PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 9, 2025
Fighting for the Overlooked Recognition of Groups Operating in Toxic Test Environments in Nevada (FORGOTTEN) Veterans Act of 2025
This 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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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.
People & committees
Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 119-247.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 23, 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.2220 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.2220 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.2220 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.2220 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.