Project Vote Smart - Public Statements Page 1 of 3 This is the printer-friendly version of: Public Statements Speaker: President George W. Bush Title: Our Debt of Honor Location: Manchester, NH Date: 11/10/1999 Tomorrow our nation pays tribute to all of those who have served in Sergeant Major Gus Schunemann, a son of Manchester, volunteered for Whatever it was about this state that produced men like the Sergeant Major Americans this week rededicate ourselves to that duty of memory. Behind each nam e we remember is a hero's story. They are stories of daring attacks, impossible rescues and last ditch stands. They are stories of hopeless odds and stubborn spirit and terrible injuries. From across the world and across the years, the courage in these stories still flashes; the honor still glows. Each action was beyond the call of duty, leaving a debt beyond our ability to repay. True courage, it's said, is the most generous of the virtues. It elevates ideals over self and duty over comfort. It leads young men and women to risk everything they have, everything they value, for a future they may not see. And it points to the greatest truth we can know: That love without cost, without sacrifice, is meaningless. And it is also the lesson of Veterans Day, when we pause, in busy lives, to remember the price of liberty, measured in young lives that ended so suddenly, so tragically, so very far from home. That grief has touched every city, every town, nearly every family in this country. It is written on countless monuments, some green with age, some that will be covered tomorrow with flowers and tears, like that long, black wall in Washington. Those of us who benefit from this sacrifice face a question: What do we owe the brave? It is our first duty to remember what they have done. And that should not be hard, because it is one of the greatest stories of human history. Americans won world wars and a cold war. Kids fresh from farms and tenements humbled history's worst tyrants. They opened death camps and emptied Gulags. Their character was tested in death marches and jungle stalemates. And, in the end, they won an epic Project Vote Smart - Public Statements struggle the struggle of a century-to save liberty itself. We carve our thanks into stone. We stamp it into medals. We carefully tend to vast fields of white crosses and Stars of David. But it is even more important to pass stories of American courage and character to the next generation. To capture their imaginations. To raise a monument in their hearts. It is the way our democracy renews its promise, by celebrating American heroes and American values, without hesitation and without apology. Let us resolve to teach America's story to America's children. First we remember. But second, We must renew a commitment, in our generation, with our challenges, to the pride and power and purpose of America. We must act worthy of our history-worthy of these men and women and their sacrifice - by writing new chapters of American greatness in a new century that is our charge. New threats are replacing old enemies. Unstable dictators seek weapons of mass destruction. Regional power grabs become global crises. We navigate through mines in the mist. And it is still America that preserves the peace. Our nation still determines the future of freedom. America is still a bright signal in a dark night. Those who man the lighthouse of freedom ask little of our nation in return. But what they ask our nation must provide: a coherent vision of America's duties, a clear military mission in time of crisis, and, when sent in harm's way, the best support and equipment our nation can supply. With these things, they never fail us. Without these things, we have failed them. Let us resolve never to multiply our missions while cutting our capabilities. Let us resolve to restore a belief in American interests, American character and American destiny. And let us resolve to keep faith with our past by being vigilant in our time. Our laws, too, must reflect gratitude. To many veterans, it seems like they are remembered in Washington only on Veterans Day. Speeches are all well and good, but daily advocacy is needed in such issues as health care and compensation claims. Health care for veterans is an often complicated and bureaucratic process, involving too many delays and uncertainties in coverage. Disability compensation claims can be an even longer ordeal, taking on average 165 days to complete. So chaotic is the process that there is now a backlog of nearly half a million claims, a fourth of them involving lengthy appeals. And when the claims have been adjudicated and a decision finally made, a third of the decisions contain errors. This is no way to treat any citizen, much less any veteran of the American armed forces. It is no way for government to discharge one of its most sacred commitments, Soldiers once ordered by their government to stand in the line of fire should not now be ordered to stand in line at the nearest federal bureaucracy, waiting with hat in hand. The veterans health-care system and the claims process need an Page 2 of 3 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\srobinson\Desktop\nov%2015%20testimony\Pr... 11/13/2005 Project Vote Smart - Public Statements overhauling from top to bottom. It needs to be modernized, so that claims are handled in a fair and timely fashion. Veterans need advocates in the Veterans Administration, people sympathetic to their interests instead of suspicious. If I am elected, that is the kind of veterans official I intend to appoint. This applies to veterans of the Gulf War, too. They should not have to go to elaborate lengths to prove that they are ill, just because their malady has yet to be fully explained. A 1994 law was passed to grant them the presumption of disability. Yet even now they are met with skeptical looks and a paper-shuffling excuses for withholding coverage. If I have anything to say about it, all that is going to end. In the military, when you are called to account for a mistake, you are expected to give one simple answer: "No excuse, sir." And that should be the attitude of any government official who fails to make good on our public responsibilities to veterans. There is no excuse for it. America's veterans today ask only that government honor its commitments as they honored theirs. They ask that their interests be protected, as they protected their country's interests in foreign lands. These are the ways to help repay our debt of honor to veterans. There is an inscription on the Scottish National War Memorial which reads, We dedicate ourselves tonight to the memory of the bravest of the brave to remember them in our time, for all time. Yet the greatest monument to the courage of Americans is the world they saved and shaped. And their story is not written in stone, it is woven into the lives of everyone who loves freedom. And so we remember - as Americans will remember through our history the heroes who saved a century. Thank you. Page 3 of 3 Contact Us | About Us | E-mail this page to a Friend All content © 2002-2004 Project Vote Smart Project Vote Smart One Common Ground, Philipsburg, MT 59858, 406-859-8683 Questions? Need help? Call our Voter's Research Hotline toll-free 1-888-VOTĖ-SMART (1-888-868-3762). Legislative Demographic Data provided by Legislative Demographic Services, Inc. Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I want to thank both Mr. Woods and you, Mr. Robinson, for very thoughtful presentations. Thank you. Mr. Binns, thank you for your service as chairman of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. It is a privilege to have you here. And I want to make sure your statement is fully on the record. Thank you. STATEMENT OF JIM BINNS Mr. BINNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. For nearly 4 years, I have had the privilege of chairing the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. In the same 1998 law that established the Research Advisory Committee, Congress directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to contract with the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy's Institute of Medicine [IOM], was to review the scientific literature regarding the substances to which troops were exposed in the Gulf, to determine if these substances are associated with an increased risk of illness. These reports were to be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in determining whether an illness should be presumed service-connected, and thus trigger veterans' benefits. I regret to inform you that for 7 years, VA and IOM staff have subverted the will of Congress and misled the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding scientific research governing veterans' benefits. The law provided that the National Academy of Sciences shall determine whether a statistical association exists between exposure to the agent and the illness; the increased risk of the illness among human or animal populations exposed to the agent; and whether a plausible biological mechanism or other evidence of a causal relationship exists. Notice, please, that the statute speaks to the increased risk of the illness among human or animal populations. It is not just about human health effects and the implications of animal research on humans. It is equally concerned with animal health effects, per se. Congress recognized that research on the health effects of hazardous substances necessarily is conducted primarily in animals. The statute went on to provide that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should consider animal studies in determining whether a presumption of service connection is warranted. He was to consider the exposure in humans or animals to an agent, and the occurrence of a diagnosed or undiagnosed illness in humans or animals. When the first IOM report was conducted under the law, however, animal studies were omitted from the standard for determining an association. The report states: "For its evaluation and categorization of the degree of association between each exposure and a human health effect, however, the committee only used evidence from human studies." The authors of the report went on to sayand you will no doubt hear today-"But we did consider animal studies. We considered them for biological plausibility." But under their methodology, biological plausibility does not even come into play unless there has been a previous finding of an association based exclusively on human studies. The salient fact is that they did not consider animal health effects in determining whether an association exists between an exposure and an illness, as required by law, and the only question that matters in the determination of benefits. To express conclusions as to whether an association exists, the authors set up five categories of association. Each substance was ranked according to these categories. The authors offered the following explanation of where the categories came from: "The categories closely resemble those used by several IOM committees that evaluated herbicides used in Vietnam and other substances because they have gained wide acceptance for more than a decade by Congress, government agencies, researchers, and veteran groups. It is revealing to compare a category of association used in the Vietnam studies with the same category used in the first Gulf war report, and all subsequent reports. Vietnam: "Evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a positive association. That is, a positive association has been observed between herbicides and the outcome in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding could be ruled out." Gulf war: "Evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a positive association. That is, a positive association has been observed between an exposure to a specific agent and a health outcome in human studies in which chance, bias, and confounding could be ruled out." The Gulf war category does indeed closely resemble the Vietnam category. It tracks it almost precisely, with the exception of a single word. The word "human" has been inserted in the Gulf war category. Like the earlier smokescreen regarding biological plausibility, this change was no accident. It was a deliberate act to subvert the intent of Congress. And it has been successful to this moment. It has been the straightjacket into which every IOM committee has been put when asked to review Gulf war research. The law also said that the IOM was to consider combinations of exposures; and they haven't. The law said they were supposed to consider undiagnosed illnesses; and they haven't. The most egregious example of this distortion involved recent animal studies on the nerve gas Sarin, which showed that, contrary to previous scientific belief, low-level exposures could produce longterm effects on the nervous and immune systems. Then, VA Secretary Principi wrote the Institute of Medicine, "Recently a number of new studies have been published on the effects of Sarin on laboratory animals." He asked the IOM to report back on whether the research affected earlier IOM conclusions regarding "the long-term health consequences of exposure to low levels of Sarin." Last year, the IOM delivered its report. The report did not consider animal studies in the all-important categories of association, even though new animal studies were the only reason for doing the report. Not surprisingly, it found no evidence of association. This year, VA initiated three new IOM reports, which are underway at this moment. They were not reviewed by the Research Advisory Committee, as required by the 1998 statute. One purports to be a broad review of Gulf war illnesses literature: "An IOM com |