I do not think that was an accident. I think originally, especially in the years after the war, the attitude was the less we know, the better we will be.

I do not know of any extensive study that actually has looked at Vietnam veterans as a whole.

What presumption is about is to say you, soldier, put your life on the line. We are going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think the biggest problem that we face which has been referred to by many of the panelists is the fact that we really do not--frequently do not have good measures of what exposure was and continues to be in the affected people.

I would say that we have the tools to do that. It would require a large effort and measurement of many factors. And in the end, I think in the case of trying to retrospectively do this we would be left with an imperfect and uncertain…

Was this actual new scientific studies or was this as a result of further evaluation of studies that had already been done?

What we can do--and have already accomplished to a surprising extent--is to use our expanded engagement with the region to 'keep China honest.'

It's a water sovereignty issue on--other than on a bilateral basis.

We need for the long term an effort to create better data than what we are working with today.

Our history on the subject as a government has not been particularly good. There has been a lot of denial.

Well, with respect to funding, as you know, if a disability is service-connected, it will be funded.

Those studies [examined] the relationship of dioxin and IHD mortality.