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 25, 2017
Aviation Employee Screening and Security Enhancement Act of 2017
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct, and submit to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a cost and feasibility study of a statistically significant number of Category I, II, III, IV, and X airports assessing the impact if all airport employee access points from non-secured to secured airport areas are comprised of the following:
a secure door utilizing card and pin entry or biometric technology;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
surveillance video recording capable of storing video data for at least 30 days;
certain advanced screening technologies, including magnetometers, explosives detection canines, explosives trace detection swabbing, advanced imaging technology, and X-ray bag screening technology; and
information related to employee screening costs of such airports that have already implemented practices of screening 100% of employees accessing secured areas.
The GAO shall assess the completed study and report the results to Congress.
(Sec. 4) The TSA shall:
work with air carriers, foreign air carriers, airport operators, labor unions representing credentialed airport employees, and the TSA's Aviation Security Advisory Committee to enhance security awareness of credentialed airport workers regarding insider threats to aviation security and best practices related to airport access controls;
assess credentialing standards, policies, and practices to ensure that insider threats to aviation security are adequately addressed;
require airport operators to submit the social security number of an individual applying for a credential granting access to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport to strengthen security vetting effectiveness; and
issue requirements for airport operators to include in applications for access to such area a notice that an employee holding a credential granting such access may be screened at any time while entering, working in, or leaving the area.
(Sec. 5) The TSA shall also:
work with airport operators and the TSA Advisory Committee to identify advanced technologies for securing employee access to secured and sterile airport areas;
ensure that credentialed aviation worker populations currently requiring a fingerprint-based criminal record history check are continuously vetted through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Rap Back Service to mitigate insider threats;
identify ways to enhance TSA's ability to educate its personnel on insider threats to aviation security and on how to mitigate such threats;
ensure that TSA employee physical inspection efforts of aviation workers (Playbook operations) are focused on providing the greatest level of security effectiveness;
conduct covert testing of TSA employee screening operations at airports;
report on the frequency, methodology, strategy, and effectiveness of employee inspection operations at airports; and
establish a national database of individuals who have had either their airport or aircraft operator-issued badge revoked for failure to comply with aviation security requirements, as well a process to allow individuals whose names were mistakenly entered into such database to correct the record and have their names removed from it.
(Sec. 6) The DHS is the lead interagency coordinator to insider threat investigations and mitigation efforts at airports.
(Sec. 7) The TSA shall submit a plan to conduct recurring reviews of the operational security controls for TSA information technology systems at airports.
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409 - 0 (Roll no. 223). (text: CR H2825-2826)
House roll call 223 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409 - 0 (Roll no. 223).(text: CR H2825-2826)
House roll call 223 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2838-2839)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 876.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2825-2828)
Mr. Katko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 54.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-94.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-94.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective 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: 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.876 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.876 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.876 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.876 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.