Legion Says VT Article on Agent Orange and VSOs Is ‘Inaccurate and Libellous’

In the interest of fairness, below is a response to VT’s Congress and VSOs: Spitting on Veterans/Widows … Again (Paul Sutton, April 28, 2010).

MOTHAX , author of the American Legion’s Burn Pit piece, VT: Inaccuracies and libel against Veterans Service Organizations, pictures a man with his head buried in the sand editorially depicting the analysis of Mr. Sutton whose view is consonant with every serious veterans’ advocate whom I know. We suggest an appropriate depiction of the national Legion’s position would be that of  a man’s head inserted into a mid-sited bodily orifice.

Many local Legion posts are an active integral part of their community. The national Legion: Not so much.

A long excerpt form the Legion’s  piece follows:

… NOTHING IN THIS [Paul Sutton’s] ARTICLE IS CORRECT.

[The author] begins with a quote that I will debunk later, before going into the slanderous portion:

Some shocking news: The U.S [sic] Congress and veterans service organizations are shafting some 265,000 veterans and their families on applying for compensation. Not enough money, you see, just too many veterans suffering.

Right off the bat we have problems. Why would the VSO’s be concerned about how much this costs? Since the VSO’s represent veterans (in-fact we ARE veterans) wouldn’t they be arguing FOR this bill knowing that the money would end up in the hands of their people? Of course. That is what makes this piece so ridiculous. It is seemingly based entirely on an email from “Marine Paul Sutton” who, our helpful editor at VT informs us, is “one of the most knowledable [sic] men we have regarding Agent Orange and other herbicide issues.”

Now, I am going to cut up his article so I can discuss each section as we go through it:

Received a call from a ranking staff member of a Washington-based veterans’ services organization on Friday evening, about 90 minutes after my post of Friday evening relative to H. R. 2254 and its lack of progress in Congress.

Everything here is predicated on this one phone call, with someone who is purported to be a “ranking staff member” of a VSO. Rather than tell us who it was, and what VSO the person was with, they leave it intentionally unstated so they can malign all VSO’s equally. Not only do we have only one side’s recitation of the conversation, but we don’t even have enough information to check it with the other participant.

He said: “…obviously you are not aware of what we’ve been working on to try to get legislation moved. This bill (H. R. 2254) is not coming out of committee as it is way too costly and an offset cannot be found to pay for it. We estimate that over 900,000 veterans would be eligible to apply for compensation; and that’s just going to cost too much.”

This is where the real deception takes place. First, let’s talk about the legislative process. At the beginning of this Congress, the Democrats once again instituted the “PAYGO” rule. Broadly stated this requires that any new spending or tax changes must be met with an offset somewhere else in the budget. So, if Congress wants to give $10 to X project, it needs to cut $10 from somewhere else in the budget. Now, remember during the Health Care Reform Bill when it was repeatedly stated that that bill was “budget neutral” or would “save us money over 10 years”? Well, that was so they didn’t have to offset because of PAYGO rules.

Anyway, in order for H.R. 2254 to progress and be passed, whatever the cost for this bill is needs to be deducted from somewhere else. I don’t know enough about the Agent Orange numbers to say if the 900,000 figure is accurate, nor what the cost would be. That is the job of the Congressional Budget Office *(or CBO) who look at the bill and find out what it will cost (this is known as the “score.”)

Now, the last sentence of this section is the problem upon which the rest of this diatribe is premised: “and that’s just going to cost too much.” This person was NOT saying that it cost too much to be good for veterans, what this person was likely referring to is that Congress wouldn’t be able to find the needed amount in another section, and without that money, the bill can not move. I will get back to this later, because this is almost EXACTLY the situation we found ourselves in over the “Disabled Veterans Tax” issue, and groups like VT were beating us up on that as well, not understanding that it wasn’t the VSO’s standing in the way.

I then advised him that our (Blue Water Navy.org) estimate is more like 265,000 potential veterans. He asked how that estimate was arrived at; and, I agreed to email him the one-page “research paper” provided by John Rossie.

Again, I don’t know enough about Blue Water Navy issues to comment on this. One thing I will say though is that a.) we have people in the Legion who are working on it, and b.) there is a long article about this very issue that will appear in our July issue of The American Legion Magazine.

He then went on to talk about VA “loading” military histories (one would assume from records accessed @ St. Louis), giving VA a clearer picture of whom and from what service potential claimants would come. This would involve use of a three-digit field that VA has available to accumulate and upload the data for the military histories that presumably become a part of the veterans VA medical record; but, this would further delay any resolution to getting H. R. 2254 passed. He also talked about waiting for the next release of the biennial IOM/NAS Agent Orange study before pressing Congress to proceed with this legislation or something like it.

I asked if he were aware of the IOM hearing on May 3rd concerning Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure. He said that yes, he and other members of their staff would be there to “listen in”.

After a 10-minute conversation, the call ended.

I won’t address too much here, since it really doesn’t deal with the VSO’s as much. I know of no effort to “load” military histories or anything else. Mr Sutton does kind of allude to the PAYGO issue here I think, although it is not clear. The “further delay any resolution to getting H. R. 2254 passed” I guess is them trying to figure out how many people would apply for this. Remember, because of PAYGO, you haveto offset any costs. And you can’t offer X to a group of people until you know how many of that group will apply for X. If you said I would give $10 to everyone who came to my house, you would want to know if it was only the neighbors that you offerred this to, or if the New York Times would put it on the front page. Obviously knowing how many people would actually apply for the benefit is going to aid in trying to figure out the cost.

Obviously VA is using inflated figures in advising Congress (as it is in the proposed rules for ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and chronic B-cell blood cancers) about “steering clear” of moving H. R. 2254. What is more disheartening is the discovery that the veterans’ services organizations with offices in Washington have bought into and support the VA’s argument that H. R. 2254 will cost too much and cannot therefore possibly become “law of the land”.

Our “colleagues” in the VSO community are not on the veterans’ side in this fight.

Now, this is ridiculous and incorrect on a whole slew of levels. First, VA wouldn’t tell Congress to “steer clear” of a bill because of cost. Again, if there is a cost associated with a bill, Congress pays it, not the VA. It is not as if the VA is suddenly saddled with these costs and has no way of paying them. Additionally, what is the sourcing on this? How do we know that the VA said it was too expensive? For that matter, why would the VA care? The only previous mention of the VA in this was regarding the loading of military records, and now they are arguing that something is too expensive.

And then comes the slander on the VSO’s. Apparently the VSO’s are “not on the veterans’ side in this fight” based solely on one conversation between “Marine Paul Sutton” and some phantom un-named VSO staff member whose only crime appears to have been trying to explain how the PAYGO rules work. What VT and “Marine Paul Sutton” would have you believe is that the VSO’s oppose the bill on the grounds it is “too expensive,” an argument that flies in the face of all common sense.

And so, what is the VSO’s position on this bill? Well, at 10:00 last night when I got the first email on this I emailed Peter Gaytan, the Executive Director of our Washington Office and asked him. I got the response this morning:

We fully support the Blue Water Navy portion of HR 2254 and the companion bill S. 1939. Our resolution (No. 129) does not address the other portions of the bills (Blue Sky, Thailand, etc.) so we have not voiced any position one way or the other on those portions. I have attached a copy of our Agent Orange Equity Act support letter and also pasted below relevant portions from the National Commander’s 2009 testimony.

OK, so first, let us look at the Resolution. Remember that all positions of The American Legion must come to us via a resolution. We are not authorized to go outside the reolutions to make up positions.

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Phoenix, Arizona, August 26, 27, 28, 2008, That The American Legion seek legislation to plainly identify and further clarify “service in the Republic of Vietnam beginning January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975” to include those who served in the territorial waters offshore, as this was clearly the original intent of the statute; and, be it finally

RESOLVED, That those individuals who served in “other locations,” who can show their condition of service-involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam, shall also be included under the definition of those exposed to Agent Orange and the resultant presumptive conditions.

OK, so that is the official position. Contrary to what VT would have you believe, The American Legion is fully supportive of the effort to expand the definition to “territorial waters offshore.” Stating otherwise is borderline actionable defamation, although it wouldn’t likely be worth the effort to sue them, since they apparently have a business model that includes not bothering to verify anything. We aren’t against the fight of veterans on this, WE ARE ACTIVELY FIGHTING THIS BATTLE.

Now, we take the Resolutions and from them form a legislative strategy, and then lobby on Capitol Hill. Unlike the lobbyists you might see on TV, or read about ones like Jack Abramoff, VSO lobbyists don’t make six-figure salaries and spend the day out on the golf course with Congressmen working out ways to get kick-backs. Our lobbyists spend their days walking around Capitol Hill trying to cultivate relationships with staffers and Members of Congress and then trying to push our issues further. But without the support of veterans, we don’t have much else to offer. We don’t have huge PACs, we can’t offer gobs of cash. All we can do is portray the facts of an issue, and explain to the Members why this is important to veterans.

Now, one of our annual efforts to explain the importance of such issues comes when our National Commander addresses a joint session of Congress. When he did so last year he addressed the very issue we are now alledged to have abandoned veterans on:

Presumption of Agent Orange/Herbicide Exposure
The American Legion strongly supports the extension of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange for veterans who served on naval vessels located in the territorial waters of Vietnam (known as Blue Water Navy veterans) but did not set foot on land in Vietnam. The IOM, in Update 2008, specifically stated that the evidence it reviewed makes the current definition of Vietnam service, for the purpose of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange, limited to those who actually set foot on land in Vietnam “seem inappropriate.” Citing an Australian study on the fate of the contaminant TCDD when sea water is distilled to produce drinking water, the IOM committee stated that it was convinced that such a process would produce a feasible route of exposure for Blue Water veterans, “which might have been supplemented by drift from herbicide spraying.” (See IOM, Veterans and Agent Orange, Update 2008, p. 564; July 24, 2009) The IOM also noted that a 1990 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a classic Agent Orange cancer, was more prevalent and significant among Blue Water Navy veterans. The IOM subsequently recommended that, given all of the available evidence, Blue Water Navy veterans should not be excluded from the group of Vietnam-era veterans presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange/ herbicides. The American Legion submits that not only does this latest IOM report fully support the extension of presumption of Agent Orange exposure to Blue Water Navy veterans, it provides scientific justification to the legislation currently pending in Congress that seeks to correct this grave injustice faced by Blue Water Navy veterans.

Finally, here is the letter that The American Legion sent to Senator Gillibrand about this bill:

The American Legion applauds your proposed legislation to clarify presumption relating to the exposure of Agent Orange/herbicides for eligible veterans during the Vietnam War. The American Legion believes that wartime service in territorial waters constitutes service in the Republic of Vietnam – for the purpose of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange/herbicides.

Within the Agent Orange Exposure and Vietnam Veterans Benefits Act of 1991, Congress defined “service in Republic of Vietnam” in general terms: “performed 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.” This definition expresses an intent of inclusion rather than exclusion. Until earlier this decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had extended this interpretation to service members who fought in the Vietnam War, reflecting this interpretation. Unfortunately, subsequent interpretation by VA’s General Counsel allowed VA to stray from the original congressional intent; therefore, The American Legion believes additional congressional guidance is warranted to return VA to the proper intent of the original legislation.

VT and “Marine Paul Sutton” accused the VSOsand VA of collaborating to keep veterans from getting what they rightfully deserve. But you can see right in this letter that we were publically taking the VA to task for closing off the Blue Water Navy veterans from their definition.

Again, nothing in the VT article is accurate. I haven’t talked to the other VSOsabout this issue recently, but I absolutely guarantee that they are working on this issue as well. Contrary to the libel that VT pumps out at a rate of a million gallons of manure daily, The American Legion and others are on Capitol Hill every day fighting to get this bill passed. I mentioned the Disabled Veterans Tax earlier. That bill was allegedly “too expensive” as well. And we fought tooth and nail to get it passed. Each year we invited Members of Congress to our Washington Conference to tell us why it had not been passed. Eventually, after ridiculous amounts of energy were expended, and thousands of hours of testimony were given, Congress instituted a phased in approach, to keep the costs down.

That VT would slander us on this issue is par for the course; but it is also unconscionable. Let me tell you what would result from this….well meaning veterans who believe what they read on that site will likely repeat the false statements, and perhaps leave The American Legion and other VSOs. Then next year when we go back to Capitol Hill to demand equity for our Blue Water Navy brethren, we will have fewer members to back up our claim that this is vitally important.

It’s not the VSOs who are abandoning veterans in the fight, it is VT who propagates nonsense like this, and cuts into our ability to affect change to help veterans. And for that alone they should be ashamed.