PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 68.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 6, 2007
Aviation Security Improvement Act - Extends funding for aviation security.
Provides for a system to screen all cargo transported on domestic and foreign passenger airlines.
Directs the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA Administrator) to: (1) evaluate the blast-resistant cargo container pilot program and then begin acquisition of containers to meet TSA cargo security program requirements; and (2) develop a system to make such containers available for use by domestic and foreign passenger airlines.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth requirements regarding: (1) preventing explosive devices on passenger planes; (2) deployment of explosive detection systems at airports; (3) not applying certain TSA personnel limitations; (4) specialized training for TSA officers; (5) an appeal process for passengers wrongly delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight; (6) a strategic plan to test and implement an advanced passenger prescreening system; and (7) certification of foreign repair stations.
Directs the Administrator to: (1) develop and implement a standardized airport threat and vulnerability assessment program; (2) based on a study, provide grants to airport operators for security upgrade projects; (3) develop a system under which foreign registered aircraft submit specified information to TSA; and (4) report on security credentials of airline crews.
People & committees
Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 68.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye with amendments. With written report No. 110-31.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye with amendments. With written report No. 110-31.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1649-1651)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1649)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.509 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.509 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.509 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.509 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.