PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2005
Amends Federal aviation law to prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, solely by reason of a person's age if the person has not attained his or her Social Security retirement age, from: (1) denying, deferring as to, or failing to renew for any such person an airman or medical certificate for the operation of a commercial aircraft; (2) imposing restrictions or limitations on an airman or medical certificate following initial or periodic competency or medical testing which has the same age discriminatory effect on the person; or (3) requiring an air carrier to terminate the employment of, or not to employ, or to take any other action having the same age discriminatory effect on, such person as a pilot of an aircraft. Declares that such requirements shall not provide the basis for a claim of seniority made under any labor bargaining agreement in effect between the pilots and an air carrier by any pilot seeking re-employment by an air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.65 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.65 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.65 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.65 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.