Susie Lee (D-NV)
Sergeant Dave Crete FORGOTTEN Veterans Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill improves benefits for veterans who may have been exposed to toxic substances during their service. It establishes specific covered locations, including the Nevada Test and Training Range, the Nevada National Security Site, and facilities under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The legislation requires the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to identify affected veterans, establish a veteran registry, and treat certain service as radiation-risk activities. It also mandates a scientific study on toxic exposures at these covered locations and creates presumptions of toxic exposure and service connection for certain diseases. Finally, it directs the Secretary of Defense to classify these areas as locations where contamination occurred and members were exposed to toxic substances.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +10
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The bill directly benefits veterans exposed to radiation and toxic substances by easing disability claim requirements and expanding registries.
- Scored +9
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
The bill creates presumptions of toxic exposure and service connection for veterans stationed at specific sites, significantly streamlining benefit claims.
- Scored +8
Does this help veterans get medical care?
The bill enhances healthcare access and benefit determinations for veterans exposed to toxic substances at specific test locations.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3 states that the VA cannot require a veteran to provide affirmative evidence of exposure to a specific toxic substance if their service at a covered location is established. This makes it easier for veterans to get the benefits they deserve without jumping through impossible bureaucratic hoops.
-
Section 4 amends title 38 of the United States Code to treat active service or onsite participation within the Nevada Test and Training Range and the Nevada National Security Site as radiation-risk activities. This helps protect veterans by ensuring they receive appropriate recognition and care for radiation risks.
-
Section 5 establishes a presumption of toxic exposure and a presumption of service connection for certain diseases for veterans who were assigned to duty stations at covered locations or the Nevada Test and Training Range and Nevada National Security Site. This means veterans will not have to fight as hard to prove their illnesses came from their service.
-
Section 7 establishes a registry for veterans who served at covered locations to collect health information, help verify service, inform veterans of available health care and benefits, and support claims adjudication. This keeps veterans informed and connected to the support they have earned.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill directly benefits veterans exposed to radiation and toxic substances by easing disability claim requirements and expanding registries. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Many veterans exposed during early nuclear testing periods are older adults or seniors who will benefit from these health provisions. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Veterans developing chronic illnesses or disabilities from toxic exposures will find it easier to qualify for support. Would retired people be better off under this? — Older former service members will benefit from better health tracking and compensation pathways.
- Healthcare
- Does this help veterans get medical care? — The bill enhances healthcare access and benefit determinations for veterans exposed to toxic substances at specific test locations. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill mandates a scientific study on toxic exposures and environmental hazards at covered test locations. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — It improves healthcare screenings and outreach registries for affected veterans.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill creates presumptions of toxic exposure and service connection for veterans stationed at specific sites, significantly streamlining benefit claims.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funds scientific studies regarding potential toxic exposures and environmental hazards at covered locations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires federal agencies to establish registries and study contamination and toxic exposures.
- 10/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/12/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
- 6/3/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Mark AmodeiRepublican · Nevada
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Steven HorsfordDemocrat · Nevada
Abraham HamadehRepublican · Arizona
Timothy KennedyDemocrat · New York
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii