PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Nov 10, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Declares the sense of Congress that members of a flight deck crew of a cargo aircraft should be armed with a firearm and taser to defend the cargo aircraft against an attack by terrorists that could result in the aircraft's use as a weapon of mass destruction or for other terrorist purposes.
Amends Federal transportation law to expand the Federal flight deck officer program (providing for the arming of pilots of passenger aircraft) to include pilots of cargo aircraft.
People & committees
Sen. Bunning, Jim [R-KY] · R–KY
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.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S14378; text as passed Senate: S14378)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S14378; text as passed Senate: S14378)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 293.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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 S.1657 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 S.1657 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 S.1657 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 S.1657 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.