Blue Water vets
The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2013, introduced in February, is stuck in a committee in the U.S. Congress.
If passed, the bill would make those is the Navy and Marines who served at sea eligible for VA benefits, including compensation.
What is wrong with Congress when it comes to our veterans? To date, only 148 members of Congress have cosponsored this bill.
Of the 12 noncancerous and 38 cancerous diseases tied to Agent Orange exposure, only one — non-Hodgkin's lymphoma — is recognized by the VA for Blue Water veterans. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 afforded VA compensation to 534,000 Navy and Marine veterans, but in 2002, the VA stopped awarding benefits to this group.
The revised rules state a Navy or Marine veteran must prove “boots on ground” in Vietnam or evidence of actual exposure to Agent Orange for eligibility. But those offshore came into contact with the herbicide in their drinking water and from mists that drifted out to sea. Both have been linked to life-threatening health effects.
There are approximately 170,000 of these veterans still alive.
These veterans need help; many suffer today without hope. The voice of the American people can help. Call, write and e-mail your members of Congress and urge them to cosponsor and pass this bill.
John J. Bury
The writer, a Vietnam veteran, is retired from 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.
- Unhappy returns
- Low blow
- Slots payments’ source
- School funding
- Extension agent remembered
- Gas industry obfuscates the truth