PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2] · D–CO
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 9, 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.2150 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.2150 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.2150 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.2150 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 · 2025-03-14 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 TRACE Act would add information to a national database showing whether missing people were last known or suspected to be on covered federal land, or unidentified human remains were found there. It would also require annual reports to Congress counting those cases by the federal agency responsible for the land.
shall include in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System a data field to indicate— (1) whether the last known location of the missing person was confirmed or was suspected to have been on Federal land
(2) in the case of unidentified remains of a person, whether the remains were located on Federal land
shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report that contains, for the previous calendar year, the number of cases in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System
disaggregated by the Federal land management agency with jurisdiction of the Federal land
Section 1 names the proposal the Tracking and Reporting Absent Community-Members Everywhere Act, or TRACE Act.
This Act may be cited as the Tracking and Reporting Absent Community-Members Everywhere Act or the TRACE Act.
The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, would have to add the database field. For missing people, it would indicate whether their last known location was confirmed or suspected to be on covered federal land and include specific details about that location.
The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall include in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System a data field to indicate— (1) whether the last known location of the missing person was confirmed or was suspected to have been on Federal land, including any specific location details about the unit of Federal land that was the last known location of the missing person
For unidentified human remains, the field would indicate whether they were found on covered federal land and include specific details about where they were found.
(2) in the case of unidentified remains of a person, whether the remains were located on Federal land, including any specific location details about the unit of Federal land on which the remains were located.
The Attorney General, through the same Director, would report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees each January 15, starting in the second calendar year beginning after enactment. Each report would count the previous year's database cases involving missing people last confirmed or suspected to be on covered federal land, or unidentified remains found there. Counts would be separated by the federal agency responsible for the land.
Beginning in the second calendar year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, on January 15th, the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report that contains, for the previous calendar year, the number of cases in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System for which— (1) the missing person’s last known location was confirmed or was suspected to have been on Federal land, disaggregated by the Federal land management agency with jurisdiction of the Federal land; or (2) unidentified remains of a person were located on Federal land, disaggregated by the Federal land management agency with jurisdiction of the Federal land.
The proposal would cover federally owned land administered by the Agriculture or Interior Secretary, excluding land held in trust for an Indian Tribe. Defense Department land would qualify only for land and water resources projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The definition therefore would not cover all federal land.
the term Federal land means land owned by the United States that is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior (except land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian Tribe), or the Secretary of Defense only with respect to land and water resources projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 9, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on March 14, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-09T14:52:50Z. 2025-03-14: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-14. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Limits on the reporting policy's coverage do not by themselves establish preferential treatment. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 9, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI