HR 8770 (SAF EG UARDS Act) earmarks $750 million of passenger fees for aviation security equipment
Data as of August 16, 2026 · Refresh this data →
Sponsored by Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5] · 6 cosponsors
Plain-English Summary
Spending Aviation Fees for Equipment, Guaranteeing Upgraded and Advanced Risk Detection and Safety Act of 2026 or the SAFEGUARDS Act of 2026 This bill allocates additional funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for aviation security, including checked baggage explosives detection equipment and security checkpoint technology. As background, TSA collects passenger civil aviation security service fees (often referred to as the 9/11 security fee or passenger security fee) on air carrier passengers originating at airports in the United States. In general, these fees are deposited into the Department of the Treasury general fund and applied towards debt reduction. A portion of these fees are allocated to TSA for aviation security. The bill requires that the first $500 million collected in each fiscal year from passenger security fees be deposited into the Aviation Security Capital Fund. This is an increase from the currently required $250 million. This fund provides for the costs associated with acquiring and installing in-line baggage screening systems (i.e., systems that use a conveyor belt infrastructure to automatically screen, sort, and track baggage) to accommodate checked baggage explosives detection equipment and for certain other airport security improvements. The bill also requires that the next $250 million collected in each fiscal year from passenger security fees be deposited into a new Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund for the costs associated with acquiring, installing, and sustaining aviation security checkpoint technology.
Current Status
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
What Problem This Addresses
The TSA currently receives only $250 million of passenger security fees each fiscal year, limiting its ability to acquire and install advanced in‑line baggage screening systems. Existing funding mechanisms divert the majority of these fees to the Treasury’s general fund for debt reduction, creating a gap between revenue generated for security and actual security investments. Without dedicated capital, airports struggle to replace aging explosives detection equipment and to deploy modern checkpoint technologies. The bill proposes to double the earmarked amount to $500 million for a capital fund and create a separate $250 million checkpoint technology fund, directly addressing the shortfall. By linking fee collections to specific security projects, the legislation seeks to ensure that revenue intended for aviation safety is applied consistently.
Outlook
The bill cleared the House quickly, passing by voice vote on July 13 after committee markup and suspension of the rules. It was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on July 14, where it now awaits a hearing. With only six cosponsors and no known bipartisan Senate sponsorship, the legislation faces an uncertain path in a Senate that has been cautious on earmarked spending. Historical data suggests similar TSA funding bills often stall in committee unless paired with broader aviation legislation. Accordingly, the realistic prospect is that HR 8770 may require amendment, consolidation, or a companion Senate bill to advance.
Arguments From Supporters
Proponents argue that dedicating $750 million of passenger fees ensures that money explicitly collected for security is used to modernize critical detection infrastructure. Upgrading to in‑line baggage screening systems is expected to increase explosives detection rates and reduce manual inspections, enhancing overall passenger safety. The new checkpoint technology fund would allow continuous investment in emerging screening technologies, keeping U.S. airports aligned with international security standards. Supporters also note that the bill reduces the Treasury’s reliance on these fees for debt reduction, aligning expenditures with the original intent of the 9/11 security fee.
Arguments From Opponents
The public record does not identify formal opposition, and no statements from interest groups appear in the action history. Potential critics might contend that earmarking fee revenue limits flexibility in federal budgeting and could duplicate existing TSA appropriations. Others could raise concerns about the $750 million annual outlay reducing the Treasury’s capacity to apply the fees toward debt reduction, though such arguments are not documented in the legislative record.
Where Both Sides Agree
Both supporters and likely critics agree that U.S. aviation security equipment is aging and that investment is needed to address emerging threats. There is consensus that passenger security fees generate a substantial revenue stream that can be tapped for security improvements.
Core Disagreement
The disagreement centers on whether the fees should be strictly earmarked for specific security projects versus being available for broader Treasury use. Critics may question the size of the earmarked amounts and whether the dedicated funds create unnecessary budgetary rigidity.
Constitutional Basis Cited
The sponsor cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to raise and spend money, as the authority for the bill. No substantive constitutional challenges have been raised in the record, and the earmarking of fee revenue is generally viewed as within Congress’s spending power. Accordingly, the constitutional basis appears sound, with no evident legal objections.
Economic Considerations
The bill would allocate $750 million annually from passenger security fees, reducing the portion of those fees that currently flow to the Treasury’s general fund. By directing funds to specific security capital projects, the legislation could stimulate demand for screening equipment manufacturers and installation services, creating modest industry activity. The net fiscal impact on the federal budget depends on whether the earmarked spending offsets other appropriations; without a CBO estimate, the precise effect remains uncertain. Airlines are unlikely to see a direct cost increase, as the fee structure remains unchanged; however, the allocation shift may affect Treasury’s debt‑reduction financing. Overall, the economic impact is projected to be a reallocation of existing fee revenue rather than an addition to federal outlays.
Sections beyond the plain-English summary are AI-synthesized analysis based on the sourced legislative record from Congress.gov, read, edited where needed, and approved by a human editor before publication. Full methodology: Editorial & Methodology.
← All Records