PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 2, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Criminal Investigative Training Restoration Act - Directs the Federal Air Marshal Service to require federal air marshals hired after the enactment of this Act to complete the criminal investigative training program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as part of their basic training.
Excuses existing federal air marshals who have previously completed such program from repeating it. Requires any air marshal hired before the enactment of this Act who has not completed the program, however, to complete an alternative training program, as determined by the Federal Law Enforcement Center, that provides the training necessary to bridge the gap between the mixed basic police training, the federal air marshal programs already completed by the federal air marshal, and the training provided through the criminal investigative training program. Deems any such alternative program to have met the standards of the criminal investigative training program.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010 and FY2011.
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H13415)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H13415)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3963.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13415-13417)
Ms. Jackson-Lee moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 198.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 111-345.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 111-345.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.R.3963 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.3963 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.3963 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.3963 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.