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. MENEN-
DEZ, 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 sub-
sequently 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 avail-
able for the Aviation Security Capital Fund, to establish 
a Checkpoint Screening Security Fund, and for other 
purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airport Screener Tech-
nology Improvement Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 
The purpose of this Act is to facilitate airport growth, 
increase the efficiency of the air transportation system, 
and increase security. 
SEC. 3. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) Airport and airline officials have reported to 
the Government Accountability Office (in this sec-
tion referred to as ‘‘GAO’’) that installing in-line 
baggage screening systems at airports would reduce 
congestion at airline ticket counters by removing 
stand-alone explosive detection systems and explosive 
trace detection machines from crowded airport lob-
bies, thereby improving airline passenger flow and 
queuing in the terminals. 
(2) Airport and airline officials have reported to 
GAO that the installation of in-line baggage screen-
ing systems would allow for airport growth because 
in-line explosive detection systems could screen 
checked baggage faster than stand alone explosive 
detection and explosive trace detection machines and 
could be upgraded to accommodate growth in airline 
passenger traffic.
(3) The National Commission on Terrorist At-
tacks Upon the United States (in this section re-
ferred to as the ‘‘9/11 Commission’’) specifically rec-
ommended that the Transportation Security Admin-
istration (in this section referred to as ‘‘TSA’’) 
should expedite the installation of advanced in-line 
baggage screening equipment. 
(4) In testimony before Congress, the chairman 
of the 9/11 Commission expressed support for mov-
ing explosives units out of airport lobbies and into 
a secured area where they can be integrated into the 
process of moving the bags from the check-in 
counter to the loading area in a seamless, in-line 
process. 
(5) The chairman stated that moving explosives 
units into a secured area will promote greater secu-
rity because— 
(A) screening machines will not be exposed 
to the public; 
(B) screeners will be able to focus on 
screening bags rather than moving them; and 
(C) fewer people will be congregated 
around machines in the public area. 
(6) The chairman further stated that processing 
bags from checking to loading through an in-line
system is functionally more efficient, making travel 
more convenient as well as more secure. 
(7) GAO reports that 86 of the 130 airports 
surveyed are planning or are considering installing 
in-line baggage screening systems throughout or at 
a portion of their airports. 
(8) TSA and airport operators rely on letters of 
intent as their principal method for funding the 
modification of airport facilities to incorporate in- 
line baggage screening systems. As of January 2005, 
TSA has issued 8 letters of intent to cover the costs 
of installing systems at 9 airports for a total cost to 
the Federal Government of $957,100,000 over 4 
years. 
(9) GAO reports that, as of July 2004, TSA 
had identified 27 additional airports that TSA be-
lieves would benefit from receiving letters of intent 
for in-line baggage screening systems because such 
systems are needed to screen an increasing number 
of bags due to current or projected growth in pas-
senger traffic. TSA officials stated that without such 
systems these airports would not remain in compli-
ance with the congressional mandate to screen all 
checked baggage using explosive detection systems 
or explosive trace detection.
(10) GAO reports that TSA has estimated that 
in-line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports 
that received letter of intent funding could save the 
Federal Government $1,300,000,000 over 7 years. 
TSA further estimated that it could recover its ini-
tial investment in the in-line systems at these air-
ports in a little over 1 year. 
(11) TSA has stated that it currently does not 
have sufficient resources in their budget to fund any 
additional letters of intent. 
(12) Based on current evidence, greater invest-
ment in in-line baggage screening systems is eco-
nomically justified and would facilitate airport 
growth, increase the efficiency of the air transpor-
tation system, and increase security. 
(13) The 9/11 Commission specifically rec-
ommended that TSA and Congress give priority at-
tention to improving the ability of screening check-
points to detect explosives on aviation passengers. 
(14) Recent reports by the Inspector General of 
the Department of Homeland Security and the Gov-
ernment Accountability Office indicate that improve-
ments are still needed in the aviation passenger 
screening process to ensure that dangerous, prohib-
ited items are not being carried into the sterile area
of airports or allowed to enter the checked baggage 
system. 
(15) The Inspector General of the Department 
of Homeland Security stated, ‘‘Despite the fact that 
the majority of screeners with whom our testers 
came into contact were diligent in the performance 
of their duties and conscious of the responsibility 
those duties carry, lack of improvement since our 
last audit indicates that significant improvement in 
performance may not be possible without greater use 
of technology.’’. 
(16) The Inspector General further stated, ‘‘We 
encourage TSA to expedite its testing programs and 
give priority to technologies, such as backscatter x- 
ray, that will enable the screening workforce to bet-
ter detect both weapons and explosives.’’. 
(17) The TSA concurs with the Inspector Gen-
eral’s statement that significant improvements in 
screener performance will only be possible with the 
introduction of new technology. 
SEC. 4. AVIATION SECURITY CAPITAL FUND. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44923(h)(1) of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘in each 
of fiscal years 2004 through 2007’’ and inserting
‘‘in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and 
$650,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 and 
2007,’’; and 
(2) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘at least 
$250,000,000 in each of such fiscal years’’ and in-
serting ‘‘at least $250,000,000 in each of fiscal 
years 2004 and 2005, and at least $650,000,000 in 
each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,’’. 
(b) DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.—Section 44923(h)(3) 
of such title is amended by striking ‘‘for a fiscal year, 
$125,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘, $125,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and $525,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,’’. 
SEC. 5. AIRPORT CHECKPOINT SCREENING EXPLOSIVE DE-
TECTION. 
Section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (d)(4) by inserting ‘‘, other 
than subsection (i),’’ before ‘‘except to’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(i) CHECKPOINT SCREENING SECURITY FUND.— 
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in 
the Department of Homeland Security a fund to be 
known as the ‘Checkpoint Screening Security Fund’.
‘‘(2) DEPOSITS.—In fiscal year 2006, after 
amounts are made available under section 44923(h), 
the next $250,000,000 derived from fees received 
under subsection (a)(1) shall be available to be de-
posited in the Fund. 
‘‘(3) FEES.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu-
rity shall impose the fee authorized by subsection 
(a)(1) so as to collect at least $250,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2006 for deposit into the Fund. 
‘‘(4) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.—Amounts in 
the Fund shall be available until expended for the 
purchase, deployment, and installation of equipment 
to improve the ability of security screening personnel 
at screening checkpoints to detect explosives.’’. 
Æ