PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 10, 2009
Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2009 - Amends federal veterans' benefits provisions with respect to former prisoners of war (POWs) to repeal the currently required 30-day minimum period of internment prior to the presumption of service connection for certain listed diseases, for purposes of the payment of veterans' disability compensation. Adds diabetes (type 2) to the above listed diseases. Removes the requirement that, in order for osteoporosis to be included among the listed diseases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must determine that the veteran has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Requires: (1) such presumption also with respect to any disease that the Secretary determines warrants such presumption by reason of having a positive association with the experience of being a prisoner of war; and (2) the Secretary to make such a determination within 60 days after a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War that such presumption be established for a non-listed disease.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-9] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.944 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.944 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.944 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.944 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.