Airport security is one of the rare issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree. Airport security measures overseen by the fine men and women at the Transportation Security Administration are vital to our security when we travel. They keep us safe. They put our minds at ease. And too often, their service is unappreciated and goes unnoticed.
Right now, airports are trying to convince Congress that airports are woefully underfunded, and that this lack of funding poses a threat to airport security. Their remedy? Increase the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge, or PFC, 1 of 17 taxes and fees aviation users and travelers pay when purchasing airfare.
But the flying public already pays a fee dedicated to financing the cost of securing America’s air transport system. And unfortunately, part of that money is being diverted away from airport security and into the general treasury.
Raising the PFC cap will do little or nothing to improve airport security. It will, however, unnecessarily raise the cost of flying without addressing issues like reducing wait times or enhanced screening. That doesn’t make much sense.
As a former TSA administrator, I understand that safety and security take precedence over everything, including the cost of travel. If you aren’t safe and secure when you travel, you won’t want to travel. But if you’re going to ask travelers to pay more in fees, then your request has to serve a purpose.
When the TSA was created following the horrific attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, we ushered in vast improvements to our nation’s airport security. And to help pay for these necessary improvements, Congress mandated what’s known as the “September 11 Security Fee.” The revenue helps to ensure safe and efficient air travel for everyone. In 2013, Congress voted to increase the fee, but started taking a large portion away to pay down the budget deficit. That means travelers are paying quite a bit more in security fees but aren’t getting any return on that investment.
Despite what some are claiming, raising the PFC fee won’t make air travel safer because that’s not its primary purpose. In fact, the majority of PFC money is spent paying interest on bonds and projects unrelated to security, such as runway and terminal improvement projects. None of the funds can be spent to hire more TSA officers or sophisticated equipment that could fundamentally change the passenger screening experience at airports.
If we want to talk about real solutions for how to reduce TSA wait times or improve airport security, we should call on Congress to stop diverting one-third of funds from the September 11 Security Fee to pay for unrelated government projects. That would be far more productive than hiking an unrelated tax with no guarantee that any of the money will be spent on security. In fact, there are bipartisan bills in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to eliminate this diversion and prevent Congress from restarting it in the future.
If increasing the PFC measurably increased spending on security, as airports claim, I’d be out front supporting it. But it’s simply not the case.
Congress can improve airport security better by using the existing funds collected for that very purpose. Let’s not ask Americans to part with any more of their hard-earned cash until we’ve put what they’ve already paid to good use. And let’s not use the hard working men and women of the TSA as pawns in a political argument.
John Pistole is a former administrator of the United States Transportation Security Administration and a former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
