PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 10, 1999
Beryllium Exposure Compensation Act - Provides jurisdiction and procedures for affording relief for injuries arising out of exposure to hazards involved in the mining and processing of beryllium. (Sec. 3) Establishes the Beryllium Exposure Compensation Trust Fund in the Treasury. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to administer the Fund. Requires amounts in the Fund to be: (1) invested in accordance with specified law; and (2) available only for disbursement by the Attorney General (AG) under this Act. Terminates the Fund after 30 years. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 4) Requires an eligible beryllium worker to receive $100,000 if the AG determines that the claim filed by or on behalf of that individual meets certain requirements for payment. Makes individuals eligible if they: (1) were employed at a beryllium industry site; (2) were exposed to significant beryllium hazards in the course of such employment; and (3) after such exposure developed a condition known to be related to beryllium exposure. (Sec. 5) Directs the AG to establish: (1) procedures for claims submission and payment, including documentation of individual employment and exposure, as well as written medical documentation of the development of a related condition; and (2) guidelines for claims determination, in consultation with other specified Federal officials. Sets forth claims payment requirements, including provisions for: (1) payments to, and claims by, survivors; and (2) treatment of payments under other laws. Requires the AG to complete each claim determination within 12 months after the claim is filed. (Sec. 11) Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress by the end of FY 2003 on the incidence of beryllium-related illness among workers employed at beryllium industry sites. (Sec. 12) Provides for budget Act compliance.
People & committees
Rep. Kanjorski, Paul E. [D-PA-11] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.