PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 25, 2018
Immigration Advisory Program Authorization Act of 2018 or the IAP Authorization Act of 2018
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) an immigration advisory program for CBP officers, pursuant to an agreement with a host country, to assist air carriers and security employees at foreign airports review traveler information during the processing of U.S.-bound flights.
CBP shall provide Congress with:
a copy of any host country agreement within 60 days of such agreement entering into force which shall include information on anticipated homeland security benefits, costs, CBP personnel needs, and possible terrorist and criminal travel; and
a copy of, and a justification for, any substantially amended agreement within 30 days of such agreement entering into force.
People & committees
Rep. McSally, Martha [R-AZ-2] · R–AZ
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
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 H5633-5634)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5633-5634)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5207.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5633-5634)
Ms. McSally moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 600.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-774.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-774.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.5207 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.5207 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.5207 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.5207 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.