Fighting for the Overlooked Recognition of Groups Operating in Toxic Test Environments in Nevada (FORGOTTEN) Veterans Act of 2025
Latest action (Mar 18, 2026) — Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Ordered to be with an favorably.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Jul 9, 2025This bill requires increased Department of Defense (DOD) documentation related to toxic exposures by military personnel and establishes eligibility for certain disability compensation and benefits for individuals who served at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR).
DOD must (1) expand the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record to include specified medical information and document all toxic exposures of members of the Armed Forces, and (2) document in service records whether a member of the Armed Forces served at a location with potential toxic exposure.
Members of the Armed Forces and civilian DOD employees who are or have been stationed at specified nuclear facilities must be presumed to have been exposed to toxic substances.
DOD must classify the NTTR as a location where contamination occurred and the Department of the Air Force must identify those who have been stationed there since January 27, 1951.
The bill establishes that onsite participation on or after January 27, 1951, at NTTR locations where there was a potential of toxic exposure is a radiation-risk activity, therefore providing a presumption of service-connection for specified conditions.
The bill also establishes a presumption of toxic exposure for veterans who performed active service at NTTR locations with potential toxic exposure, including airspace above such locations. Additionally, lipomas and tumor related conditions must be considered as service-connected conditions for veterans who served at the NTTR locations.
Face Value
as introducedHow 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
Who lobbied on this
4 organizationsThese organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.
- General Motors Companyno position stated
“…S. 2934/HR 8684 SHOP SAFE Act, S. 2220 PREVAIL Act and autonomous vehicle technology, issues generally.” filing ↗
- Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of Americano position stated
“…H.R. 4370/S. 2220 - The PREVAIL Act (118th Congress).” filing ↗
- Toyota Motor North America, Incno position stated
“REPAIR Act - H.R. 1566/S. 1379 INFORM Consumers Act SHOP Safe Act - S. 2934 S.2140 - Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) S. 2220 - The PREVAIL Act She Drives Act (S.161) H.R. 6687 DRIVER ACT H.R. 7389 Motor Vehicle Modernization Act H.R. 5221 PART Act H.R. 6688 ADA…” filing ↗
- Viatris Inc.no position stated
“IP Issues related to generic medicines Patent Settlements S 2220, The PREVAIL Act” filing ↗
Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.
Discussion
0 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
No comments yet. Be the first to make the case.