:· ~erving on a hospital ship 

off the co<tst of Danang. He says a good 

deal of his time was spent off the ship 

and either on the ground in Danang or in 

its harbor. \Vhich he says is polluted with 

dioxin even more heavily than the nearby 

shore. 

In \969. shortly after he returned to 

civilian life. he experienced a rash 

breaking out on both legs. Hi:-. legs 

became ~wollen and he had difficulty 

walking. He wa'> driving a truck at the 

time and said that the difficulty he had 

with swollen legs caused him to usc his 
115 


929psRSD42.eps

''I was in the hospital for like three 

months,'' he said. ·'They didn't 

know what it was. They 

l1.1nd>, of blood tesb on me. but no one 

said anything about Agent Orange, and 

even l didn't make the connection at the 

time. But I've made the Agent Orange 

connection now because I proved that 

I wa~ onshore. So they've sent the 

paperwork for Agent Orange testing. 

plus they asked for evidence of my 

having a rash within two years of being 

discharged." 

Prior to thi~ recent change in his 

~ituation, the VA wouldn't con~ider 

any connection to Agent Orange at all 

because he was clas>,itied a1. a "blue 

water'' sailm and was not eligible for 

Agent Orange con~ideration. But he 

find all of his medical and 

records from his time in 

Vietnam, and it was enough to per~uade 

the VA to re-evaluate hi<; case. 

··1 was a 'bosun's mate' too." he <;aid. "I 

proved that I took the captain to and from 

the shore. The bosun\; mate maintains 

and runs the shuttle craft to and from 

shore. When I wa<; there, I'd help load 

~upplies from a truck to the boat. For all 

intenb and purpo~e~. I was on the ground 

in Danang." 

He said that, because he also ha~ 

submitted a PTSD claim to the VA, the 

Agent Orange claim may take up to 18 

month~ to re~olve. He·~ 63 years old. 

He believes the rash on his legs is only 

the beginning of his Agent Orange 

problems. In addition to hi~ grancbon's 

cancer of the eye, each of hi~ I\VO 

daughters have had problem~ with what 

doctors called ··w~picious cells·· in their 

uterus. 

''They don't :,ay ifs cancer;· he ~aid. 

The same exact thing.'' 

At the Louiwille VVA convention. he 

addressed the gathering and made his 

argument about the distinction bet\veen 

"blue water" and other type~ of Naval 

service. ('"I've never ~tood up and talked 

to 10 people, let alone almost 800, he 

said.'') 

A~ far a~ distinction<; go. he ~ecs none. 

'"If I had the chance. I'd tell the VA that 

blue water, brown water, blue air- ifs 

all a crock. Anyone \Vho was over there 

should be included in this Agent Orange 

light. because it's carried by air. can·ied 

by water. and ba:.ically all of that stuff 

roll~ downhill. All that contamination 

during the mon~oon season would get 

washed right down to the harbors. We 

polluted the oceans over there. We 

polluted the harbor~. the rivers. and the 

shore by spraying all that stuff. It's not 

ju~t an in-country thing. They poisoned 

everybody.'' 

He doesn't think he won the day \Vith 

his argument. but he did return home 

with one particularly vivid memory. A 

VVA member running for office called to 

he wouldn't be able to 

"He couldn't attend the comention 

became he \vas attending his grandson's 

for retinoblastoma," Jim May 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 
116 


929VVAfao43.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

enni~ Whalen·~ memory of the of Agent Orange. None of u~ knew what 

Vietnam water i~ \i\id. as vivid a~ it \\as. Of course we drank the \\aler out 

the \Vater·~ color- ""bright green."" there. \Ve drank water from the ~!reams at 

He ~e1ved l\\O tour~ \\ith the Marines. the the bottom of all tho\e mountaim. HelL I 

first with the 1st Battalion. 9th Marine~. drank water out of a dead NVA"s canteen. 

up near the DMZ- ··con Thien. Khc You drank water where you could get it." 

Sanh. we did the whole bit:· They took 

the highc<;t ca\ualty rate in the hiqory of 

the M.trinc Corps. 

On hi.., <;ccond tour. Dcnni<; \vorkcd with 

After he left the Marine-. in the early 

1970'>. he rccci\'cd a letter from a doctor 

connected \Omchow to Agent Orange. 

Whalen \va-. intrigued by how the doctor 

the Popular Force~ in Combined Action knew what outJlt he .;;erved with and 

Group~. ~omctime~ in compound'> nmL where the outJit worked in Vietnam, but 

after TeL in roving unit:-.. up Cor a the lcller ~aid nothing about any kind of 

few day~ 111 one area. then 

another. 

to monetary compen~ation. and he neve1 

followed up on 11. 

He ne1·er heard of Agent Orange when 

he \\a> in Vietnam. He didn't have a 

clue about it. He \Va~ good \Vith the 

Vietn:..mese language, though. He 

picked it up easily. For rea'>ons he can't 

explain, he had an intere~t in it. He'd 

been a "half-a~sed interpreter" and had 

attended Vietname:-.e language :-.chool in 

Coronado, but he wa:-. "dumped becau:-.e ( 

\V<l'> a high .;;chool dropout. :md I couldn't 

undentand why I wns back in :-.chool " 

He :-.aid he hadn't joined the Marines 

to go to schooL any\\ ay. He joined the 

Marine~ to be a Marine. 

··We'd be working in the mountains up 

near Korth Vietnam, and there'd be water 

in the bomb crater'>. and it would be 

bright green." he '><lld. "We never heard 

'"I didn't know nothin' from nothin' ,"he 

:-.aid. "I just wanted to catch up on .'>ome 

part)ing. I :-.hould have followed up on it. 

hut like a dope, I had other thing:-. on my 

mind." 

After he married and had children. 

Agent Orange became a wbject of more 

intere:-.t. 

He had three son:-.. T\VO of them were 

diagnosed \\ ith p) loric stenosis and 

\vould have to undergo surgery to 

correct the condition, though neither is 

completely recovered from the effects of 

it today. 

Pyloric steno:-.i:-. affects the 

ga'>trointe'>tmal tract dunng infancy. It 

can cau\e the infant to vomit forcefully 

and often. 

The Whalen boys: Sean, Keith, ,lml 

grandson, James 

De1mi.1 Whalen, U.S.M.C .. 

Boot Camp, 1907 
117 


929VVAfao44.eps

··The food hib a certain point in the 

esophagm. and the hahy can ~hoot it out 

ten feet:' he said. 

It c;m al~o cau:-.e dehydration. It i:-. a 

narrowing of the pylorus, the lower 

p<trt of the :-.tomach through \Vhich food 

pn:-.:-.e~ to enter the ~mall inte:-.tine. The 

mu:-.ck:-. in the pylorus can become 

enlarged to the point \\here food cannot 

empty out of the :-.tomach. 

··My middle son. Sean, \Va" the first one:· 

Whalen :-.aid. ''Then my [aq :-.on was 

born \\ith the ~ame condition, and it was 

my \\ ifc who p1cked up on it. She said 

she couldn't believe it wa~ happenmg 

to u~ <.gam. And wre enough. Keith had 

the .~a me condition Scan did. The ~ame 

docto1 performed the surgery. and he said 

he lwd never ~een t\\0 brother~ have the 

:-.ame thing like thi:-. .. 

When Whalen found out that the VA 

recogniLe~ pyloric ~tcnmis a:-. an Agent 

Orange-related birth defect in the 

children of female Vietnam veterans but 

not of male V1etnam veterans. he laughed 

di"mi-.:-.i\ely. 

"Unlc-.s tt wa:-. an !'\VA, I didn't sec any 

\Vomcn up on the DMZ," he qid. "That's 

lih:c a ~lap in the face to me. We rolled in 

that ... llltf!Agent Orange]. We li\cd like 

animal~ in that :-.tuff. And they :-.ay only 

\vomen Vietnam veteran~ can pn:-.:-. along 

these di:-.ea:-.e~'! I think it's a way for the 

government not to pay the dues on it. It'~ 

an msult to me and other guy~.too." 

The VA. ha:-. rated him as 100 percent 

service-connected di:-.abled with PTSD, 

but it ha~ found no connection between 

Agent Orange and other health problems 

he deals with. He i~ now recovenng 

from hi~ fifth melanoma ~urgery and 

underwent an Agent Orange ~creening 

\Vith the VA, but was given no bencrib. 

"I don't undcr:-.tand the VA on thi~. and 

I do under:-.tand the VA on thi<' he saH.l. 

"It'-, the money. I'm not looking at me for 

the future. I've got thi~ melanoma. My 

day~ arc numbered as far a~ the future i~ 

concerned. I know that. I'm hoping that 

some day down the road the government 

will compen-,ate my wife and :-.om for 

having the~c :-.urgeric~ \Vhen they were 

bnbie:-.. They've got bum -,tonutch~ to thi:-. 

day:· 

More than anything, he wanb one thing 

in particular from the VA. 

"I want hone:-.ty from them." he said. 

"I want them to man up and say, 'Gee. 

you were in that area. You came into 

contact with that stutf. We know you 

drank the water. you laid on the ground.' 

1 \vould want the VA to -,ay maybe \Ve 

can compcn:-.ate the family :-.ome way. 

They :-.hould nt lca~t put the effort in. Thi~ 

i~n't a fmry talc. It':-. not a made-up :-.tory. 

I JOmed the Marine Corp~. I went to 

Vtctnam. I wenttwJCc. And I'd probably 

do it again if I \Vas in the same :-.ituation. 

I put my ass on the line. and nmv if:-. 

time for the government to come up \Vith 

:-.omething for my family." 

SiwrUu umnum!wn oj t'elerun\ hm'(' 

children and grandchildren H'ith hirth 

d(/u 11 rcloted /o e.\Jmlure to !\gent 

Orange, To alert /egislotors and the 

media to rhi.1 ongoing /cgw y olthe H'or, 

H'C ore seeking reo/ .1tories about real 

people. flwm tt·i.lh to .1hare your jamily'.1 

health .\trugg!es that mu be!iere are due 

ro Agent Omngc/dio.\in .. \{:'IU/ an email to 

111porterCrJ'1'm.org or m/1 301-585-4000, 

E\t. 146. 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Bucke_re State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

Cal(f'ornia Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

r~lMichigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, Illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 

Chapter635 

Ocononwwoc, Wisconsin 

John Weiss 
118 


929VVASup45.eps

By Jim Belshaw 

vcn \\hen the lcncr came in l9B4. 

Sharon Perry and her late husband. 

Reuben ··Bud" Perry IIL dtdn't 

make cmy connection \Vith /\gent Orange. 

No red !lag" were rai:-.cd about what \V<I:. 

happening m thctr home. happening to 

him. happening to their daughters. The 

oldest. Danicllc. would be :-.ick all het 

life. The youngc'>t. Li..,bcth. would be 

diagno..,cd with auti~rn - but not until 

"he wa;, 26. Li"bcth would h<ne a "on 

and he, too, would be diagnosed \Vith 

autism. Bud would die in 2005 after 

many difficult year~ of dealing with the 

alkrrrath of the Vietnam War. 

But in 19B4. they "tom! in the kitchen. 

reading the letter about a cla\\-action suit 

brought on behalf of veterans who may 

be wfkring from the lingering dfcct:-. of 

Agent Orange. They didn't think it had 

an) thing to do with them. 

''rll a wa)~ remember ~tanding in the 

kitchen nnd looking at one nnother and 

~aying to him. ·you're not sicJ,..' ·.\he 

said. 

She ~aved the letter any\vay. 

"I put it <l\\ay because you never kmH\:· 

~he said. ··After that it was alwa)\ in the 

hack of my mind."' 

Hud pulled two tours in Vietnam. each 

\\ith the "brown wntcr" i>J:1vy. worJ,.ing 

in the war'~ ri\er~. When he came home, 

new battle~ aro~e. He \vould eventually 

receive a 70 percent di\ability for PTSD 

and 30 percent for his unemployability. 

He put in a later claim for peripheral 

neuropathy for the lo-,-, of the U'>e of hi~ 

feet. Lower amounb were awarded fm 

disability in both arms. He turned to 

alcohol to case the pain. His '>i'>tcr \Vrotc 

the VA a letter in wpport of the PTSD 

claim in 1999. She ~aid the family did 

not recogni..:c the young man who came 

home from V1ctnam. Something wa~ 

\Hong. She said his ~oul seemed to have 

been ripped from in~ide him. 

Sharon ~aid. ·'He had a real rough 

time dealing with hi~ PTSD. and selfmedication was how he dealt \Vith it 

They \Vanted to blame hi'> troubles on 

that." 

Sharon tried to see a VA administrator. 

When her path was blocked, ~he chewed 

out hi~ -,ecretary. She never did get in to 

:-.cc him. hut :-.he did get to ~peah. with 

~omeone in charge of claim~. He set up 

an appointment with a neurologist. The 

physician '><ll{l the peripheral neuropathy 

likely wa-, cau-,ed by Hud's diahete:-., a 

tnulthat led back to Agent Orange. 

''\Vhat the VA doesn't \Vant to 

acknowledge i'> that it's all caused by 

Agent Orange becau'>e there\ a link 
119 


929psRSD46.eps

between Agent Orange and diabetes," 

Sharon said. "So they don't want to give 

thumbs up to the peripheral neuropathy. 

I don't k.nmv why. Well, that make~ all 

of us have to deal with the repercussions 

and emotion~ of all that. WhaL arc we 

crazy'~ That's how the gnme is plnyed. 

If they drive you insane, they've won. If 

they don ·t, and you decide to ~peak nuL 

if enough people do that, maybe they'll 

lose.'' 

Her husband "tmted getting sicker in 

199)5. In 2004, Sharon urged him to put 

in a claim for rheumatoid arlhriti". She 

wa~ told that sometimes the VA can find 

that a veteran has unproved and they'll 

take away money. So if you're relatively 

hupp) where you arc, you ~hou!d .~tay 

there. 

Reuben '·Bud" Perry III died in 2005. 

His oldest daughter, Daniclle, had trouble 

"He said. ·~he's faking,'" Sharon said. 

It is hard for her to talk about it even 

today. 

"You don't fake so your feet turn inward 

all day long. Nobody ~ nobody - docs 

that,'" she said. '"Thi!-. kid could not do 

that for days at a time. She was in pain 

and there was no treatment for her pain. 

I kept thinking, can I go along with 

thc.~e people and believe my daughter 

is a fake'? I couldn't. I had to make a 

decision. This was my little girl ~my 

little girl ~ who had nobody else but 

me to stand up for her. And that'::. what l 

did. And it wa~ he\!. I can't tell you how 

much hell it wa!-.. You can't imagine how 

much hell it was." 

At 26. Dan idle developed a new set 

of ~ymptoms. Sharon found a doctor 

\\hO was actually able to identify her 

problem. and that was at an emergency 

with infant pneumonia and ear infection~. room. \vhere Danicl!c was diagnosed 

She was diagnosed with seriom allergic::. with spondylolithc~is and spondylolytis 

to numerous everyday sources. She (conditions that affect the vertebrae). The 

suffered with severe sinus problems and doctor ordered medications that have 

rcoccutTing strep throat.ln the second 

grade, ~he began having serious neck 

spa~ms. There were times when she 

couldn't move her neck at all. 

'"It continued to happen on and off over 

the year~." Sharon !-.aid. 

When Daniel!e \Vas 10 years old, Sharon 

said she suffered muscle ~pasms over 

her entire body. She was unable to walk. 

They had trouble Hnding help. Finally, 

they went to see a neurologist. He said 

he wanted the parents to tape the next 

episode with a video camera. They did 

and brought the tape to him. 

helped case the pain. 

The li~t of Danielle 's diagnoses looks 

like thb: a~thma. Post-traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, conversion 

disorder. spondylo!ithcsis, spondylo!ytis. 

comprised immune system, hip dysplasia. 

cervical dysplasia, ovarian cysts. 

migraine headache~. fu:-.ed vertebrae. 

bulged disc~. fibromyalgia. debilitating 

muscle ~pasm!-.. major depression. 

gastritis, arthritis. torticollis, granuloma 

annularc. and tachycardia. 

"She is one of the reaM)ns AOLegacy 

exists today," Sharon !-.aid. "It kills me to 

know that she continues to endure a host 

Many Thanks To 

Our Sponsors 

VVA Buckeye State Council 

VVA North Dakota 

State Council 

California Veterans 

Benefits Fund 

Missouri Vietnam 

Veterans Foundation 

Vietnam Veterans 

of Michigan 

Vietnam Veterans 

Peace Initiative 

Chapter 176, 

Centralia, illinois 

Nona Bear 

Paul Cox 

Dan Stenvold 

Herb Worthington 

Susan Carson and the 

Carson Family Foundation 
120 

(Please also see ‘‘Faces of Agent Orange’’ at https://www.facebook 

.com/pages/Faces-of-Agent-Orange/187669911280144) 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Commander Wells, I understand that you 

have been involved in litigation or you know of litigation, Gray v. 

McDonald. Perhaps you could summarize for us the result of that 

litigation, because I think it shows how the VA bureaucracy—and 

I mean no disrespect to anybody who works at the VA. There are 

some hardworking, dedicated people there. Unfortunately, you 

made the point, I agree, that very often bureaucracies devote more 

time and effort and ingenuity to denying claims than enabling 

them. 


929psRSD47.eps
121 

Commander WELLS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. When you know in our gut they should be 

granted. 

Commander WELLS. Thank you, Senator. We filed an amicus 

brief and worked very closely with the folks on Gray vs. McDonald. What the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims said was that the 

exclusion of bays and harbors from inland waters—and actually 

that would include from the sovereign territory of Vietnam—was 

completely irrational and that they felt that the regulation was arbitrary and capricious. 

They then ordered the VA to rewrite that regulation. The time 

for appeal has expired, and in an effort to provide assistance, I 

have met twice with Deputy Secretary Gibson and the general 

counsel, Lee Bradley, on this issue and have provided them some 

suggestions. 

In the pipeline, we have a couple of other cases dealing with Da 

Nang Harbor, including one with Nha Trang Harbor as well where 

there is documented proof of Agent Orange exposure. 

I think the VA is sensitive to this. While I cannot speak for the 

Deputy Secretary, I do believe that in sitting down and going 

through the briefings, the lightbulb came on and he was aware of 

what the situation is. So, we are at least cautiously optimistic that 

a new regulation will come out before these other court decisions 

come out and that we will not be dissatisfied, let me put it that 

way, with what they come up with. We are certainly hoping to get 

partial or complete relief, you know, as a result of their study. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you for that answer. Thank you for 

your work on this issue. The lightbulb needs to come on for the Nation on this issue. 

Commander WELLS. Yes, sir. That is why we really think that 

your bill, S. 901, is great because it will help turn the light bulbs 

on. If the Australians had not turned the lightbulb on, there would 

be no Blue Water Navy movement. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me just close by saying that term ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ is not likely used by a court to describe administrative action. People should understand it is a term of art 

that is used to describe the most unacceptable and unjustifiable action by an administrative bureaucracy. It is the equivalent, in layman’s terms, of dumb and unjustified. 

So, I say that as a lawyer—forgive me, Mr. Chairman, I am a 

recovering lawyer—that the conclusion of the Court is a pretty dramatic one here. So, I think it gives us an example of how we need 

to push the VA and our entire Federal executive branch to do more 

and do better. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Chairman Isakson. Again, thank 

you and Senator Blumenthal for having this very important hearing. Mr. Rowan, we certainly know that Agent Orange exposure 

has impacted the children of Vietnam veterans and caused serious 

health problems. As the Vietnam veterans population ages, what 

affects are we seeing in the grandchildren of these veterans? 

Mr. ROWAN. Yeah, that is the really sad point that has been coming out at the hearings we have been holding. You know, it is one 

thing to talk to the 45-year-old daughter or son of a Vietnam vetVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:04 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\092915.TXT PAULIN
122 

eran, but to look at the 12-year-old grandson or granddaughter or 

great-grandchild, believe it or not, who is suffering from learning 

disabilities or possible other cancer issues and/or other kinds of 

strange things, to be honest. 

Look, we have held these hearings all around the country the 

last several years. We have held over a couple hundred of them. 

There are thousands of people who have testified, so we are all 

over the map about what people are telling us. Yet, there are certain things that have kind of popped up to the fore that we think 

will probably be the highlight focus when they get this research 

moving to either say yea or nay. But it has really run the gamut. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Who is conducting the research? 

Mr. ROWAN. Nobody. That is it. We need this bill. We need this 

work done. That is the whole issue. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is VA showing any interest at all? 

Mr. ROWAN. No. Very clearly they said no. They said, well, there 

are other agencies that could do this kind of work, which is true, 

but I will go back to my earlier analogy. I still remember when 

they called it post-Vietnam syndrome. OK? When we came home 

and we had our issues with the Vietnam vets. People would say, 

oh, it is post-Vietnam syndrome, like it was something bizarre just 

to us. 

Until they finally understood what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was, and that was facilitated by the VA itself when they created their Center of Excellence, to focus on mental health and Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder issues. They need to do the same for 

this issue. 

I understand the sergeant’s reticence to give it to the VA, believe 

me—and you would not because the reality is they are right, the 

VA is right. They do not have the wherewithal inside their own organization today. But, by creating a Center for Excellence assigned 

to a university somewhere in this country, one of the many wonderful universities that work with the VA hospital systems, I guarantee you there would be several that would vie for the right to do 

this. 

I guarantee you that would give them the wonderful brainpower 

that we get this work done and it would all be outside contractors. 

Who are we kidding here? It is all going to be people we can bring 

up in the field of expertise. 

Frankly, one of our Vietnam veteran colleagues is the guy who 

invented the genome stuff, so what the hell. They are out there. We 

can find them. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, you have had your hearings and things, 

and yet, the reality is without S. 901—— 

Mr. ROWAN. We are going nowhere. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We are not going any place. 

Mr. ROWAN. No, no. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. ROWAN. No. And as I say, it is not just for us. It was Persian 

Gulf veterans who were mentioned earlier. It was 25 years ago. I 

hate to say it, stuff is bubbling to the top already for them and 

their kids. Even with some of the new vets coming home, I am getting some really sad stories coming to my attention from dealing 

123 

with—many of whom are the sons and daughters of the Vietnam 

veterans that are in my organization. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Dr. Ramos, in your written testimony, you 

mention the distillation process on board ships and how this process may concentrate Agent Orange in the distilled water. Can you 

expand on that? Is there evidence that suggests the distillation 

process did concentrate Agent Orange at levels significantly higher 

than that found in seawater? 

Dr. RAMOS. The mechanics of that particular distillation process 

is really no different from any other purification process that takes 

place when you try to purify water. So, essentially, all that you are 

trying to do is heat up the water, vaporize it, condense it at the 

end, which leaves impurities behind. 

When that type of experiment is carried out, sort of in the laboratory setting, not really in the field, the demonstration that was 

made by both the Australians and then replicated here in the U.S. 

following that report is that, in fact, if dioxin is present in that 

water it would be concentrated because dioxin, of course, is not 

going to be water-soluble, it is not going to vaporize at the same 

rate that the water does, it is retained concentrated, and then 

leaches into the water that sort of comes on the next cycle. 

The challenge in interpreting that finding relative to the actual 

exposure scenario in Vietnam is, of course, that no evidence of that 

water being contaminated was available because it was carried out 

after the fact. That said, if, in fact, dioxin was there, and there are 

some individuals like Mr. Wells indicated before, then the possibility does exist for concentration to have taken place. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for 

holding this hearing. Let me ask first unanimous consent to have 

included in the record a number of Institute of Medicine reviews 

and I want to quote a couple of times from those reports. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The entire 837-page 2010 Update PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? 

record_id=13166 

The entire 1007-page 2012 Update PDF is available from The 

National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? 

record_id=18395 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 2010 Institute 

of Medicine review on the impact of future generations regarding 

Vietnam veterans’ exposure says this, possible health effects in offspring following paternal exposure merit further investigation because, ‘‘Most of the available epidemiology studies are not relevant 

to the primary exposure group of concern, male Vietnam veterans.’’ 

Then, in 2013, the same institute reached the conclusion, ‘‘A connection between toxin exposure and effects on offspring, including 

developmental disruption, and disease onset in later life is biologically plausible.’’ Then, in 2012, ‘‘The hypothesis that paternal 

preconception exposure to toxic agents may result in harm to their 

124 

children remains unresolved, in part, because of the sparseness of 

research on the subject.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing that to be admitted to 

the record, in part, to make certain that the suggestion that anything is redundant and unnecessary is at least, according to this 

Institute, overcome. Let me just ask the witnesses, in particular, 

if they have anything that would like to respond that they have not 

been asked related to the testimony of the representatives from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

My impression as I watched the audience, there was some disagreement in statements that were made and I wanted to give you 

the opportunity to explain why heads might have been shaking 

during their testimony. 

Mr. Wells. 

Commander WELLS. Senator, one of the issues that I did not 

have an opportunity to respond to was the estimate of 40-some 

thousand people that would be covered under existing law, which 

I think this is important because the VA has used that, in part, 

to justify a $4.4 billion cost for S. 681 when our liaison, as confirmed by the Committee, with CBO indicates that it will be $1 billion or less. Part of that—and again, I think it is because they do 

not have people who know what they are doing as far as Navy 

ships go doing this process. 

We ran a manpower analysis ourselves using the Navy manning 

plan and we checked our analysis, double-checked it, we provided 

it to CBO, they agreed with our approach and showed that actually 

83,000 people now are covered under existing law with another 

1,100 people covered under non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

This, I think, is one of the reasons why the VA cost or projected 

cost of the bill is just way over the top. Now, I gave our figures— 

and we have also looked at other potential offsets that the VA has 

not and we gave all that information to the Deputy Secretary and 

I think he is working that with the VA bean counters now to see 

if we can respond to that. 

Other than that, I would say that the VA has come up with a 

number of reasons why this bill should not be adopted or why the 

Navy vets were not exposed and some of them we have addressed 

here today. If you all have any questions about any of those things, 

I would be happy to answer them. In our prepared testimony at the 

legislative hearing on S. 681, we did go through a number of those. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator MORAN. Master Sergeant Ensminger. 

MSgt. ENSMINGER. Yes, Senator. The VA’s description of their 

process for Camp Lejeune claims that Dr. Erickson gave while the 

VA was testifying and how detailed they were, nothing could be 

further from the truth. I am serious. We have cases where their socalled subject matter experts have used citations from Wikipedia in 

their decisions. 

Some of them had conflicts of interest. While they are working 

for the VA as full-time staff, were also working for law firms in opposing Family Leave Act claims and workmen comp claims and 

toxic tort cases. 

We had one subject matter expert in the case that Senator Burr 

brought up during his testimony, the subject matter expert said 

125 

that this veteran who had kidney cancer, they had done a comprehensive review of two decades worth of studies, and in a metaanalysis, and could find no documented evidence where TCE causes 

any kind of cancer. 

That was dated January of this year when no less than the EPA 

in 2011, IARC in 2013, and our national toxicological program this 

the summer have classified TCE as a known human carcinogen, 

mainly based on the evidence that it causes kidney cancer. So, you 

know, I do not know what they have been reading, or what they 

have been looking at, but their process is far from successful. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rowan. 

Mr. ROWAN. Yeah, I would just like to add that one of the studies 

that was done was the Ranch Hand study where they followed 

these folks every 5 years for 20-plus years. The things that came 

out of there were horrifying, quite frankly; but it never seemed to 

penetrate into the VA structure. For example, I can give you something very simple. One of the things that came out very early in 

the Ranch Hand study was the fact of how many of them were 

diabetic. 

They were not even looking for that. It was an accident that one 

of the researchers finally said, whoa, wait a minute, half of these 

guys are diabetic. I knew that when I was diagnosed as a diabetic 

in 1994, but the VA did not get around to granting me any benefit 

until 2003 when the Secretary finally added diabetes to the list. 

There are all kinds of information in that data. 

By the way, those samples, those serum samples and all the rest 

of it, the biological stuff, was almost going to get thrown out. We 

had to fight like hell to get it saved, which had nothing to do with 

any Government agencies saving it, by the way. This stuff is still 

around. The researchers can still go back and access it. 

I would highly encourage anybody who wants to do that kind of 

research to do so. But those people are still here. And one of the 

things that came around—I remember talking to one of my colleagues who is going through that study, and he said that after 

they got finished and he had talked to one of the researchers he 

found out that his sterility was such an off-the-chart rare issue. 

Later, he sat around with 12 guys at a bar when the study was 

done and six of them had the same issue. I mean, it is just crazy. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Rowan, thank you. Thank you for conducting the town hall meetings that the VBA has, especially the 

seven in Kansas. We are grateful for that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I want to thank all our panelists, and in 

light of the last comments, remind everybody that we will leave the 

record open for 7 days for any additional information you would 

like to submit. We appreciate your service to the country and appreciate your being here today. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would like to thank each of our witnesses as well. It has been very illuminating and profoundly 

important. 

MSgt. Ensminger, I was struck by your comments about the conflicts of interest and I would ask respectfully that you perhaps 

126 

speak with our staff confidentially so that we can follow up on 

some of the information that you may have. 

I want to encourage each of you also to supplement the record, 

as I indicated earlier, with stories, personal stories, because many 

of these conditions do not manifest for years after exposure. This 

is not like the normal battlefield wound where it is visible, it is 

dramatic. It may be invisible at the time it occurs and manifests 

only years afterward and sometimes maybe a generation later. Yes, 

sir. 

MSgt. ENSMINGER. You just said something that brought an 

issue up for me and many other veterans that I have talked to. 

Why does the VA always say in their denials that the veteran did 

not demonstrate any signs of kidney cancer while he was on active 

duty? I mean, it is the most stupid phrase I have ever seen. I 

mean, of course they did not. It took 20 years for them to develop 

kidney cancer. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It sounds arbitrary and capricious. 

MSgt. ENSMINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROWAN. If I could add one thing? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But I want to—I am not the Chairman so 

I cannot call on you, but I want to make one last point and that 

is the bill that Senator Moran and I have—and again, I want to 

thank him while he is here for his work on this bill—provides for 

research. One of the points of today’s testimony is the best research 

in the world has to be used to be effective. 

If the VA or any other agency looks away or turns a blind eye 

to it or ignores it or disregards it, it will have no effect. So, we need 

to work on the mindset and the attitude as well as the investigative authority. So, thank you very much to each of you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. Rowan. 

Mr. ROWAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick thing. 

Senator Hirono—I am mispronouncing her name probably—but she 

came on something earlier and one of the other people mentioned 

Fort McClellan. The DOD does not have clean hands here. They 

also fight like hell every time we try to ask for information. 

I mean, at the VVA, we like to sue people if we do not get what 

we want and we have had more suits than I care to think about 

against the Department of Defense to get them to cough up information. And exposure stuff, we have gone into this, the Camp 

Lejeune thing was water, Fort McClellan was experiments. I mean, 

it is just one thing after another. So, Congress must take a look 

at what the DOD is not providing but should. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That is why I have been referring to the 

Federal executive branch, not just the VA. You are absolutely right, 

Mr. Rowan. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you all for your testimony. We stand 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(127) 

A P P E N D I X 


929apBVA.eps
128 


929apBWNVVA.eps

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association 

0 

9/29/2015 

The Honorable Johnny Isakson 

Chairman, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee 

Via Fax 

Dear Chairman Isakson, 

I feel things can be simplified on the issue of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans and their 

exposure to toxic herbicide while serving offshore Vietnam. 

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about a separation of 30 feet or 30 miles between the 

men offshore and the troops on ground. Both groups have the SAME DISEASES. If the entire 

range of diseases is identical, then the CAUSE must have been identical. If not, then there were 

TWO TOXIC AGENTS that were involved. But in the 50 years of studying this issue, no one has 

ever come up with a second causal agent. Therefore, it must have been exposure to the same 

herbicide that poisoned both groups. There is no other way it could have happened. 

That, sir, is valid science, medicine and logic, all combined into one. Please move S-681 out of 

Committee and to the Senate floor for a vote. The surviving Vietnam veterans of the US Navy 

and Marines who served offshore are depending on you for your support in this matter. 

Very respectfully, 

John Paul Rossie, Executive Director 

USNR, USS Radford (DD-446), RVN 1969 

A Proud Tin Can Sailor 

BlueWaterNavy.org 

navv@BiueWaterNavv orq 

PO Box 1035, Littleton. CO 80160-1035 

303-762-9540 
129 


929apCOV1.eps

(COVVHA) Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, INC 

P.O. Box 1316, Wildomar, CA, 92595, COVVHA@Gmail.com, Www. COVVHA.net 

October 5, 2015 

The Honorable Johnny Isakson 

Chairman, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee 

Via Email 

Dear Chairman Isakson, 

I am reaching out to you, as the Cofounder of Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance and 

as the child of a deceased Agent Orange exposed-service connected Vietnam Veteran. Also, I 

was born two months premature with multiple birth defects. After a thorough discussion among 

our board members, and the members of our group, we have arrived at the decision to formally 

oppose the Toxic Exposure ActS. 901. 

This bill is bringing much needed attention to the generations of people who believe their birth 

defects and ailments were caused by a parent's toxic exposure while in the military, but the bill, 

as written, is seriously flawed in meeting the needs of children of Vietnam Veterans. Most 

children of Vietnam Veterans I have spoken to have expressed great concern this bill essentially 

puts the VA in charge of researching us. There is no guarantee if a connection is discovered 

that the VA will truthfully report it, and/or recognize it. S. 901 gives the VA final absolute 

determination on what will be concluded from any information gathered or learned. 

On September 29, 2015, the VA testified before the committee they do not have a facility 

capable of handling the overwhelming task of providing the not only the testing, but the 

staff/facilities, to do this research. They also made their feelings clear on the topic and have 

opposed the bill. This combined with the years of mistrust Children of Vietnam Veterans have 

learned watching their parents being denied the services and care they were eligible for makes 

this a miss. If the VA cannot handle the veteran's claims they have now, how can they 

sufficiently guarantee the testing/care of millions of children, grandchildren, and great 

grandchildren of these vets and others? 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been responsible for having new presumptive 

illnesses added to the list for our Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange. This was 

possible from reviewing independent studies done from around the world. They are an 

independent source that has not only allowed Vietnam Veterans to link their illnesses to their 
130 

Æ 


929apCOV2.eps