The Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990: Joint Hearing and Markup Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 5200 and H.R. 5732, July 26 and September 27, 1990
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990 - 321 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action activities Administrator agencies air carriers aircraft airlines airport amendment American appropriate Assistant Secretary authority aviation security baggage believe bill bomb cargo carry Chairman FASCELL changes checked civil aviation CLINGER Commission Committee concerning conducted CONGRESS CONGRESS THE LIBRARY consider contain coordination dealing delay Department detection direct disaster effective efforts enactment ensure establish explosive families Federal Federal Aviation flight foreign GILMAN going Government implement improve individual inspection intelligence involved issue kind LALLY legislation Manager matter measures necessary notification OBERSTAR opening operations passengers person personnel position Postal Service problem procedures proposed protection question recommendations regulations relating responsibility rule screening Secretary Senate specific standards statement subsection terrorism terrorist Thank threat tion Transportation United victims
Page 319 - It is enough to hold, as we do, that the "discretionary function or duty" that cannot form a basis for suit under the Tort Claims Act includes more than the initiation of programs and activities. It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations. Where there is room for policy judgment and decision there is discretion.
Page 131 - (6) such other factors as the Commission may deem appropriate. "(d) the Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except...
Page 130 - The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be.
Page 130 - The difficulty attending the subject arises, not from the want of power in Congress to prescribe regulations as to what shall constitute mail matter, but from the necessity of enforcing them consistently with rights reserved to the people, of far greater importance than the transportation of the mail.
Page 131 - No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations 96 US at 732-733.
Page 130 - Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles.
Page 319 - Government shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee of the Government in carrying out the provisions of this section.
Page 124 - ... opened, removed from postal custody, and processed or treated, but only to the extent necessary to determine and eliminate the danger and only if a complete written and sworn statement of the detention, opening, removal, or treatment, and the circumstances...
Page 320 - US 15, 34 (1953) (stating that the exception protects "the discretion of the executive or the administrator to act according to one's judgment of the best course"). Thus, the discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow. In this event, the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive.