Support veterans' legislation
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 8, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
The 112th Congress failed to pass a law for Vietnam War veterans. The law would have afforded VA benefits for all U.S. Navy veterans serving in Vietnam.
New House Bill HR-543, The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, was introduced to the 113th Congress by Republican Rep. Christopher Gibson of New York. The bill, if passed, will afford VA benefits to all U.S. Naval personnel engaged in the Vietnam War who served at sea without having boots on ground for Agent Orange exposure.
In submitting a VA claim for Agent Orange exposure, the veteran must show proof of Naval service in the territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam. In addition, that person must have a medical history for one or more acceptable diseases recognized by the VA for exposure. A copy of the veteran's DD-214 must be submitted with the VA claim.
We veterans need help from the American people. We need public support for action. We ask you to urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor the bill. Without public support, nothing happens.
Additionally, visit causes.com and in the search box, type “Agent Orange Act;” follow the page down to the title and sign the petition.
John J. Bury
The writer is a Vietnam War veteran who served in the U.S. Navy.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s choice
- Not reviled abroad
- Funding priorities questioned
- Stalin, Hitler, now Putin
- Medicaid’s future
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Invest in pre-K
- Islam & women
- Proven success