COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952 to try to rectify this wrong

It has been wrong for so long it's really hard to envision a day where we get this right. Veterans still see the denials come in the mail as they wait, suffer and are yet again, forced to fight. This fight was one they never should have had to do battle with, because this fight, has been against the very government they were willing to die for. Imagine that! The blessing is that people are finally talking about PTSD as if it is as normal as it is. It is a wound that comes after traumatic events. Ask any combat veteran about trauma and they won't have to say a word. You'll be able to see it in their eyes.

Now imagine flashbacks and nightmares following them back home after they risked their lives, then being told, the images they are being haunted by are not connected to the service they delivered on. Not connected to the battles they were sent to fight on behalf of this nation. Tell them that when they know what the images are and where they came from as their lives fall apart and PTSD claims more and more of who they were. Tell a spouse that the warrior is really suffering because of their service at the same time the VA is denying any responsibility of it and the spouse has to just "deal with it" as the warrior dies a slow death of their soul.

Is part of this financial? Sure it is. But if they were not suffering from this wound, you need to understand that they would make a lot more money working for a living instead of getting a check for this. They have bills to pay and food to buy just like everyone else but unlike everyone else that would receive Workman's Compensation for work related injuries, they worked for the government and must rely on the government to take care of them financially as well as treat their wound. Without an approved "service connected disability rating" from the VA, they are responsible to pay for their medical care. It is a double edge sword wounding the already wounded.

Opening Statement of Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Good Morning Ladies and Gentleman:

Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? Flags are located in the front and back of the room.

Today we are here to consider legislation, the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Act or the COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952. During the 110th Congress and most recently during an oversight hearing held on March 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs revisited Congress’ intent in establishing presumptive provisions to provide compensation to combat veterans under Section 1154(b) of title 38.

We have heard testimony on how Congress in 1941, when it adopted the original provisions under Section 1154, seemed to explicitly express its desire to overcome the adverse effects of not having an official record. Moreover, that it wanted to be more liberal in its service pension law by extending full cooperation to the veteran when it enacted this provision.

However, based on this Subcommittee’s review, it seems that VA has acted to thwart the congressional intent of Section 1154(b) with its internal procedures for adjudication, primarily those contained in its M-21-1s and General Counsel opinions. This has resulted in VA being more restrictive in its application of section 1154(b) by placing an unnecessary burden on veterans diagnosed with Post-traumatic stress disorder – PTSD and other conditions - to prove their combat stressors. Instead of helping these veterans reach an optimal point of social and emotional homeostasis, as described in the RAND Report, Invisible Wounds of War, VA’s procedures are an obstacle to this end--inflicting upon the most noble of our citizens a process that feels accusatory and doubtful of their service.

We also know from the RAND report that one out every five service members who served in OEF or OIF suffers from symptoms of PTSD. A large portion of these claims unnecessarily comprise VA’s claims backlog as VBA personnel labors to corroborate the stressors of combat veterans. As the Institute of Medicine stated in 2007 in its seminal report on PTSD: the process to adjudicate disability claims is complex, legalistic and protracted, and particularly difficult for veterans because of the stresses and uncertainties involved while facing skeptical and cynical attitudes of VA staff. As I think most will agree, this statement goes double for veterans filing PTSD claims, which require additional evidence of exposure to a stressful event while serving in combat.

This is an injustice that has gone on six decades too long. The hoops and hassles veterans must endure today appear to be far beyond Congress’ imagination when it authorized the 1933 and 1945 Rating Schedules, which simply required the notation of an expedition or occupation for a combat presumption to have existed.

That is why I reintroduced my bill the COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952 to try to rectify this wrong. My bill would do so by clarifying and expanding the definition of “combat with the enemy” found in section 1154(b) to include a theater of combat operations during a period of war or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities. This language is consistent with other provisions of title 38 and those contained within the National Defense Authorization Act. I also firmly believe that this bill is consistent with the original intent of Congress in 1941 and should not be viewed as adding a new entitlement. I am grateful to my 42 colleagues who are already cosponsors of HR 952.

I am glad to welcome to this hearing the veteran service organizations and legal representatives who can shed more light on the difficulties the current statute interpretation creates for so many of our men and women whose service in combat theaters goes unrecognized and the impact denials have had on their lives. I am particularly honored to have famed author and my constituent Norman Bussel join us today. Norman is an ex-POW from World War II and a volunteer service officer for the American Ex-Prisoners of War who has first-hand knowledge of the hardships that many of his fellow veterans face when filing PTSD and other claims for disability benefits.

I also look forward to hearing more from the Department’s witness on how this provision could be better tailored to meet its evidentiary needs to properly adjudicate claims while alleviating the often overwhelming evidence burdens that stymie many of our combat veterans through no fault of their own.

The 111th Congress shares the same responsibility to disabled veterans as its colleagues of the 77th Congress. The vision then was to ease the bureaucratic burdens placed on returning war veterans, so that they would receive the benefits they deserve. My hope is that we will enact H.R. 952 to restore this noble end.

I now yield to Ranking Member Lamborn for his Opening Statement.
Opening Statements
Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Witness Testimonies
Panel 1
John Wilson, Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Barton F. Stichman, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services Program
Norman Bussel, National Service Officer, American Ex-Prisoners of War
Richard Paul Cohen, Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc.
Panel 2
Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Accompanied By:
Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
linked from MIWatch.org