S-2378-119
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by Jerry Moran (R-KS)
What it does
This bill would double the annual deposit into the existing Aviation Security Capital Fund from $250 million to $500 million starting in fiscal year 2026, drawing from the 9/11 Security Fee paid by airline passengers. It would also create a new Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund, directing an additional $250 million per year from the same fee into a dedicated account for procuring, deploying, and maintaining airport checkpoint and exit lane screening technology. The bill also expresses Congress's view that 9/11 Security Fee revenue should be used exclusively for aviation security purposes and not diverted to unrelated government spending.
Who benefits
Airline passengers who would travel through airports with more modern screening technology. Airport security technology companies and their employees who would receive increased federal procurement contracts. TSA personnel who would work with upgraded equipment. Airports — particularly smaller or regional ones — that may receive grants for technology upgrades they could not otherwise afford. Indirect beneficiaries include the broader traveling public through potentially faster and more accurate threat detection.
Who is hurt
Airline passengers who pay the 9/11 Security Fee and may see upward pressure on the fee if TSA is directed to collect higher minimums. Federal programs or agencies that currently benefit from diverted 9/11 Security Fee revenue, which the bill would redirect. Taxpayers broadly, if the increased fund minimums require TSA to raise the fee. Competing security technology vendors who may be disadvantaged by procurement decisions. Incumbents in the security technology market who benefit from the status quo could face new competition from a larger procurement pool.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 9/11 Security Fee was created specifically to fund aviation security and that diverting it to unrelated purposes betrays the public trust of passengers who pay it. They contend that TSA checkpoint technology — including CT scanners and advanced imaging — is aging and underfunded, and that doubling the Capital Fund while creating a dedicated Checkpoint Technology Fund would accelerate deployment of equipment proven to detect threats more accurately and process passengers more efficiently. The bipartisan sponsorship of the bill reflects broad agreement that aviation security infrastructure has been chronically underfunded relative to the fee revenue collected.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating minimum annual deposits of $750 million combined across both funds locks in rigid spending floors that reduce budget flexibility during fiscal constraints or national emergencies requiring reallocation. They contend that the bill does not address the underlying statutory mechanism that allows fee diversion in the first place — the Sense of Congress language is non-binding — meaning the structural problem persists while new spending obligations are added. Critics may also argue that procurement-focused funding without stronger oversight provisions could benefit large defense contractors more than it improves frontline security outcomes for passengers.
Constitutional context
This bill falls squarely within Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate interstate commerce, including commercial aviation, and its broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. No active constitutional tension is implicated — the bill directs existing fee revenue into designated funds and does not delegate broad new rulemaking authority to an agency in a manner that would raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022).
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by directing how fee revenue is allocated; the TSA Administrator retains discretion over grant-making and procurement within the funds, subject to congressional appropriations oversight and standard Inspector General review.
Historical precedent
The original Aviation Security Capital Fund was established after the September 11 attacks as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which also created the 9/11 Security Fee; this bill modifies that existing funding structure rather than creating an entirely new framework.