[House Report 117-220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress    }                                     {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                     {      117-220

======================================================================



 
                     DOWNWINDERS PARITY ACT OF 2021

                                _______
                                

 December 20, 2021.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 612]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 612) to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Act to include certain communities, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Committee Votes..................................................     7
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     9
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional 
  Budget Office Cost Estimate....................................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10
Minority Views...................................................    13

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all that follows after the enacting clause, and insert 
the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Downwinders Parity Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

  Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 
2210 note; Public Law 101-426) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (B)--
                  (A) by striking ``that portion of''; and
                  (B) by striking ``that consists of townships 13 
                through 16 at ranges 63 through 71''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``all acreage in any 
        county all or part of which is located in'' before ``that 
        part''.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

  Within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
General shall submit to the relevant committees of the House of 
Representatives and of the Senate a report that outlines efforts to 
educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for 
benefits under the amendments made by section 2 of this Act.

                          Purpose and Summary

    Introduced by Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) on January 28, 2021, 
H.R. 612, the ``Downwinders Parity Act of 2021,'' would update 
the downwinder geographic eligibility area under the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act\1\ (RECA) to include claimants from 
the southern portions of Clark County, Nevada and Mohave 
County, Arizona. Currently, only the northern parts of these 
counties are covered. Mohave County and Clark County are also 
the only counties that are partially covered under RECA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\42 U.S.C.Sec. 2210 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enacted in 1990, RECA established a claims program 
administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide 
partial restitution to certain individuals who were harmed by 
atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by the United States 
government and by uranium mining that was done for the purpose 
of producing such weapons. Congress passed RECA to compensate 
bystanders who lived downwind from nuclear weapons tests (known 
as ``downwinders'''), onsite personnel, and certain categories 
of uranium mine workers who suffered from specific radiological 
illnesses.

                Background and Need for the Legislation


                             I. BACKGROUND

    Starting in 1945 with the first atomic weapons test in 
Trinity, New Mexico, through the early 1960s, the U.S. 
government conducted atmospheric testing as part of its effort 
to develop nuclear weapons. During this period, the government 
conducted 1,054 nuclear weapons tests.\2\ Of these tests, 928 
occurred at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) located in Nye County, 
Nevada, 65 miles north of Las Vegas, with 828 tests conducted 
underground--though, in some instances, radioactive material 
escaped into the atmosphere through a process known as 
venting--and 100 tests conducted in the atmosphere above-
ground.\3\ While the government conducted 17 underground tests 
in other locations within the continental U.S., these 100 
tests, in addition to the first atomic test at Trinity, were 
the only atmospheric tests conducted within the continental 
U.S.\4\ The U.S. government also conducted 106 atomic tests in 
the Pacific Ocean area.\5\ The atmospheric tests at the NTS 
occurred between January 1951 and October 1958 and again in 
July 1962.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Scott D. Szymendera, The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
(RECA): Compensation Related to Exposure to Radiation from Atomic 
Weapons Testing and Uranium Mining, Congressional Research Service, 
Jan. 13, 2021 at 1 [Hereinafter ``CRS Report''].
    \3\Id.
    \4\Id. at 2.
    \5\Id.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. government's development of nuclear weapons also 
required the mining and processing of large quantities of 
uranium, which was carried out by thousands of U.S. workers. 
Mining uranium is inherently hazardous to human health. Uranium 
ore naturally emits radon gas, which, in turn, decays into 
heavy isotopes referred to as ``radon daughters'' that emit 
carcinogenic radioactive particles.\7\ Trapped underground, 
these radon gas isotopes form solid deposits that can be 
inhaled when exposed to air during the mining process.\8\ These 
dangers were known during the 1940s and 1950s when pressure to 
develop nuclear weapons led to increased uranium mining--much 
of it on tribal lands.\9\ Few miners at this time--many of whom 
were Native American--were warned of these dangers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Robert Alvarez, A Brief History of Compensation for Radiation 
Injury and Disease in the United States, Aug. 5, 2002 (unpublished 
draft) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties) at 17.
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States' last atmospheric test occurred on July 
17, 1962. Following public pressure and eight years of 
negotiation, on August 5, 1963, the U.S., along with the United 
Kingdom and the Soviet Union, signed the Limited Nuclear Test 
Ban Treaty, prohibiting the signatories from conducting further 
atmospheric, underwater, and outer space nuclear weapons 
testing. In 1971, the federal government stopped purchasing 
uranium for atomic weapons.\11\ Even before the U.S. 
government's actions, scientific evidence had begun to mount 
that the radioactive materials released by atmospheric testing 
and uranium mining had been hazardous to the environment and 
human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\CRS Report at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Plaintiffs began filing lawsuits under the Federal Tort 
Claims Act\12\ (FTCA) against the federal government alleging 
that it had failed to warn them regarding the dangers of 
exposure to known radioactive hazards. In the 1980s, courts 
began to dismiss these claims, finding that the FTCA's 
discretionary function exception\13\ to the government's waiver 
of sovereign immunity barred such claims.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1346(b), 2671-2680. Generally, the FTCA 
waives sovereign immunity to allow private parties to sue the federal 
government for injuries caused by federal employees acting within the 
scope of their official duties. The Act contains a number of 
exceptions.
    \13\28 U.S.C. Sec.  2680(a). This section provides that the FTCA's 
waiver of sovereign immunity ``shall not apply to . . . [a]ny claim 
based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, 
exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, 
whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the 
exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a 
discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an 
employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be 
abused''.
    \14\See CRS Report at n.26 (citing court decisions barring lawsuits 
against the federal government for damages related to atomic weapons 
testing based on discretionary function exception to FTCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1985, Congress foreclosed plaintiffs' ability to sue 
federal contractors for their involvement in atomic testing at 
the NTS when it adopted the Warner Amendment as part of that 
year's Department of Defense Authorization Act. The Warner 
Amendment provided that the FTCA was the sole remedy available 
to plaintiffs for alleged injuries arising out of atomic 
weapons testing, which effectively immunized federal 
contractors involved in atmospheric testing. Supporters of the 
amendment justified it on the grounds that such contractors 
should be immune because they were acting as instruments of the 
government. Because courts had begun to rule that the 
discretionary function exception barred such claims against the 
government under the FTCA, many plaintiffs were effectively 
left without any legal remedy for the harm caused to them. 
Prior to RECA, Congress had adopted compensation or benefits 
programs for Marshall Islanders and military veterans affected 
by atomic testing, and it had considered passing legislation to 
compensate or permit downwinders, onsite participants, and 
uranium miners to sue the federal government since the late 
1970s. The Warner Amendment, and the courts' failure to provide 
plaintiffs a remedy under the FTCA, helped spur Congress into 
action in 1990.
    RECA established an administrative program, administered by 
DOJ's Civil Division, for claims related to atmospheric testing 
of U.S. nuclear weapons and uranium mining. Ten years later, 
Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
Amendments of 2000 which, among other provisions, expanded the 
downwinder eligibility area to its current extent and extended 
the life of the RECA Trust Fund to July 10, 2022.\15\ Over the 
course of its more than 30-year existence, the RECA program has 
paid out $2.5 billion in benefits to over 37,000 claimants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id. at 11. Prior to the 2000 RECA Amendments, the downwinder 
eligibility area was originally limited to: in Arizona, the area north 
of the Grand Canyon and west of the Colorado River; in Nevada, the 
counties of Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine and Clark 
County townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71; and in Utah, 
the counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, and 
Sevier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Individuals eligible for compensation under RECA fall into 
three general populations: onsite participants, uranium mine 
workers, and downwinders. In addition to meeting the statutory 
requirements that define each population, to be eligible an 
individual must have contracted certain compensable diseases 
specified under the Act for that population. Additionally, 
specific survivors designated under the Act are entitled to 
collect the benefit if the claimant is deceased.\16\ The 
following is a brief overview of the current eligibility 
requirements and compensation payments for each of these 
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\The survivors in order of precedence are a claimant's spouse 
(if the spouse was married to the claimant for at least one year before 
their death), children, parents, grandchildren, and grandparents (all 
in equal shares).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Onsite Participants. Onsite participants are 
        eligible to receive a lump sum payment of $75,000. To 
        be eligible for compensation as an onsite participant, 
        an individual must have been ``onsite'' (which includes 
        up to 6 months after the testing period had ended) 
        engaged in certain specified duties within certain 
        specified atmospheric test sites, or any location 
        designated at a military base, naval shipyard, air 
        base, or any other government installation where any 
        vehicle or equipment was decontaminated after an 
        atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device or any 
        designated location used for monitoring fallout from an 
        atmospheric test conducted specifically at the NTS. The 
        atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device must have 
        occurred before January 1, 1963.
           Uranium Mine Workers. Uranium workers are 
        eligible to receive a lump sum payment of $100,000. To 
        be eligible the individual must have been employed as a 
        uranium miner, miller, or ore transporter in the 
        uranium mining industry in certain designated states 
        (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
        Oregon, South Dakota, Washington State, Wyoming, Texas, 
        and Utah) and during the period covered in the Act 
        (Jan. 1, 1942, through Dec. 31, 1971). Additionally, 
        the individual must have worked at a covered uranium 
        mine for at least a year or been exposed to the 
        equivalent of 40 working level months of radiation 
        while working at a covered mine. For individuals 
        working in a covered uranium mill or as an ore 
        transporter to be eligible they must have been employed 
        for at least one year.
           Downwinders. Downwinders are eligible to 
        receive a lump sum payment of $50,000. To be eligible 
        an individual must have been physically present for at 
        least two years in a covered county downwind of the NTS 
        between the period beginning on Jan. 21, 1951, and 
        ending on Oct. 31, 1958, or have been physical present 
        for the entire period beginning on June 30, 1962 and 
        ending on July 31, 1962. All covered counties downwind 
        of the NTS are in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. In 
        Arizona, the counties include Apache, Coconino, Gila, 
        Navajo, Yavapai, and ``that part of Arizona that is 
        north of the Grand Canyon'' i.e., the northern part of 
        Mohave County.\17\ In Nevada, the counties include 
        Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and ``that 
        portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 
        through 16 at ranges 63 through 71'' i.e., the northern 
        part of Clark County.\18\ In Utah, the covered counties 
        include Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, 
        San Juan, Sevier, Washington, and Wayne.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\42 U.S.C. Sec.  2210 note.
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      II. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    Currently, only ``that part of Arizona that is north of the 
Grand Canyon'' i.e., the northern portion of Mohave County, and 
``that portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 
through 16 at ranges 63 through 71'' are considered ``affected 
areas'' for the purposes of determining geographic eligibility 
as a downwinder under the RECA program. Mohave County and Clark 
County are the only counties to be partially, rather than 
fully, covered under RECA.
    The legislative record is unclear as to the reason why 
Congress failed to include the entirety of Clark County and 
Mohave County from RECA's geographic coverage both under the 
original Act or the 2000 Amendments, despite their geographic 
proximity to the NTS. Given this lack of clarity, Congress's 
decision to exclude from the RECA program individuals suffering 
from compensable radiological illnesses who lived in the 
currently uncovered portions of those counties during the 
covered period and for the required duration of time appears 
particularly arbitrary. As such, H.R. 612 would update RECA's 
geographic coverage area to include all Clark and Mohave County 
downwinders to remedy this apparent oversight.
    During the Committee's markup of this legislation, Ranking 
Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) contended that the bill's proposed 
expansion of RECA eligibility should not be enacted because of 
a recommendation made by the National Research Council (NRC) 
Board on Radiation Effects Research\19\ in a report issued in 
2005, but this argument is unavailing. While the NRC report 
recommended against expanding RECA based on geography, the 
report also recommended that Congress base future expansions of 
RECA to additional downwinders on a ``probability of 
causation'' model. Reconstructing radiation exposure for 
downwinders as recommended by the NRC report, however, would 
require costly new administrative work, and, even then, the 
uncertainty of individual exposure due to the U.S. government's 
neglect would remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\National Research Council, Assessment of the Scientific 
Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since its inception in 1990, RECA has been based on a 
``presumptive eligibility'' model. If an individual meets the 
statutory criteria as a ``downwinder'' and contracted a 
compensable disease, that individual is eligible for 
compensation. There is no requirement for individuals to 
demonstrate a causal link between exposure and a compensable 
illness. Congress made this choice because the U.S. government 
neglected to collect sufficient data on radiation exposures 
from atmospheric testing.
    The current eligibility model is appropriate and congruent 
with Congress's purpose in providing ``compassionate 
compensation'' under RECA. The U.S. government's neglect with 
regard to populations downwind from the NTS during the 
atmospheric testing period not only created the harm but made 
it difficult for individual claimants to later prove that harm 
once latent diseases associated with radiation exposure began 
to manifest. To question expanding eligibility under H.R. 612 
on the grounds expressed in the NRC report is to question the 
very purpose of the RECA program itself. Furthermore, for 
Congress to persist in denying these individuals' downwinder 
claims or potentially to subject such claims to evaluation 
based on a different standard would continue or exacerbate the 
arbitrary application of the current RECA program that H.R. 612 
seeks to remedy.

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House Rule XIII, 
the following hearing was used to consider H.R. 612: Hearing on 
``Examining the Need to Expand Eligibility Under the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act'' held before the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on March 24, 
2021. The witnesses consisted of: Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ); 
Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM); Jonathan Nez, President of the 
Navajo Nation; Lilly Adams, Independent Consultant Specializing 
in Nuclear Weapons Issues; Tina Cordova, Tularosa Basin 
Downwinders Consortium; Jean Bishop, Supervisor District 4, 
Mohave County, Arizona; and Scott D. Szymendera, Congressional 
Research Service.
    At the hearing, Rep. Stanton testified in support of H.R. 
612 and all witnesses present but one expressed support for 
expanding eligibility under RECA to include the entirety of 
Clark and Mohave Counties. Mr. Szymendera expressed neither 
opposition nor support for H.R. 612 or to expanding eligibility 
under RECA generally.

                        Committee Consideration

    On November 17, 2021, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill, H.R. 612, favorably reported as an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, by a rollcall vote of 25 to 13, 
a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII, the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 612:
    1. H.R. 612, as amended, passed by a rollcall vote of 25 to 
13. The vote was as follows:


                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House Rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of House Rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House Rule XIII, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional Budget 
                          Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of House 
Rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and with respect to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of 
House Rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has requested but not received from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office a budgetary analysis 
and a cost estimate of this bill.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 612 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the federal government known to be duplicative of 
another federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House Rule XIII, H.R. 612 would amend the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act of 1990 to include the entirety of Clark 
County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona under the statute's 
definition of ``affected area,'' thereby extending the 
geographic coverage of the RECA compensation program.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House Rule XXI, H.R. 612 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 
9(e), or 9(f) of House Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Section 1. Short Title. This section sets forth the short 
title of the bill as the ``Downwinders Parity Act of 2021.''
    Section 2. Inclusion Under the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act. This section amends 42 U.S.C. 2210 note to 
include all of Clark County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona 
under the statute's definition of ``affected area.''
    Section 3. Report. This section requires the Attorney 
General to submit a report to the relevant committees of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate outlining efforts to 
educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for 
benefits under the amendments made by Section 2 of the Act 
within 60 days of enactment.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of House Rule XIII, changes 
in existing law made by the bill, H.R. 612, as reported, are 
shown as follows:

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                  RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 4. CLAIMS RELATING TO ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR TESTING.

  (a) Claims.--
          (1) Claims relating to leukemia.--
                  (A) In general.--An individual described in 
                this subparagraph shall receive an amount 
                specified in subparagraph (B) if the conditions 
                described in subparagraph (C) are met. An 
                individual referred to in the preceding 
                sentence is an individual who--
                          (i)(I) was physically present in an 
                        affected area for a period of at least 
                        1 year during the period beginning on 
                        January 21, 1951, and ending on October 
                        31, 1958;
                          (II) was physically present in the 
                        affected area for the period beginning 
                        on June 30, 1962, and ending on July 
                        31, 1962; or
                          (III) participated onsite in a test 
                        involving the atmospheric detonation of 
                        a nuclear device; and
                          (ii) submits written documentation 
                        that such individual developed 
                        leukemia--
                                  (I) after the applicable 
                                period of physical presence 
                                described in subclause (I) or 
                                (II) of clause (i) or onsite 
                                participation described in 
                                clause (i)(III) (as the case 
                                may be); and
                                  (II) more that 2 years after 
                                first exposure to fallout.
                  (B) Amounts.--If the conditions described in 
                subparagraph (C) are met, an individual--
                          (i) who is described in subclause (I) 
                        or (II) of subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
                        receive $50,000; or
                          (ii) who is described in subclause 
                        (III) of subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
                        receive $75,000.
                  (C) Conditions.--The conditions described in 
                this subparagraph are as follows:
                          (i) Initial exposure occurred prior 
                        to age 21.
                          (ii) The claim for a payment under 
                        subparagraph (B) is filed with the 
                        Attorney General by or on behalf of the 
                        individual.
                          (iii) The Attorney General 
                        determines, in accordance with section 
                        6, that the claim meets the 
                        requirements of this Act.
          (2) Claims Relating to Specified Diseases.--Any 
        individual who--
                  (A) was physically present in the affected 
                area for a period of at least 2 years during 
                the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and 
                ending on October 31, 1958,
                  (B) was physically present in the affected 
                area for the period beginning on June 30, 1962, 
                and ending on July 31, 1962, or
                  (C) participated onsite in a test involving 
                the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device,
        and who submits written medical documentation that he 
        or she, after such period of physical presence or such 
        participation (as the case may be), contracted a 
        specified disease, shall receive $50,000 (in the case 
        of an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B)) 
        or $75,000 (in the case of an individual described in 
        subparagraph (C)), if--
                  
                  (i) the claim for such payment is filed with 
                the Attorney General by or on behalf of such 
                individual, and
                  (ii) the Attorney General determines, in 
                accordance with section 6, that the claim meets 
                the requirements of this Act.
          (3) Conformity with section 6.--Payments under this 
        section may be made only in accordance with section 6.
          (4) Exclusion.--No payment may be made under this 
        section on any claim of the Government of the Marshall 
        Islands, or of any citizen or national of the Marshall 
        Islands, that is referred to in Article X, Section 1 of 
        the Agreement Between the Government of the United 
        States and the Government of the Marshall Islands for 
        the Implementation of section 177 of the Compact of 
        Free Association (as approved by the Compact of Free 
        Association Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-239)).
  (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term--
          (1) ``affected area'' means--
                  (A) in the State of Utah, the counties of 
                Washington, Iron, Kane, Garfield, Sevier, 
                Beaver, Millard, Wayne, San Juan, and Piute;
                  (B) in the State of Nevada, the counties of 
                White Pine, Nye, Lander, Lincoln, Eureka, and 
                [that portion of] Clark County [that consists 
                of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 
                71]; and
                  (C) in the State of Arizona, the counties of 
                Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, and Gila, 
                and all acreage in any county all or part of 
                which is located in that part of Arizona that 
                is north of the Grand Canyon; and
          (2) ``specified disease'' means leukemia (other than 
        chronic lymphocytic leukemia), provided that initial 
        exposure occurred after the age of 20 and the onset of 
        the disease was at least 2 years after first exposure, 
        and the following diseases, provided onset was at least 
        5 years after first exposure: multiple myeloma, 
        lymphomas (other than Hodgkin's disease), and primary 
        cancer of the: thyroid, male or female breast, 
        esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, 
        bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary 
        bladder, brain, colon, ovary, liver (except if 
        cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated), or lung.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             Minority Views

    In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (RECA) to provide targeted and partial 
restitution to individuals who developed certain illnesses as a 
result of the U.S. atomic weapons program.\1\ Congress's intent 
that RECA be targeted and provide partial compensation can be 
seen in the one-time nature of the payments and the specific 
geographic, time, and disease requirements for compensation. 
Congress last meaningfully amended RECA in 2000 when it 
expanded eligibility to the current program limits and extended 
the program sunset.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.  2210 
note.
    \2\See Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, Pub. 
L. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2002, Congress directed the National Research Council 
(NRC) to conduct a study and issue a report with 
recommendations to Congress on whether the RECA downwinder area 
should be expanded.\3\ The NRC report concluded that Congress 
should not expand RECA by adding additional geographic 
areas.\4\ Specifically, the study concluded that ``ionizing 
radiation is not a potent cancer-causing agent, and the risks 
for radiation-induced disease are generally low at the exposure 
levels of concerns in RECA populations.''\5\ The study further 
concluded that ``the scientific evidence indicates that in most 
cases it is unlikely that exposure to radiation from fallout 
was a substantial contributing cause to developing cancer.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Scott D. Szymendera, Cong. Res. Serv., R43956, The Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA): Compensation Related to Exposure to 
Radiation from Atomic Weapons Testing and Uranium Mining 11 (2020).
    \4\Id. at 12.
    \5\Nat'l Res. Council, Assessment of the Scientific Information for 
the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program 3 (2005).
    \6\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instead of expanding RECA based on geography, the NRC 
report recommended that Congress implement a probability model 
that considers a claimant's location, demographic 
characteristics, and behavioral factors to determine whether an 
individual's qualifying disease was likely to have been caused 
by radiation from atomic weapons tests.\7\ The NRC made this 
recommendation because fallout from the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 
fell unevenly on the country and because individuals living 
closer to the test site were not necessarily exposed to higher 
levels of radiation than those living further away.\8\ An 
individual's exposure to radioactive fallout also depended upon 
how much time he or she spent outside during periods of 
atmospheric testing and whether he or she consumed certain food 
products, such as milk, that research has shown to be more 
likely to have been contaminated by certain radioactive 
byproducts of the NTS tests.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id. at 12.
    \8\Szymendera, supra note 3, at 12.
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite research commissioned by Congress finding that 
expanding RECA based on geography would be unwarranted, H.R. 
612 does just that. This bill ignores scientific information 
before the Committee in order to add portions of Arizona and 
Nevada to RECA. If the federal government recklessly took 
actions that led to Americans developing cancer, Congress has 
and should continue to provide appropriate remedies. However, 
this bill will result in taxpayer money being sent to claimants 
whose illnesses likely were not caused by the U.S. atomic 
weapons program.

                                   Jim Jordan,
                                           Ranking Member.

                                  [all]