vulnerabilities is what needs to be had. a lot of times the conversation is around, you should not do business in so and so. companies go where revenues are generated, where their customers, they will sell things. having a rational discussion about what the standard should be to dress the risk, i think most companies would come to the table and have that discussion. >> have you been guilty of threat mongering? >> i think you should open the newspaper. the things i know not publicly reported -- that is one of the reasons i think making classified information available because you declassify or you allow people to be cleared is important.

what is interesting about the process, it would be collaborative. it would've -- the same kind of performance-based standards. the private sectors are hurt if there are outliers that do not bring up their capabilities to a reasonable amount of risk management. that is what the experiment is. i do think it has to be dynamic. it has to be a recognition. there is not risk elimination, there is risk management. looking at the system, the insurance industry can play a role, and using that as an incentive. enterprises understand if they

do make an investment to a reasonable degree and a meet the standards, they will get some measure of protection on that which is exactly what you need to spur investment. >> it is so important, this conversation, we cannot have this conversation without bringing the public iq up a bit. this is something at the student level and it is a real act of leadership. that is going to take the backdrop. i am willing to pay or support one way or another. if we do not get there, we will have a problem. most utilities cannot set the rates, they are governed by the states. you worry about trees colliding with the lines.

you are worried about aging equipment and backed up substations. the government says, you need to take on this new set of problems with these new costs. by the way, there is no relief on your price. the companies have to be part of the conversation. this is an acceptable cost i am willing to bear. anybody who lives up in the northeast, i was in connecticut, three quarters of our state was out of power. the reality is you need that to have a civilized country and most people after seven days without power would be happy to pay a little more on their rates. >> we have an especially

distinguished group of people in the audience. i want to make sure they will have opportunities to ask questions. i think we have microphones on both sides. if you are willing, it would be helpful for you to identify yourself and your affiliation or company. let's open the floor to questions from the audience. >> i read in this report where they were talking about a lack of cyber protocols. who will be accountable. everyone says we need these laws or protocols, but who will step up and take responsibility for

with the number of mobile devices being used to commit cyber crimes, and they are helping cyber terrorists and they no longer to sit at a stationary terminal to commit the cyber crimes since computing is growing rapidly out-of- control. who will take responsibility for that? who is responsible for governing cloud and these mobile devices and control and the number of people who can use them to commit these crimes? thank you. >> presumably the framework that will be rolled out this fall will address some of these issues. >> i think you put your finger on an important issue. nobody controls -- every

enterprise can set its own requirements and standards. there are people who are absolutely committed to the idea that any regulation of the internet is problematic. there is good reason to be very leery. it will be much more enterprise specific and it will be a lot about standards. on the issue of who would bear the responsibility if there is a catastrophic problem, that is a feature of american life. there will be a round of finger- pointing, and another 9/11 commission, we will go back over what we should have done. people will say, we warned you. i think we are trying really hard to avoid that by putting in place a set of practices and

standards and capabilities in advance that will reduce dramatically the likelihood of that kind of catastrophic event. >> it reinforces that there is we have toy answer. find a way where we are having this conversation. that is not to say it will get the ultimate outcome, but at least there is some sensitivity. we are dealing with this after- the-fact, trying to develop safeguards, being aware of vulnerabilities. government does have a role to play in supporting accountability. the key is, the owners and operators are helping to design those standards. enforcement should be third

parties, but there is always a need for the government to make sure those outliers are isolated from the system. that is the only way we know how to do this stuff. we have to talk about the process of setting standards. we also have to recognize some of these issues that may not just be domestic. it has to move forward. larry clinton with the internet security alliance. i want to associate myself with whoever made the comment that we are in the beginning of this discussion. the standards we are talking

about, which do exist, currently already exist and those are going to combat the low level threat. i do not know anybody who thinks the standards will be effective against the persistent threat that could take down the electric grid. that is the area i am interested in. the private sector is going to have to step up. i am curious as to what the government does to assist the private sector. if we're going to deal with this massive threat, we are talking about a lot more money. studies say five, eight times as much money.

we will need big incentives for that. what can the government do to assist the private sector in taking on this unique role? >> you have to separate the businesses that have to make a relatively modest investment. much of the discussion was about the top critical infrastructure. those are enterprises that if they fail, there will be a humongous effect. what is it going to take? some of it will be incentives to

get the enterprises in that critical field to raise their degree of investment. recognizing the they should get liability protection and caps, so they do not get what happened after the world trade center in 9/11 where everybody sues the owner. that is one set of incentives. the government has to be tightly bound in terms of information sharing and sharing techniques and capabilities. that will require looking at the law again and it will be addressing people who do not like the idea of the government be involved in this. if something happens fast, you will want to have the government working side-by-side with the >>ivate sector to stop that.

ciber is now what everybody is focusing on, notice where the resources are going. we all should be talking about cyber. we need to talk about the state of our infrastructure and the range of risks, which cyber is one of those. you need infrastructure to work if you want to stay advanced. if you do not maintain it, if you do not upgrade it for the types of weather events. part of the element of being more successful is not purely aggregation. how do we assure mobility, communication, finance, water all of this happens? one of the disruptive risks is cyber, but that is not the only risk. we need to broaden this that is then.

development of cyber physical that i think is an opportunity. taylor's response to secretary chertoff's suggestion that liability protection might be a significant incentive. how significant an incentive do you think that would be two companies? would that be -- would be to companies? >> i am not a lawyer and i cannot speak for our legal i think a framework of incentives that limits liability and that sort of thing would probably be very attractive and that takes legislation. it takes an understanding of how this fits into the overall projection of the infrastructure of the company.and so i think that would be attractive going forward.

>> another question. >>) here, you. >> thank you.my name is jacob, i am from the center of the city of the president and congress. what role should reforms to the federal energy regulatory commission play in creating required standards for energy companies? i am thinking about the grid act.>> you are thinking about what? >> the grid act. that was in congress and failed. >> any of you familiar?>> i can dig a bit of a swipe at this here. part of the challenge is disaggregating utilities from their customers. take the port authority of new york-new jersey, it moves on any given day about 1.8 million people in a port authority facility. tunnels, bus terminals, airports.

all of that requires energy. that customer is not part of the conversation with utilities. what are you doing to make sure the power stays on because our mission is critical? one of the challenges is to broaden the focus of not just beating up one sector to do more, but finding a way in which that sector is working -- is able to make its case and get the funding stream that goes with it. that is where i would be nudging. >> we do a lot of work with them and they are focused on this issue. they are looking continually to upgrade. if we go to a smart grid, every

node of that network grid will become a potential aperture and which malware can come into something. >> i know from talking to private sector people, there is a lot of concern about a compliance mentality. >> regulation is helpful and hurtful. a compliance regimen in this area, in my view, is fraught with danger if it is not done properly. does not mean you cannot have compliance, but it has to be done in partnership with the public and private sector. otherwise, if it is mandated, chemical facility, not a lot of private sector input.

it adjusted over time, but just coming out with a compliance regimen without real collaboration. the notion the private sector does not understand this risk, we operate globally. we operate with the internet and cyber systems being critical to our business model. we are attacked every day. we have an understanding of the impacts of this. the question is, how do we work with governments around the world to protect what is on that network and criminal acts against the network that are occurring around the world? >> i would like to invite any of

the folks who were at lunch today. if you have any comments to make. i know you have a lot of concerns that deserve to be yes, dan, right? >> dan donahue with caterpillar. this is a really tactical question. one of the things we have seen is there is a major vulnerability caused by poorly written code, code that underlies our applications, our operating systems, our telecommunications devices. we have talked about designing security in, but having code that is stable, secure, that is not happening. you talked about silicon valley, the route 128, same problems are inherent in all of those companies. they write bad code. this is something that cannot be done purely on the private sector, or purely on the government sector.

has anyone really given that a thought? how can we change the vulnerability landscape? >> worst yet, some of the codes are not being written. they are being written on the other side of the world and some of the problems are deliberate rather than accidental. there is a push to get code out quickly and to update. for a long time in this domain, the pressure was get new things out more quickly. the security element was not a major feature. the customer has a lot of say. if the customer starts to look at this, once validation -- wants validation, that becomes supply security, which is a whole other chapter of what we need to talk about. >> the gaming industry 10 years

ago, everybody was in the garage. now the gaming industry is three that means players. there is a lot more leverage in the market to say before you give me a product, i wante it to have some due diligence here with regard to the code. not enough has been done about that conversation. there is a sense of cultural change that is going to be challenging in this information age. as citizens of the cyberspace, we have to take responsibility for as opposed to policing it. >> i am a journalist and one of my interests as a journalist is to tie these discussions to current events. secretary napolitano pointed out that the solutions we are talking about, the approaches we

are talking about in this area are going to require a level of intimacy between the public and private sector. i am curious if any of you have any thoughts about whether these recent revelations about collaboration between the nsa and tech companies have made it more difficult or tainted the notion of collaboration between the private sector and the government. >> what we are talking about is completely different than the other program. experience shows a lot of stuff gets conflated. there is a risk that for some people, when there has not been a bad event, they can get themselves worked up by imagining how all of this is going to wind up with some big -- some big of thing.

brother type thing. there are structural changes in our society that are not going to be rolled back. we are largely dependent on networks for moving information and making things happen. anybody who thinks that it is better to let things develop is going to be in for a rude awakening. we need to be honest about it, we need to be clear. who is the media to spend time explaining what is being proposed as opposed to taking what one disgruntled person may >> i agree completely. i think it colors the dialogue. there has to be a public discussion about these issues peopleople to understand.

have to understand in terms of their cyber protection. we hear about identity theft, but the more sinister aspects of this are not very clear to the public. the revelations have made it difficult. there was one telecom said the government had asked for 5000 requests in the last month. read between the lines, you do not do a law enforcement investigation without going to get the cell phone records. it is all a part of how law enforcement gets some of the facts. that was all kind of in this big push about government involvement in the private sector. explaining that a bit more efficiently in terms of what it really means and how this part of infrastructure protection is quite different from intelligence collection and those sorts of things will go a long way towards the american public better understanding how this must work.

>> we really took the position right after 9/11 that the security was governmental.the job of us as citizens was shop and travel. we will make this threat go away. this many years later, we realize the threat is not going away. the only way to get after this threat is to engage the private sector and broader civil yet our cold war apparatus is taking away that this is inherently governmental. there are some things that clearly have to be closed, but what the government is realizing is that it needs to air on the side of more openness about what the president is certainly saying that, we have to push out more with these

systems. the days we can work behind closed doors and take care of problems are gone. if this messy situation helps us make that cultural shift that much quicker, it will be a positive outcome instead of a negative one. >> we have covered a lot of territory. i want to give each of you an opportunity, some comment you want to throw out as your final comment. >> i want to thank jane harman and the woodrow wilson center for highlighting this. people are focused on this and it is a little bit of a novelty to talk about the private sector having responsibility and accountability at the critical infrastructure level. we need to continue this discussion. let's not continue this indefinitely. [laughter] >> i would echo mike's comments. the private sector really does understand the risk.

it is a risk to our reputation. it is a risk to our customers. we worry about that every day. it is not like we're sitting with our heads in the sand thinking the government is going to tell us what to do. this is real day-to-day work that we are doing.the integration of that within the critical infrastructure of countries asking the same questions will be the real challenge. that is where the dialogue has to be. i am reminded, i spent 30 years in the air force and 20 years ago, the military was having this very discussion about who is in charge and who will be accountable and we solved that in dod some years ago. i see us at the same juncture in terms of what is the shared responsibility, who was going to

lead the way and whether the processes -- what are the processes we will use to do >> it is a pretty fascinating moment. >> frank and i were talking about the outset, representing sectors. i am delighted to have this chance to be a part of this conversation. academia needs to be a part of the theme to leave it this thing to design into. the manhattan project was taking a bunch of people who are very smart and harvesting that expertise to deal with the threat. we have that as the greatest strength of this country. we really left academia on the sidelines from this conversation. >> jane harman, thank you so much. this has been a useful and

interesting discussion. i would like to thank the woodrow wilson center and npr for sponsoring this. [applause] >> coming up on c-span tonight, sawyer and cantor on the farm bill.and live at 7:00 a.m. "astern, "washington journal examines the situation in syria, president obama's recent trip to europe, and the state of employment in the u.s. this morning, senate majority leader is that -- senate

minority leader mitch mcconnell is that the free speech american enterprise into two. into that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. today, a discussion on the nsa data collection programs. the congressional internet caucus advisory committee is looking at the legal, legislative, and technical aspects of the program. you can see it live starting at noon eastern here on c-span. in the house thursday, members rejected the farm bill by a vote of 195-234. democrats up rose to -- opposed cuts to the food stamps, and republicans objected to spending in the measure. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about what happened. >> teri hatcher ms. editor of

the "hagstrom reports." the farm bill -- why was it defeated? >> there are basically two reasons. that is there was a dairy amendment that was not ok with democrats, and that dairy amendment passed. also there were restrictions placed on food stamps and democrats did not like that, and there were a lot of republicans who thought they could somehow have a bill that would cut food stamps even more. >> eric cantor blamed democrats for not providing enough votes to help pass the bill. what do you think about his assertion? >> there were only 24 democrats who voted for the bill. i think it is a reflection of the deep gulf in the country between the people who get food stamps and the politicians who support them and the farmers who benefit from the farm program.

since the 2010 election, you have had such a gap between these republicans and democrats. it is basically about that. >> how have democrats responded to what majority leader cantor said? >> they said they should not have put on this last amendment that would impose work requirements on food stamp beneficiaries, that there have never been such core requirements for it, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. also, there was an amendment on dairy that passed and the dairy farmers do not like it. >> who were the big losers? >> the people who are advocates for people eating more fruits and vegetables, for local production, for organic, because it is those programs that will least likely be continued. i think the food stamp program will be continued if there is an extension.

so will the crop insurance program. but the big agriculture will be continued, but not the stuff for the newer, more innovative small and local programs. >> what is the next step for the bill? can it be revamped and passed? and the timetable? >> it can be brought up again, possibly changed. most thought it would get through when it got through conference. people were too angry, but also there were these 62 republicans who voted against the bill even though they got a lot of amendments on that that they liked. and a lot of provisions, and they will also have to reevaluate their views on the bill. >> what will you watch for as the leaders decide what to do next? >> whether they will bring the bill up and if and also over the fourth of july break, whether there are people who want this bill passed so much that they put pressure on members when

they go home and they make some concessions and bring it up again after the fourth of july recess. >> jerry hagstrom is the contributing editor at "national journal." thank you. >> eric cantor came to the floor to discuss the schedule this and blamed democrats for the failure of the farm bill. minority representative hoyer responded to the remarks. this exchange is 25 minutes. >> mr. speaker, no votes are expected. the votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10 a.m. morning hour. the last vote is expected no later than 3 p.m. the house will consider bills on the suspension of rules, a complete list of which will be enclosed. the house will take up and have two bills on the resource committee. the offshore energy and jobs at offered by the chairman, and hr 1613, the continental shelf transboundary authorization act sponsored by representative jeff duncan of south carolina. the bill continue our efforts to increase to foster environment and economic growth and lower energy costs for working families. finally, i anticipate bringing to the floor the agricultural appropriations bill.

i yield back. >> i think the gentleman for his comments. i would ask him a couple of questions not on the announcement. the gentleman spoke last week about student loans. no action on those is on the calendar for next week, if i am correct. can the gentleman tell me, knowing as we know, the student loan rates will double in july from 3.4% to 6.8%. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will be some action taken by us prior to the july 4 break? i yield. >> the gentleman knows the house has acted. the position of the house is one

very close to where the present public position on student loans has been. we do not want to see student loan rates double. we also want long-term solution to the problem on the fiscal end, while helping students. while the gentleman witnesses what just happened on the floor, it seems on bills where there are solutions and bipartisan indications of support, there seems to be a decision about his leadership, perhaps himself, to say, we will not go along with bipartisan work and success and just make this a partisan issue. i am fearful the same is on the student loans. i hope that is not the case. i know the gentleman shares with me a desire not to allow students to be put in a position

to phase a doubling of interest rates if they decide to incur additional student loans. i would say to the gentleman, his question. we would stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion. the senate does not seem to be able to produce anything. the house produces something very close to what the president's position is to make student rates variable to allow for the rates to be cap so the exposure is not what it would be otherwise. unfortunately, no movement yet. we stand ready to work, though. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. i was not going to mention what happened on the floor today but the gentleman brought it up. the gentleman is correct. the committee passed a bipartisan bill. the democrats voted for the bill. the problem is that 62 republicans voted against the

bill, as it was amended, notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was adopted, which we think was an amendment that would have hurt the citizens in our country very badly. we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. i will tell my friend very frankly, you did the same thing, your side of the aisle, did the same thing with respect to the homeland security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the appropriations committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted knowing our side could not vote for that. i will tell you i was not going to bring up what happened today, but you turned a bipartisan bill necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of america that many of us would have supported and you turned it

into a partisan bill. very frankly, 58 of the 62 republicans voted against your bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious. we disagreed with a $20 billion cut, and your side upped the ante. i will tell you, we are prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, and with respect the student loan bill, it was close to the president's bill, and we would have supported it had it been closer to the president's bill. what your bill did it puts those taking out student loans at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in the future. the president suggested let's get a variable rate which reflects market rates, but when you take out the loan, just like you did with your house loan, you know what your interest rate

will be. we have a difference on that. it is a good-faith disagreement on that. we will say that, yes, i have been concerned about the inability to take a bill reported out of committee that is bipartisan in nature and turn it into a partisan bill. that is what happened on the floor today. it was unfortunate for farmers, consumers, for our country. if the gentleman wants to pursue that, i will yield to him. >> allow me to respond. the amendment to which the gentleman speaks is an amendment that had been discussed for some time with the ranking member, with the chairman, and the gentleman was aware of the amendment.

the amendment reflects what many of us believe is a successful formula to apply to a program that has, in the eyes of the gao, in the eyes of the independent auditors who look at these programs, a program that is in dire need of improvement, because of the error rates that are occurring. in addition to that, it reflects our strong belief that work, that able-bodied people should have the opportunity and should go in and be a productive citizen. that is what this amendment says. it gives states an option. it was a positive project because it reflects a winning formula to the welfare reform program, back in 1996, that was put into place, with unequivocal success. able-bodied people going back to working families beginning

to have an improv -- a productive income. there was still an intention for our side to say we want to take away the safety net of the food stamp program. absolutely not. this is a pilot project. it was up to the states, whether they wanted to participate, to see if they could get more people back to work. again, consistent with what the gao report had said over and over again, these programs are in need of reform. it was not as if this commitment came out of thin air. the gentleman, the ranking member, the entire leadership on the minority side to the amendment was there. the gentleman is talking about regular order, talking about the need for us to have open process, let the will of the house work and be worked and then go to conference. that is what the goal was, that the will of the house allowed to be seen through, work its will, and go to conference and then we

would try and participate in a robust discussion with the other side of the capitol to see if we can see reform measures on a bill that is in conference ready. what we saw today was a democratic leadership in the house that was insistent to undo years and years of bipartisan work on an issue like a farm bill and decide to make it a partisan issue. and, mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that that is the case, i do agree with the gentleman, but i hope we can see our way to working on other issues, where there is potential yes, we have fundamental disagreements on many things, but we are all human beings representing the 740,000 people that put us here and expect us to begin to learn to set aside those agreements, find ways we can work together. today was an example.

the other side did not think that was there goal, an-- should not think that was their goal, did not think that was an appropriate mission, and instead decided to emphasize where perhaps they differed when we wanted to reform it in a certain area. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we have a profound disagreement. when we were in the majority we got no help on your side, mr. leader. you remember that. there was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue, to have agreement. the gentleman talks first to regular order. the person who talks about regular order most is your speaker. you talk about regular order. to pass a bill and when we have an agreement. some 90 days ago we passed a budget.

at your insistence, the senate passed a budget.good for them. we have not gone to conference, you have not provided an opportunity to go to conference, you have not appointed conferees. that is regular order. the gentleman evidently wants it on one bill, but not all bills. i tell my friend we want regular order, we want to go to conference. we want to undo the breaking of an agreement we made in the budget control act which said there would be a firewall between domestic and defense. you have eliminated that firewall. the sequester is in place. sequester is bad for this country.you and i tend to agree on that, i think. the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester, except the legislation you talked about passing in the last congress, is dead and buried. yes, we want regular order. the reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your members

rejected mr. lucas' plea, which i thought was eloquent, in which he said i know some of you do not think there is enough reform in this bill, and some of you think there is too much reform. but mr. peterson and i brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the majority of democrats and the majority -- maybe all the republicans, maybe i am not sure that -- but the fact of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill, just as homeland security bill was bipartisan, and it was turned into a partisan bill. that is exactly what mr. lucas was talking about. he was saying some people do not think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. mr. sutherland thought we had not gone far enough. and 58 republicans voted for sutherland that turned around and voted against the bill, the reforms you're talking about.

do not blame democrats for the loss today. you did not bring up the farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis last year. you did not even bring it to the floor because your party cannot come together supporting their chairman's bill. that is where we find ourselves. i was not going to bring up that bill at all. what happened, happened. frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. we produced 218 votes for almost everything we put on this floor. do not blame democrats for the failure to bring 218 republicans to your bipartisan lucas- supported and peterson-supported piece of legislation on the floor. we believe that loss, that partisanship in that bill, will hurt farmers and our country. let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it. i think it would pass.

maybe not because of your votes, that has been your problem all along. do not blame democrats for the loss of that bill. do not blame democrats for being partisan. you knew those amendments -- yes, we knew about them, mr. leader, as you knew about them and you knew we were very much opposed to those amendments, notwithstanding the fact that all the leadership, i believe, i have not looked at the record, voted for those amendments just as they voted for the king amendment on homeland security. yes, you pushed my button. i am not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it said this is what we agree on, meaning your side, though you better take it if we are going to have an agreement. that is not how it works. it never worked that way in america. that is not what america is about. america is about us expecting to be working together. this reported will was on an

overwhelming bipartisan basis, would have been passed on a large bipartisan vote, and was precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor, most of which we did not support. and you knew -- i do not mean you -- your party -- so i'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there is nothing, nothing to do on the budget conference that you wanted the senate to pass a budget. they did. you had just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together. you are assuming that the senate would have gone to the conference. i hope they would have, i think they would have, because i she would the chair. have wanted to go to conference assuming we got the votes. we also want to go to conference in regular order on the budget to solve the stark differences between the two parties. that is the only way you will get to where we need to be -- by

having a conference and trying to come to an agreement. my premise is that you do not have a conference because there's nothing to which patty murray could agree that mr. ryan could agreed to and that he could bring back your caucus and get a majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. we are $91 billion apart. if we divide it in two, split the difference, you could not pass it on your side and i think you know that. i do not know if i have any more questions, and i do not know if they could be particularly useful. i thankto my friend.>> the gentleman for yielding. as far as the budget conference is concerned, the budget is something that traditionally, as he notes, has been a partisan affair.

it is a document that each house produces reflecting the philosophy of the majority of those bodies. and the budget contains a lot of different issues, two of which the parties have disagreed vehemently on over the last several years, taxes and health care. we understand you, mr. speaker, that the other side projects our prescription on how to fix the deficit in terms of the unfunded liabilities on the health care programs. we said we want to work toward a balance, we think a balance budget is a good thing. unfortunately, the position on the other side of the capitol is no balance, no balance, and raise taxes. when you know that is a situation, there's no construct in which to even begin a discussion. again, the budget has traditionally been that, a

partisan document whether who is in charge of which house. and then to be a guide by which you go about spending bills after that. the farm bill, my friend, is a little different. it is for working farmers, for individuals who need the benefit of the food stamp program. we believe you need to reform the snap program and reduce some of the costs because even the gao, independent auditors we bring in, year in and year out say that program is rife with error rates that we should be ashamed of. so we put forward our idea to the sutherland amendment to try to reform, put in place those reforms. but it still, in the construct of the farm bill, again to the gentleman's point, we want to work together, but it is going to have to be about setting aside differences, and instead

of saying, as the minority leader did today, you disagreed with that program, we are out of here, and entire farm bill does not have a chance to go to conference, be reconciled, hopefully reforms adopted so we can make some progress according to what the independent analysts say should be done. it really is a disappointing day. i think the minority has been a disappointing player today, mr. speaker, on the part of the people. but we remain ready to work with the gentleman. i am hopeful that tomorrow, perhaps next week, will be a better week. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back. mr. speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the democrats for his inability and the republicans inability to give a majority vote to their own bill. maybe the american people think they can be fooled. you are in charge of the house. you have 234 members.

62 of your members voted against your bill. that is why it failed. we did not whine when we were in charge about we did not pass a bill. we got 218 votes for our bill that was pretty tough. we got zero from your side. you got 24 from our side to help you. mr. peterson stuck to his deal. on the budget you say we have got different philosophies. yes, we do. mr. gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different philosophies, 1997 or 1998. he was talking about the perfectionist caucus. he made an agreement with president clinton which to some degree was responsible for having balanced budgets. but your side thought it was not

a good deal. not on your side. -- not all of your side. on a bipartisan vote, we passed that deal that was reached between mr. gingrich and mr. clinton. a lot of your folks said our way or the highway, and he gave a speech that he called the perfectionist caucus speech. that is what in my view i am hearing on the budget. yes, we have differences. the american people elected a democratic president, they elected a democratic senate, a republican house. the only way america's board of directors will work if we compromise. the place to compromise under regular order is in a conference our ideas and their ideas meeting and conference. the most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. but you are not going to conference. your side will not appoint

conferees. your side will not move to go to conference. patty murray wants to go to conference, senator reid wants to go to conference. your side over in the senate will not go to conference, in my view, largely because they know you do not want to go to conference, and they do not want to make a deal. they do not want to compromise on what their position is. so we will take no blame for the failure of the farm bill, none, zero. as much as you try to say it, you cannot get away from the statistic, 62, otherwise known as 25% of your party, voted against a bill, which is why we do not bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out on a bipartisan fashion. so i know you will continue and your side will continue to blame us, that you cannot get the votes on your side, for your bill. because you took a bipartisan bill, and that is what mr. lucas was saying. i thought he was very articulate, compelling, and

pleading with your side, join us, join us. it does not go as far as it would like, and reform -- you talk about reform and that is a good thing to talk about, the senate bill has reform in it, mr. leader. the senate bill has reform in it. now, it is not in terms of dollars, cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. it has reform in it. what sutherland wants, what apparently your side wants, is your reform, not a compromise reform. mr. lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and watched it as reform, and said on the floor, it may not be enough for some and maybe too much for others, but it is a compromise. he was right. but it was rejected by 25% of your party, and that is why this bill failed.

unless the gentleman wants to say something, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> first ladies have a pattern of personifying, if they so choose. they are women, real people, who actually do things, but then there is this secondary capacity .f being a charismatic figure i think many first ladies are realizing this thing was larger- than-life. forbecomes a figurehead her husband's administration, and she makes the white house a , and the attachment to the capital city, and all this is happening in 1808. in 1814, the british are going to burn the capital city, and all this work that she put into helping the public identify with this house that they call

the white house under her term is going to pay off because it is going to give a surge of nationalism. >> or for that shower focus on first ladies continues every monday night. -- our first ladies focus on monday night. >> on season is when, -- on c- span this morning, "washington journal" is light with your comments. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell speaks on free speech at 10:00. later at noon eastern, the nsa surveillance program. minutes, james lacy on the situation in afghanistan and syria. and then a look at president obama's recent trip to europe with the european ambassador to

almeida. joao vale de later, john wall for it ready of the wall street journal. our economyr years is recovering at slowest rate since world war two. stays above the same and we are told, let us not read too much into it. recall this "the new normal." the house johnf boehner making his comments today in a speech in washington before the national association of manufacturers. if we are going to use his point as a discussion -- we are going to use his point as a starting point. is