PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2009
Amends the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to include within the meaning of the term “member of the Special Exposure Cohort” a Department of Energy (DOE) employee, DOE contractor employee, or atomic weapons employee who was so employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days before January 1, 2006, at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California.
Provides that a claim that an individual qualifies for compensation or benefits under such Act shall be considered notwithstanding any denial of any other claim for compensation with respect to such individual.
People & committees
Rep. Gallegly, Elton [R-CA-24] · R–CA
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 Workforce Protections.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Referred to House Education and Labor
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Judiciary
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. 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.136 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.136 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.136 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.136 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.