[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]