Reclaiming my time, I was certainly not in any way suggesting that a mandate that was clearly going to improve the safety of passengers in this country should not be passed through. But what I am saying is that, given the perilous condition of the airline industry today and the fact that they have lost a great deal of money and we are potentially putting our employees at risk, that just to approve every potential safety-improving mandate without at least considering the cost I think would be a mistake. For that reason I would have to oppose the amendments of the gentlewoman.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing safety mandates in the context of the struggling airline industry.
Share
More from William Clinger
as I indicated, this would also go into effect if the President would agree to the balanced-budget agreement.
Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year the House passed H.R. 2, to give the President the line-item veto. The Senate followed suit in adopting S. 4, a separate enrollment version of item veto which was both considerably weaker than the…
It strikes me there are analogies here to the Great Lakes initiative where we have had some indication what the cost might be, but the costs became wildly beyond anybody's wildest dreams what it might actually involve. At any rate, Mr…
To this extent, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman understands that this is only prospective in its application. In other words, we are not, in effect, looking back at all of the cornerstones of environmental legislation, clean…





