I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1818 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make funds available for the 

Aviation Security Capital Fund, to establish a Checkpoint Screening 

Security Fund, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. CUMMINGS, 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. BOSWELL, Mrs. 

TAUSCHER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. EDDIE

BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. WEINER, Mr. NADLER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

PASCRELL, and Mr. CARNAHAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make funds available for the Aviation Security Capital Fund, to establish 

a Checkpoint Screening Security Fund, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airport Screener Tech3 nology Improvement Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

5 The purpose of this Act is to facilitate airport growth, 

6 increase the efficiency of the air transportation system, 

7 and increase security. 

8 SEC. 3. FINDINGS. 

9 Congress finds the following: 

10 (1) Airport and airline officials have reported to 

11 the Government Accountability Office (in this sec12 tion referred to as ‘‘GAO’’) that installing in-line 

13 baggage screening systems at airports would reduce 

14 congestion at airline ticket counters by removing 

15 stand-alone explosive detection systems and explosive 

16 trace detection machines from crowded airport lob17 bies, thereby improving airline passenger flow and 

18 queuing in the terminals. 

19 (2) Airport and airline officials have reported to 

20 GAO that the installation of in-line baggage screen21 ing systems would allow for airport growth because 

22 in-line explosive detection systems could screen 

23 checked baggage faster than stand alone explosive 

24 detection and explosive trace detection machines and 

25 could be upgraded to accommodate growth in airline 

26 passenger traffic. 
3 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 (3) The National Commission on Terrorist At2 tacks Upon the United States (in this section re3 ferred to as the ‘‘9/11 Commission’’) specifically rec4 ommended that the Transportation Security Admin5 istration (in this section referred to as ‘‘TSA’’) 

6 should expedite the installation of advanced in-line 

7 baggage screening equipment. 

8 (4) In testimony before Congress, the chairman 

9 of the 9/11 Commission expressed support for mov10 ing explosives units out of airport lobbies and into 

11 a secured area where they can be integrated into the 

12 process of moving the bags from the check-in 

13 counter to the loading area in a seamless, in-line 

14 process. 

15 (5) The chairman stated that moving explosives 

16 units into a secured area will promote greater secu17 rity because— 

18 (A) screening machines will not be exposed 

19 to the public; 

20 (B) screeners will be able to focus on 

21 screening bags rather than moving them; and 

22 (C) fewer people will be congregated 

23 around machines in the public area. 

24 (6) The chairman further stated that processing 

25 bags from checking to loading through an in-line 
4 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 system is functionally more efficient, making travel 

2 more convenient as well as more secure. 

3 (7) GAO reports that 86 of the 130 airports 

4 surveyed are planning or are considering installing 

5 in-line baggage screening systems throughout or at 

6 a portion of their airports. 

7 (8) TSA and airport operators rely on letters of 

8 intent as their principal method for funding the 

9 modification of airport facilities to incorporate in10 line baggage screening systems. As of January 2005, 

11 TSA has issued 8 letters of intent to cover the costs 

12 of installing systems at 9 airports for a total cost to 

13 the Federal Government of $957,100,000 over 4 

14 years. 

15 (9) GAO reports that, as of July 2004, TSA 

16 had identified 27 additional airports that TSA be17 lieves would benefit from receiving letters of intent 

18 for in-line baggage screening systems because such 

19 systems are needed to screen an increasing number 

20 of bags due to current or projected growth in pas21 senger traffic. TSA officials stated that without such 

22 systems these airports would not remain in compli23 ance with the congressional mandate to screen all 

24 checked baggage using explosive detection systems 

25 or explosive trace detection. 
5 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 (10) GAO reports that TSA has estimated that 

2 in-line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports 

3 that received letter of intent funding could save the 

4 Federal Government $1,300,000,000 over 7 years. 

5 TSA further estimated that it could recover its ini6 tial investment in the in-line systems at these air7 ports in a little over 1 year. 

8 (11) TSA has stated that it currently does not 

9 have sufficient resources in their budget to fund any 

10 additional letters of intent. 

11 (12) Based on current evidence, greater invest12 ment in in-line baggage screening systems is eco13 nomically justified and would facilitate airport 

14 growth, increase the efficiency of the air transpor15 tation system, and increase security. 

16 (13) The 9/11 Commission specifically rec17 ommended that TSA and Congress give priority at18 tention to improving the ability of screening check19 points to detect explosives on aviation passengers. 

20 (14) Recent reports by the Inspector General of 

21 the Department of Homeland Security and the Gov22 ernment Accountability Office indicate that improve23 ments are still needed in the aviation passenger 

24 screening process to ensure that dangerous, prohib25 ited items are not being carried into the sterile area 
6 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 of airports or allowed to enter the checked baggage 

2 system. 

3 (15) The Inspector General of the Department 

4 of Homeland Security stated, ‘‘Despite the fact that 

5 the majority of screeners with whom our testers 

6 came into contact were diligent in the performance 

7 of their duties and conscious of the responsibility 

8 those duties carry, lack of improvement since our 

9 last audit indicates that significant improvement in 

10 performance may not be possible without greater use 

11 of technology.’’. 

12 (16) The Inspector General further stated, ‘‘We 

13 encourage TSA to expedite its testing programs and 

14 give priority to technologies, such as backscatter x15 ray, that will enable the screening workforce to bet16 ter detect both weapons and explosives.’’. 

17 (17) The TSA concurs with the Inspector Gen18 eral’s statement that significant improvements in 

19 screener performance will only be possible with the 

20 introduction of new technology. 

21 SEC. 4. AVIATION SECURITY CAPITAL FUND. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44923(h)(1) of title 49, 

23 United States Code, is amended— 

24 (1) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘in each 

25 of fiscal years 2004 through 2007’’ and inserting 
7 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 ‘‘in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and 

2 $650,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 and 

3 2007,’’; and 

4 (2) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘at least 

5 $250,000,000 in each of such fiscal years’’ and in6 serting ‘‘at least $250,000,000 in each of fiscal 

7 years 2004 and 2005, and at least $650,000,000 in 

8 each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,’’. 

9 (b) DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.—Section 44923(h)(3) 

10 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘for a fiscal year, 

11 $125,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘, $125,000,000 for each of 

12 fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and $525,000,000 for each 

13 of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,’’. 

14 SEC. 5. AIRPORT CHECKPOINT SCREENING EXPLOSIVE DE15 TECTION. 

16 Section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, is 

17 amended— 

18 (1) in subsection (d)(4) by inserting ‘‘, other 

19 than subsection (i),’’ before ‘‘except to’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(i) CHECKPOINT SCREENING SECURITY FUND.— 

22 ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in 

23 the Department of Homeland Security a fund to be 

24 known as the ‘Checkpoint Screening Security Fund’. 
8 

•HR 1818 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) DEPOSITS.—In fiscal year 2006, after 

2 amounts are made available under section 44923(h), 

3 the next $250,000,000 derived from fees received 

4 under subsection (a)(1) shall be available to be de5 posited in the Fund. 

6 ‘‘(3) FEES.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu7 rity shall impose the fee authorized by subsection 

8 (a)(1) so as to collect at least $250,000,000 in fiscal 

9 year 2006 for deposit into the Fund. 

10 ‘‘(4) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.—Amounts in 

11 the Fund shall be available until expended for the 

12 purchase, deployment, and installation of equipment 

13 to improve the ability of security screening personnel 

14 at screening checkpoints to detect explosives.’’. 

Æ