Screeria nigeria. Parliamentary elections, and later a house hearing on the tsa and airport security. Today the House Financial Services Committee Held a hearing on protecting Consumer Financial data, its partly in response to high profile data breaches at banks and retailers. Congressman jeb hence erlg chairs this threehour hearing. [ inaudible ]. Financial Data Security in the age of computer hackers, given that the pa just turned on, it is a testament to the fact to members welcome home. I assume we have many of our colleagues who are furiously running from hvc201 as we speak. For our witnesses and our the audience we have been no mads since the beginning of the year. So you will notice a few changes in the room. This renovation was caused by an upgrade of the audiovisual systems, although i did not specifically request it i saw notice there are twice as many microphones in our hearing room as before. I wish to notify members that does not mean they can speak twice as long. That doe
That as we have this longer term discussion of investment and structure that we do drn that everyone understands that the program, Aviation System and the Grant Program and aviation structure in the United States has always been about achieving twin objectives. First is to have an efficient system that serves the largest number of passengers and second is too provide a level of access to communities throughout the country. And in previous reauthorizations that has always been matter of great debate as you well know between members of congress about how to achieve that balance. That challenge and issue does not go away under any structure, nor does any structure alone deal with what those issues are. What youre raising is a important Public Policy request, where are we going with respect to ensuring a modernization of that system, while at the same time ensuring some level of access. And that debate i think is let me give i was part of building a Great Technology company in montana and
Who framed and ratified the constitution . Because if they had thought about that, theres a real chance the senate may take a twomonth break right. Over christmas. Would there be any reason why they wouldnt have wanted the recess appointment power to apply there as well as at the end of the session . Your honor, our argument does not turn on that because to us it is not a temporal question. Its a procedural one. Back then, the senate had the power not to trigger the recess. Just like today, it has the power not to trigger the recess appointments power. The difference is not in principle. Its in historical context. At the time of the framing, they wanted to trigger the recess appointments power because when they left during long periods of time, they wanted the president to be able to act unilaterally since it was very difficult for them to get back. And if they didnt trigger the power, the only way the president could act unilaterally would the only way the president could confirm nomi
One flaw with your argument is t makes the words it may happen superfluous, that the clause would mean exactly what you say it means if you took those words out. And your response, the only one i could see on the reply, your reply brief, page 13, is that those words were put in there to, quote, confine the president to filling vacancies that actually exist at the time of appointment. Now, is that did you really think they put that language in there because they were afraid the president would fill appointments that dont exist . I dont know why they put the language in there, mr. Chief justice, but it doesnt it isnt superfluous because it does serve that function one reason is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and theyve had a big fight in congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didnt want to happen. I dont
3, that since their meeting their recess was still on and lasted more than 3 days, it was a violation of that adjournment clause of the constitution. Now, thats one way to interpret it. Over a long period of time, they have apparently met pro forma on those days. Or we could try to make them mean the same thing, which would mean it was up to the senate. They consider that a meeting, its a meeting. What do we do . Or there is another option, Justice Breyer. Would you write that opinion, saying the senate of the United States has violated two provisions of the constitution . No, no. I dont think you need to write that opinion. All right. Why not . Because you might, perhaps, give the senate some deference with respect to requirements that apply only internally to the congress. But when what youre talking about is the senates use of pro forma sessions in a manner that deprives the president of authority that article ii would otherwise give would it i mean, thats my basic question really.