H.R. 8897House bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateTransportation and Public Works

Improving Travel for American Families Act

Sponsored byRyan MackenzieR-PA-7Introduced May 19, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 14, 2026) Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, May 19, 2026

This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a pilot program to implement alternative security screenings for passengers traveling with children who are 12 years old and younger.

Specifically, TSA must implement alternative security screening lanes and security screening approaches for passengers traveling with children in order to support and facilitate the ease of travel for these passengers.

TSA must implement the pilot program at a minimum of five airports, with priority given to airports that have a high volume of passengers traveling with children.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On , as Amendeddecisive vote

    House · Jul 13, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    39812

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

12 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
23
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay26d ago
Opposed, mainly on process — this hasn't had a hearing that I can find, and it's moving fast for something with this much reach.
21
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea24d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
19
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea26d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
4
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea22d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
7
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea21d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
2
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Yea23d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
17
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Yea29d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
4
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay21d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
6
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea17d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
15
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea26d ago
Genuine question for people on both sides: what does success look like five years out? If we can't answer that, what are we voting on?
9
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea25d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
10
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea21d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
Your position on H.R. 889767% Yea · 15 VoteWire users