Skip to main content

tv   Road to the White House  CSPAN  December 15, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EST

10:00 pm
republicans who are worried about spending and looking to the farm bill to bring some of the spending down. you have democrats that are offended by the magnitude of the cuts in the food stamps. if this scenario where this kind of murray-ryan compromise can work out the differences? or will they return to some of the deadlock? >> i want to strongly agree with marty on this point. something that is not understood in washington. once you have a number, a budget number that the operators can
10:01 pm
work with. big the determine how pie is going to be, it gets a lot easier to work out how big to be.ice is going once you work out how much the gets to work then it's much easier to the out the details of budget. once they have master agreement they know will pass the house there's thete, then will of the leadership of the pass and the senate to appropriations bills in regular whole lot becomes a asier and becomes harder for
10:02 pm
the whole process. very hard for us to rationalize why we ought to central payments to multimillionaire farmers. so the whole argument about the there are s -- is -- a number of nuances to that. and the second part of it is, think it's been extremely hand fisted the way the republicans have handled the whole issue of nutrition d stamp program, so forth, the fact we have 48 million americans on when it was originally designed for 2 million or 3 million americans, deserves sue that serious attention, okay? why is that? what are we doing? have the answers, but i why it becomes incredibly political and partisan when you start talking just about cuts. we do need to have a dialogue and a discussion about fellow on of our
10:03 pm
citizens who will become dependent on the government for something as basic as nutrition. much.gree very we have to deal with it. where income has fallen to in this country. it's our economy. for whatever reason, significant growth of the people at the the income scale as it polarizes, the more assistance we need. the fact is that there are of americans who are working hard and they're not of enough for the basics life. o they need subsidy for housing, for food stamps, food tamps is one that's sort of uniform for everyone. housing, some get it, some don't. health care, e of the very lowest get on medicaid. the -- the problem
10:04 pm
of cost of insurance for that's of others and part of the cost and what obama affordable care act deals with. we have that kind of polarization of income, those public costs are going to increase. if i can pull out what i think is the theme both of you ave raised is now they're away from the issue of does the not?rnment stay open or we're now going to get into the invest in.t what we the national institute of health, food stamps? need to look at a reform of how that money is going into food stamps? we're going to see a shift in the debate and we're focusing our attention. >> i think that's right. ut let me just raise another issue. i think it's complicated life be some tears.
10:05 pm
less and less have the been doing their work or when they do work to get leadership.y central central leadership inserts hemselves today in many more issues than i used to see in the a product, produce sometimes in a bipartisan basis. hen they get vetoed by leadership. my observation over the years, not eadership staff is nearly as smart as they think they are. we'll get back to appropriating committees, the subcommittees, getting some of the power back number. there is that >> this goes beyond appropriations. it's been a major problem with bill.rm they've negotiated bipartisan solutions and then leadership are pulled out from under them. >> i'm going to give you a hance to weigh back in on the farmers.
10:06 pm
your good friend over here, like saying, farmers are too -- >> not sure he is a farmer or not. do you think about -- again, in minnesota and the upper midwest, throughout the midwest, the farm bill is anxios and i am sensing some increasing frustration and anger that this has not been worked out. big news. i sense anger and frustration this isn't worked out. talking about 2 wrong bill. we should not be talking about the farm bill. ate ould be calling nutrition bill. because i think the disagreement place in ee taking washington and the piece of not over thes it's 25% part of it. there's more over the nutrition, part of the bill, is it not?wee disagreement on where it is. and hisman peterson
10:07 pm
republican counterpart have come together on the egg part of it. question? i ask a discussion of this when you bringt, people together, it is tough. nobody is ever totally satisfied. issue or whathat funding mechanism was not in this bill that you think could have been added with bipartisan support? do not know enough about the specifics of the agreement. i am six years removed from that. >> i do not know. this agreement yesterday, i
10:08 pm
think it is foretelling of the future. maybe the boat has sailed on medicare and social security. this is an historic agreement. this is a good agreement for the country, i believe. when you're trying to put a package together, you form the coalition. issueot know there is an -- not extending unemployment benefits, that was an issue, right? not tax reform. there are things you could have added to bring more democratic support or more republican support, but bipartisan support -- i think this was a pretty good agreement. point i come back to the that marty raised?
10:09 pm
i was on the budget committee before president bush was elected and i was on the budget committee through part of his presidency. once you have an agreement thaten house and senate we're only going to spend whatever the number is, 1.7 trillion, whatever the number. once you have the agreement, it everything get so much easier. was when frustrations the bush team came in and we had the house and the senate and the white house under republican control, i just assumed that we would have one number to start with. it would have made things so much easier. the senate had a budget. the house had a budget. the president had a budget.
10:10 pm
to use a very simple analogy. we were at this number, the senate was at this number, the president was about at the senate's number. we ended up compromising at this number. the critical point of this agreement is they finally come together and have a number. then you can have legitimate and honest debate about how much should go to this or should go to that program. that is part of the legislative progress. years, has in recent important of a very theme that margaret thatcher advanced 30 years ago. first you win the debate. then you win the vote.
10:11 pm
what we have seen going on in congress, and why there is so leadership on both sides no longer think they have to win the debate. they just have to get enough votes. if they have to break knuckles, promise bridges, that is all considered fair game. if we can get back to the basic notion of having legitimate debate about legitimate issues and not allowing personalities to be allowed in the debate, i think you will see a much more -- you will see a washington that can work. you an example of that we have heard in response to the murray-ryan deal. big mistake to give up the sequestration number.
10:12 pm
it was better to stick to that number and cut spending from their. once you move away from sequestration, the republicans have given up the game. now it is back to the usual give and take. was it a mistake of the republican leadership to give up the argument about spending that was tied to sequestration? >> it was a big give. it was the one club that senator mcconnell had gotten into the budget agreement. it was an awful lot to give up. the question all of the members ill have to ask themselves in the end, is the agreement that was reached worth what was given up. have given up. i believe now it's both sides have given up a good deal. hat's why i think you will see some -- you will see some gnashing of teeth, but pass. tely, it will
10:13 pm
members of invite our audience to give us some questions. to put on yourou hat as a strategist and you where the underbelly of the democratic party is right now. we know moving to the new year going to be an avalanche. was it a smart strategic play by epublicans to say let's shift off of the debate over government shutdowns and the budget and clear the decks to obama care with oversight here and kind of a 24/7 watch? >> history will tell us, i am -- my observation is that most large computer programs in federal government may have a great deal of difficulty up.ting set
10:14 pm
that doesn't relate to the obama administration. relates to the bush administration, the clinton administration, first bush to reagan. all the way through. it's beyond me why they didn't that re attention to particular issue. you know, the old saying is that hard work is great. we got a little bit of a program problem. little software problem. and hit balloons. think eventually that problem gets worked out. nd at that point, then i think the republicans will rue the day they made that essential issue. then i'll be working for millions of people and they'll be happier. a plus for them. but they can't count on it computers being troublesome a year from now. >> a caucus that was quite so, when us, famously
10:15 pm
you were trying to lead them. oes this strike you as a smart leadership move to get control back of the agenda, put the kind of on the back burner? et the committees work their way? and instead put the spotlight on underbelly bably the of the democratic party right now, the struggles that obama likely having and continue to have as we move to 2014? the think that's part of sfr strategy. i think it would be wise if it was. hey had to get off shut down, crisis to crisis management. whether they received most of crisis to or the crisis shutdown, maybe unfair, but they received much of the the blame. the slate is a little wiped clean. i would agree with gil that i have generallyns
10:16 pm
won the day on discretionary spending. $200 billion less than president obama recommended. how can you not consider that a victory. if you're trying to talk about wins and losses. deck, get on to an issue that marty, i'm going bit.gree with you a little websites are going to be corrected. there are lots of smart tech there that are going to correct the websites. correct them whether it's two days from now or three months from now. underbelly is t the law itself, obama care itself. and the law itself, the websites will be corrected. that's not the issue. i have to live with my kids -- my grand kids got to live with for the next 30 years. that's the underbelly. > just to make it a crisp point, and i think congressman gutnick, you would agree with strategic play here by the republican leadership was let's put the the back ues on
10:17 pm
burner. let the committees work it out. fighting and squirmishing. but that's not front page news. let's clear the way for obama care to be front page news. it will move beyond the website now. we move in 2014, there's all the of issues relating to insurance companies and who's ot being covered and covered, who's being paid on and on. is that your read as well. as a lot of people will say, that the t even agree shutdown that occurred in fight, dumbly dumb fought, all right? perspectivea public a fight that had to be fought, okay? it had to be fought because it between ar decision hose who really believe that
10:18 pm
obama care will work and those who believe it is a train wreck. and it's democrats and the will rue the day when we went down this path. time will tell who's correct. we'll have a pretty good verdict by next november. make theepublicans did calculations that they had made point on the budget and obama care in the last government shutdown. days.sted 12 it was forgotten for the most part by the end of october by ost republicans and by most americans, and issues had moved on. and ey made their point, there was nothing really -- there is nothing left for to gain by making the budget and another shutdown issue. there's just nothing left in it for them to gain. issues a many other that are happening. it's not just a health care believe, i we
10:19 pm
believe, as steve suggested, fixed, i ebsite is believe in some respects the problem will be worse. because you're going have -- americans, we don't know the number, but maybe as many as 50 million americans who insurance they have today. and are they going to get better insurance at lower costs? i is think that's the bet. many believe it's not true. > many of these issues are obviously as you said are going to play out over time. you of the numbers as mention, i haven't seen them before. clearly this is a major battle. this moment ion at is simply agenda control. what is the issue being debated. agreement here that this budget agreement, the underlying politics of it from the let'sican perspective was get the budget issues off of the front page, let's allow obama have the space on the front page. we'll have a debate. congressman?
10:20 pm
50 he group -- join in to million. not sure where that's coming from. ut, you know, i think we look forward to the debate of all of the kids who automatically get until they're age 27. millions of american people are lower end ofat the this income scale and the states medicaid. millions more who get insurance problems and h millions more who find they get fairly reasonable deal on -- on the affordable care act. i think the focus is there. debate. a great but we're not going to have it today. i want to come -- i want to come i want to and then ask each of you this question. speaker.with you, you're a shrewd leader here in party ta, the republican and someone who follows things nationally. surprised that the
10:21 pm
republicans in washington and around the country haven't done dance in the end zone. they swept into power in 2010 coherent argument that spending was out of control. that the budget deficit was unsustainable. and here we are, with the in the decline government's budget deficit in washington since world war ii, congressional budget office is reporting that for the next decade that the budget deficit the 2% to 3% in range, which is quite ustainable in the view of many economists. why isn't it that republicans unable to kind of make that dance. >> first of all, you're correct. democratsr, left wing should be shaking their head. can't believe it happened. the spending level is the $1 $1.2 trillion, far
10:22 pm
could an a left winger have imagined two, three years than the billion less president wanted. they should be declaring victory on the budget. was going to respond earlier, clear the deck. but declare victory while you clear the deck. think we all agreed that republicans have won the day on the question of spending. on the question of discretionary spending. we've won the day on that. so that should be something that take to the able to american people and say, you know, spending was -- let's not own -- let's not eat our own, let's not say it was not for you.gh it was a victory from a standpoint. >> congressman, you made tough calls both on the spending time, in some g spending cases and raising revenue when popular, ticularly even among democrats. do you think republicans have spending?bate on
10:23 pm
>> no, long term spending still the question. long term and what ement programs and you're going to do. discretionary spending is not driving the deficit. savage es would really the lots of very important programs. that will come back as time goes on. uh in the short term, those cuts are there. >> just correct the speaker. the art of negotiation is even when you know you have had a big win, democrat votes in the senate and republican votes in you don't want to posture too much. t's helpful to the republican leadership in the house to have a lot of grumbling from their budget deal.his
10:24 pm
it helps them pass it. in the them pass it senate. so i think you always have to be bit humble about the results of any negotiation. end, that's a the hell of a playout. >> sounds like you're saying grab the victory but don't do the victory dance because you bargainingntain your leverage. >> never try to embarrass the other side. this is important, we want to pivot away -- the republicans ant to pivot away from talk about a shutdown and budget in general. i think that's part of the strategy. just to have hearings about obama care. there are a lot of things going of n the united states america and around the world hat i think that are really clue to the benefit of republicans next november. we have a problem in syria. with iran, oblem we're still not clear how things are going to pan out in the general. st in
10:25 pm
>> no doubt that the republicans have a strong set of talking points. have a feeling that democrats will have talking points about thestrengthening economy as congressman said about the millions of people who are being helped by obama care. in the l get played out campaign. i want to come back to some of the issues we're talking about. the ve a question from audience. do you think it's possible to an urban legislator to vote for a farm bill that would on significant reductions the level, but house republicans have talked about, which is more cuts?40 billion of do you think urban legislators the e house or in democratically controlled senate would go along with something like that? and those will be dramatically -- those cuts will in any tically reduced farm bill. but let me also add, though, the farm bill in general, there are also isagreements between the
10:26 pm
different commodity groups and at eliminating he basic just blanket payment departments going to more expensive crop insurance programs. i think they can do that. from the perspective of an minnesota, lator in the farm program is one of the few programs that the federal a ernment where we get disproportionate share in thought is if we don't do that, we can do quite to in terms of money going the state in ag versus many other programs. >> congressman, another question from the audience. the latest of the farm bill about snap. were talking about how much larger it is in terms of the people.f and obviously huge budget significance. for some potential significant structural reform in snap? know uestioner wants to
10:27 pm
about maybe a shift towards some kind of cash transfer? >> that's a great question. but i don't know. answer is truthful we've got to get our arms around and we're supposedly in the of an economic recovery. we've got 48 million americans. the resident has raised issue of the income disparity. it is a fact. t is something we've got to come to grips with. introspective, we how to try to understand and why that happens. okay? more importantly from my to find out we need whether or not directly or indirectly the federal government and federal policies at least in part to blame for that. unique things for
10:28 pm
food stamps is it is universal for low income people. it's tied to food products. you get a quarrel of what it is or isn't described at. we have housing programs where a small percentage of eligible getting assistance for housing. it's significant, the difference between whether you've qualified that type of for income, supplemental. one of the virtues of food that people qualify on a general basis for it. of this is all with the economy we're in. okay? i mean, the truth of the matter is, i chaired the subcommittee on the house agriculture oversight on had the nutrition programs, i'll ake some -- i won't take the responsibility because it was done by other people. but while i was in congress, we from the paper food stamps to the debit cards, okay,
10:29 pm
which we believed were going to dramatically reduce the amount we saw happening because they'd become almost a ounterfeit currency in some areas. number real cure for the of people on food stamps a much stronger general economy. real when the unemployment rate was down somewhere just north of 3%, we numbers collapsing on these programs. that's what we have to be talking about. really get this economy moving again. how do we get people to start building and businesses and jobs here in the united states? nd the truth of the matter is, i think we're closer than we even think to that happening and again. a booming economy but i think some of the policies being advanced in washington are keeping that from happening. >> a big debate about this issue. wall the concerns on street in the business community has been that the crisis nature decision making in
10:30 pm
washington on the government and the threat to our urrent debt limit has created the sort of depressing effect on growth.c another one of those. >> i want to talk about the in passing. unemployment insurance, a lot of democrats feel that the deal struck in washington has basically been on the backs of unemployed americans, over 1 million are going to be cut off from unemployment insurance. were in congress, would you be voting against this deal because it didn't help the vulnerable group? deal? >> i would be voting for it, but i would be disappointed.
10:31 pm
>> do you have thoughts about what we do about the long-term uninsured? >> long-term uninsured? >> i'm sorry, long-term unemployed? >> there are areas of our country -- you almost have to define geographically. in the coals -- states, eastern kentucky, something like 100 out of 130 mines have closed down. the ideas that you can have job training rogue rims for coal miners and turn them into training-- job programs for coal miners and turn them into computer programmers, i have always thought that was a fallacy. i believe that simply extending unemployment benefits probably increases the unemployment rate.
10:32 pm
human nature is what human nature is and the longer people can draw benefits, the more choosy they will be about what kind of unemployment they will take or what kind of employment they will take. it is much easier to find another job when you already have a job. we need to get people back in the employment pool and extending unemployment benefits probably works against that. avoiding a government shutdown is headline news. are curious, when you speaker, it was an interesting time in minnesota politics. we had gone from a fairly bipartisan -- there were a set of rules that both parties
10:33 pm
tended to play by. politicsbarred sort of like a government shutdown. can you put your finger on what changed that led here in that has gotten us to this point where anything goes? tougher. get i was a part of it. going to point to something specific that changed the atmosphere a little bit from , little bit more collegial understanding of each other's positions as opposed to a hard- line partisanship, i would say preventedlaw, it
10:34 pm
individuals from getting together in the legislature and going out for a supper, getting to know each other. it might've been sponsored by an interest group. all of a was ethically wrong. if you do not know the people on the other side of the aisle, much less may be in the other body, it is more difficult -- it i think that is part of it. i also think the politics part of it, we have so many districts democratic orll all republican. a democrat sitting right here, you will win. i like that in the 1990s and
10:35 pm
1980s when all the challenges internally with the caucus primaries and the challenges to endorse candidates running democratic side. then they changed the republican side in 2004 and i did not like that is much because they cause problems. that did take place. >> are you finding when you are the speaker of the republican party of minnesota, that the type of people showing up and becoming part of the endorsement process of the republican party commitment,ntense uncompromising commitment, to their agenda? did he set of issues that they thought were the most up organ, rather than to the party itself and winning elections? did you see some of that? >> there was probably less balance amongst the people who
10:36 pm
attended caucuses. that includes democratic caucuses as well. i've spoken to democratic caucuses. system the caucus intended to bring out those folks who were more passionate. less compromising, less balanced. that is why all day sunday primaries look better to me. >> i want to pick up on this point that speaker swiggum mentioned. the power of the single issue advocate. it was rising in the republican party, have you seen arising in the democratic arctic? would that make it harder for democrats to vote for compromise that would step on toes? such as the entitlement programs. think there has been a growth of advocacy groups across the spectrum. many more than when i first
10:37 pm
started with the republicans. that is a constitutional right in this country. they are organized. hasnumber of people increased substantially. i think lots of them appeal to money for -- for money from a lot of advocacy groups across the political spectrum send out mailings to people. there is no ambiguity about what is right and what is wrong. >> does that make it harder to govern? if you were chair of the budget committee today, dealing with well-organized, intense groups, does that make your job as chair harder? >> do you agree? in its mostcracy
10:38 pm
glorious form, but also a constraint on reaching some of these agreements that we are talking about today? >> absolutely. steve raised a good point in terms of socializing. i suspect it was true when martin was in the legislature. there was a good deal of socializing between republicans and democrats both top we got to know people on a more personal level. i never felt that my vote could be bought for the price of a dinner or a lunch. it gave more opportunities for us to get to know our fellow legislators. i do believe it. martin has in some respect contributed to the left civil behavior of members. it is hard to call someone a name if you have spent time with them and got to know them. secondly, and i strongly agree
10:39 pm
weh what the speaker said, have seen an enormous which iation of groups would go so far as to say are not bound i the facts. they will selectively pick that about this issue or that issue and they have become incredibly effective at communicating that message to that group. vulcanization of our country with all of these various groups speaking specifically to their groups. then you overlay that in the sense that the way people get their information, the media. it performs its function, and we now have so many different ways people get their news. amongst the young people here at the university of minnesota, very few of them probably watch the nightly news.
10:40 pm
they may have their particular cable news network that they prefer. it is obvious, at least to me and isis at two most, that each of these outlets tends to have its own point of view and its own storyline that they pursue. combine the fact that we do not get together and socialize with the geometric development andhese interest groups, what i would call the vulcanization of herbal media, media, but does that mean things cannot get better. strong leaders were committed to winning the debates before you win the votes, i think ultimately they will prevail, even against these almost insurmountable objectives. >> i agree. >> a lot of it comes down to leadership. at the federal level, i agree
10:41 pm
with what the speaker has said. changes, thing that when i was first elected to congress, we put our house for sale and moved to washington. that was true of most of my colleagues. we got to know other people, spouses, kids of other members. today that does not happen. people run in and out on the last plane in and the first plane out. it compresses the congressional schedule. people.re to talk to career, ie end of my would see someone next to me and asked if they would know who that was. they thought it was someone from the other side. it was dramatically different. to beyou feel, to add on
10:42 pm
persuasive list of reinforcing thatrs for factionalism, one of the challenges is the nature of our nomination process? who gets nominated today, is that different? what peopleects think of their districts. i think the reality is that people are more poor. reflected, whether it is a caucus or the primary system. swiggum, you live in the southern part of minnesota and you have been going to your precinct for many years. are you show up there, seeing the same set of people or is there a new crowd that seems to be on the way? >> there are definitely knew people loved come. that is good. you want to branch out. anywant to be inclusive in
10:43 pm
party. that is good. as speaker of the house, when you have to go to your local precinct office and fight to be a delegate, that is questionable. but then it happened. >> one of the challenges you're there areta is that tremendous resources for groups like the tea party and they have figured out that going into the precinct office is a great way to get some leverage over the nomination process. and power to them. they are using the processes that are available and involvement and participation. you mentioned the tea party, but there are left-wing groups that are doing the same thing. >> absolutely. >> we have seen this in the democratic party. it does not matter as much anymore, they go straight to primary. this process of the single issue
10:44 pm
advocates has played itself out. we are just about at the end of our time. give each of you a chance to reflect on where we are. we are heading into 2014, should we expect to see a continuing level of strife? corner andturned a we will see some real movement and appropriations and perhaps some reform related to food stamps, or other issues like immigration? will it be more of the same, or will this be a shift where we roll around to the end of this session and there could be a record of real accomplishment? >> i noticed that the vikings scored today and their opponents score touchdowns in the last two minutes. things don't if move much until the end of the session and their pressure point is valid.
10:45 pm
we will always find that more activity will happen legislatively as you reach a pressure point. whether it is the budget or the debt ceiling. those are the times when you will see action. i do not recall that when moses led the israelites out of egypt he told them that they would wander for 40 years, ok? they did not know that when they left. i do not know how long we will wander in this timeframe. but i do know that ultimately i believe churchill was correct when he said americans ultimately do the right thing. once we have exhausted every other possibility. i think we as americans understand that we are all stakeholders in this government that we call the federal government. we are kind of in a tough situation. there is a chance that we will begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel. we will always have big differences.
10:46 pm
there are real philosophical differences. there are reasons that people started throwing tea in boston harbor. we are americans and we are entitled to have strong feelings about. issues. that will create friction. i am reminded of something that we were told at the bipartisan retreat one time. i have never forgotten it. what we do every day on the floor of the house of representatives in the united states house is a substitute for civil war. you have to assume that there will be friction. you also have to assume that ultimately strong people will rise to the occasion and that ultimately we will move ahead together. >> thank you. you agree that while fiction will remain, as a move into 2014, the pressure at the end of the session and the election in november, we may well see some touchdowns here?
10:47 pm
perhaps immigration reform, perhaps other big scores? >> that would surprise me. maybe immigration. i just hope the farm bill gets taken care of in january. i think with the appropriations numbers set, that process will work itself out. if the leadership left it happened. they could finish that work can be done in september. see lotse surprised to of high visibility political issues dealt with by the congress in the next year. i think they are potentially on a very quiet cap. hapath. i want to swiggum,
10:48 pm
thank you. you are the guy who pulled together the panel. our staff here at the university of minnesota. they have put on more than three dozen programs this year. you tend to be bright and optimistic. this is one of the least productive congresses we have seen in some time. a you look at this deal as light at the end of the tunnel? more of a northern european cap this is of your friends? >> looking to the outside, i would tell you that there are lessons that were learned. there were lessons learned from the shutdown, from the continuing resolutions, which
10:49 pm
the republicans had concerns about, the democrats had concerns about. i think there were lessons learned. i am encouraged about this agreement yesterday. it will a a path or the future. whether it is immigration or the farm bill, there will be a path. my students here at the humphrey school will tell you. here ifot govern from you cannot govern from here. you cannot govern from either polarized and. you have to bring people together. we have a path with the his store, i will say it's historic, agreement on the budget. >> that is what we are reporting today from the humphrey school, i want to thank everyone for coming. [applause]
10:50 pm
>> on the next "washington journal," christine hard bin hanson will talk about the agenda heading to the 2014 general elections. then bloomberg news reporter alex wayne will talk about the latest with the health care law including the enrollment numbers in on-line exchanges. after that, medicare part d with charles ornstein. he'll talk about the program when dispensing name brand drugs. take your calls, e-mail, and tweets beginning on "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. on thursday, katherine clark was sworn in as the 113th congress. she fills a seat in massachusetts fifth district left vacant by ed markie who's serving in the senate after a special election this past summer. her swearing in was followed by brief remarks on the house floor.
10:51 pm
unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from the commonwealth of massachusetts, the honorable katherine m. clerk, be permitted to take the oath of office today. her certificate her certificate of election is in front of you. there's no contest, no question raised with regard to her election. >> without objection. will representative-elect clark and the members of the massachusetts delegation present themselves in the well of the house. and will all members rise?? and will the member-elect please raise your right hand. do you solemnly support that you'll support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about
10:52 pm
to enter, so help you god? ms. clarke: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 113th congress. -- ms. clark: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 113th congress. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: mr. speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce katherine clark with the always important reminder that there are fewer than 12,000 men and women who have add the honor in american history of taking this oath. this institution has been home to presidents of the united
10:53 pm
states, members of the supreme court, members of the united states senate who have gone far and wide in helping america to succeed every day. katherine clark is one of those individuals who has now joined this important and august body, succeeds, again, a very favored colleague of ours who served in this institution with distinction for 37 years, senator ed markey. mr. speaker, katherine clark is well-grounded in local government, having served at the school committee level. she served in the legislature as a member of the house of representatives and as a member of the massachusetts senate. she has also served time as a
10:54 pm
prosecutor. she is well distinguished in the state of massachusetts and won a very handsome victory. it's an honor for me to submit to you for the first time the honorable katherine m. clark from the state of massachusetts. . . . the speaker: if the gentlelady ill suspend the speaker pro tempore: if the yeal will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. leader pa lowsy, congressman
10:55 pm
neal, and the massachusetts delegation, and all of you for this very warm welcome. thank you to my family and friends who are here with me today. my husband, rodney, and my three sons, adyson, jere red, and nathaniel whose love every day makes me the luckiest mom and wife in the world. my parents, chan and judy clark, i thank you -- thank them for the love and support and teaching me even when times are hard approach life with gratitude, optimism, respect for others, and a sense of adventure.
10:56 pm
myelin yause -- myin laws, i'm so grateful for all they do to keep our family running smoothly and all the love they give us. and my brother, john, and his partner, justin, thank you for being here and for all your support. and i'm so grateful to the voters of the massachusetts 5th congressional district for their confidence and the profound privilege of representing them. senator markey, you set a standard of excellence during your time in the house. i look forward to carrying on your work for the people of our district and partnering with you and the entire massachusetts delegation to move massachusetts
10:57 pm
and our country forward. thank you. massachusetts fifth from revere to came brinl, waltham to freedomingham is home to some of the country's and the world's most respected universities and innovative companies. we are deeply -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. he house will be in order. ms. clark: we are proud of these incredible institutions, but what defines the fifth district is its families. and as i have talked with families around their kitchen tables, i found they are just like mine and i'm sure they are just like yours. we are teachers, small business owners, c.e.o.'s, and
10:58 pm
machinists. we work in stock rooms and board rooms. we are recent immigrants, and we are desendents from early american settlers. we are of all political ideologies and, yes, deep in the heart of red sox nation we even have a few yankees fans. what unites our families is they work hard, play by the rules, and what they ask in return is a fair shot at the american dream. our families want to find a good job, send their children to great schools, and count on a secure retirement. they want to know that the issues they talk about around their kitchen tables are the issues that we'll talk about here in congress. i am honored to join the massachusetts delegation and represent the peoples of the fifth congressional district in
10:59 pm
this house of representatives. i look forward to working together with each of you for the families of my district, the commonwealth of massachusetts, and the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker, and i ield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: under clause d -- under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, the whole number of
11:00 pm
next on c-span, q&a with margaret mcmillen talking about her first book on the first world war. and david cameron taking the questions from the house of common sense, later a question about trade agreements and presidential authority. >> margaret mcmillen, the author of

476 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on