[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 102 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8090-S8091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AIRPORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on June 15, 2000, the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 2440, the Airport 
Security Improvement Act of 2000. A report on the bill was filed on 
August 25, 2000. At that time, the committee was unable to provide a 
cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. On 
September 1, 2000, the accompanying letter was received from the 
Congressional Budget Office, and I now make it available to the Senate. 
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from CBO be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                Washington, DC, September 1, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2440, the Airport 
     Security Improvement Act of 2000.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are James 
     O'Keeffe (for federal costs),who can be reached at 226-2860, 
     Victoria Heid Hall (for the state and local impact), who can 
     be reached at 225-3220, and Jean Wooster (for the private-
     sector impact), who can be reached at 226-2940.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry B. Anderson
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
       Enclosure.

      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000

 S. 2440: Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000, As Reported by the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on August 25, 
                                  2000


                                summary

       S. 2440 would require the Federal Aviation Administration 
     (FAA) to revise certain airport security policies and 
     procedures. These policies would direct airports and air 
     carriers to implement a number of security measures, 
     including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) electronic 
     fingerprint checks before filling certain jobs, better 
     training for security screeners, and more random security 
     checks of passengers. S. 2440 also would require the FAA to 
     expand and accelerate the current effort to improve security 
     at air traffic control facilities.
       CBO estimates that implementing S. 2440 would cost $155 
     million over the 2001-2005 period, assuming appropriation of 
     the necessary amounts. That amount represents the

[[Page S8091]]

     difference between estimated spending under FAA's current 
     plan for security improvements and spending for such 
     improvements under the bill. Because S. 2440 would affect 
     direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply, but 
     CBO estimates the net impact on direct spending would be 
     negligible.
       S. 2440 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 
     require airport operators to improve airport security. CBO 
     estimates that the new requirements would impose no 
     significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments, 
     including public airport authorities.
       S. 2440 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 
     UMRA, on air carriers and security screening companies. CBO 
     expects that total costs of those mandates would not exceed 
     the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector 
     mandates ($109 million in 2000, adjusted for inflation).


                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2440 is shown in the 
     following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     budget function 400 (transportation).

   SPENDING ON SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
                        SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               2000   2001   2002   2003   2004    2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Plan:
  Estimated Authorization        12     19     20     23      25      25
   Level....................
  Estimated Outlays.........      6     20     20     22      24      25
Proposed Changes:
  Estimated Authorization         0     61     70     67     -25     -25
   Level....................
  Estimated Outlays.........      0     46     68     68      -2     -25
Spending Under S. 2440:
  Estimated Authorization        12     80     90     89       0       0
   Level....................
  Estimated Outlays.........      6     66     88     90      22       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

       For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2440 will be enacted 
     near the beginning of fiscal year 2001 and that the necessary 
     amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated 
     outlays are based on historical spending patterns.
       S. 2440 would require the FAA to expand and accelerate its 
     current plans to improve security at air traffic control 
     facilities. Based on information from the FAA, implementing 
     this provision of the bill would cost about $155 million over 
     the 2001-2005 period. This amount includes a spending 
     increase of $182 million during the 2001-2003 period and a 
     $27 million reduction in spending over the following two 
     years, relative to current plans for security improvements.
       Implementing S. 2440 would require airports and air 
     carriers to increase the number of fingerprint checks on 
     employees and potential hires that are conducted by the FBI 
     with assistance from the Office of Personnel Management. Both 
     of these agencies would receive payments from airport 
     operators and air carriers (or their contractors), which 
     would be recorded as offsetting receipts (a credit against 
     direct spending). These payments could then be spent without 
     further appropriation action to conduct fingerprint checks on 
     employees. Since the additional direct spending and 
     offsetting receipts would be approximately equal, we estimate 
     that the net impact on direct spending of this provision 
     would be negligible.


                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

       the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
     up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
     spending or receipts. implementing S. 2440 would affect 
     direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects 
     would be negligible.


        ESTIAMTED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

       S. 2440 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 
     UMRA because it would require airport owners and operators to 
     improve airport security. Based on information from the 
     Airports Council International and the Air Transport 
     Association, CBO estimates that the new requirements would 
     impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal 
     governments, including airport authorities, because under 
     existing contracts and agreements any additional costs would 
     be borne by air carriers and other airport tenants.


                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

       S. 2440 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined by 
     UMRA, on air carriers and security screening companies. Based 
     on information from the FAA and industry representatives, CBO 
     estimates that the costs of those mandates would not exceed 
     the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector 
     mandates ($109 million in 2000, adjusted for inflation).
       First, the bill would mandate new hiring procedures and 
     training standards for airport security workers. Section 2 
     would require air carriers to conduct an FBI electronic 
     fingerprint check on all applicants for certain positions 
     related to airport security positions with unescorted access 
     to sensitive areas, positions with responsibility for 
     screening passengers or property (screeners), and screener 
     supervisor positions. Because the FBI electronic fingerprint 
     checks would make the current price of employment 
     investigations and subsequent audits of those investigations 
     unnecessary, enacting this section could result in savings 
     for air carriers. Section 3 would require additional hours of 
     training for security screeners. In addition, the bill would 
     require that computer training facilities be located near 
     certain airports.
       Second, the bill would accelerate the effective date of two 
     sets of requirements that the FAA plans to implement in the 
     next year. Section 3 would accelerate the FAA's current 
     proposed rule on the Certification of Screening Companies. 
     The rule is intended to improve aviation security by 
     requiring companies and air carriers that provide security 
     screening to be certified by the FAA. Section 4 would also 
     accelerate a number of requirements on air carriers to 
     improve security at access control points at airports. Most 
     significantly, the section would require air carriers to 
     develop and implement programs that foster and reward 
     compliance with access control requirements. Because S. 2440 
     would accelerate implementation of those new mandates, air 
     carriers and security screening companies would incur some 
     compliance costs months earlier compared to current law.
       Third, Section 6 would require the FAA to gradually 
     increase the random selection factor in the Computer-Assisted 
     Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) at airports where bulk 
     explosive detection equipment is used. The selection factor 
     controls the number of passengers randomly selected to have 
     their baggage undergo enhanced security checks. If bulk 
     explosive detection equipment is available, it is used for 
     this enhanced security check. If it is not available, the 
     passenger's baggage is placed on the airplane only after the 
     air carrier has confirmed that the passenger is on board.
       Because only about 5 percent of airports use the bulk 
     explosive detection equipment, enacting Section 6 would, in 
     theory, increase the number of bags that would be checked 
     with the bulk explosive detection equipment in only a few 
     airports. According to the FAA and industry representatives, 
     however, a limitation in CAPPS would not allow an increase in 
     the random factor in a subset of selected airports. All 
     airports would be subject to the increased random factor. 
     Thus, to comply with the mandate air carriers would have to 
     either (1) reprogram their computer systems to selectively 
     increase the random selection factor in airports that use 
     bulk explosive detection equipment or (2) increase the number 
     of bags undergoing enhanced security checks based on the 
     factor whether or not an airport uses such equipment. In 
     either case, air carriers would incur the incremental cost of 
     checking the additional bags at airports that use bulk 
     explosive detection equipment.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: James O'Keeffe (226-
     2860). Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
     Victoria Heid Hall (225-3220). Impact on the Private Sector: 
     Jean Wooster (226-2940).
       Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

                          ____________________