PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 28, 2011
Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the aiming of the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or in its flight path. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to five years.
Exempts from such prohibition: (1) individuals conducting research and development or flight test operations for an aircraft manufacturer or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); (2) Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel conducting research, development, operations, testing or training; or (3) an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send a distress signal.
People & committees
Rep. Lungren, Daniel E. [R-CA-3] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1370)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1370)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 386.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1370-1371)
Mr. Lungren, Daniel E. moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 4.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-11, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-11, Part I.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.R.386 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.R.386 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.R.386 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.R.386 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.