PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 26, 2016
Securing Aviation from Foreign Entry Points and Guarding Airports Through Enhanced Security Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive security risk assessment of all last point of departure airports with nonstop flights to the United States.
(Sec. 3) The TSA shall submit to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a plan: (1) to enhance collaboration, coordination, and information-sharing about international-inbound aviation between the United States and domestic and foreign partners in order to enhance security capabilities at foreign airports; and (2) that assesses the TSA's ability to enter into a mutual agreement with a foreign government entity to permit TSA representatives to conduct inspections of foreign airports without prior notice.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The GAO shall review TSA efforts to enhance security capabilities at foreign airports and determine if the implementation of such efforts and capabilities effectively secures international-inbound aviation.
(Sec. 4) The TSA shall submit to Congress a comprehensive workforce assessment of all TSA personnel within its Office of Global Strategies or whose primary professional duties contribute to the TSA's global efforts to secure transportation security, including whether they are assigned in a risk-based, intelligence-driven matter.
(Sec. 5) The TSA may donate security screening equipment to a foreign last point of departure airport operator if the equipment can be expected to mitigate a specific vulnerability to U.S. security or U.S. citizens.
The TSA shall provide to specified congressional committees within 30 days of any such donation a detailed written explanation of:
the specific vulnerability to the United States or U.S. citizens that will be mitigated by such donation,
an explanation as to why the recipient of such donation is unable or unwilling to purchase security screening equipment to mitigate such vulnerability,
an evacuation plan for sensitive technologies in case of emergency or instability in the country to which such donation is being made,
how the TSA will ensure the security screening equipment that is being donated is used and maintained over the course of its life by the recipient, and
the total dollar value of such donation.
(Sec. 6) The TSA may evaluate foreign countries' air cargo programs to determine whether they provide a level of security commensurate with that required by U.S. air cargo security programs. If so, the TSA shall approve and officially recognize such country's program, in which case such country shall not be required to adhere to the U.S. programs that would otherwise be applicable. The bill provides for revocation or temporary suspension of approval and official recognition if the TSA determines that a country's program no longer provides a level of security commensurate with that required by U.S. air cargo security programs.
(Sec. 7) The TSA shall request the Aviation Security Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for more efficient and effective passenger screening processes. The Committee shall consider the following:
the configuration of a checkpoint;
technology innovation;
ways to address any vulnerabilities identified in audits of checkpoint operations;
ways to prevent security breaches at airports at which federal security screening is provided;
best practices in aviation security;
recommendations from airport and aircraft operators, and from any relevant advisory committees; and
"curb to curb" processes and procedures.
People & committees
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1966-1967)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1966-1967)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4698.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1966-1969)
Mr. Katko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 393.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-513.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-513.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.4698 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.4698 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.4698 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.4698 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.