does the gentleman from california yield back in mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. crenshaw, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-173. . for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. watt: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 112-173. offered by mr. watt of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: mr. chairman, my amendment to the legislative

branch bill would decrease funding for the office of congressional ethics, the o.c.e., by 619,200 and transfer these funds to the spending reduction account. i have offered this amendment because i believe there is a substantial bipartisan consensus, one that the responsibilities of the o.c.e. are redundant and duplicative of the house ethics committee. two, that the o.c.e.'s operations are substantially staff driven. and the staff has taken the o.c.e.'s mission well beyond what was intended in the statute that created the entity. three, that the procedures of the o.c.e. are unfair and sometimes abusive of the rights of members of the house. four, that a substantial part of the funds we spend on the c.o.e. waste taxpayers' money.

and five, that using those funds to reduce our debt and deficit would be a far better use. in these difficult budget times, i believe we have an obligation to judge the o.c.e. on the same criteria on which we measure other agencies of the federal government. using those criteria, my amendment proposes to eliminate duplication, demand accountability, and adherence to the purposes for which the agency was created. demand fair, due process treatment for members of congress as we would for other employees in both the private and public sectors. and force us to make a choice about how best to use our over $600,000 of taxpayer funds. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

who seeks time? >> i'd like to claim time in opposition. the chair: is the gentleman opposed? >> yes, i am. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment as far as i'm concerned is punishment because someone doesn't like some of the things o.c.e. has done. i will tell you having drafted the legislation, i don't like everything they have done, but the appropriate way to deal with that is to amend the rules of the house or to amend their own rules. mr. capuano: there are ways to do the things that others have been concerned about. some of which i share. some of which i share. i have expressed my concern on certain issues to members of the o.c.e. in the past. it's not to just pick a number and slash that number of 40%. that is nearly, as far as i'm concerned, draconian, punishment to say we are the boss. you're not. it's not going to change one thing that the o.c.e. does. it will simply make it a little

bit more difficult for this house to maintain the integrity level that we have struggled so desperately to gain back over the years. we have had our troubles. we will have problems in the future. some of our colleagues will do something that none of us will like. the question is not that. the question is how does the public see us? i have a letter i'd like to submit for the record that i think everything got in their office today from the campaign legal center, the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, common cause, democracy 21, the league much women voters, public citizen, and u.s. perg. i don't agree with what every one ever these organizations stands for, either. however they all agree that this agency, even with its flaws has improved the reputation of this house when it comes to policing our own members. i want to be clear. i do not think they have done a perfect job. my guess is i don't think most members think the ethics committee has done a perfect job over the years.

that's not the measure. if that's the measure, none of us would be in congress. we couldn't get anything done because there is no such thing as perfection. the measure is simply what has been done to improve the image of this house. and i think everyone in washington who follows these things agrees that the creation of this group and the action taken overall have improved the image of this house and i would say that a cut to this level is simply a draconian measure to punish them for what they have done as opposed to try to improve what they do in the future. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. watt: i yield one minute to mr. king. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for yielding. i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. the reason for it is this. as i watched the structure of the o.c.e. be set up, and i say to the gentleman, we have had this for over 200 years we had the ethics committee to take care of this business.

want to amend the rules of the house, let's go back to what the rules of the house are. but the o.c.e. has crossed the line over and over again. and i make this point that they have gone on witch-hunts. they have taken pieces of information that came from political opposition on either side, and embellished that into things. they have violated roman law, english common law, and the decency of the house by this. classified, confidential information, used against members of congress who don't have an opportunity to face their accuser, whose reputations have been damaged by sometimes i'll just say certainly leaks to the press. sometimes i suspect willful leaks to the press. we need to go back to the ethics committee dealing with this business as it has been for over two centuries. this bill only passed by one vote a few years ago. and now we have a whole machinery out there whose soul purpose it is -- sole purpose it is to ask organizations on

both sides to come in and send information in that would be used against members of congress. i support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, i don't know about roman law, shaky on english law as well. i will tell you it doesn't violate any american laws that i am aware of. if it did it would be subject to all kinds of legal proceedings against them. i understand fully well that some members didn't like voting for this. they don't like the idea of members -- other people, other than members of congress, looking at anything we do. i understand that. it was a great attempt to try to balance that fear with the movement forward. which is what we did. and i'd like to point out very clearly. that when the congress changed from democratic to republican, there was no attempt by anybody that i am aware of to change one aspect of this rule. not one aspect. that was the appropriate time.

and had someone done it, i would have been happy to work with them. i have expressed my concerns here. i have expressed them in the o.c.e. i have expressed them to other members. i share some of these concerns. but i don't think it's an appropriate thing to simply wheel the old-fashioned political tool of a big, heavy, draconian weapon and try to slash their budget and think you are going to change it. you're not. and you will be perceived, this house will be perceived, by the general public for what this is. simply attempt to roll back our progress on policing our own activities. i understand that that might make some people comfortable. but it's not the right thing to do. and people here know that. this is payback. and i don't mind. i'm one of the few members of this house who call myself proudly a politician.

i understand payback. but let's call it what it is. we don't like what they do. and we are going to defund them. don't pretend that something else is going on. that's what it is. it will be bad for the house of representatives. and it will not change the things that people have expressed that they don't like. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. watt: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: i thank the gentleman. i really understand that the gentleman from north carolina's highlightling serious concerns with a process he sees the office of the congressional ethics. i share some of those concerns as well as i share some of the concerns that the gentleman from massachusetts shares. and it's really raising the question of trying to improve the ethics process in the house

and improving the underlying authorization that may be more appropriate in seeking more appropriate first steps. and i think this may be an indicator where we may not be able to support the gentleman's amendment, but at the same time support the issue of improving what it is that he's seeking. and i think that the gentleman from massachusetts will probably be willing to work on that. i think my friends on the other side would, too. reluctantly while i'm not personally in opposition i think that in this portion of the process i would be in opposition. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the question is on -- the gentleman from north carolina. mr. watt: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. watt: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: i thank the gentleman.

let me just address this whole issue of retaliation. this is not retaliation. this is a better use of the money than the o.c.e. is making of it. there is an undercurrent in this house, everybody knows that the o.c.e. processes have been unfair, undemocratic, and they have singled people out. and it should stop. and we should stand up and say that it should stop. i think we did not give the o.c.e. the authority to initiate themselves, investigations, without an outside complainer. they have systematically done that. and to the extent they have done it, we have provided more funding than i think is appropriate. which is why i got to 40% as

opposed to 100%. i want them to continue to go on with the investigations that are out there. and when other people initiate them, they should be allowed to pursue them. but they should not be allowed to initiate on their own witch-hunts against members of congress. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. watt: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. brown: --

mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 112-173. offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broup, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would reduce funding for the joint economic committee by 25% and transfer more than $1 million to the deficit reduction account. the joint economic committee is tasked with many of the duties of other congressional committees. other committees already perform these duties such as holding hearings, performing research, and studying the u.s. economy. we here in america are facing a tremendous financial crisis. the legislative branch should not be excluded during budget cut debates.

the joint economic committee performs overlapping duties that could easily be maintained by the ways and means committee or the budget committee or even the respective leadership policy committees. a 25% cut is very modest considering the graphity of the e -- gravity of the enormous debt we are accumulating each and every day and we must begin paying down that debt. our debt level is unsustainable. totally unsustainable. we are broke as a nation. we have to start cutting in every aspect of the government's, pendy tures. -- expenditures. i believe the joint economic committee can support it and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: the amendment would cut the joint economic committee by over $1 million or 25%.

the funding included in the bill for is already less than the funding level provided to j.e.c. in f.y. 2008. and the joint economic committee is a bicameral congressional committee. composed of members from each the senate and house of representatives. there are 10 democrats and 10 republicans on the committee. the gentleman does not have an amendment to go after the house committee but has chosen to go after funding for this joint committee. . i hope this isn't an effort to strike funding because the committee is jointly managed with the senate. the last thing we need is less collaboration between the two bodies. this is exactly the type of analysis members from both parties and as we tackle complex economic issues as a nation. i oppose this amendment and ask

my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. the jell reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. honda: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment, i respect very much the gentleman from georgia's efforts on cutting and shrinking the size of government but the joint committee is already under the appropriations recommendation operating below the 2006 levels system of it is doing more than its share of shrinking and running efficiently. unlike other committees, the joint economic committee is created by law to be the counterpart for congress to weigh against the president's council of economic advisors.

it is bicameral, it is bipartisan and provides information important to the size of government, the efficiency of government, what can get our economy going, an example of the research is the four months, weekends, evpks, that was done going through every page of the 2,801 new -- page new health care law to identify the bureaucracies, agencies, taxes that will be between you and your doctor. that research could not be done. i would tell you the democrat friends would say it provides the same type of analysis for their issues. this is the type of information congress needs as we move forward on the critical issue of the economy this committee has done its share of cuts. i respectfully oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is reck noozed. mr. broun: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

georgia. mr. broun: i appreciate that this is a bicameral, bipartisan committee but as i mentioned during my first remarks, these functions could be very well performed by other committees, other functions. these are duplicative services. so i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the quelt from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-173, offered by mr. broun of fwea.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from fwea. mr. broun: my amendment would reduce funding for the office of compliance to the fiscal year 2008 level and would transfer almost half a million dollars into the spend regular ducks account. at the time we are facing such pressing fiscal crisis, we have a financial fiasco here in america because of the outrageous spending that congress has been doing by both parties. scaling back the office of compliance to the 2008 levels is a modest and reasonable request. we have to continue to make cuts in every corner of the budget that we can and we have to prioritize paying down our massive federal debt. it is totally unsustainable. again if most offices in the federal government can reduce their spending back to 2008

levels, it is only logical for the office of compliance to do the very same. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. honda: the amendment would cut the office of compliance by $465,000 even though it's cut in the underlying bill 6.4%, the same as the overall bill reduction. i have to question the motives of cutting the office of compliance disproportionately to the overall bill. maybe the gentleman is not aware but this office was established in 1995 by the republican congress to santa fe the republican contract with america. the office implements the congressional accountability act to ensure that congress complies with safety, discriminationation accessibility laws that everyone else in the nation must follow this amendment

suggests that congress should ease up on providing our workers a fair and safe working environment. i support this amendment and -- i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> i associate myself with the gentleman's remark and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i yield. i just want to close with the same comments i did in the last paragraph that this amendment suggests that congress should ease up on requirements to providing our work wers a fair and safe working environment and i don't think we should back off on that. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun:: mr. chairman, i appreciate --

mr. broun: mr. chairman, i appreciate my friend mr. honda's comments. i offered eight amendments, only three were held to be in order. i'm not looking at anything specifically except for the whole bill to try to cut spending. because it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put this country back on a good fiscal standing. i believe very firmly that we need to look at every single nook and corner, every dollar spent by the federal government and cut wherever we can. i think this is a reasonable request. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- and i urge adoption -- mr. broun: i urge adoption of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the quelt from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-173.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to propose an amendment and i request three minutes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-173, offered by ms. hayworth of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. hayworth: i yield myself three minutes. my amendment proposes we cut the $632,782, the proposed increase in funding to the boe tannic garden and transfer that to the spend regular ducks account. while the bo tannic garden in the f.y. 2012 budget receives an increase, almost every other

account in the legislative branch appropriations bill has been decreased, including for the congressional research service, congressional budget office, j.c.t. and the capitol police buildings, grounds and security account. the boe tannic garden provides education and outreach programs and they are definitely of value and they have been commended in the committee report for their accomplishments. but it is a time of austerity and the boe tannic gardens should take the necessary steps to continue to pursue those programs with the same funding as they've received in fiscal year 2011. frout the rest of the legislative brampling of the federal government we're cutting costs. we're eliminating employee spots and taking other reductive measures. each of our offices will be operating with additional cuts. the boe tannic garden can

continue to provide successful services with the same level of funding as in f.y. 2011. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. go sar: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment supported with ms. hayworth to reduce spending at the boe tannic gardens. we are in the middle of a funding crisis. in my view, there are few programs funded by the federal government that can be exempt from cruteny. this is an unprecedented fiscal crisis. i applaud the commitment to making spend regular ducks in this bill include regular deucing personal office expenses and reducing committee budgets. there are many wonderful museums and points of interest here in washington, d.c. and the botanical garden is among the best my amendment, which would reduce its funding and take away a proposed increase,

is not based on any act by the boe tannic gardens. as an avid outdoorsman and gardener, i draw much benefit from the boe tannic gardens. our amendment is not intended to make the statement that it's not a good and worthy program, it is. but it is not constitutionally mandated. it is not essential to providing key services to americans. it does not generate jobs. it does contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the world and that has great value. our country is in the midst of an epic fiscal crisis that threatens the livelihood of every american and even good and worthy programs cannot be spared from every effort to scale down our federal budget significantly this proposed amendment is a fair cut. in light of our fiscal crisis a modest cut. in keeping with the other cuts

in this bill. i'm confident that even with this reduced bunnell, they'll the boe tannic garden will be able to offer an educational experience oall of us and to our constituents when they come to capitol hill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. honda: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: while i'm not necessary opposed to the amendment, i think the record should be clear to suggest the $600,000 increase in the boe tannic garden is not needed is not true. it will be used for painting, electrical upgrades, evap rahtive cooling system upgrades and the replacement for a vent system used in the greenhouse. i applaud the chairman for funding this necessary

maintenance work so we don't have more expensive maintenance in the future. this does not fund millions in the deferred maintenance to sustain and improve our aging national iconic buildings, including the capitol. however, the chairman found a small amount to try to keep up with maintenance in the boe tannic garden and the member os attack because they can get a good headline in the paper. i reserve. the chair: the yealt from new york. ms. hayworth: i appreciate the points the gentleman has made but when we're running a deficit of $1.4 trillion at least, we have to seek to pursue sensible measures to reduce budgets wherever we can and we are unfortunately faced with a time in our history in which what is nice to have or good to have must yield to what

we absolutely must have. and therefore i will defend the proposed reduction in the account that we have made in this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you and i believe there are other amendments forthcoming and tissue and i'm just very -- -- and i'm just very concerned about making this funding necessary. i know the boe tannic gardens, i enjoy it. i think that the funding that he has provided is sufficient to push forward the maintenance so that we do not incur a greater maintenance problem in the future. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized.

ms. hayworth: i agree with the gentleman that the bo tannic guard season a -- that the botanic garden is a treasure, i too have have ited it, but i think we need to respect the urgent needs of the united states budget and the united states taxpayers and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california -- ms. hayworth: i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the yes is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. hayworth: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment by the gentlelady from new york will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report number 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would reasonably reduce the funding for the bow tanic garden to the fiscal year 2008 level and transfer more than $3 million to the spending reduction account. this bill funds the garden at $12 million. and i'm only asking that the bow tanic garden be funded at $9 million. our nation is broke. we are broke. make no -- there's no question about that. we need to face the fact that we are broke. yet we continue to add our enormous debt by borrowing more than $4 billion each day.

i believe and think that the american people would agree it is reasonable to ask the bow tanic -- botanic garden to stop trimming their hedges and start trimming their budgets like me and the other offices have done within the federal government. like many families and business vs. done all across this nation . we cannot afford to continue down this same path of fiscal irresponsibility that we have been heading down. i urge my colleagues to help me put america back on a different course and support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, we just had an amendment that reduced the funding by $630,000. now we have an amendment that will reduce it by 26%.

and i would suggest that that is a little bit extreme. we at the subcommittee looked at all the agencies that we oversee. we reduced spending as i said earlier by 6.2%. some agencies were cut more than others. the botanical garden at less than $600,000 will be at the current spending level this year. we feel like that needs to be where it is. so they can continue to do the job they do with the million people coming there. i think it's important. i don't think we should cut it another 26%. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. crenshaw: i roaf. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my good friend, ander crenshaw's remarks about

this. when families face hard economic times, they look at extraneous expenses. and i love plants. my wife and i work in our yard. we have plants that we baby. she orders -- waters every day. we certainly have a great appreciation for botanical gardens and plants and the things that plants bring in the way of enjoyment. but when faced with hard economic times, people don't go out to home depot and buy more plants. when they can't pay their bills. that's the situation we are in as a nation. so the bow tanic -- botanic garden is a beautiful place. a lot of very beautiful plants in there. i think it's not the responsible thing to continue

to try to grow things that are going to continue to grow the debt and spend money we just simply do not have. i remind -- i'm reminded as we have gone through the authorization process in the three committees i'm in, as we have gone through these appropriation bills, i'm reminded of a saying that was just utilized during our founding periods but with a new twist. and the new twist is this. don't cut me, don't cut me, cut that fellow behind the tree. i hear that in the authorization committees over and over again. we have to cut our spending but don't cut me. cut somebody else. we have to get our debt under control. but don't cut me. cut somebody behind the tree. there's nobody behind the tree.

america deserves better. this is a simple cut. the botanical garden is lush and pretty as it is, it is not a necessary expenditure of the federal government. i think the american people if they had a choice would support this amendment. so, mr. chairman, i appreciate my good friend ander crenshaw's comments and comments from the other side, but we just simply have to stop spending money that we do not have. it's irresponsible to do so. so i urge adoption of my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full appropriations committee, mr. dicks. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: thank you for yielding. i just wanted to have the

american people understand why we are opposing this amendment. the united states botanical garden is rooted in the nation's heritage. during the late 18th century, george washington, thomas jefferson, and james madison shared the dream of a national botanic garden and were instrumental on establishing one on the national mall in 1820. now in continuous operation and opened to the public since 1850, the garden moved to its present location in 1933, a complex located along the north and south side of independence avenue bordered by first street and third street. the garden includes the conservatory, the national garden which opened in 2006, the bartholi park created in 1932. a plant production, and support facility opened in anacostia in 1933, includes greenhouses, bays, and maintenance shops. this is a very important thing

to the american people when they come here from all over the country, they want to go see the garden, botanical gardens, and i just feel that we have to figure out a way to fund this. and to take care of the facility. this was a dream of the founders of this republic. and i think we should honor that dream and we should defeat both of these amendments and do the work that's necessary to keep it in the first class condition for the american people. and i appreciate the gentleman. i yield back any remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman of the subcommittee should be applauded for adequately funding the operations and necessary maintenance work so we do not have a more expensive

deferred maintenance in the future which usually results. now about cutting and plants. i think i know a little bit about plants and trees and people behind trees. there is someone behind the tree and sometimes it's a gardener that doesn't know how to prune it to its proper shape so that it will express itself properly. and the botanical garden, let's face it, it is a national treasure. it is something people come to to enjoy. it's a heritage that our forefathers left behind that we should be able to maintain now and for the future. it's a place of respite and contemplation. god knows that we all need that sometimes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. altmire: i have a meving. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. altmire of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: mr. chairman, i have ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment with the text that has been placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. altmire of

pennsylvania. insert first, after the. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: i thank the chairman. i rise today in support of an amendment, important program, at the library of congress whose sole mission is to preserve the books and documents that tell our nation's history. the library of congress, a 211-year-old institution and our national library, offers an incredible range of research, interactive programming, and innovative technologies. however most would agree that books remain the fundamental component of any library. since 1995, the library of congress has been conducting a specific preservation campaign to save its books. the current program known as the 30-year mass deacidfication program aims to treat and preserve millions of hard-bound

books, paper back books, manuscripts, newspapers, maps, art works, music scores, letters, familiar flets, and drawings. -- pamphlets and. it ensures future generation lbs able to enjoy the artifacts housed there. many of the older books and papers at the library of congress are printed on acidic paper which can turn brittle and fall apart with age. deacidfication extends the useful life of these works for up to 1,000 years longer than their useful life without treatment. delaying the acidfication process means more books would deteriorate beyond repair. and unfortunately many old books at the liar prayry's collection are already too brittle or in such poor shape they cannot be preserved further. we must continue to work now to maintain the remaining books that can still be saved before they deteriorate further. i am offering this amendment which would restore $1 million in funding for the 30-year mass

deacidfication program at the library of congress. decision that is will affect the preservation of our nation's heritage and history must be made carefully. we have to ensure that the library has the resources it needs to maintain its collections. for example, mr. chairman, if we cut $1 million from this project for this one year, as this legislation proposes to do, the project will take an estimated 20 years longer to complete while books continue to age and lose years off their useful life. furthermore, the cut to this particular program is about 20%. it's disproportionate to the overall levels of cuts to expenses in other programs within the library of congress. while cuts must be made, this program is something that cannot be put on hold, it cannot wait. books will continue to decay and we will risk losing irreplaceable works that chronicle and illustrate our nation's history.

i would yield to the gentleman. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for that good amendment. we have no objection to it. mr. altmire: i appreciate the gentleman. i'm going to read my last paragraph if the gentleman doesn't mind. i do appreciate that. taking back my time. the library of congress, the repository of our national knowledge does incredibly important work in preserving our nation's history. in turn we must provide them with the capacity to preserve their books for generations to come. i thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. no one seeks time in opposition. the question is on the amendment as modified offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-171.

for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. stutzman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. stutzman ever indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. stutzman: i want to thank the rule committees for ruling this amendment in order and allowing it to be heard today this asks the government printing office to take an additional 4.3% cut that would bring the total reduction of the g.p.o. to 4%. the -- this cut may not seem

reich a lot in washington but we are demanding that we make the cuts those at home make. it is our duty to mag our -- manage our house in a fiscally prudent manner. the g.p.o. spends over $28 million a year on the congressional record program alone. over $8 million of that amount goes to the print, binding and distribution of our congressional record. 24 includes payment for 4,500 copies of the congressional record, despite the documents being available digitally since 1994. i don't know about you, mr. chairman, but spending $28 million to see in print what seems -- what is said in congress seems like a raw deal. it seems like a subsidy far magazine that no one wants to read. i have a couple of examples to

show the printing that goes on within the printing office and many of these documents show up in our offices and go straight into the recycling cans. one in particular i found interesting was -- is this document from the c.b.o., redeucing the deficit, spending and revenue option. ones that have been printed en masse and sitting around capitol hill. i think that this is a very appropriate measure that we can take and when a small business is struggling, they must do without certain luxuries or conveniences. a business may cut costs, marketing, and printing costs in turn. a doctor's office might stop its magazine subscriptions they place in their waiting rooms. they expect us to do the same. in maye of this year, the public printer of the united states testified before the legislative branch committee citing nearly 100,000 square feet of wasted government space. he asked that g.p.o. be taken

out of the security business. i would never have guessed that the government printing office spends $13 million every year on security. there are many ways to bring the reduction to 20%. i applaud the recent internal efforts of representative lungren of california and representative gingrey of georgia asking members to opt out of such waste. however, i don't believe that goes far enough to reduce the spending in this agency. let me finish by saying that a further 4.3% reduction in an office that prints unnecessary publications is not too much to ask. let's take action, let's do without as many words and show americans we can keep and make cuts of our own here in congress. i strongly support the -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i rise to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for

bringing all these issues to our attention but i want to direct him to the united states code title 44 which basically directs the government printing office to do the things that they do. and so, if the gentleman is concerned, i suggest the first thing he do is read title 44 and find out what is required by congress and if we change that, we might be able to change some of the printing that goes on. the prints office only produces what it's ordered to produce by congress. and i think we all know that we've already cut the budget by 16%. i don't know what's magic about the last 4.3% but i think our subcommittee, through a series of hearings and informal hearings looked at the facts. we set some priorities. we said we're going to reduce the fund big 16%.

we detailed in our report some of the things that are of interest to us and we actually are going to take a look at privatizing the entire government printing office. but once again, so much of that is driven by this title 44. already, the g.p.o. has announced a buyout program. they're going to reduce their work force by 15% through this buyout program, that's 330 positions and any further significant changes are going to require a change in this printing law. so while i think the gentleman makes some good points, i want to say we looked at the facts, reduced spend big 16%, we think that's appropriate and i urge a no vote on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognize. mr. stutzman: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stutzman: i do appreciate the point about the

responsibilities of the g.p.o. and that they are required by law to print certain documents. but let me give you several examples and again let's remind ourselveses that all of these, this is actually an environmentally friendly bill. this is an amendment that would reduce the cost and the amount of painer that we print many of these words on. these are all available to any american on the internet. and -- especially to each one of us as individuals of congress, members of congress and our staff. we have the congressional record, the congressional directory, memorial addresses of mens, nominations, u.s. code and supplements, venn -- envow lopes provided to members of congress for mailing of documents, bills, resolutions and amendments, committee reports, committee meetings. these are important documents but i believe in the day and age we live in all of these could be done electronically, digitally and would save

dollars for the american taxpayer, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield one minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. honda of kale. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: my daddy used to say that you should be careful of sa lots buzz they come in -- of se lots because they come in hacking and huing. a few things the gentleman pointed out require some study and thought. the gentleman who wants to do some cut, he indicated a book that was talking about deficits that book has been paid by c.b.o. it's not a cost of the g.p.o. and then in terms of security, g.p.o. has security but they're required to issue passports and with passports, you have to have security there. so i think, you know, a more

studied approach would probably be in place. cuts for cuts sake i think is in the words of my father, foolhardy. i would recommend we slow down, make haste with all deliberate speed and i agree with my chairman here. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. stutzman: i yield myself the remainder of my time, mr. chairman. i point out, i understand the gentleman's point about c.b.o. spending their dollars on this publication but we see these publications around capitol hill everywhere. you go to any congressional office, and you'll see documents and publications that people never use. and again, let's advance ourselves into the day and age we live in and using these documents in electronic format. also my understanding is that this is returning the 16% reduction is returning us to the twipe levels.

if my understanding is correct. i believe we need to reduce ourselves further than that. again, this is a very simple amendment. i think the american people would afree with this and that we are saving every dollar and looking at every opportunity to save tax dollars. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield myself such time as i i might consume to say to the subcommittee, look at this, we have concerns, we reduced spend big 16%. if you want to have more significant savings, you'll have to change the printing laws that are there in chapter 54. so i would simply say, i think we've done a good scrob of what we're trying to do -- a good job of what we're trying to do. they print what they're asked to print. when g.a.o. asks them to print something, they pay for it. a lot of people say that we ought to privatize the whole thing and that's something we're thinking about doing but

i think we've cut them sufficiently. i think they can still do their job. they don't need further cuts. i urge a note vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is adopted. mr. crenshaw: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-173.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-173. it's now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-173, offered by mr. paulsen of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 379, mr. paulsen and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. paulsen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: my amendment would prohibit funds from being used to distribute printed copies

unless a member asked for a copy. currently, when a member offers a bill or becomes a co-sponsor of the bill, three copies are sent to the member's office. the paper copies just add to unnecessary clutter. this amendment would seek to stop that practice. the legislation is available online and if members are interested, they can get a copy of the bill, or they can print it offline or request to pick up a printed copy from the printing office. i understand there are absolutely valid uses for the printed copies of these bills and this amendment does not prevent them being printed. similar legislation was adopted at the beginning of this congress that passed the house 399-0. i would ask members to support this amendment, it's fiscally responsible, it's common sense, environmentally the right thing to do as well. i reserve the balance of my time. >> would the gentleman yield?

mr. paulsen: i'm happy to yield. mr. crenshaw: i think it's a good example and we have no objection. mr. paulsen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. paulsen: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14, offered by mr. paulsen of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to hougs resolution 3589, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. paulsen: this would prohibit any funds in the legislative appropriations bill from being used to distribute printed copies of the congressional record to all 435 of the members' offices each time the -- each day the house is in session. oftentimes these copies are thrown into the recycling bin. my amendment would prohibit funds being used to distribute the copies. there are legitimate uses of the congressional record and some offices may require a hard copy, it remains available for pickup for all offices. this is an amendment that's fiscally responsible, environmentally responsible and i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i move to vike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman -- does the gentleman claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. crenshaw: no, i just move to strike the last word. the chaplain: that may not be done on an amendment. mr. crenshaw: i think if you read it carefully, the chairman and ranking member under the rule can move to strike the last word. the chair: on the bill but not the amendment. mr. crenshaw: on the bill. so i can't strike it on the amendment. then i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i don't necessarily oppose the amendment, in fact, i think it's a good amendment. but, i just want to mention a couple of things. i thank him for bringing the amendment to the floor. we're trying to save money. actually, i think a questionnaire was sent out that asked members if they want to receive the congressional record, some people responded, some people didn't respond but i think like the last amendment that he offered, we're just

trying to reduce some of the paper wosh and if people don't want to receive a copy then they don't have to receive a copy. that might help save a little bit of money. so i think on balance, it may create some problems but i think it's probably a good amendment. and i think that i'll be willing to say we accept that amendment. so with that i think mr. honda might want to say a word so i'll yield some time to him. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i too -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i too rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment although i am not opposed. and i figured that i could spend a little time now since i didn't take it on the last one, but as a member who represents silicon valley, i am supportive of most any effort to move us toward becoming a more paperless congress. this amendment is easy to support because the government printing office has already taken steps to reduce its printed copies of the

congressional record and g.p.o. prints documents. for those offices like my own that told g.p.o. they want -- that we want to opt out of having the record delivered to our offices, g.p.o. stopped those deliveries. so i think the gentleman would also be interested in thoughing that 68% of the cost of producing the congressional record is incurred whether copies are printed or not. this is a cost that's created for the electronic. so while i'm not opposed to reviewing how congress does its work, including its document requirement, i think members should spend some time getting to know the agency and i think that this move toward as more paperless congress will start here, it needs to start here, with our own practices and i believe the g.p.o. will

accommodate. again, i support this amendment as it reinforces steps already taken by our g.p.o. and i thank my colleague for presenting this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is agreed to. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-173

offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i thank the chairman. i offer a commonsense, cost effective, environmentally friendly approach to lighting the capitol complex. the amendment states that no funds in the legislative branch appropriations bill may be used to buy, acquire, install or use any compact fluorescent lamp, also known more commonly as a c.f.l. i'm offering this amendment for several reasons. one, there are no compact fluorescent lamps manufactured in the united states. this is a very important point. the c.f.l.'s that provide light for this chamber and the capitol complex are all foreign made. two, c.f.l.'s contain mercury, a known neuro toxin which affects motor and cognitive skills.

if a c.f.l. or mercury bomb as some have called them breaks, the mercury vaper is released, placing those nearby at risk of inhaling the vapors and absorbing mercury through the lungs. the e.p.a., no less, has set up guidelines for the cleanup of broken c.f.l. blubs that includes evacuating the room immediately and venting it for at least 10 minutes. even short-term exposure can potentially cause and quote, memory disturbances, sleep disorders, anger, fatigue and/or hand tremors according to recent studies. three, since congress forced the use of foreign made c.f.l.'s four years ago, american lighting manufacturers have made substantial investments in technology and have retooled their factories to make new l.e.d. and incandescent bulbs which meet the energy efficient standards congress mandated. the best part, these new american made bulbs are mercury-free, energy efficient,

cost effective and provide better lighting than their c.f.l. counterparts. let me say that again. this amendment does not ban energy efficient bulbs from the capitol. on the contrary, they make sure that the energy efficient bulbs that are used are mercury-free and made in america. let's take a closer look at these two bulbs. this c.f.l. is energy efficient by definition. no doubt. this hallucinogen incandescent is also energy efficient. this c.f.l. contains mercury and if it breaks we have to evacuate this chamber. this hallucinogen bulb is mercury free and if it breaks, we get the broom. this c.f.l. is made in a foreign country. this hallucinogen bulb is made in america with technologies created by american ingenuity. this c.f.l. adds to our trade deficit. this hallucinogen bulb supports american manufacturing and american jobs. these are good-paying, family-sustaining jobs and

that's why the united steel workers has been more than happy to lend their support to this amendment. mr. speaker, we can all agree energy-efficient, cost-effective, environmentally friendly and american made is the way to go. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, it's just a bright idea. and with that i -- i can reserve the balance of my time? the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. thompson: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i raise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: mr. chairman, the amendment before us will prohibit the purchase, acquisition, installation or use of any medium compact fluorescent light bulbs. this rehashes the debate on light bulb efficiency status we had during h.r. 2417, the bulb axe, which failed when it was brought to a vote earlier this

month. the impact of this amendment on this bill goes beyond a policy argument on whether or not you support these types of energy saving bulbs. this amendment would prevent members and staff from literally turning on the lights if offices have these bulbs which most do, if not all them. would be prohibited from using them. one reason the folks that support doing away with energy efficient light bulbs cites it as a mercury danger. there's no proof of that. the scarce tack -- the scare tactic is trying to impose fear and is a result of an overblown media report that exaggerated the potential danger. these bulbs are safe, they are already installed and the use of the house and they save taxpayers money and oh, by the way, i believe every thermostat we have in the house has quite a bit of mercury in there. and so with that i urge defeat

of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman and thank the gentleman for laying out his points there. i couldn't disagree more, though. these are a result of those standards that were created in previous congresses, long before i got here. these are energy efficient bulbs that meet the standards today that was set forth by this body. this amendment i'm putting forth is a commonsense amendment that recognizes the innovation of american manufacturers. these folks delivered what congress put out -- when congress put out there for an issue to do and i disagree it comes to mercury. what i quoted you was from the e.p.a. in terms of this if this -- if this bulb was to break in this chamber, we would be forced to evacuate by breaking one bulb. the e.p.a. tells us that a room would have to be evacuated, it would have to be cleared and ventilated.

so that's from the environmental protection agency. these are energy efficient bulbs and this is not the only one, many manufacturers in the united states have rizz tonight challenge of meeting -- have risen to the challenge of meeting those new energy efficiency standards. why would we not recognize and utilize american made bulbs and meet those energy efficiency standards that frankly contain no harmful chemicals in terms of mercury, as opposed to one that -- these bulbs, there's no place in the united states for c.f.l. bulbs are manufactured. this bulb is about foreign jobs. and so i appreciate the gentleman's points, i just couldn't disagree more. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i find it interesting that the example of e.p.a. indicating that this mercury would be a danger and so off the subject, when we talk about e.p.a.

standards and sustaining the e.p.a., i hope that we can be on the same side on that one. and i continue to reserve my time in order to close the debate. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognizesed. mr. thompson: -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: i will yield, yes. >> i nouveau the two light bulbs there. the one on the right, that's the one that's got mercury in it. mr. thompson: that's correct. mr. crenshaw: the one on your left, that's made in america. and that's just as efficient as the one in your right hand? mr. thompson: it meets the efficiency standards that our manufacturers, when those were set by previous congresses, before my time here, our manufacturers, they stepped to the plate and they rose up and they chose to use innovation in their manufacturing and this is one example of one product that is absolutely energy efficient, no mercury and american made. mr. crenshaw: and you can still buy those at the store? mr. thompson: that's correct. mr. crenshaw: do i have one concern. i think if -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crenshaw: thank you.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. the utilization of what you call the curley queue and the other light bulb, the i guess the question would remain, in term of efficiency and sustainability , how long of a lifetime does what you call a curley q light bulb have versus the other stpwhun it seems to me when i'm a shopper and i look at prices and look at the number of hours that it's going to be out there, the number of hours that the newer bulbs have exceed anything i have seen before. mr. thompson: will the gentleman yield so i can answer that question? mr. honda: yes. let me finish here. i just want to make sure that we don't confuse what we call efficiency with sustainability. i think sustainability is also a piece that we should be looking at and the production of it i

think is important and i don't fight you on a point that we should make more stuff here. we should and we will and i think that there are more products in those and places that exhibit that we are making more of that here. so i will yield to you and -- mr. thompson: sure. i agree with the gentleman. return of investment for consumers is important. in my experience with these bulbs, frankly, their durability is excellent and that is one of the things i think that innovation with our light bulb manufacturers has addressed. not just energy efficiency, but also durability. so that we have a bulb, an american made product that has a great return on investment for our consumers. that's all important. i couldn't agree with you more. i yield back. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. am i able to close at this point? the chair: the gentleman is able

to close. mr. honda: thank you. the wording of the gentleman's amendment says none of the funs made available in this act may be used to purchase, acquire or use any of these lights and it also -- the argument is about whether we can continue to purchase or are we just going to allow these bulbs that we have in place to stay in place and not be removed and so i think that one is confusing, two, i'm not sure that we're going to really attain this position of efficiency an sustainability under this amendment that is presented here and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. honda: i would have -- ask for a roll call vote. recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 11-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. hanna: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. hanna of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. hanna: thank you, mr. speaker. right now our nation is seriously debating its fiscal future. we're making tough decisions to get spending under control. . this spending bill allows us an opportunity to practice what we preach when it comes to excessive spending on the taxpayer dime. my amendment is quite simple.

it states that the c.a.o. may not make m.r.a. payments for the leasing of a vehicle in an amendment that exceeds $1,000 per month. it applies only to individual member office accounts and would not affect the capitol police or other legislative agencies, it would not affect periodic car rentals and not the intention of the amendment to affect mobile offices. this is about preventing the leasing of expensive luxury cars. there is no cap on how much members can spend on li ca the only requirement is that cars meet certain fuel standards. this amendment has a $1,000 monthly cap. members of congress have two-year terms which could require a short-term lease. this amendment accounts for that.

i believe the majority of this body and most americans can agree that $1,000 a month for a car is more than reasonable. we do not need to be spending the taxpayers' dollars leasing expensive luxury vehicles and certainly not during these tough economic times. i would also note that the senate does not offer any car leasing whatsoever. if senators can go without car leases, members of the people's house can get by without expensive cars. spending taxpayer dollars sends the wrong message and serves to further erode our constituents' faith in us, their elected representatives. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield? mr. crenshaw: i think that's a

good amendment and i think some of the people that are concerned about the reduction in the m.r.a., then they won't have to worry about the extra $1,000 they were going to spend on leasing a car because they won't be able to do that any more under your amendment. so we have no objection and accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. who seeks time in opposition? mr. honda: i have no objection, but just quick a comment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. honda: they should consider making this a permanent change rather than having the appropriations committee carry this temporary fix. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is -- the gentleman from new york is recognized. ms. hanabusa: i yield back.

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i ask that the committee rise. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2551 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2551 and has come to no

resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during consideration of h.r. 2551, pursuant to house resolution 359, the following amendments be permitted to be offered out of the specified order. amendment 10 by mr. flake and amendment 11 by fl flake. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 359 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house in the state of the state of the union in further consideration of h.r. 2551. will the gentleman from gentleman -- georgia kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2551. the clerk: bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal year september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: amendment number 16 printed in house report 112-173 by the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, had been disposed of. pursuant to the house today it is in order to consider amendment number 10. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition. mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. flake of arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would require that all mail sent by members, committees and leadership offices be on the official letter hep ofhead. this would not prevent mass mailings. the intent of the amendment is to prohibit the use of four color glossy mailers that members occasionally send and are paid for at taxpayer expense. they are virtually undistinguishable at times from campaign mailers. if i were to hold up an example of frank mail with a little disclaimer saying paid for at taxpayer expense, four-color, glossy, with the member standing there typically, you would not be able to tell the difference unless you looked very, very closely between that and

campaign mailers that are september out and paid for at the campaign expense. and i think that in this era, particularly given the budget constraints we are under for members of congress to be sending out what is essentially campaign mail at taxpayer expense should be forbidden. we have certain rules that even prohibit the mailing of these mailers within 90 days of an election. we recognize that these are essentially instruments of a campaign. yet, we allow it before 90 days. and i would say that we are already drawing a line that line is drawn in the wrong place. we should prohibit these four-color glossy mailers that are being sent out at the taxpayer expense. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek

recognition? mr. crenshaw: i yield myself such time as i might consume. what are we going to do about three-color mailers, how about two-color mailers. i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do and we have rules and regulations in this house, but i don't think we ought to micromanage these accounts and reduced them by 6.4% and people have said gee, i might have to lay off somebody or now, we learn that since you can lease a car, they might have to give up the lease on their car. people say, i love to send out mail. and whether they send out mail on their letterhead that might cost more than a post card. it's a little bit cheaper because it wasn't printed on special paper.

as long as the members comply with the rules of this house, if they want to spend more money on a more attractive piece of mail that people might very well read, they ought to be free to do that. if they want to print it on official station ner in blue or black or whatever they want to use, they ought to be able to do that. if you put a picture or chart, people might pay more attention. if you look at the rules of this house, we have rules and regular layings how big the charts and pictures can be because i think the point is that we want to communicate with our constituents. we want to mail them a newsletter and ought to be able to do that and in a way they would like to read it. i don't think we ought to get in the business of telling the members exactly what they can do

and what color it is, i think the rules of this house provide adequate protection so i have to oppose my good friend's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: three minutes remaining. mr. flake: i would say in response the gentleman says we shouldn't be in the business of telling members, but we already are in that business. we have a line drawn. 90 days before an election and say you can't mail out these brochures after 90 days because it would be seen and perceived as electioneering. we have words that can describe the medicare benefit or some bill that has been passed. if you use it in one way, we

shouldn't be in that business. and we wouldn't be in that business if we just said hey, don't do that at taxpayer expense. we all know, believe me, when you see those, that is a campaign mailer at taxpayer expense. we aren't fooling anybody by saying we have rules that prohibit it. let's stick to the rules of the house. we have lines that are drawn, but just drawn in the wrong place. and i can tell you nothing feeds the sin sism around the country about us when they get the mailers paid for at taxpayer expense. during the 2010 fiscal appropriations process, it was noted that the chief fiscal officer which fund everything to run offices including salaries, travel and supplies by $90

million citing increases due to the election year cycle. why would it be any more expensive than any other? members are rushed to get those out before the 90-day deadline. anything over 500 is prohibited so members send 499. we know it. we aren't fooling anybody. we ought to draw the line back a bit so we don't feed this around the country that say incumbents have advantages that challengers don't. and that's the truth. speaking here as an incumbent we have enough advantages believe me. we can get on television whenever we want and stand here late at night and offer amendments and get our mug on television all we want to. we shouldn't have the advantage of sending out glossy mailers at taxpayer expense.

that's what this amendment is about. and i urge adoption of it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i'm going to yield some time to mr. honda. but i can't help but realize that you can't mail mass mailings whether they are black and white or color. so i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do but he isn't going to stop people from sending out newsletters. once again, this doesn't save any money. i just think clearly members have these m.r.a.'s and utilize the money to communicate the best way they can as long as they comply the with the rules. i yield one minute to mr. honda. mr. honda: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. honda: this amendment would prevent mailings. the committee on house administration handles franking, not one individual member who has decided he does not like the mailing of some other members. what the gentleman is trying to prevent is eligible amendment under franking guidelines. he is now a member of the majority party and should ask his majority to change the franking regulations if he has a problem. and i do not believe one member should dictate how another member communicates with his or her constituents. i oppose the amendment on the grounds that the gentleman from arizona is impeding on individual member's choices on how they communicate with their constituents. the committee on house administration has all those guidelines and the guidelines sometimes make my job a little tight but there is a purpose for the guidelines that they give us

and that is to distinguish between campaign and making sure there are time lines. so i appreciate his efforts, but i still oppose it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to the order of the house today it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a

member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. this amendment would prohibit members from purchasing online advertisements that link to a website that is maintained by their m.r.a. the appropriation bill we fund for other purposes the legislative branch or this appropriation bill will fund the branch through most of the next election cycle. we all know, as i said before, that incumbents tend to have a natural advantage over challengers in elections. 98% of incumbents are typically re-elected and that's largely cue to the benefits that we currently have. we shouldn't -- due to the benefits that we currently have. we shouldn't try to make those better than they are naturally. members are allowed to use funds in order to designate and maintain an official website through house.gov. that is perfectly appropriate and i'm glad we're able to do that. we all have our house.gov websites that we maintain using our funds and that should be -- people should be able to contact their members of congress and

that's the easiest way to contact us at this point. members are also allowed to maintain various profiles on social networking sites like facebook, twitter, google plus and any of the once that -- ones that will be created in the future. aside from the salaries and expenses for member, staff and computers, maintaining a social networking profile doesn't cost anything for the taxpayers. however, some tax -- i'm sorry, some member have been using official funds to pay for ads that link either to their official website or to one of their social networking profiles. i would submit that while it may serve other purposes by its very nature purchasing advertising provides a member an opportunity for promotion that facilitates greater name identification, is not broadening name recognition identification a classic responsibility of a member's campaign activities? if there is even a chance the taxpayer money on online ads

could be viewed by members as promoting themselves for campaign purposes, we should not allow it. especially now that we're in this budget crisis. we shouldn't be allowing members to use their m.r.a. or taxpayer money to purchase advertising to drive people to their official sites or their social networking sites. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, this is similar to the last amendment . members have an m.r.a., they can spend the money as long as it's under the rules of the house. they can hire staff, they can travel back and forth to their districts, they can send out letters and now that we have the internet you can use the internet to communicate with your constituents. and we shouldn't prohibit

communication from a member to a constituent. certainly no one believes that you ought to be able to use taxpayer dollars to buy political advertising but i think the rule allows a member to notify constituents of a town meeting coming up, they can send out a postcard, can send out a four-colored flyer, can send oit a letter on his letter-- can send out a letter on his letterhead. if a member wants to announce that they're seeking applications for appointments to military academies, then they can notify people by mail, they can notify people on the internet. so i think we have adequate rules and regulations that make sure that we're not abusing the taxpayers' dollars and remember these are dollars that are provided to the members and so when you micromanage how they're going to spend them it doesn't save any money, it just adds a layer of us on the members, telling them how they can do what they need and -- need to do

and that's now -- what they can do and that's not our business. i urge we defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i would simply say in response that we already have lines that we've drawn. we don't allow members simply to advertise out on the internet like a campaign would, that's paid for by campaign activities, not by taxpayer dollars. yet this is something that's grown and evolved just over the past couple of years, the ability to buy advertisements that drive people to your website. and so this isn't something we could have for seen 10 years ago or whatever, -- foreseen 10 years ago or whatever, it's just evolved and we need to bring our regulations in line with current technology and i would submit that buying online advertising to basically increase your name identification should be beyond what our official money should be used for. there are plenty of ways that members can announce town halls or service seminars or any other official event that they need to

host without buying online advertising with taxpayer dollars. that's what this amendment is about. the gentleman before brought up a point, why don't we take this kind of thing thing to the franking commission or to the administration of the house and say, let's change the rules, rather than doing it here. i can tell you why. typically things are -- there's a partisan environment against spending or against this or against that, you have some kind of debate. but in this case republicans and democrats work together to protect incumbents because we're all incumbents here and unless you can let the public know what's going on in a form like this that you don't get when you just go to the franking commission you're not going to get change and i can tell you that sending out four-colored glozzy bro chures as i mentioned in this amendment or -- brochures as i mentioned in this amendment or here does not pass

the smell test or the laugh test outside the beltway in terms of what taxpayer money should be spent on. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to yield one minute to mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would prevent mens from purchasing advertise -- prevent members from advertising hyperlinks to their website. it's unclear what the gentleman from arizona is attempting to do. his amendment seems to sanction the advertisement as long as the link is to a nonofficial website of a member. but why would a member link an advertisement highlighting official events to his or her facebook page instead of their house website? this amendment also could be more expensive, members have to put more information in the ads rather than link it to their house website. so while the member -- the

gentleman focuses onion line advertisement, his amendment pertains to all advertisements. it's not clear if this amendment would be interpreted to prevent members from showing their website link on television ads that are used to inform constituents of official events. these advertisements are sanctioned by house administration, there are seven points that we have to follow. so i would say that this amendment is not clear in its scope and impact and it's in contravention of the majority's guideline on how members can use their funning and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, just finally to say, it was pointed out that technologies advanced and i think the house has stayed current in 2009, the rules were modified to make sure that these franking rules, these rules that govern communication apply to the internet as well. so we have adequate safeguards in place and so we don't need to

be micromanaging that, we let the rules of the house prevail. i urge a no vote. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, not -- the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2551 directs me to report it has come to no resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee on the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2551 and has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon -- has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. griffith of virginia for today, mr. tim bishop of new york until 3:30 p.m. today, and mr. ellison of minnesota for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

>> this lending of space shuttle -- the landing of space shuttle atlantis. at the house, the makeup of the newly created consumer financial bureau. shuttle program came to

an end today. atlantis spent 30 days in orbit on a mission to the international space station. after the landing, we would hear from the administrator. >> the pre-flare maneuver executed.

landing down and locked. main gear touchdown. no deploying the drag shoot. rotating the nose gear down to the deck. nose gear touchdown. having fired the imagination, the place in history secured, it pulls into port for the first time, the voyage at an end.

>> mission complete, a houston. we settle on the place in history. >> we will take this opportunity to congratulate you. there are individuals against this nation. it empowers this incredible spacecraft. for three decades, it has inspired millions around the globe. job well done, america. >> great words. >> we had a motion today. america is not plan to stop the

jig is not going to stop discovering. -- america is not going to stop discovering. thank you. bob bless all of you. god bless the united states of america. >> we have one more step here to do. hopefully, we can get through this. i would like to take this opportunity to pass on a few words. time the teamsting t will be together. it has been my extreme privilege and honor to work with each one of you and be part of this outstanding team of individuals assetproud of the work they do r to be should take proud. the you are the main reason for the success of the space shuttle program. 30 years ago, and the dream had

just begun. as it touched down, they had acceleration. this is a moment in the history books. we will talk about the amazing work of the flight control teams. the work will never again be duplicated. i believe the shuttle program will become the next group of giants for the future programs to stand on. hold your head up high with pride. you have earned it. savor the moment. soak it in. you are the best in the world. your work here has made america and the world a better place.

godspeed. >> why don't you bring them all in here. we will watch the crew. >> signing up for the final tonight. this comes to control. of the vehicle, for the final time.

the astronauts are being greeted by hard administration. >> john shannon from houston. our launch vehicles.

aunchke, our l director. mike moses. there is our deputy administrator.

>> they were close. ihe is getting his picture made. it is the space alliance.

>> this is the crew back home. i want to salute everyone knew has been involved. it has been a third year journey that has been incredible. all of us stand on the shoulders of some giants. they have become to be known as the final four. they have done an incredible job. they were like resources. they made is very proud. -- race horses. they made us very proud. they should feel incredibly proud of what you did. like me, if they got an

opportunity to do it. we of gratitude for degree of gratitude to pokes around the country who made this possible. -- we all gratitude to people around the country who made this possible. the things that we have done have set up for inspiration for the future. i want to salute this crew and let them know how proud we are. >> thank you. we really appreciate those remarks. flying in space is a real dream. it has a lot more to do with who you do it with them what you do.

a commander cannot ask for three better people to go and perform this. there is a historic mission. there is a lot paid to this. it brings to a final close 30 years a space shuttle history. i will say that we were honored to be a part of this. we sure hope that everybody who has ever worked or in deeds or admired a space shuttle was able to take a journey with us. we will put atlantis and a museum now. hopefully, i want that picture

of a young boy looking up at a space shuttle. i wanted to say, daddy, i want to do something like that when i grow up. if we take those steps right now and they continue, i consider our job here complete. on behalf of the coo, thank you so much for the time and attention. thank you for this fantastic vehicle. it performed wonderfully. this opened up a little bit. everything is wonderful. the vehicle is great. thank you very much. >> excuse us.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> there they go.

>> good morning. welcome to our news conference. we are being joined by the associate administrator. the kennedy space center director. we will open up with comments from the panel. >> thank you. i really want to thank the space shuttle team and program. i cannot say enough about the team and how great a job they have done. we gave them a tormented challenge to execute these

missions. the team accomplished every one of those objectives. they did a tremendous job. it is one of the cleaner vehicles i have seen. the bottom looked excellent. it was very smooth. everything looked flawlessly. with all the distractions and problems, they stayed focused. delivered a quality and to the program. i want to thank the nation for allowing this 30 minutes to do this system. this would be a tremendous vehicle. i looked at this vehicle. i thought about all the systems

and when they were designed. it was a true marvel looking at that machine. it allowed us to do amazing things. this is the next step. in the next is the space station. we put it in the best posture that we can. we get a chance to see if space can be that research facility that we need. we can learn new things. we will continue on with that. we need to get on with our plans. we need to get some good ideas. the change is very hard. huge improvement can change.

this team can accomplish anything. i know they can accomplish great things in the future individually and as a team. i wish them the best as they go forward. they should be proud of where they have been. they will be successful in the future. thank you. . .

>> they performed flawlessly right up to the very end. with high morale and dedicated to the work they are doing. and that's the kind of workers we have at kfc, and i have extreme pride and pleased to be part of the program this time in history. and as bill said, we have achieved that goal now. and we have safely flown the shuttle, and we'll take pride in that and celebrate. we say team and pause a little bit and allow folks to get pictures with the vehicle in the background. and celebrate what we have accomplished these past 30 years with the space shuttle program and specifically this last mission.

but when that's complete, it's time to focus to the future. and as bill said you can't continue to do the same things, you have to have change. and in the times we cannot afford to fly the space shuttle and work on those future programs. and now we will take this extremely talented and dedicated team that has been focused on the space shuttle program. and focus a lot of energy for kfc and nasa and the nation. and we will crew space stations and work on that heavy vehicle that allows us to explore beyond our home planet. and as you know the crew vehicle that is named ryan and the first arrived here to be processed on the high bay.

we will focus what we need to do to prepare the launch site, the facilities here and the commission space and to get us that big rocket that allows us to go exploring beyond our home planet. today is a great day to celebrate, and there are high emotions, highs and lows, to say good-bye. and to take pride in what we accomplished. thanks. >> well, it's been a heck of a day. and a heck of a program. i personally same sentiments, very proud to be here representing the space shuttle program and the thousands of people across the country. the kennedy's team did an amazing job, you saw this vehicle perform almost flawlessly. and to stock up the mission for the future.

and in houston the mission control team is first class, none better for the plan. and in addition to all the station support controllers and the engineering staff, the johnson space center. and our friends that helped to get us in orbit and worked flawlessly and doing fantastic in the home stretch. allowing us to do what we are talking about, finishing strong and keeping on the target. when you look back the shuttle program racked up quite a history. in quick math we did 1300 days in orbit, and that's about 43 months of time in space. and for a vehicle built 30 years ago whose purpose was to build the station, it's quite a feat.

and hopefully you saw the station program, and i don't know how much we owed them for doing that, but it was picture perfect. hearing the sonic booms as atlantis came home and made it drive home to me, this has been a heck of a program. and i can't put into words my feelings, and not just hungry and tired, but it's been a nice ride. and i can't say anything else without blabbering on. pass to mike. >> thank you, and i want to thank the county space center. i have worked here all my career, 27 years, and you get to know the folks and them all.

and those folks on the runway have done a great job and it was a marvel to see. and i know i sound like a broken record but the feelings from myself and other guys are true feelings. the workers here and the space program dedicate their lives and hearts and souls. and i couldn't be more proud of them. and secondly, i would like to thank you all, members of the press, you have become family members, and some go way back, jay in particular. and you have been there. good day, program is over. mission complete. everyone feels good to get the crew home safely and looking forward to the new challenges. >> ok, we will take questions, wait for the microphone, and state your name and affiliation.

marsha dunn. >> when was the most emotional point for you this morning, seeing the shuttle? walking up to it? hearing the booms? could you share your sentiments? >> there are several, marsha, going for the burn and knowing that this mission was coming to an end. i found myself taking in the beauty of the vehicle, standing back and taking pictures. and taking pictures of the workers and them asking for a picture with me. and it was just a family event out there today. hard to describe the emotions. there were good emotions that we brought the crew home safely, and mission is complete. certainly sadness it's over and people will be moving on and hate to see them leave.

but that's a reality. i saw grown men and women crying today. tears of joy. to be sure. and that was just human emotions came out on the runway today. and you couldn't surpress them. >> jay. >> jay barber with nbc, bill, the question today is really we are celebrating but when will astronauts lift off and we have had 66 and with the spacecraft and haven't got approval from nasa. and if boeing has a shot with their cst-100 to put astronauts

into space and what is your thinking about that. and for mr. cabana, the old guys took a vote among ourselves today, and we decided that the two mikes you have are the best you can find. and if you mess with them, we will have it talk to you. >> ok, 20 bucks? >> 25. >> well, i agree. >> first of all, in terms of the combination of the c 2, which is the demonstration flight where we will be close to the space station with the dragon capsule and then go and be picked up and berth the station. and we agreed that we want to combine those flights. but we haven't given them formal approval and to look at the analysis of what that criteria

is. and there is some details of the flight design we would like to get through. and some analysis to work with their software systems and to look at the robustness. overall we want to get to cargo delivery as fast as we can, and if combining those two flights is to best way to get cargo to iss and the fastest possible. if there is a lot of work to do, you may gain something by splitting into two missions, and you have knowledge and apply that knowledge to the next mission that follows. we are trying to decide what the right next step is and the capsule is designed that way and the software. and we are waiting to see if this is the right way to move forward. we are working aggressively with

reviews and internal reviews with nasa to get that activity. there may not be a crisp date, it may be august or september, and we will try to get enough runs to say we are heading that way. but we are looking at those missions being combined. the next question is about commercial crew. again i think there is a lot of work to be done there. there was a meeting held yesterday to talk about commercial crew activities. we are in the middle of commercial crew development ii, that is a series of tests. and we will continue to work through that and look at contracts or space acts to continue that activity. we think that culminates sometimes in a flight 2016, or

2020 time frame. that's a lot of technical crew and look to that time frame, mid-2015, 2016, and see americans launch from the kennedy space center and to see the cargo station and get those easier steps and then up to the demanding task of flying crew. >> heavy lift announcement. >> heavy lift announcement, we have worked technical administration, and we are working through the budgeting estimates associated with that. we have to show folk that is we have a viable, credible plan to do that. we are spend egging -- spending a lot of time in washington for the plan, and it's our recommendation of how we want to proceed. when we get them to understand our budget assessments.

and an individual cost assessment by a corporation. and look at the way we put together the pieces and see if that's the right way to move forward. and maybe in the august time frame that activity is complete. and maybe talk more formally what is there for heavy lift. we have strong technical program and we have benefits but we want others to review that for it to be right before we officially announce it. >> august? >> i don't know. >> ok. >> clara. >> hi, clara with space.com, and it's a question for anyone what would like to answer. and i know that you were focused on completing the mission and the program. and i wonder how much you had to push aside some emotions and how much they have come to hate you now that, that work is done.

>> for me it was kind of like that after launch a big wave of emotion went past. and in little places it would bubble up in the mission. fergie did a fantastic job of congratulating folks and maybe he would read something some of you may written and pulled on a string. it was everyday where there was an instance something would happen. yesterday we got the word that the empire state building would light up red, white and blue, and that's going on constantly. and i expect by the time i get home it will come back. and now it's the crew and that went well. and to go to the opm and hang out with my friends at the

kennedy space center. and wish them well, a big number of them are heading out tomorrow. and i think it will keep going for a while, the emotions. >> one more question on this side of the room. anyone else want to respond to that? ok, sorry. >> good afternoon, francisco, the question is for mr. cabana, and thank you for your hospitality and the spanish speaking reporters and everyone in the center has treated us tremendously and we appreciate your hospitality, sir. mexico and a lot of countrys in latin america are starting to have space agencies of their own, and mexico would have something similar to cape canaveral and have the launching site.

and for nasa to change in this era to more commercial launching. and i wonder if mexico is one of your targets, and if so, when would you launch a site that you would use in the future. that's one part. and the second part of the question, there is a gap between launch, space vehicles, sorry, we didn't have one, apollo ending in 1972 and the same time that the space shuttle was arufd. -- approved. do you think that nasa could be more assertive with the budget or assertive and aggressive with them for the funding of the world's most important space agency, sir. >> first off the kennedy space center doesn't make any international agreements, and

any work with other partner nations or international operations come the -- comes out of headquarters. so i wouldn't be involved. from a point of view of gaps, yes if you look back, yes, we would build shuttle. and we flew in 1981, and we were scheduled to fly in 1978, and a three year gap there and you say we don't have a vehicle to fly on. i know of four vehicles far competing right now trying to be designed to fly americans in space. and some are further along than others. getting the critical design reviews. so i believe we do have a plan to get folks to lower orbit. but we have to be sure that we enable it and make it happen,

from heavy lift point of view. we have defined the ryan spacecraft and we are building that and it's very far along in its testing. so i think we have the vehicles more or less defined. and now we have to follow through on our plan to make it work to get them flying. >> the gentleman on the front row. >> hi, evan brown, fox news radio, for anyone who would like to take it. if someone came to you in april, 1981, and said you are going to fly these for 30 years and launch and build this space station. would you tell them they are crazy? or think yeah, that's what we are going to do. >> well, i will answer that part way. i think back then that folks had great visions for this space

shuttle. and i think a space station was part of those visions. that was the main reason to have a shuttle to go to a space station. it took a while, and if you look back while, they were looking at one in 1984. it took a time for the final design. and the russian cooperation part may be different in 1981. but again it shows how things change. and how valuable the space shuttle is. when you consider and look at the united states astronaut core and that happened because of the shuttle. pretty amazing. folks had plans for the shuttle

and it worked well. >> and bob said it right, and there were moments and those were my most cherished in mission control and you were handed a payload. and we are going to do what? put this hundred foot boom over the side and with a radar antennae and that went perfect and we got the space mapper mission. and that's the challenge of this program, around the corner is something different and a new challenge. and you incorporate some new payload. the station when we first started wasn't going to be as big or intense. and self assembly with robotics and figured out we ready to do that. everything that we learned of this program was amazing.

the vision was there in the beginning, and the folks would look at that now and how mature that vision became. >> and real quick, it's not just the hardware, it's the ingenuity and the people and the team that made something happen and different than what we intended. look at all the problems of the space shuttle and how we solved them. and on orbit and rescuing satellit satellites. and the team is what it makes what it is. and that's why i am so confident about our future. we still have this outstanding, amazing team that is going to make it happen. >> and i would say the same kind of thing. as we reflect today, we want to have a perfect plan for the future. we want to do x, y and z, and all of these things. that's not so important in my

mind, you won't achieve those in the precise order and timing. but if you take that step and you go with the right bigger vision and the right agility and you challenge this vision, you can accomplish amazing things and exceed what you intended to beginning with. in the research field the big break through doesn't come from the steps but from someone observing something they didn't intend to see. and that human is smart enough to pull off that data and that advances the next steps. and did this achieve all we planned? no, but look at what it enabled. and now the next program don't try to justify every penny that goes into it. get that ingenuity out there and challenge and really push and you don't know where this country and these people pulling together can accomplish and what

they can do. >> craig. >> thanks, it's craig with aerospace america. bill on your comment about technical reservations for the heavy lift. can you characterize where locks rp-1 development falls in a power plant for the heavy lift? >> yeah, again until the plan is really approved, it's probably premature for we talk about the specifics and details. but we have an approach that tries to leverage off what we have today. and allows for new technology to get entered in at the right time and move forward. we are not ruling out locks rp

for some aspects of this thing. we think there is potential there. but the idea of how you let competition or ingenuity drive those pieces. we have a framework from that process. i can't say more before that approval. but that's the basic concept. not to discount what we have in the past, but to use it to make sense. and to give growth path to use new technology if it's really there and mature to move forward. >> robert. >> hi, robert, for a question with anyone who wants to take it. i realize the shuttle program or flight is only hours over. but trying to put the program into a perspective of human space flight legacy. i wonder if you feel that the shuttle will be appreciated for

what it has done, what it did do. or whether, like gemini has in between mercury and apollo, it will become the unsung workhorse of getting us to that next step. that is now exploration beyond lower er-- orbit. >> i will go first, i can't see how the shuttle can't be recognized for the outstanding vehicle it is. it allowed us to learn and work in space. look at the eva's, we have done so many things with the shuttle that wouldn't have been done otherwise. it's what enabled us to say, all right, we have to focus beyond earth. we learned about lower orbit and we have more to learn about deep space. we have a space station there as

a result of the shuttle. that has to be one of the shuttle's crowning achievements, that world class laboratory. and now we have to utilize it. and i think that the space shuttle will be recognized for that. >> and in the past too, was the shuttle worth the cost. and my response was, it was absolutely worth the cost. but not from a monetary perspective but from evolutionary perspective of the space program. what i believe we need to do as humans is go colonize elsewhere eventually. and as bob said it was a natural step in that process. and the shuttle was the right vehicle for that and it performed extremely well. so it's an evolutionary step, and we are about to take the next steps. and i believe we need to have a vision as a being, and that

eventually we need to colonize elsewhere. and that needs to be our vision and enable that in the next decades, obviously, centuries. but the shuttle will always be looked back upon as the next logical step after apollo, and to go to the next step after shuttle. >> mark, we have been talking about change, and i got a think back to look forward question. what advice 20 years ago would have been nice to have to prepare you for the changes today? >> well, gosh, change as managers, we have all been through a lot of management courses. and one thing that comes across is the process of change. and there are four phases of change; right. it doesn't matter what the change is, any major change you

go through four stages. it's denial. anger, exploration and acceptance. and we all have been through that in the shuttle program. and we accepted the fact that it's over. if we look back a number of years, four or five years, and we knew that the end was coming. i believe that the workforce has handled that change well. we were given that time to accept that change. the finality of, it's over and we accept that. and given the fact that that's in a focused way, i think helped the people deal with that. and i heard nothing but pride out on the runway today. when you talked to the people and the hugs and pats. and the pride of this amazing program and history, no one can take that away from us. over the last three or four

years, we concentrated on completing the job. and we have done that successfully, and we is a lot of pride in that and no one can take that away. >> james. >> i was going to ask one of fergie's comments in an interview, and we needed to go through a moment, like being at a wake, to get through that grief and the acceptance and all that. i wondered if you felt like is what is going on today. as we see the tow back and the celebration. >> certainly, those processes are coming into play today. but this is a machine we have to retire. it's a program that is over. it's not as traumatic as people

think it is. i have been a lot more traumatic things in my life. and these guys have been through more traumatic things in their life, and you have too. this is the end of the program and people move on and do well. it's the loss of something that is important, that is important to us. but nothing like the loss of a family member. it's important but it's not the end of the world. the sun will rise again tomorrow. >> back over here. >> donna from u.s.a. today, this is for someone who wants to answer it. looking at a non-shuttle program right now, what is going on in nasa makes you excited? what do you think the general public should be interested in when they look at nasa programs? until you start going to mars. >> i will start real quick, we

got three awesome science missions. june through august 5, grale to the moon, and i was looking at the mars science lab, the rover going through its final testing before it's packed up. to send something the size of a car to the surface of mars to explore for at least two years. that's exciting. to have a rover with that capability and not to mention the way it's getting delivered to mars. this is great stuff. people should have been excited about it, it's the precursor to send robots to explore and learn for the future. >> i would say we got to see it today, nine minutes before landing, this white dot went over the horizon. that's a 900-pound research facility in space, with 6

international folks living in space doing research. now that's not easy. because that little white dot it's hard to see the solar rays and hard to see the football field and we will have to collect the way we talk about it differently. it's easy to see a launch and feel it and internalize it yourself. but that research activity of what we are doing is the first steps to go beyond lower orbit or to colonize beyond the earth, as mike described. that is the next phase. and how do we as the people talk about that in a way to relate to everyday folks so they understand what the potential of that research facility. and that's the collective challenge, how do you make that connection. how do you make that white dot real as exciting as a launch you see or a landing you see nine

minutes later. >> jay. >> jay with nbc, bill, if i wrote tonight that your heavy lift coming up. now i realize that you cannot answer that and i respect that. but if i wrote that your heavy lift would use the current tank and j-2 to go into space. and it would be built in a fashion that could be updated throughout the coming years with better systems or newer or better technology. rather than fixed in that position. would you have much argument with that? >> the answer is yes, it has pieces of those and not the way you described it.

we have to be careful. let us get through the process and have folks review it and see where we are. but that's a little too clean and crisp and it's a little more complex than what you described. so the simple answer is no. >> ok, i got a lot more than i had. >> in the green shirt. >> hi, curtis with st. petersburg times. you mentioned pride in the workforce and the space shuttle with the american flag and the nasa meat ball on it, how should your view change and how should the nation make of it when the next vehicle that flies is commercial vehicles here at kennedy? >> well, i assume those commercial vehicles are built here in the united states, and still have an american flag and support nasa missions. i think we should take great

pride that we are expanding the envelope and trying to open up space to everyone. it's going to take a lot of work. and not happen over night. but american rockets and american crews to space. they ought to have a lot of pride in that. >> we will wrap it up with a question from robert pearlman. >> i asked some of the other shuttle team members this question back in houston. there is one more shuttle still flying, albeit it's quite small. the shuttle model left on the international space station that you and others signed. can you share what that means to you and your role of having your signature on it? >> i was completely honored to be asked to sign that. and i signed it i signed on behalf of the team at the space

center. a little of everyone is on that and that means a lot and something we can retrieve some day. there is a little bit of everyone on the space station now, it feels good. >> we are going to close things, atlantis is being towed back and you will get to watch the next kennedy activity on nasa television. once again thank you very much very coming and have a great day. >> hello everyone. >> how are you doing? [applause] it's ok, you can applaud. >> this will confuse everyone.

>> good afternoon, everyone, this is our sts-1:35 post news conference with alatlantis' astronauts. >> hello, to be here in florida, the weather was perfect today. and the question we will have in mind, are we going to end up in florida or california. the launch director said, you may not go to california. so we had to go back to florida and the weather cooperated and we had a nice landing. and to my left, maggie was the

chief load master and had to haul the heavy stuff. she did everything from robotics to takes care of us on the main deck. she was a tremendous asset. >> we knew the mission would be incredibly busy when we started. we got tons of help from the space station crew and with all the work that these guys did, we got that cargo transferred and more cargo transferred back. it was such a pleasure to be on the space station, it's a wonderful, magnificent place, and felt like i never left. and on my left is will that is our guru and he was on the

camera everyday practically, and it's been fun flying with rex. we are classmates and to share this experience with him. >> what transfer i did, what sandy said. and that's pretty much all we what we did. it was a tremendous experience and pretty busy as sandy said. and i want to say what an honor to be a part of the space program. i started 20 years ago and i have loved every minute to be a part of the space program. it's such an honor and it runs in the blood. when you talk to people here at the kennedy space center and johnson space center, it runs into the blood. we know it's time to transition but we will cherish every minute of it. i want it thank the folks that helped us on the ground, at the

kennedy space center for the launch, and to control the wonderful landing and the other space flights that helped during the mission. and on my left is pilot doug herly, doug was the chief of the great flyer you saw. i am sure it looked pretty and you saw pictures of it. and he was calm as a cucumber, and he ran the show and he did a great job. with that, doug. >> thanks rex. i don't know what else to say, other than we are glad to be back in florida. it felt like a two-month mission crammed into 13 days. we ran from dawn to dusk, l literally up there, and i think that we left the station better

than we got it. and fergie never gets introduced other than the commander. but he's the glue that kept us together headed into the same direction. i think almost surreal from start to finish experience. and i don't think anyone of you appreciate the demands and pressures and e-mails that only chris gets that he dealt with. and there was no indication positive or negative to the rest of us. and he kept us going in the right direction. we can't say enough about sandy, but we also can't say enough about chris. he was a great guy to work for. and i would like to do it with him again, sooner than later. >> thanks. >> all right with that, we will take questions. be sure to give your name and affiliation when the microphone comes to you. and start in the front with

marsha. >> marsha from the associated press. we heard from mike that tears were flying on the runway and i would like to know if tears were in the cockpit and what were those emotions? >> i would say that we each got choked up on different times of the mission. it's funny there are certain times you do nothing but concentrate. and you can't feel the historic nature. for instance, when doug was doing the un-docking and it was dark and i sat back to be more detached for the first time. and when the crew said, atlantis is departing and that choked me up. and it depended on what your job was, and there were times to take the big picture and it would get to you. >> peter. >> good afternoon, peter king

with cbs news radio, and thanks for answering the same questions hundreds of time. and to look ahead and when we interview gene as the last man to walk on the moon, and in 10 years where do you think we will be, not where you hope we will be, but where you think we will number terms of space and flight and exploration? >> that's a great question, peter, i know where i hope we will be. as to where i think we will be. given everyday i know today, i think we will transverse back and forth in lower orbit. with one of the vehicles now. and i think we will have people spending short or long periods of time in orbit.

who have paid for a trip there. you know, i don't think it's too much unlike the airlines. you recall that the whole aviation industry got started with naka. they designed air foils, they enabled aviation to take off. and nasa has really laid the foundation for commercial space flight to take off. i think in 10 years we will see that. i think we will be on the verge, if not have already launched a heavy lift vehicle. nasa has developed and designed heavy lift vehicle with the intent to leave lower orbit. and that's where i think we will be. and i hope it's something that does take place. because we really do need

something to look forward to. and i know right now is a little bit time of mourning, if you will. but that's to be expected. we all have said that we are saying good-bye to a good friend. and we will get over that. and once we get over it, we will start looking forward. and we will make it happen again. >> ok, right here. >> hi, clara with space.com. and i am wondering if any or all of you plan to visit the shuttles, especially atlantis, once they are installed in their museum homes? >> yes, i think it will be nice to visit the museum homes. and we will have perspective, and to go and see it through other people's eyes as they have chosen to display it. and i think it will be fun to watch people to see the shuttle

and listen to the comments they are making. that i think will be very interesting. >> right here. >> peter with the space magazine, the flight that you spoke of that you didn't think it will sink in that this was the final flight. and now you walked around the vehicle and got it to sink in, this is it for the space shuttle? >> yeah, it started to sink in sooner than i thought. like i was talking about, every once in a while it started to sink in. mostly in the quiet times. one time on the mid deck of the space shuttle where we live and sleep. and i was down there and thinking of the other crews that went before me. and this is the last time. and someone asked if we would

visit atlantis in museum. and i plan to take my kids and show them displayed at the kennedy space center and we are the last crew. and i am sure that doug can point out my peach apricot stains on the locker. >> how did atlantis performed on the final trip, she landed and towed back, and what shape is she in? if there were internal srb's and they said go fly, could she do it? >> yes, definitely, everything we asked she gave us. we had a wake-up call in the middle of the night and one gpc got cranky, that happens.

everything worked like it was to. and chris and rex and i had malfunction procedures to get gps back in order, and that wasn't a big deal. probably a bigger deal down here than up there. and that's the only thing i can think of that doesn't work. i mean light switch, everything worked perfectly. but it was the memory i will have of that, the alarm went off. we are in our sleeping bags and mid deck and chris and i pop out of our sleeping bags, and look at each other and say, what was that. and then we get out of our sleeping bags and go to the flight deck and look at the display and it was gcp-4, and chris described them as gophers

out of their holes and then rex and sandy. >> everyone said, would you please go back. >> no, angie and her team had atlantis ready to go. and i guarantee you 60 days from now, she could go again. >> hello, robert, rex's apricot stains and did you and the crew leave anything on atlantis like the simulators like in houston? >> we did, we didn't want to make it permanent, we didn't want to deface atlantis and to leave the crew to decide. but we left an inscription, a little plaque, and was a tribute to the people that worked on the space shuttle programs since day 1.

thanking them for their dedication, and to let them know how much we thought of the work they do. from the astronauts and the people that get to operate the vehicle. the a lot of people think that the astronauts live in florida and rub elbows with these folks. but we don't, we live far away. and it's an effort to give them the praise they deserve. >> for the record, i cleaned up my peach apricot stain. >> mostly, the pilot made them. >> brian from the times near philadelphia. now that the wheels have stopped, what is your most memorable moment of that flight and what is your most memorable moment of all of your flights? >> wow, that's a hard one, well, probably not one you would think.

when the countdown clock stops at 31 seconds. and someone says, the clock stopped due it a malfunction. that tends to stick with you. [laughter] and the first question that comes to mind, well, what kind of malfunction. you know, and that's just the pilot's perspective. i think if i had to look at it from the layman's perspective, just an image of the space station up there. and unfortunately we cannot convey, you see the pictures but they do not capture the majesty of what humans have built in lower orbit. this is an immense vehicle and people are living and working on it like it's earth. only they float from module to module and it's a surreal

experience and that's my memory. >> the question for sandy, you have more space time for orbit than the rest of the crew. and it seems like the rules of the game are changing in terms of the spacecraft in years to come and the crew and nasa plans for deep space exploration. do you foresee a time when there is different career paths for astronauts versus deep space? is it getting to that point to decide which direction you want to go in? >> yeah, that's a conceivable idea, as you get access to lower orbit and it requires a different skill set. i hate to say it's less of an exploration and deep space are more exploration flavor.

and that requires different skill sets. as the shuttle came online you saw expansion of the skills and the wider variety of skill sets. and i think you will see the same here during this transition. every leap broadens the possibilities for people to go to space. >> one final question. >> mark on the subject of commit. the question for doug, you each said individually that you would be a member of the scs 1-35 crew, and what happens as a crew and in the near future together? >> i think today we are probably going to go out and get a nice meal somewhere. and head back to houston tomorrow. say hi, to the folks back there. and start debriefs on monday. physicals and debriefs, and we

had medical stuff. and the debriefs take a couple of weeks. and then post-flight p.r. appearances after that. we have a few more months together, and that's great. and that's what we will do over the next couple of three months. >> we have just a minute, james if you can give a quick one, right to you. >> james from florida, question for doug as well. you waited a long time for your first flight, i believe it was like nine years. i wondered and hopeful it's not that long for the next one. but did that give you lessons learned in perseverance that you think may help you and the rest of the astronaut core and those

involved with the program to deal with the gap that is to come? >> we are still going to fly people, the rate will three or four a year than 30 or 40. yeah, for my class the timing wasn't good for flying quickly. but there were folks in rex and sandy's class that waited 10 or 12 years. it builds perseverance, if you didn't have any. but we didn't get here because we didn't have perseverance. yeah, it's worth the wait, but you have to put the effort in as well. but hopefully if i fly again, yeah waiting another nine years to fly again would be harder than easier. but the opportunity to go beyond lower earth orbit but for a six-month exploration is a great opportunity as well. and you put your time in and do your job well.

and good things come. i will leave it at that. >> that's all-time -- all the time we have with our atlantis crew and that concludes the briefing. thank you. >> tomorrow's "washington journal" we will discuss federal spending and debt limit talks by senator coburn, and a look at the efforts to win back the house with steve israel. "washington journal" begins live at 7 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> what would that have been like to have met these people when you didn't know the ending? >> in the garden of the beast, erik larson. >> i looked to outsiders and

americans and that's when i stumbled on the first ambassador. >> sunday night on c-span's "q & a." >> if you want to be informed about what is happening in the world, and particularly in the american congress, it's not hard. c-span has a digital archive back to 1979? >> 1987. >> where you can watch anything that happened in the house or senate chambers right there on your screen. there were sources of information that were unimaginable 20 years ago. >> the c-span library makes it easy to follow instant access, all searchable, and free, the e

peabody library. >> it's the one-year anniversary of the dodd-frank financial regulations law. we'll hear from barney frank and ben bernanke, and several agencies, tim johnson chairs this two-hour hearing. >> good morning, i would like to call this hearing to order. today marks the first anniversary of the dodd-frank reform and consumer protection act. the act was a direct response to the worse financial crisis to the great depression. it created a foundation to protect consumers and investors

to mitigate future crises. i am pleased to have an architect of this reformation, barney frank. and i welcome the panel to discuss steps they have taken to implement the provisions of this important law to enhance your agency's oversight of the services industry. but congress must also do its part. as chairman of this committee, i am committed to rigors of oversight of the implementation process of restoring american's trust in a credible, financial system. well, as it appears that the meeting on wall street and even some here in washington have already forgotten t