Technical corrections only. v2 updates the bill's status to reflect that it was reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations without amendment and adds several new cosponsors. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
A bill to amend the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to authorize certain public libraries to collect and retain a fee for the execution of a passport application.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands the types of entities that can process passport applications and retain associated fees, specifically targeting public libraries to increase accessibility and provide a new revenue stream for these community institutions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to explicitly authorize certain public libraries to serve as passport acceptance facilities. It allows the Secretary of State to authorize public libraries organized as nongovernmental, nonprofit, charitable organizations, or trusts to collect and retain the execution fee for passport applications. Furthermore, it mandates the Secretary of State to authorize any public library that previously served as an acceptance facility and was in compliance with regulations to continue doing so and retain the fee, with a reporting requirement to Congress.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly increase access to passport application services, especially in underserved or rural communities, by leveraging the widespread presence and accessibility of public libraries. They contend that allowing libraries to retain the execution fee will provide a valuable, self-sustaining revenue source, helping to support vital community services without requiring new federal appropriations. Proponents also highlight that many libraries previously offered this service, and this bill restores and formalizes that beneficial practice.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the administrative burden on the Department of State to oversee and ensure consistent training, security, and compliance across a potentially expanded and more diverse network of passport acceptance facilities. Some may also argue about potential security risks associated with sensitive personal information being handled by a broader range of entities, even with compliance regulations. Additionally, there could be arguments about whether passport acceptance aligns with the core mission of public libraries, potentially diverting resources from traditional library services.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 1(a)
Authorization for Public Libraries to Serve as Passport Acceptance Facilities
This section amends existing law to allow the Secretary of State to authorize public libraries to act as passport acceptance facilities. To qualify, a library must be organized as a nongovernmental, nonprofit, charitable organization, or a trust, and must comply with all regulations set by the Secretary of State. Crucially, these authorized libraries will be permitted to collect and keep the execution fee charged for processing passport applications.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for expanding access to passport services, especially in communities where post offices or government offices are less convenient. They emphasize that allowing libraries to retain fees provides a sustainable funding model for these community anchors, enabling them to offer this valuable service without federal subsidies.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that expanding the types of entities handling sensitive passport information could introduce new security vulnerabilities or inconsistencies in service quality, despite regulatory requirements. They may also question the Department of State's capacity to adequately train and oversee a significantly larger and more diverse network of acceptance facilities.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of increasing public access and supporting community institutions with the need to maintain rigorous security and consistent standards for handling sensitive government documents. It trades potential administrative complexity for enhanced public convenience and library funding.
Section 1(b)
Mandatory Authorization for Previously Serving Libraries
This section requires the Secretary of State, within 30 days of the bill's enactment, to authorize any public library that previously served as a passport acceptance facility and was compliant with regulations to resume this service and retain the execution fee. It also mandates a report to Congress within the same timeframe, detailing compliance with this requirement or explaining any non-compliance.
Section 1(c)
Conforming Amendment for Fee Retention
This section makes a technical change to the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to explicitly include qualifying public libraries alongside State officials, local governments, and the United States Postal Service as entities authorized to collect and retain the execution fee for passport applications. This ensures consistency in the law regarding who can keep these fees.
The bill specifies that only public libraries organized as a 'nongovernmental organization, a nonprofit, charitable organization, or a trust' are eligible for authorization to collect and retain fees. The conforming amendment in 1(c) ensures this criteria applies to all public libraries authorized to retain fees.
Section 1(a)(4) and 1(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define specific eligibility criteria for new authorizations, ensuring that the benefit is directed to entities with a particular legal structure, likely to align with existing federal funding or oversight frameworks for non-governmental entities. It is not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that limiting eligibility to these specific organizational structures ensures that the revenue benefit goes to entities that are typically community-focused and often operate with a public service mission, rather than potentially for-profit or purely governmental entities that might have other funding sources or mandates.
Case against: Critics might argue that this specific organizational requirement could exclude many public libraries that are directly operated by municipal or county governments, thereby limiting the bill's potential reach and impact on increasing access to passport services in a broader range of communities.
Estimated impact: This criterion significantly narrows the scope of public libraries that can benefit from the discretionary authorization and potentially from the mandatory re-authorization, impacting the total number of new or re-established passport acceptance facilities.