H.R. 10115House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization Act of 2026

Sponsored byJames C. MoylanR-GU-ALIntroduced Aug 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 17, 2026) on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

17 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea14h ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The committee report would settle it either way.
9
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Nay1d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
9
kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
8
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay3h ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
3
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea8h ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
8
imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Nay1d ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
7
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Nay7h ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
7
harborlightDemoCA-40voted Yea1d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
7
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea2d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
4
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay1d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
4
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea4d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
5
kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea4d ago
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
4
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea4d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument.
3
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea2d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Yea3d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
1
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Nay2d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
1
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay3d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
Your position on H.R. 10115No positions yet