PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 26, 2005
Airport Screener Technology Improvement Act of 2005 - Amends Federal transportation law to increase for FY 2006 and 2007 the amount of security service fees (passenger fees) that are collected from passengers of air carriers and foreign air carriers in air transportation and intrastate air transportation and deposited into the Aviation Security Capital Fund. Increases amounts made available from such Fund for FY 2006 and 2007 for discretionary grants (with priority given to fulfill obligations under letters of intent to airport sponsors for airport security improvement projects).
Establishes the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund in the Department of Homeland Security. Makes a specified amount from the Aviation Security Capital Fund available for deposit into the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to impose a passenger fee and deposit amounts collected into such Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
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.
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.
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E768-769)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1818 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1818 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1818 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1818 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.