PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 22, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Recognizes that volunteer pilots in the federal flight deck officer program are consummate quiet professionals that embody what is best in our national character.
Applauds them for taking a stand against those who seek to harm the United States through acts of terrorism in the air.
Expresses appreciation to such pilots on behalf of all U.S. citizens for their ongoing contribution to the security of the Nation and its air transportation system.
People & committees
Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S14408)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S14408)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 2 (Roll no. 614). (text: CR H11118)
House roll call 614 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 2 (Roll no. 614).(text: CR H11118)
House roll call 614 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11118)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 196.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11118-11120)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.Con.Res.196 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.Con.Res.196 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.Con.Res.196 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.Con.Res.196 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.