HR-8770-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Dale Strong (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to require that the first $500 million collected annually from the 9/11 Security Fee — a per-ticket charge paid by airline passengers — be deposited into the existing Aviation Security Capital Fund, beginning in fiscal year 2027. It would also create a new Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund, directing the next $250 million in annual fee revenue into that fund specifically for testing, buying, deploying, and maintaining checkpoint screening technology. The bill also expresses Congress's view that 9/11 Security Fee revenue should not be diverted to non-aviation purposes.
Who benefits
Airline passengers who would benefit from upgraded screening technology and improved checkpoint security. Airport operators and airlines whose facilities would receive security infrastructure upgrades. Aviation security technology companies and contractors who would gain access to a dedicated, guaranteed funding stream. TSA employees who would work with newer equipment. Communities near major airports that depend on aviation security for public safety.
Who is hurt
Federal budget managers and other programs that currently receive diverted 9/11 Security Fee revenue — the bill would end that diversion by 2027, reducing funds available for non-aviation spending. Taxpayers who might otherwise see the fee revenue offset general deficit spending. Competing federal priorities (e.g., non-aviation homeland security programs) that currently benefit from redirected fee revenue. Airline passengers, who already pay the fee and would see no reduction in their per-ticket charge.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 9/11 Security Fee was created specifically to fund aviation security after the September 11 attacks, and that diverting it to unrelated purposes betrays the public trust and the fee's original intent. They contend that TSA checkpoint technology — including CT scanners and advanced imaging — is aging and underfunded, and that a dedicated, guaranteed funding stream of up to $750 million annually would allow TSA to modernize equipment on a predictable schedule rather than competing annually in the appropriations process.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that earmarking $750 million annually in mandatory fee revenue reduces congressional flexibility to respond to shifting national security priorities and fiscal conditions. They contend that the existing appropriations process already allows Congress to direct security spending where it is most needed, and that locking fee revenue into dedicated funds — regardless of whether TSA can efficiently deploy that level of capital — may result in wasteful or duplicative procurement without adequate oversight.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to impose fees and direct their use under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as commercial aviation is quintessential interstate commerce under Wickard v. Filburn (1942). No significant constitutional tension is present here — this bill exercises core congressional appropriations and fee-designation authority with no apparent delegation of major rulemaking power to agencies that would trigger the major questions doctrine under West Virginia v. EPA (2022).
Checks and balances
Congress gains tighter control over fee revenue by restricting executive branch discretion to redirect funds; the TSA Administrator retains disbursement authority within the statutory constraints, and Congress retains oversight through the appropriations and authorization processes.
Historical precedent
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 originally established the 9/11 Security Fee and the Aviation Security Capital Fund; subsequent budget deals (including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013) diverted portions of the fee to deficit reduction, a practice this bill would reverse.