HR-3386-118
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
What it does
This bill would require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to issue or update guidance aimed at reducing contamination risks when screening breast milk, baby formula, purified infant water, juice, and related cooling accessories (such as ice packs and gel packs) at airport security checkpoints. It would also require the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General to audit whether TSA is following these hygiene standards and submit a compliance report to Congress.
Who benefits
Breastfeeding parents and caregivers who travel by air with infants and need to carry breast milk or formula through TSA checkpoints. Infants who depend on breast milk or formula as their primary nutrition source. Parents traveling with young children who carry juice or purified water. Travelers who have previously experienced contamination or hygiene concerns during secondary screening of these items.
Who is hurt
TSA would face new administrative and operational burdens to update procedures, train staff, and comply with auditing requirements. Airlines and airports could face indirect operational adjustments if new screening protocols slow checkpoint throughput. Taxpayers would bear the cost of the OIG audit and any TSA procedural updates, though costs are expected to be modest given the narrow scope.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that breast milk and baby formula are irreplaceable nutrition sources for infants, and contamination during TSA screening poses a direct health risk to some of the most vulnerable travelers. Current TSA procedures allow agents to open and test these liquids, but existing guidance does not consistently enforce hygienic handling standards. Supporters contend that requiring clear, enforceable hygiene protocols — and an independent audit to verify compliance — closes a gap that leaves infants at risk. They argue the federal government has a responsibility to ensure its own security procedures do not inadvertently harm the people they are meant to protect, and that the cost of updating guidance is minimal compared to the health stakes for affected families.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that TSA already has discretion to handle sensitive items carefully, and that adding a new statutory mandate and OIG audit creates unnecessary bureaucratic overhead for a problem that may be better addressed through internal agency policy updates rather than legislation. They contend that codifying specific hygiene standards into law could reduce TSA's operational flexibility to adapt screening procedures as security threats evolve. Some may argue that the bill addresses a narrow issue affecting a limited population and that congressional floor time and agency resources could be directed toward broader aviation security priorities. Others may question whether an OIG audit is the most efficient oversight mechanism for what is essentially a procedural guidance matter.