PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 16, 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 H.R.10317 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 H.R.10317 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 H.R.10317 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 H.R.10317 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-08 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed bill would require federal agencies to scan electronic evidence in their custody for cryptocurrency access information and safeguard related digital assets. It would establish recurring audits, staff training, technical standards, and oversight to check how agencies handle those assets. These duties would affect agencies holding electronic evidence, including law enforcement agencies. The bill would preserve existing legal protections and would not itself authorize new searches or seizures.
scan such electronically stored information for high value digital assets in the form of cryptocurrency private key material
properly secure these assets as soon as practicable upon electronically stored information acquisition
The Attorney General shall establish training programs for Federal law enforcement officers, digital evidence custodians, and forensic examiners regarding digital asset discovery, handling, storage, and audit compliance.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall develop and publish technical standards
Each Federal agency that collects, seizes, or maintains custody of electronically stored information shall conduct an annual digital asset audit
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to— (1) limit the authority of any Federal entity with lawful audit or oversight jurisdiction; (2) authorize the collection, search, seizure, retention, review, disclosure or use of electronically stored information, digital assets or cryptographic private key material except as otherwise authorized by law; or (3) limit or impair any right, remedy, defense, privilege, protection, suppression argument, or procedural requirement otherwise available under law.
Section 1 would name the bill the Digital Asset Inventory and Audit Act of 2026, also called the Inventory Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Digital Asset Inventory and Audit Act of 2026 or the Inventory Act of 2026.
The bill would cover federal departments, agencies, offices, and components, including intelligence, regulatory, and law enforcement agencies. Electronic information would include devices, records, digital evidence, and cloud-based data.
The term Federal agency means any department, agency, bureau, office, or component of the United States Government, including the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, Department of Homeland Security, Intelligence Community elements, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement agencies.
The term electronically stored information means digital evidence, digital storage devices, electronic records, cloud-based data, and any other electronically stored data.
The bill would use the definition of “digital asset” from section 2 of the Genius Act. That definition is referenced but not reproduced in the supplied text.
The term digital asset has the meaning given to it in section 2 of the Genius Act (12 U.S.C. 5901).
The bill's coverage would extend beyond private keys to recovery phrases, shared keys, credentials, and other cryptographic information used to access or control assets. “Wallet material” would include software, hardware, physical media, services, and accounts used to manage those credentials.
The term cryptographic key material means any cryptographic key, private key, public key, seed phrase, recovery phrase, mnemonic phrase, key share, multi-party computation share, authorization credential, digital signature credential, cryptographic parameter, or other cryptographic information or material, whether stored in physical, electronic, digital, or other form, that is used to generate, derive, authenticate, recover, authorize, validate, sign, transfer, or otherwise exercise custody, ownership, or control over a cryptocurrency or other distributed ledger technology-based digital asset.
The term wallet material means a software application, hardware device, physical medium, custodial service, digital account, or other technological mechanism used to generate, store, manage, secure, access, recover, or utilize digital asset cryptographic key material or other authentication credentials for the purpose of holding, accessing, transferring, receiving, or otherwise exercising custody or control over a cryptocurrency or other distributed ledger technology-based digital asset.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Attorney General would have to issue a binding directive in coordination with the heads of Homeland Security, Treasury, and national intelligence. It would require agencies collecting or seizing electronic information to scan for high-value cryptocurrency key material, secure related assets as soon as practicable, and conduct annual audits of activity logs.
Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall issue a binding directive applicable to all Federal agencies that directs all Federal agencies that collect or seize electronically stored information such as digital storage devices, electronic records, and digital evidence to— (1) scan such electronically stored information for high value digital assets in the form of cryptocurrency private key material; (2) properly secure these assets as soon as practicable upon electronically stored information acquisition; and (3) conduct annual audits to oversee activity logs, ensuring comprehensive discovery, documentation, and secure handling and storage of all digital assets in government custody.
For every criminal, civil, or administrative case in which an agency seizes, forfeits, or otherwise takes custody of electronic information, it would have to scan that information for digital assets and related keys as soon as practicable. This separate requirement does not include the directive's “high value” qualification.
For each criminal, civil, or administrative case in which a Federal agency seizes, forfeits, or otherwise acquires custody of electronically stored information, such agency shall, as soon as practicable, scan the electronically stored information for digital assets and associated cryptographic key material.
scan such electronically stored information for high value digital assets in the form of cryptocurrency private key material
The Attorney General, consulting the National Institute of Standards and Technology, would have to publish technical standards for scanning tools, secure handling of keys, and tracking access to custody systems. The standards would also address chain of custody—tracking who handled evidence—and preservation of evidence integrity.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall develop and publish technical standards governing— (1) discovery and scanning tools of electronically stored information for cryptocurrency private keys and wallet material; (2) secure extraction, storage, and access control of cryptographic key materials; (3) preservation of chain of custody and evidentiary integrity; and (4) logging and monitoring of all access to digital asset custody systems.
The Attorney General would have to establish training for federal law enforcement officers, digital evidence custodians, and forensic examiners on finding, handling, storing, and auditing digital assets.
The Attorney General shall establish training programs for Federal law enforcement officers, digital evidence custodians, and forensic examiners regarding digital asset discovery, handling, storage, and audit compliance.
Agencies collecting, seizing, or holding electronic information would have to conduct annual audits. Those audits would account for digital assets and cryptographic materials, check security and access controls, identify losses or unauthorized access, and document corrective actions.
Each Federal agency that collects, seizes, or maintains custody of electronically stored information shall conduct an annual digital asset audit to— (1) identify and account for all digital assets and cryptographic materials; (2) verify secure custody and access controls; (3) identify any loss, unauthorized access, or procedural deficiencies; and (4) document corrective actions taken.
Within 180 days after each annual audit is completed, each agency head would have to report findings and corrective measures to the Attorney General and the specified House and Senate committees.
Not later than 180 days after completion of each annual audit, the head of each Federal agency shall submit a report to the Attorney General and the Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Select Committee on Intelligence, and Banking of the Senate and the Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Financial Services of the House of Representatives detailing audit findings and remediation measures.
Agency inspectors general would have to conduct additional audits of electronic devices for digital assets and related keys. They would coordinate with offices they consider appropriate or monitors a court may appoint.
In addition to audits conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States under section 7, the Inspector General of the relevant agency, in coordination with such office as the Inspector General determines appropriate or such monitors as the court may appoint, shall conduct an audit on electronic devices for digital assets and associated cryptographic keys.
The bill would not create independent authority to collect, search, seize, retain, review, disclose, or use electronic information, digital assets, or private keys. Those actions would still need authorization under other law.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to—
authorize the collection, search, seizure, retention, review, disclosure or use of electronically stored information, digital assets or cryptographic private key material except as otherwise authorized by law
The bill would preserve existing federal audit and oversight authority and existing legal rights and protections. These include defenses, privileges, procedural requirements, and arguments to exclude evidence from a case.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to— (1) limit the authority of any Federal entity with lawful audit or oversight jurisdiction
limit or impair any right, remedy, defense, privilege, protection, suppression argument, or procedural requirement otherwise available under law.
The Attorney General would have to convene an interagency working group to coordinate digital asset custody practices, share audit findings, and develop best practices.
The Attorney General shall convene an interagency working group to coordinate digital asset custody practices, share audit findings, and develop best practices across Federal agencies.
The Comptroller General and relevant inspectors general would have to review agency compliance within one year after enactment and every three years afterward.
Not later than 1 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States and relevant Inspector General Offices shall conduct a review of Federal agency compliance with this Act.
The Comptroller General would have to report the compliance review's findings and recommendations to Congress.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted under subsection (a) containing findings and recommendations.
Section 8(a) would add purchases of digital forensic tools needed to carry out the bill to the payment purposes listed for the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This amendment specifies a permitted use, without specifying a dollar amount.
(a) Asset Forfeiture Fund Section 524(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking and at the end; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period and inserting ; and; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (K) payments for the acquisition of digital forensic tools necessary to carry out the Inventory Act of 2026.
Section 8(b) would add the same payment purpose for necessary digital forensic tools to the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund statute. This amendment also specifies no dollar amount.
(b) Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund Section 9705(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: (K) Payments for the acquisition of digital forensic tools necessary to carry out the Inventory Act of 2026.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 8, 2026. It supplies no later action.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-16T17:52:38Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-08. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI