Helping U.S. vets exposed to burn pits

Amie Muller courageously shouldered a new mission in the fleeting months before her 2017 death from pancreatic cancer.

Somehow, the Minnesota Air National Guard veteran summoned the energy to warn of "burn pit" hazards. During two deployments to Iraq, Muller lived and worked near a 10-acre, open-air incineration site disposing of up to 200 tons of waste daily.

Similar pits exposed other military men and women to the billowing plumes from vehicles, medical waste and electronics drenched in jet fuel and set aflame. Muller, who died at 36, believed her cancer was part of the pits' toxic legacy.

Since then, there have been encouraging steps taken to learn more about burn pit hazards and help veterans get assistance from the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar has commendably been at the forefront of this fight. But sadly, the VA rejected about 78% of the 12,582 disability claims connected to burn pit exposure that were filed between 2007 and 2020, according to a Stars and Stripes report.

It's a problem that is both predictable and unacceptable. The science involved in linking airborne hazards with diseases takes time. In the meantime, exposed veterans are grappling with conditions from asthma to cancer. The right thing to do: Err on the side of helping more veterans.

A breakthrough moment is at hand. Veterans' advocates have long labored to spotlight burn pit hazards. They've gotten a high-profile boost from comedian Jon Stewart. President Joe Biden also called for action during his recent State of the Union address.

The president then traveled to a Texas clinic to drive home his point. While acknowledging the research gaps, he said "the decision we should favor is caring for our veterans while we continue to learn more." On March 1, the VA announced it intends to add "nine rare respiratory cancers to the list of presumed service-connected disabilities" related to toxic exposures.

Still, congressional action remains a linchpin. Lawmakers appropriate the dollars agencies need. In addition, clear legislation can catalyze slow bureaucracy.

That's why more than 40 veterans' service organizations are calling for passage of HR 3967, also known as the Honoring Our PACT Act. If enacted, it would ease access to health care and benefits by establishing "a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to burn pits/airborne hazards exposure," according to the office of Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., the chief author. It would also establish an expeditious framework for adding conditions.

There are other bills to aid burn pit veterans. But organizations such as Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) say that the PACT Act is the only one providing a "truly comprehensive solution." Critically, the bill would broaden access to benefits, a vital step forward when so many have been denied.

Fortunately, the PACT Act cleared the House on March 3. Regrettably, the closest Senate version, known as the Comprehensive and Overdue Support for Troops (COST) of War Act, is stalled.

All of Minnesota's Democratic House members supported the PACT Act. While the bill garnered some Republican support, Minnesota's GOP House members opposed it. Reps. Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach and Pete Stauber did not to respond to requests for comment.

Republican objections during the House debate included cost. That price tag is estimated at $25 billion annually over the next decade. In addition, there are concerns about overwhelming the VA if so many veterans become newly eligible.

The PACT Act, however, takes a phased-in approach to avoid overwhelming the VA. As for the cost of providing assistance, it doesn't magically go away if the federal government doesn't pay for it. Veterans are still going to get sick. Congressional inaction just sticks them and their families with the bill.

Remedy is required. Passing the PACT Act's Senate companion is a strong, compassionate step.