my rights. there have been incidences on ferries. crashes. disabled. i can go through the list. i am an east coaster. southeast,e in the run by the state of alaska. but i am not familiar with that $8.00, went and paid my that i got a long explanation of the issues. i think there are some differences. we have folks like ocean ridges that are on your ships when you come into our waters to make sure you provide environmental safety standards required for it would have on requirements of waste disposal which is unique to our state. at the same time, there is a balance. in all the respect, i would be interested in looking at the

legislation but are we now going to do hotel packages, airline packages? unlimited liability, senator, all brought up -- every federal funded health care clinic has limited liability set up by the federal government so the federal government does not have to take responsibility for those doctors. it is very interesting that we have tort reform pour us so we don't get sued because these clinics are all out there and we assume because they ared a and have done injured -- because there are a diplomad -- i'm assuming you're not getting a dog in a box and hope to work out ok. -- a doc in a box. your comment that on short crime the cruiseomehow ships balks -- utah -- fault -

did not say that exactly but you implied it -- does that mean when i fly to a community and i get mugged the airline is at fault? absolutely not. year onremember last the coast guard reauthorization that i made sure some new rules were put in place, safety standards and other things so i am all for it. we have to be careful of how far we expand the government regulation component when we need to have the safety on these ships. there is no question. you remember the conversations we had last year and continue to have these conversations. let's be careful of the broad statements made at times. mr. chairman, i have not looked at your bill but i have one major concern. i understand the reason

why but dot, to write standards and manage this would make me very nervous. summer protection? i think -- consumer protection, i think that is important agency. as to figure out what roads they should build and bridges they should build and i get very nervous. i'm talking as a matter that had to deal with dot on the local and national level. if there is an agency, i don't know if the consumer protection agency is the right one. i just wanted to give my two bits. i have not reviewed your bill and i know my headache with dot is large and increasing on an annual basis. i thought it would end when i was done being mayor by listening to the federal dot but it is even worse. i would give that cautionary note as the bill is being put together. in all to respect, i think it is

important that we look at this and the incidences that have occurred have been very visible, no question about it. that families and individuals that have been harmed have had impact not only to us and our policy decisions but to them personally. cautiouscareful and about how we approach this and i will leave on this one note. i did not realize we would talk about the oil and gas industry. let me give you an example. when we were drilling this last project in the arctic ocean, the incident that occurred was not in the arctic ocean. it was a hundred miles away because of the transportation issue. we heard about it all over, everywhere. they never spilled a drop of oil, no incident or injury. we have had a fishing vessel

spewing oil out for some time, most in this room have no idea that occurred. it did not have an oil company name attached to it. we had a military ship ran aground probably two years ago. villagerying to help a moved because of climate change issues. it's billed tons of diesel. we never heard about that because it did not have x oil company in there so we have to be careful. if we're going to look at cruise ships, we should add ferries because they have more passenger movement and some of those ferries are held together by duct tape. i like getting on the because they are enjoyable but i have to question sometimes how they are operated because they are usually operated by local governments that have no money to maintain them. weis it your view that

should not proceed in looking at the cruise line industry until we have probably -- properly done ferries? in the coast guard reauthorization bill we actually looked at the men made some adjustments. two months on the bill of rights takeekend -- dot, it will them two years to write the regulations and it will get stuck in some omb sanitation department. i would say that i think we have an obligation to the committee that this industry does report to a son was happening with their bill of rights and are they employing them correctly. is there penalties of someone does not respond correctly. two months on a new rule -- i give some credit and it is not perfect -- there is more room here -- but we should spend the time to allow some improvement

to occur rather than two months after it is decided we have no rules. i guarantee you it will take three years to have new rules if we started today. that is based on the way this place operates and dot operates. i would aggressively work with them on these bill of rights and of if there is some issues disconnect between the rules on the ticket and the detail and what they are claiming to give to the public. we should help make those of line because we don't want false advertising. if someone sees this bill of rights, they should know the detail is wherever it is. two months is not enough time. i would tell you that from my own experience. we should continue to work ever where we can to increase safety. you, mr. chairman,

after writing a couple of arries, -- after riding couple of ferries -- we'd like to duct tape in alaska but i would not wrapped a boat in it. >> i response? >> said was a question. >> i want to respond to two points. in terms of the issue of crime on shore -- i would distinguish between general crime and crime when it occurs on the shore excursion. what i was referring to is when one goes on shore and they are robbed or there is an accident that results in physical injury or death, i think the cruise line does have responsibility. if you read the cruise ship contract, they have no liability for that because those are independent contractors. isre are two issues and one

liability and when is it is something that they are selling to passengers and endorsing as an activity. i cannot argue with the statistic you gay. however, as an academic, when i give numbers, i have to be transparent about the methodology. my work has to be subject to peer review. without knowing the methodology of how the numbers are constructed, the data from which they are drawn, the definitions that are used for those categories is hard for me to make any comment other than they are numbers. or questioningg your integrity. make review, it is hard to statements. >> will start voting in about five minutes. statement.a closing one issue we have not spent time talking about today but we spent

a lot of time talking about as a committee is how the cruise industry uses a loophole in our tax code to avoid paying its fair share of corporate income taxes. 10k aff reviewed your financial reports for the past seven years. they found that your two companies have made over $17 billion in profit while managing to pay only $218 million in corporate income taxes. your collective corporate income tax rate therefore comes to about 1.3%. i'm not asking for your comment, i'm just saying what i am saying. you're companies are headquartered in the united states and most of her passengers are u.s. citizens and use airports and ports and the services of the coast guard. and many other government agencies but because you flag your ships and other countries and maintain the fiction that you earn most of your income

outside u.s. territory, you do not pay your fair share of taxes in this country. iwould like you to know that am market on legislation to close this loophole. my staff has been working with the finance committee and the joint committee on taxation to develop legislation that would require your industry to take your fair share of taxes. i will be introducing this legislation later this week. i thank you all for your attendance and i thank you for your patience. is hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal" conversation on the u.s. economy since president obama took office.

look set u.s. and global energy production and consumption. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the treatment of hunger strikers at guantanamo compromises the core ethical values of our medical profession. endorsed theong principle that every competent refuse has the right to++óóóó medical intervention. the world medical association and international red cross had determined that for speeding through the use of restraints is not all in an ethical violation to -- that contraband's article 3 of the geneva conventions. my concern is let's just set

aside the numbers that you might or might not feel you can safely push out. there are a number, and on and on number but the president has said it is 46 -- that you can never try. do you honestly think the people behind me and the people who are in telling this hearing will cavallingwwwwwwwwwww. of these prisonerswwwwww because they arewwwwwwwwd states? the fear-basedwwwwwwwwo open is hardmo baywwwww to understand. brought to the u.s.ooggóór incarceration orwwwwwww medical treatment, the detainee's will pose no threat to our national security. the 86 men who have been cleared for transfer shouldççççççe transferred. we must find lawful dispositions detainee's abbott -- asççç we have done in every conflict. >> this weekend on c-span, the senate judiciary subcommittee on

human rights looks at the implications of closing the guantanamo bay prison saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span to at 10:00, live coverage of the roosevelt reason -- reading festival from the f.b.r. presidential library and park, new york. live on c-span 3, president obama and defense secretary chuck hagel commemorate the 60th anniversary of the korean war armistice at 10:00. yesterday, house republican leader eric kanter and democratic whip steny hoyer debated federal spending and the possibility of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government when the fiscal year expires in two months. this is 45 minutes.

>> the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. these take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i expect to consider the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations act authored i representative tom latham. members are advised to house will begin consideration of this bill on tuesday afternoon and should be prepared to offer amendments that that appropriate time. members are further advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series that they could be longer than normal. for the remainder of the week, mr. speaker, the house will consider number of bills to restrain runaway government and re-empower our citizens. to stop government abuse and protect the middle class, we will bring in a number of bipartisan bills to the floor under suspension of the rules on wednesday. following that, we will debate to bills for certain to rules focused on stopping government abuse and protecting the middle class. the first, hr 367, sponsored by representative todd young, requires congressional approval

of regulations that cost over $100 million. the second, hr 2009, 2 keep the irs off your health care act, by representative tom price, since the irs from implementing any portion of obamacare. when federal bureaucrats abuse their power and waste tax dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, and the rule of law is betrayed. thank you, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his information. i don't see on the schedule, mr. speaker, that we are going to budget conference at least with no notice from the majority leader on that fact. mr. speaker, as you know, we are facing a number of critical deadlines. it has been 125 days since the house passed a budget and 100 23 days since the senate passed a budget. on issue after issue, our republican colleagues, mr.

speaker, have passed bills and refused to negotiate. mr. speaker, it is passed time for action. we should go to conference and reach agreement. i would urge my friend, mr. majority leader, that mr. speaker, to go to conference. one of his colleagues from virginia said this -- i am probably on record about this. i believe we need to go to conference. speaking of the budget. this number went on to say i have listened carefully to the argument that we should not go to conference and frankly i do not wind it compelling. mr. speaker, that was representative scott ridgel from virginia. does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all on the budget? and i yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, i thank the

gentleman for his tenacity as this is a weekly discussion between he and me. i'm delighted to respond and say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that it is something we should commit ourselves to working out. but as the gentleman knows, the position of the majority is we don't want to enter into discussions if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. the gentleman has heard me every week on this issue in that we believe strongly you fix the problem of overspending, you reform programs needing reform to address unfunded liabilities first. then if the gentleman is insistent that taxpayers need to pay more of their hard- earned dollars into washington, that discussion perhaps it is appropriate. but as a prerequisite to entering budget talks that we agree to raise taxes is not

something i think the american people want this body to engage in. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the gentleman's premise is absolutely incorrect and the american people ought to know that. the senate has voted to go to conference. -- excuse me, they haven't voted to go to congress because republican members of the united states senate will not bow to go to conference. there was nothing in that motion that said it was a prerequisite that the house agreed to anything, mr. speaker. nothing. my friend, the majority leader, has said repeatedly we have a prerequisite. we have a difference of opinion. that's what democracy is about. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. there is no condition preceding this to going to conference. the senate couldn't make us agree. that's what conferences are about, mr. speaker. they are about coming together

and understanding there are differences. there will be no need for a conference if if there were not differences. there are differences. we are $91 billion apart on our budgets. we are 14 days away from the end of this the school year in terms of -- this fiscal year to get to a compromise, to get to a number, to get to some understanding of how we are going to ensure government operations continue. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. i don't know where that comes from, mr. speaker. i've heard a lot. i have no idea where it comes from. nothing the senate does can force this body, republicans or democrats, to do something. tot they have asked is come the table and talk. there has been a refusal to do that, mr. speaker.

and it is bad for the country. a $91 billion difference between us on the budget has to be resolved somehow, someway. the way democracies do it and the way the legislature does it, mr. speaker, is to meet and try to resolve those differences. you could divide the differences, the senate comes down 46 and we go up 45. my own view is mr. ryan believes there's nothing he will agree to. i will get to that a little later, mr. speaker. that is why we are not going to conference, and he said so in the paper. i will get to his quote in just a second. let me ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, mentioned the bill on the floor next week. so far, we are essentially going to be at the end of the session. before the august break coming

next week on friday. we have done for appropriation bills. the house bill of which the majority leader speaks is 17% below the budget control act we agreed on. not only that, mr. speaker, it is 9% load the sequester level. -- below the sequester level. we are not going to vote for it. we believe that badly underfund transportation, housing and infrastructure in this country. somehis performance makes sense considering the lack of regular order. we talked about regular order and we don't follow it. going to conference's regular order. it doesn't change the fact that we just have 14 days left to go and then we need to reach agreement.

i will tell my friend, the majority leader, that we are willing to work together. tohave been willing compromise. we have compromised in every one of these agreements we have reached. my friend, the majority leader would say they have as well. but you cannot compromise if you don't sit down. i will tell you nobody has called me to ask me how i believe we can get to the end of this year with a continuing resolution. nobody has asked me that. i talked to mr. ryan. i talked to mr. van hollen. mr. ryan has not talked to mr. van hollen. with all due respect to this discussion about talking, they're not talking. i talked to senator murray. no discussion on how we resolve the difference. i talked to the chair of the appropriations committee, the ranking member here and the

chair on the senate side. nobody is talking to them about how we resolve the question at the end of next month and we won't be here at the end of next month. we are in session two weeks in september. i want to use a quote, but we should not pass a continuing resolution and i will not vote for a continuing resolution unless we talk about preconditions. for going to conference. talk about preconditions. talk about demands and ultimatums. i will not vote for a continuing resolution unless it defund obamacare. continuinge of the resolution. nobody in america believes that is going to be done. thet of people i know,

majority people tell me -- the majority leader would tell me that a lot of people wanted done. the president won't sign the defunding of obamacare because he believes it's in the best interest of the health of our people. and the welfare of our country. and yes, even job creation and economic growth. but marco rubio says he won't vote for a continuing resolution unless it does something that is not going to happen. the majority leader said they won't go to conference. another ultimatum. itsss the senate abandon point of view. the senate has a right to it point of view and we have a right to our point of view. we need to discuss it. that's the way you get things done in a democracy, mr. speaker. i want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all at any time on the budget? and i yield to my friend.

>> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate his questions. i would note for the record that i believe, if i have my facts correct, that during the time the gentleman was in majority last, the last congress, it was the 111th, 48 times there was an avoidance of going to conference. so all of a sudden now, the gentleman says that is the panacea. i would tell the gentleman, given his litany of examples of who is talking to him around here, there is a lot of talk about how we resolve our differences. in fact i do know that chairman ryan is talking with chairman murray across the capital about how we go forward. i would underscore to the gentleman that it is not our intention to discuss taking more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from americans while we have not fixed the problems they expect us to fix. i would also say to the gentleman as far as appropriation bills are

concerned, he is correct. i did announced that the bill would be coming to the floor next weekend it will be the fifth bill that we will do prior to the august work time. gentlemanmind the when he was last in the position of the majority, the appropriations bill did not come to the floor in under an open process. in fact, the restructured rules on every one if my memory serves me well. much easier to shut out diverse opinion, but the speaker has this congress, insisted that we have an open process and allow for robust debate on difficult issues. the gentleman that knows we have been true to that word. i remind him there is a commit it to open process, a commitment here to try to resolve these challenges before us. he is correct, we will have a

busy fall, trying to address the needs of this country, whether it is spending and budget needs or whether it is the needs of the middle-class families struggling out there, wondering when the economy is going to pick up, wondering what is going to happen to their health care. we have a looming obamacare law that already the administration has admitted is threatening job growth, therefore, they offer relief to businesses, but refused to do so for working people. we do not think that is fair. we have democratic union leaders who have said this law is going to provide and has already created nightmare scenarios for millions of working americans, so far as their health care and well-being is concerned. i hope the gentleman will abide by what i know he has always been for, solving problems.

i hope he will work with us to do that in the coming months. ther. speaker, i appreciate gentleman's recitation of history. let me remind him that, when i was leader, all 12 bills were passed before the august recess. that also happened the third year. it did not happen the second year when we had a lot of political -- and the reason we went to structured rules is because we had filibuster by amendment. inhad delay and obstruction 2007, just as we have today. just as there is a refusal to go to conference. over 120 days that both houses have passed their budgets, we have still refused to go to conference. that is why you cannot get agreement, and the gentleman

characterizes mr. ryan has talked to ms. murray, and senator murray does not believe it was a substantive discussion because -- and you talk about mr. ryan -- i have a quotation of his you will like, because it makes the point i am making, that will make it later -- paul ryan, when asked about senate republicans planning to work with democrats to address the debt ceiling, said this, it does not matter, we are not going to do what they want to do, i.e., senate republicans. whatally does not matter they do, they being senate republicans. it does not matter what john mccain and others do on the taxes and the rest.

if they want to give up taxes for sequester, we will not do that. it does not really affect us. but it does affect us, because, if we cannot get agreement, those american folks of which the majority leader just spoke, who are looking for jobs, who want to see the economy grow, who are suffering because of gridlock am a who have a lack of confidence because this congress does not work, the most dysfunctional congress in which i have served, and i have been here 33 years. the least productive congress in which i have served. mr. speaker, that is what we need to be doing. mike lee, another republican in the senate, talking about trying to get to agreement, if republicans in both houses simply refused -- this is their strategy, mr. speaker -- if

republicans in both houses simply refuse to vote for any continuing resolution that contains further funding for further enforcement for obamacare -- we had an -- you did not win that argument at the national level. mr. speaker, i said mr. obama won that argument. senator leahy says he will not vote for a c.r. if it includes further defunding for enforcement of obamacare. we can stop it, we can stop the individual mandate from going into effect. how? by shutting down government. that is their strategy. we do not think that is a good strategy, mr. speaker. we think that is a bad strategy. he did not want to see that. we are prepared to work

together, to compromise to do that, but nobody believes, just as the gentleman said he will not agree to tax increases. we will have to compromise on that. nobody believes that the president will compromise after an election, after being reelected on a health care program that is benefiting millions of people right now. nobody believes we will compromise on that. 39 times we have tried to repeal it in one form or another. it has failed. we got to come to grips with that. one of the house members, mr. mulvaney from south carolina, said it is completely appropriate to use the debt ceiling or the c.r. to ask for changes to reduce the burdens of this law on americans. they have offered that 39 times.

it is not going to happen. apparently, strategy is we are prepared to strike down government unless they will be bludgeoned into agreeing but to doing it our way if we do not do it our way, we will not do it anyway. that is what the budget conference is about and what this debate seems to be about. senator toomey on the other hand said this -- this has been the way we have been operating for a couple of years now. this is senator pat toomey, former chair of the club for growth, said, it is a disaster. it is a terrible way to run government. senator toomey and i do not always agree, but we agree very emphatically on that. congressman tom cole described

the latest shutdown threat, which is what the previous three speakers had indicated, tom cole describes the latest threat as the political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. that is tom cole, chairman of the republican campaign committee, mr. speaker. we need to get past this you will not do this, i will not do that, and figure out what we will do, i say to my friend, the majority leader, and we have 14 days to do it. we have not gotten it done yet, and frankly we have nothing on the calendar for next week that shows we are moving toward that and. i would hope very sincerely that we could come to agreement, and we were not come to agreement on something that was so hard fought for the last five. we know that. we know you will not raise

taxes. but the fact of the matter is we need to come to an agreement. americans expect us to come to agreement. with so few legislative days remaining before the fiscal year ends and the fact that we must address it, i hope the gentleman will give clarity as to what will be addressed in september, the nine days, since we are so far off course from regular order on the budget and appropriations schedule. can members expect to see a c.r. and does the gentleman have any idea what the c.r. will look like, what it will encompass, what we can expect? we democrats are prepared to work on that effort. gentleman -- the knows we are not going to repeal the health care act.

the election decided it. boehnerter of a fact, decided that after election, he said your health care law has been confirmed. i want to make it clear we willing to do some things, we are not willing however to see the sequester cripple policies that this congress has adopted. we are not willing to defund the affordable care act. we are not willing to shift more of the burden onto the backs of the middle class. we are not willing to target medicare or medicaid and education for the deep cuts that were in the labor health bill. we will not consider the labor health bill. it is supposed to be marked up today. it was pulled. i say to the gentleman that he should and his colleagues be

willing to compromise on the few legislative days we have remaining, and if he is, he will have a willing partner in me and in democrats, because we believe we need to come to an agreement. debty, let me speak of the ceiling. the majority leader has made it clear he thinks not resolving the debt ceiling would be a bad policy for our country. i believe it would be a disastrous thing for our country, for the economy, for every american, and people around the world. we know that what happened last time, we were downgraded. it is the majority party's responsibly in each house to make sure that america's credit worthiness is not put at risk, that we pay our bills. i'm hopeful and i want to tell my friend that i am prepared to work in tandem with the majority leader, mr. speaker, to pass a debt limit extension.

we will do so in an equal way so that whatever political consequences there are we will take them together to do what the majority leader and the speaker and mr. mcconnell have said is the responsible thing to do. we are prepared to take half of that responsibility with them. we would hope they would join us in that effort. thator mccain has said some of my republican colleagues are already saying we will not raise the debt limit unless there's repeal of obamacare. senator mccain said i would love to repeal obamacare. but he said i promise you that will not happen on the debt limit. the president has made it clear it is not going to happen. someone would like to go on with his quote, so some would

like to set up one of the shut down the government threats, and most americans are really tired of those kinds of sheen and against here in washington. that is senator mccain. i have quoted senator toomey and senator mccain who believe we need to come to agreement. quotedalso unfortunately senator -- congressman ryan who said he does not care what senator mccain thinks -- who was a candidate for president a few years ago. thespeaker, i want to ask leader if he expects we will take an up or down vote on a debt limit extension when we come in september, and i yield. gentleman say to the the answer to that last question is no, but i would say to the gentleman, the discussion the gentleman just had was so full of just so various and

sundry issues, i do not know where to begin, other than to say what is lost in the gentleman's comments is the focus on the hard-working families and businesses of middle-class america, and it seems to me, mr. speaker, that the gentleman is full of that is not going to happen because washington says that is not going to happen for political reasons. and what we ought to be focused on is how we can act to solve the anxiety that seems to continue to grow on the part of the american public when they wonder about their job, they worry about their tuition cost, they worry about their children's education, they worry every night when the go to bed. the gentleman is so sure that we can and cannot do things for political reasons -- the president is out giving campaign speeches, some of which we have heard dozens of times

during the campaign season, that's what all of us should be absolutely focused on is coming together, not for political imperative, but to solve the problems and provide the relief to the middle class of this country that is asking us to do that. instead of the political demands and imperatives that the gentleman's list of issues was about, let's focus on the people that sent us here, let's ensure that this body of any in washington can begin to work for the people rather than the other way around. i yield back. >> i have heard that answer more than the president has given the speeches, that mr. cantor refers to. this party has always been, is now, and will be focused on the working people to which the

majority leader refers. the president asked us to pass a jobs bill. no jobs bill has been brought to this floor. there are some bills that the republican party leader wants to say, mr. speaker, our jobs bills. there has been no comprehensive jobs bills, there is none scheduled for next week, but what the people are concerned about is their board of directors is not working. this is not about washington. voteds about people who all over america. and the leader and his party made their point, and we had election, not in washington, all over america, and america voted and it has not made any difference on this floor. politics as usual.

obstruction as usual. refusal to compromise as usual. talk about regular order, but not going to conference, not on a budget, on a farm bill, not going to conference on a violence against women act. we finally passed that -- >> there was not a bill to go to conference on that. >> the majority leader wants to focus on working people, he is absolutely right. and the working people of america voted, and i told the majority leader last week 1,400,000 of them, more of them voted on our side than for their side. but his side is in charge. we understand that. we know we need to compromise, work together. but we have not been doing so, and he can talk as much as he

wants. that is what the people believe as well. i tell my friend the majority leader. i asked him about the debt limit. he said no. one of his-- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i want to clarify what he said, that the debt limit extension was not going to come to the floor. >> in september. >> i appreciate that. an he tell us if there is clean debt limit extension after september? i want to repeat so that he knows, is party knows, and american knows, we are prepared to work with the majority party to do in a bipartisan way what ever leader believes is the responsible action to take. one of his predecessors, senator roy blunt, said in responding to whether we ought to risk default by not passing a debt limit, he said this -- no,

i do not support that. i think holding the debt limit hostage -- in other words, if you do not do the debt limit, we would not do this and the other -- or said another way, if you do not repeal obamacare, we will let the country default -- senator blunt, again, one of his predecessors, i do not support that, i think holding the debt limit hostage to any specific thing is probably not the best negotiating place. i thank my friend for his comment. i would again ask him, could we expect a clean debt limit extension at some point in time between september 30 and november 15? gentlemansay to the it is our hope that we can work together across the aisle to solve the problems, to come up with the answers as to how we are going to pay back the

additional debt that we will have to incur in this country. i think whatever budget you look at, their site or our side, mr. speaker, in any iteration calls for additional debt. it calls for the need so we can relieve the american people of that continued liability, and our side has said we would like to do so within the next 10 years, bring the budget to balance. i hope that the gentleman will join us in that spirit rather than saying we should just continue to borrow into eternity without some recognition that that just cannot be a sustainable solution, either. i would say to the gentleman, when he is off talking about the need to go to conference -- and some of the statements he made about the farm bill were inaccurate -- but i think there are a lot of things that this

house has done that the president nor the senate seems willing to respond. as i said before, what we are trying to do is address the needs of the working people, the middle class of this country. we passed the skills act. that was a bill designed to try and align the worker training programs at the federal level with the employment opportunities out there across the different regions of the country. so we could respond to the fact there are hundreds of thousands of jobs openings in certain industries simply because of their workforce does not have the proper skills and training. the president, if he wanted to help the middle class families, instead of off a penny again, giving speeches, he could come and call on harry reid and say bring the bill to the floor, mr. leader, we could do something for american people. this house last week passed a bill which i believe, and i am sure the gentleman shares my sentiment, that ultimately what we have got to do to grow our

economy to secure our economic future is provide for quality education for our kids. ofpassed a landmark piece legislation last week without any bipartisan support, mr. speaker, what if the gentleman is so intent on wanting to help and wanting to do something, not because of washington's needs, but because of what we have to do for the kids across this country and their families, then let's help try to forge an answer on reauthorizing the education bill. we also passed a bill that made it easier for working families to spend time with their kids and hold down a wage job, and hourly wage job. is there any movement on that? the president could say let's do that, let's provide relief to the middle class. we also passed in the house several energy bills to help the families out there across this country who are on their vacations right now, choking when they see the price of gas at the pump. we have bills, the president

could go ahead and approve the keystone pipeline. where else in the world would you have an environmentally sensitive people other than in america? we do it cleaner and better than anyone. to sit here and deny us the opportunity to take advantage of our indigenous resources of all it does is cost are working families and businesses more money. they have also passed bills to allow for the safe and environmentally sensitive way of going enter deep oceans, to go in and tap into the resources that are there, things that technology has unleashed, yet the senate nor the president seem interested in helping the middle class and the working families, because all we hear from the other side is what we can and cannot do politically here in washington. i would say to the gentleman, there are plenty of things we can get done together, let's start to focus on the people of this country, not the political imperatives of this institution, and i yield back.

>> i thank the gentleman for that response, which i took as a no, which did not indicate that we could expect to see bipartisan work on making sure that the government pays its bills that have already been incurred. and a lot of rhetoric and a lot of recitation about bills. all those bills had something in common, do it my way or do it no way. we had an election. i tell the gentleman. he knows that. they thought they were going to take the senate, they did not. the majority in the senate is in the crafts. -- is democrats. and the president of the united states was reelected. and that house republican majority was returned. but that did not mean the american people do not expect us to work together. and i tell the gentleman i am not sure what ever he thought i

made, we did not go to conference on the violence against women act, we did not go to the conference on the farm bill -- >> if the gentleman would yield. >> i will yield. >> there was a blue slip on the senate bill, mr. speaker, and we took up the bill in the house and went ahead and passed the bill. so i do not even know why that is even pertinent to this discussion, and i would say that gentleman understands as well there was a bipartisan farm bill that came to the floor, and if i recall, that partisanship faded away which is what now then has caused the house to bring about other farm bill, and this time trying to be transparent in the process, brought up the agricultural policy piece which has passed the house without bipartisan support, and then we are also engaged in discussions with the chairman of the agricultural committee as to forging a consensus on a nutrition piece

so we can act again on that. i say to the gentlemen, it is not accurate that we do not intend to eventually go to conference and iron out differences between the house and senate on both of those issues on the ag policies as well as nutrition policies. >> i talked about fact. pete sessions, chairman of the rules committee, republican, said when we passed the farm bill, i believe this is an honest step to get us go by passing part of the farm bill to go to conference. i asked the gentleman last week, i ask him again, there's nothing here about going to conference. he told me we are not going to conference of the we passed the nutrition part. we want to see something on the nutrition part passed. pete sessions, talking about why they brought the farm bill to

the floor and conditions it was, dropping all references and provisions for poor people to have nutritional assistance, said we are attempting to separate, bifurcate, offered today a rule and the underlying legislation which will go to conference, and in the senate because they passed their own farm bill, has included its provisions where they discussed nutrition program. as a result of that -- this is pete sessions, speaking -- that should be in their bill as a conference measure. if we pass it at this point could go to conference. the gentleman is not accurate when he refunds there's nothing to go to conference on. the senate has amended their bill into the house bill. he could go to conference on that under the processes. the gentleman must know that.

that was the expectation that pete sessions says was the purpose of passing the farm bill. let me go back to the point i was making before the gentleman on the to correct me on what i think were accurate representations, both on all the pieces of legislation as i mentioned. surely that is the case i mentioned. that is the case on the budget. i do not what the intention is, but we have not gone to conference on the farm bill, and we did not go to conference on the violence against women bill. the fact is what those bills that he mentioned did have in common is -- and he said -- we had no democratic votes for it, there was no work to get them a -- to still work for compromise. that is why the polls reflect to the working people such concern. aboutjority talked a lot confidence, talked a lot about building confidence if we are

going to build the economy. i agree with him. we need to have individuals confident, and the gentleman knows every one of business leader says if they had confidence that we could work together and get things done, not put the debt limit and risk, not for the ongoing operations of government at risk, but continue to have fights -- i talked to a major leader of one of that health insurers in this country and said, we may never not like some of this bill, but we will try to make it work for all americans. mr.re not doing that, speaker. we're trying to repeal. we are not conferencing. you're not trying to come to compromise. we are talking about working people as is appropriate for us to do, and that is what the president is out doing, not here in washington. i am talking all of us. he is talking to the people and

saying this is my program, this is what i want to do, and i'm not getting cooperation from the congress of the united states. i think he is absolutely right, and he is talking to the people, not us, not here in washington, but he is criticized for doing that by the majority leader. i think that is what he ought to be doing, because the people will ultimately have to make a decision as to who is looking out for their interests and who is sadly confronting and not listening to the people in the last election. in the last election or right now, when the people are saying, board of directors, work together, stop obstructing. i would hope we could do that, mr. speaker. unless the leader has something else he wants to say, i yield the balance of my time. >>

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] we will have live coverage of the house when the return on tuesday at noon eastern here on c-span. on cspan today, "washington journal"is next. later, economists at the cato institute will discuss the impact of immigrants on the u.s. economy and job market. about 45 minutes, we look at how the economy as faired in the obama administration with an economist of george mason university. then the future of u.s. energy production and consumption and we will talk with the

administrator of the u.s. energy administration and [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host: good morning, and welcome thisashington journal" friday, july 26, 2013. republican leaders distanced themselves yesterday from comments made by congressman steve king on immigration. ontoowa republican made verso remarks about illegal immigrants in an interview this week aired we would like to hear your on what the republican message should be on immigration. we will take calls from republicans only this morning. you can call us up that -- you can also find u