Loading bill breakdown…
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Dale W. Strong (R-AL) · 6 active : 5 Republicans, 1 Democrat
Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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.
Each member’s recorded vote compared with their swing projection from before the vote. A member by voting against most of their own party.
Passed by voice vote or unanimous consent: no individual votes recorded.
Members fall into . 6 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted. The bill is not before the House right now; these scores show where members would stand.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, , and the . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.
Loading similar votes
These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.
Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 7 sponsor and cosponsors in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 6 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Similar votes count toward swing-v3 in the House: total similarity weight 14.5 (needs 5.0).
