PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 16, 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.1362 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.1362 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.1362 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.1362 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Downwinders Parity Act of 2025 would broaden geographic coverage under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, potentially allowing additional people to qualify for compensation. It would change a date in the compensation trust-fund provisions to December 31, 2030, and require a report on outreach to people made newly eligible.
This Act may be cited as the Downwinders Parity Act of 2025.
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting all acreage in any county all or part of which is located in before that part.
(1) by striking on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022 and inserting on December 31, 2030;
a report that outlines efforts to educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for benefits under the amendments made by section 2.
Section 2 would remove language limiting coverage in one existing geographic provision to a portion consisting of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71. These are land-survey designations; the supplied bill does not reproduce the surrounding law identifying the location.
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;
Section 2 would also add language covering all land in any county located wholly or partly within an area described in existing law. The supplied amendment does not name that area or the affected counties.
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting all acreage in any county all or part of which is located in before that part.
Section 3, titled “Trust fund extension,” would replace the date two years after enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022 with December 31, 2030. It would also replace a reference to the end of that two-year period with a reference to the new date.
3. Trust fund extension Section 3(d) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101–426) is amended— (1) by striking on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022 and inserting on December 31, 2030; and (2) by striking the end of that 2-year period and inserting such date.
The Attorney General would have to report to the relevant House and Senate committees within 180 days after enactment. The report must describe education and outreach efforts for people made newly eligible by section 2.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the relevant committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that outlines efforts to educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for benefits under the amendments made by section 2.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 16, 2025, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 14, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-16T08:06:02Z. 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate narrow exemption or preferential treatment warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Expansion of the program’s intended coverage alone is not treated as preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 16, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI