PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 3, 2013
Track It to Prevent It Act - Directs: (1) the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the results of command climate assessments are provided to the relevant individual commander and to the next higher level of command, (2) the Secretary of each military department to include in performance evaluations and assessments used by each Armed Force a designated form where senior commanders can indicate whether the commander has conducted the required climate assessments and to require that any failure to do so be noted in the commander's performance evaluation and considered a serious factor for any subsequent promotion, and (3) the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a system to track whether commanders are conducting such climate assessments.
Requires unit commanders, working with the Inspector General, to gather all climate assessments from the unit and develop a compliance report that includes: (1) a comprehensive overview of the concerns members of the unit expressed, (2) data showing how leadership is perceived in the unit, and (3) a detailed strategic plan on how leadership plans to address the expressed concerns.
Directs the Defense Secretary to require commanders to include letters of reprimand, non-punitive letters of actions, and counseling statements involving substantiated cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault in the performance evaluation report of a member of the Armed Forces for the purpose of: (1) providing commanders increased visibility of the background information of unit members, (2) identifying and preventing trends of bad behavior early and effectively disciplining repeated actions which hinder units from fostering a healthy climate, and (3) preventing the transfer of sexual offenders.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary of each military department to: (1) develop an assessment program modeled after the current Department of the Army Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback Program, (2) include individual counseling as part of the performance evaluation process, and (3) conduct health welfare inspections on a monthly basis and provide the results to both the commander and senior commander.
Directs the Defense Secretary to: (1) conduct a review of security measures and identify security gaps on military installations; (2) evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using 24-hour electronic monitoring or placing security personnel at all points of entry into barracks and multi-family residences; and (3) conduct a review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity to identify and evaluate the resource and personnel gaps in the Office, identify and evaluate the Office's role in sexual harassment cases, and evaluate how the Office works with the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to address sexual harassment in the Armed Forces.
People & committees
Rep. Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-46] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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.2230 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.2230 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.2230 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.2230 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.