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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Department of Homeland Security Clearance Management and Administration Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require that the designation of the sensitivity level of national security positions be conducted in a consistent manner in all Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components and offices, consistent with federal guidelines. DHS must use uniform designation tools throughout DHS and provide training to appropriate staff.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill requires DHS: (1) by July 6, 2017, and every five years thereafter, to review all sensitivity level designations of national security positions at DHS; (2) if it determines that a change in the sensitivity level is warranted, to administratively adjust access and complete an appropriate level periodic reinvestigation; and (3) to report on such positions requiring access to classified information, no longer requiring access, or requiring a different level of access.
DHS's Inspector General must conduct regular audits of DHS compliance with regulations regarding such designations.
DHS must submit an annual report, through FY2022, on the denials, suspensions, revocations, and appeals of an individual's eligibility for access to classified information in DHS.
DHS must: (1) develop a plan to achieve greater uniformity regarding the adjudication of eligibility of an individual for access to classified information that is consistent with the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Access to Classified Information, and (2) ensure that all information received for such adjudication is consistent with such Guidelines and is protected against misappropriation. The plan shall consider the establishment of an internal appeals panel responsible for final national security clearance denial and revocation determinations.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] · D–MS
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H776-777)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H776-777)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 697.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H776-778)
Mr. King (NY) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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: 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.697 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.697 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.697 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.697 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.