FASTER Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 11, 2025
Bottom line
The FASTER Act aims to fully dedicate passenger aviation security fees to aviation security operations by ending the current practice of diverting a portion of these fees to the general Treasury.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the FASTER Act, proposes to amend title 49, United States Code, to eliminate the current practice of diverting a portion of aviation security fees collected from airline passengers to the general fund of the Treasury. Instead, it mandates that all such fees be deposited into a separate, dedicated account for the Administrator (presumably the TSA Administrator) to use exclusively for aviation security screening activities and services, explicitly overriding certain anti-deficiency act provisions to ensure direct access to these funds.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the fees collected from airline passengers for aviation security should be entirely used for that purpose, rather than being partially diverted to other government spending. They contend this ensures adequate and stable funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), thereby improving aviation security infrastructure and operations without increasing the burden on general taxpayers or travelers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the current diversion of funds provides a necessary revenue stream to the general fund, helping to offset other government expenditures or reduce the national deficit. They might also contend that fully dedicating these funds could lead to less fiscal flexibility for Congress or that the TSA's budget should be subject to the standard appropriations process without special carve-outs.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, making it accessible for immediate understanding of its core purpose.
Section 2(a) of the bill, amending 49 U.S.C. 44940(c), (f), and (i).
Dedication of Aviation Security Fees to Security Costs
This provision eliminates the current legal requirement that a portion of the aviation security fees collected from airline passengers be treated as offsetting receipts and deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. Instead, it mandates that all such fees be deposited into a dedicated account for the Administrator (likely the TSA Administrator) to use exclusively for aviation security activities and services. Crucially, it explicitly allows for expenditure notwithstanding certain anti-deficiency act provisions, ensuring direct and uninterrupted access to these funds for their intended purpose.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this ensures the 'user fee' principle is upheld, where funds collected for a specific service are used solely for that service. This provides the TSA with more predictable and dedicated funding, enhancing aviation security without burdening general taxpayers.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that diverting a portion of the fee to the general fund helps manage the broader federal budget and that the TSA should compete for funding through the regular appropriations process like other agencies. They might also contend that this could set a precedent for other 'user fees' to be fully dedicated, reducing congressional control over federal spending.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for dedicated funding for aviation security with the federal government's need for flexible revenue streams and congressional oversight over appropriations. It also highlights the tension between a 'user fee' model and general fund contributions.
Section 2(b) of the bill, amending 49 U.S.C. 44940(d)(4).
Conforming Amendment to Fee Application
This is a technical amendment that removes a reference to subsection (i) from 49 U.S.C. 44940(d)(4). This change is necessary because subsection (i) is being struck by Section 2(a)(3) of the bill, which eliminates the requirement for a portion of aviation security fees to be deposited in the general fund. The amendment ensures consistency and accuracy in the statutory language after the primary changes are made.
The bill explicitly states that collected aviation security fees "shall be available to the Administrator for expenditure notwithstanding any other law, including any provision of section 1341(a)(1) of title 31 (commonly referred to as the 'Anti-Deficiency Act'), only to pay the costs of activities and services for which the fee is imposed."
Section 2(a)(2)(D) amending 49 U.S.C. 44940(f)(1).
Why it matters:While technically phrased, explicitly overriding the Anti-Deficiency Act for these funds is a significant operational detail that ensures the TSA can spend the money without typical budgetary constraints. This could be seen as a way to ensure dedicated funding without political interference, or as reducing fiscal oversight.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the TSA has immediate and reliable access to the funds it collects for security, preventing delays or shortfalls due to broader budgetary impasses or anti-deficiency restrictions. It guarantees the fees are spent as intended, without being held up by broader government funding issues.
Case against: Critics might argue that overriding the Anti-Deficiency Act, even for a specific fund, reduces congressional control over spending and could set a precedent for other agencies to seek similar exemptions, potentially weakening overall fiscal discipline and accountability.
Estimated impact: Ensures the full amount of collected aviation security fees (historically billions of dollars annually) is directly available to the TSA, bypassing potential federal budget impasses or spending limitations imposed by the Anti-Deficiency Act.