PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 19, 2010
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2010 - Amends the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund until 19 years after enactment of this Act.
Prescribes additional periods of required presence in an affected area during atmospheric nuclear testing for individuals filing leukemia or specified disease claims. Increases the amount of compensation an individual filing a claim may receive to $150,000.
Expands "affected area" to include Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico, as well as any county in Arizona, Nevada, or Utah.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Extends to December 31, 1990, the period during which an individual employed at any time in a uranium mine or uranium mill is made eligible to receive compensation for a disease claim due to radiation exposure. Makes a core driller eligible to receive compensation upon filing of a disease claim.
Makes miners, core drillers, and ore transporters who suffer renal cancer or any other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury, eligible for compensation due to exposure to radiation while on the job.
Requires the Attorney General to accept written affidavits meeting specified requirements regarding employment history, physical presence in an affected area, or participation at a nuclear testing site in determining the eligibility of claimants.
Extends until 19 years after enactment of this Act the statute of limitations for the filing of such claims.
Increases from 2% to 10% of the payment received by a claimant the maximum amount of attorneys fees that can be charged for the filing of an initial claim.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, to establish a program of grants to institutions of higher education to study the epidemiological impacts of uranium mining and milling among non-occupationally exposed individuals, including family members of uranium miners and millers.
People & committees
Sen. Udall, Tom [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2425-2426)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.3224 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 S.3224 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 S.3224 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 S.3224 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.