PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S689-690)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 14, 2011
Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act of 2011 - Amends the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 to direct the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to periodically conduct: (1) a visual study of the concrete exterior of the Cactus Crater containment structure on Runit Island, and (2) a radiochemical analysis of the groundwater surrounding and in the Cactus Crater containment structure on Runit Island. Makes specified funds available to conduct such radiochemical groundwater analysis.
Amends the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to include a citizen or national of the Republic of the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia within the definitions of "covered employee," "atomic weapons employee," and "Department of Energy contractor employee."
Reduces compensation awarded to an individual under such Act who also received compensation under the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the same illness by any compensation received under such Compact, other than medical benefits and benefits for vocational rehabilitation that the individual received by reason of the illness, after deducting the reasonable costs of obtaining those benefits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide to the Republic of the Marshall Islands an annual supplemental health care grant to: (1) provide enhanced primary health care, with an emphasis on providing regular screenings for radiogenic illnesses by upgrading existing services or by providing quarterly medical field team visits in Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap, Utrik, Ailuk, Mejit, Likiep, Wotho, Wotje, and Ujelang Atolls, which were affected by the U.S. nuclear testing program; (2) enhance the capabilities of the Marshall Islands to provide secondary treatment for radiogenic illness; and (3) operate a whole-body counting facility on Utrik Atoll.
Provides for a National Academy of Sciences assessment of the U.S. nuclear testing program's health impacts on the residents of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [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 Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S689-690)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S688-689, S690)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.342 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.342 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.342 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.342 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.