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 · Jun 18, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on June 5, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Catching Operational Vulnerabilities by Ensuring Random Testing Act of 2008, or the COVERT Act of 2008 - Amends the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make sure that advance notice of a covert test of a transportation security system is not provided to any individual (including any security screener) before completion of the test, except: (1) that such information may be provided to certain federal, state, and local government employees, officers, and contractors (including military personnel); and (2) an individual conducting such a test may disclose his or her status if a security screener or other non-covered employee identifies such tester as a potential threat.
Requires the head of each covert testing office to make sure that a covert testing person or group is accompanied by a cover team to monitor the test and confirm the identity of personnel involved. States, however, that a cover team is not required to be present during a test of the screening of persons or baggage at an aviation security checkpoint if the test: (1) is approved by the Federal Security Director for the airport; and (2) is administered under an aviation screening assessment program of the Department of Homeland Security.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to study and report to Congress on the impact of implementing covert testing procedures under this Act on the Department's efforts to improve transportation security.
People & committees
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18] · D–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 H5498-5499)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5498-5499)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5909.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5498-5502)
Mr. Thompson (MS) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 431.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 110-687.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 110-687.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Discharged.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection.
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: 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.5909 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.5909 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.5909 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.5909 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.