tv Midterm Election Results Congressional Restructuring CSPAN November 9, 2014 1:39pm-2:31pm EST
seats when all is said and done and that will be -- a lot of these people, there were a number of people who were conservative but they are not -- many of them are driven by government interest from a conservative respective. not the kind of people who want to come in and burn the place down, necessarily. >> i do wonder why would anybody want to do a mitch mcconnell has to do for the next two years when he has a pretty a block of confrontational types with their avatar in chief in ted cruz and i think i just counted up --
this is one of those numbers everyone is going to commit to memory. the first-term senators running in single obama states will stop >> one of the things we have two absolutely look at is when we look at the way the senate is going to be operating, or at least the way senator mcconnell envisions the senate operating, we don't know how this experiment is going to work. the macconnell doctrine appears to be a return to what we used to call regular order where you process bills through committee. he actually got a laugh from the press yesterday. he held a news conference yesterday afternoon at -- i am
not kidding -- the elaine chao auditorium at the mcconnell center on the campus of louisville. was there that role earmarking involved? got a laugh line from the press when he said something to the effect of believe it or not, the committees have to function. when bills come out of committee on a bipartisan basis, those bills should actually come to the floor. they have been talking about bringing back the appropriations process and trying to pass all 12 bills which has not happened in the recent history that anyone can are member. that comes with it, difficult votes. it is the inverse of what
senator reid attempted to do, to protect his members from casting difficult votes will stop it sounds like the new universe, those difficult votes are going to happen. >> that is a good segue into talking about the functioning of the committee system. maybe we should tuck into the revamp -- nothing changes at the capital one a partisan turnover happens like the committee structure. in other words, it's gone from 55% democratic to probably a 54% republican senate, so every committee ratio will probably be flipped on its head and all 20 gavels change hands. some office place changes hands and staffers lose their jobs and
for the first time since obama has been president, republicans in the senate it to set the agenda. who will be the people to do it? let's start me foreign policy side. we should state that they bid and meals were competitors. they decided what urban they were going to drink? >> macconnell drinks manhattan's with two cherries. a manhattan with ice and two cherries. >> what does john mccain like to drink? beer.ope it would be >> very bitter beer. [laughter]
>>a lot of hops will stop cutting the pentagon and the white house and the defense industry are watching as john mccain prepares to take the gavel. friction thanore you have seen. carl levin -- mccain is going to fromgressive on everything the isis operations to individual weapons systems, going at them for being over costs or behind schedule. you will see a very muscular committee, and one that is doing a lot of oversight and digging and fighting with the pentagon and the white house will stop you have this interesting conflict with mccain himself watchdog, he's also an old-school hawk. might want to take the
pentagon to task for spending money in ways he does not find to be a priority or important, you will not see him calling for any kind of decrease in defense spending, so the pentagon will have ally of sorts there. >> will he be moving to break the sequester? moving toe always break the sequester, but i don't know if you are going to come up with any kind of deal with the two chambers controlled by republicans. he has been working for the past two years with levin and others to find a way to do away with sequester because they have not come up with any kind of deal either party could agree to. reed get along. jack reed will be the new ranking democrat all stop >> for
the first time for as long as i can are member, you have two military academy men at the helm of the armed services committee. andin is an annapolis grad jack reed, assuming he takes armed services and does not do banking is a west point grad. they have very different approaches. read will be much more supportive of the white house in an ongoing operation. but they both know and understand defense. they worked on the seapower subcommittee where reed was the chair and mccain was the ranking member. they have a long history of collaborating. >> emily, which one do you want to discuss first? >> one of the things that will be interesting to watch is the health committee. alexander lamar
ascending to be the chairman of that handle and you've got the retirement of tom harkin, especially after ted kennedy left was the leader in health and a lot of ways and devoted his career to health issues. alexander who has been involved in this committee and is really good about education and has positioned himself to oppose obama more vocally recently. i think it makes alexander interesting to watch. not only will he oppose and obama policy, he has an idea of what he wants to do it that and he really pushes of those ideas and thinks them through and tries to make them work and get people behind him to make them into something that actually happens. he's not just a guy who says no. you will see a lot of his ideas going through now that he is chairman. you can expect to see a lot of
hills out of the health committee because he is a man who likes to legislate. have orrin hatch and hatch and alexander are old school. they come from a world where you would reach across the aisle and write legislation. you have a lot of laws that hatch's name in them that have been around for decades. this is an approach we have not seen from the newer senators. domestic policy people who want to get things done. one of the things i have been saying in my own head is that for those who were expect to be confrontational, so-called tea party wing of the senate republicans to assert dominance, they will run have long into a team of chairman who are not
from that school. who that it is -- who that is in a position of power is a tea party revolutionary type? >> a lot of these members are young in terms of their careers, but one dynamic that is going to is theresting republicans have until now been in a position of opposition only. they were always trying to hold back the white house and the democratic senate. onlye republicans have been in a position where they could only vote no. they could never put their agenda on the floor and i think that attitude, when all you can do is oppose, you've got a tea party wing that said we were
elected to stop the president. it's not like we can put on the floor and vote for anything forward thinking because we are not in control of the floor, so let's oppose. i wonder how much it might change their behavior when it's like we get to move our bill through committee and force them to vote and maybe but the president on defense. there is a chance that it can relieve a lot of pressure on the house side. the frustrations with the guys we had a schoolhouse rock vision of how this place is supposed to work all stop remember a conversation with house republican and he said that the senate won't even vote on our bills, even to kill them. i said welcome to washington, they don't like your bills.
now they have an opportunity to legislate because they have full control of one third of the government instead of one half of one third of all the fractions. so let's see how that impacts things. other than a couple of numbers, they are all equally conservative inside, so it is a toter of the intention govern and tension and where they meet and where they are basically running for president versus legislating which will create tension but this new dynamic may make things more different than people are anticipating. >> one of the things we might these because some of newer members, many of whom may
be running for resident, they probably will not have full committee gavel, but they will or some of them will have subcommittee apples -- some of those could be rather interesting places for them to be. example --l out one i will give you two examples, actually. i was talking with senator paul the other day and i asked him at theuld you like to do committee level when you have a majority situation? he pointed to the possibility that he would be the chairman of a subcommittee of the homeland security committee that has broad authority to investigate government waste and corruption which portended to me the
possibility of a lot of investigations and hearings. if you are an administrative official, expect to be turning up at the senate a lot for hearings. i would inc. that might be away this tension gets relieved that may not be done through a distillation. you can take your shots at the white house through hearings and investigations and subpoena power that you may not do through legislation will stop >> think of all of the oversight you have seen in the house lately, especially on the committee chaired by darrell issa. he will no longer be the chair of that. that plus more in the senate and house continuing to do their investigations. it is a great way to tie up the
administration and make your point. always taking not her message and your having to come up and go on sunday shows or remind people of whatever your cause is at the time because there were a lot of you makes is a use -- people show up and tie them up and make them come for staff meetings -- this is one way darrell issa's committee feels like they have hurt the health care law is just by bringing in officials constantly so they have to testify in are not doing other things they need to do. >> on the foreign policy side, you saw that in the past few months, but it seemed like the pentagon and the state department and intelligence officials were coming up. , operationstions
overseas -- anything across the board. it does tie them up. the appropriation that goes into that and the sheer amount of time that people all the way up to cabinet member positions are going to go into. he you will see that increased significantly. in how they quirk chose their committees 70 years ago? john mccain might chair the permanent committee on -- >> he could do that going forward. >> i want to ask one other question about rand paul and mitch mcconnell. mitcherstanding was mcconnell did not want rand paul to take that senate seat and now they seem to have reached some .ort of uneasy peace >> i'm not even sure it's
uneasy. seem to be able to get along quite well. one of the things you saw was working tol actively get senator mcconnell reelected. that is there is a political benefit in kentucky to being aligned with the operation of senator mcconnell, which is top-flight. but there is a distinction, i think, one of the other things when i was talking to senator paul was something they had not thought too much of you that would be a potential concern not just for him, but senator cruz or whomever else besides they might want to run for president. senator mcconnell is a -- is insisting they will be working longer hours. fridayt really know what
voting looks like in the united states senate the way it has been lately. but there is a problem with doing that potentially if you are somebody running for president who is supposed to be at a luncheon in des moines on friday at noon and you have to cancel because the senate is still voting. so there will be a lot of this back and forth that will go on in that regard with the way the senate schedule works, but to there areer point, two very different characters and they are not always going to agree. they formed a strong strengths playse off each other's strengths and know when one should defer to the other.
if we can start from the premise going toh mcconnell is win this argument -- let's send obama a bunch of things we know he's going to veto as opposed to let's try to do some things that might actually happen, on the accomplishment side, what do you see happening first? >> that is a great question. i think there will be a little time where we take a few votes to just say no to obama so that everyone can him on board. will do that for a couple of weeks and then we will start doing some things will stop especially -- doing some things. especially health care. macconnell keeps saying i think what he really means and having to say something else because
people get upset when he says it -- we are going to vote to they will law which vote to repeal the law again, and then they will vote to repeal parts of the law people don't like such as repealing the medical device tax which is a funding mechanism in the law that does not impact a lot of people beyond medical device manufacturer. or theysee a change will define full-time work as 40 hours a week. right now it is defined as 30 hours a week. those are things that have i partisan support that would have passed the senate if harry have allowed them to be voted on. some conservatives don't like this approach. they think it is improving a law that is inherently flawed and taking away the bad parts. i think mcconnell and boehner are saying let's chalk up these victories and change the law and
start chipping away at it. what do you think obama response? >> something like the medical just so you can get a bill passed, it does not matter that much and more. >> it seems interesting to me, within the last week, we have the islamic state, they march to war, any of that stuff -- obviously, that is going to rear its head soon. the new foreign relations chairman in the senate -- >> bob corker, who has said he wants the president to ask for an authorization for the use of military force, which would be the first one since the iraq war resolution more than a decade ago. and yesterday, the president said he would ask congress for an authorization. there are those in the senate in particular, mccain, who want congress to debate that
authorization when they come back next week, but house republicans have said this is not something for a lame-duck to decide. he are going to take it to the next congress, which is when i think you are going to see them come back, and they will have to grapple with this debate over how much strength to give the president -- how much string to give the president on this. you've seen democrats want a much more structured aumf. fromsaid, we have learned the mistakes of the 2001 and 2003 authorizations, which were pretty broad, and we want something with a time limit, something that repeals those authorizations. you see republicans -- senator inhofe has drafted his own authorization. he wants something that gives the president a ton more flexibility than just a specific operation against a specific group. so it is going to be an interesting issue to see, particularly the new members of the senate, tackle when they
first come in. and it is -- again, it is the first debate on this since 2003. is it yourou -- sense that congress, that the republican gains have made the root public and party on capitol hill more hawkish, more isolationist, or just more opposed to whatever obama is for or against? past few-- in the years, you have seen kind of an erosion of the hawks and their power, the traditional hawks, the old-school bill youngs and john warners of the world. i think you will, with kind of, with the threats that are coming up -- you know, you have russia, and the tensions there. you have the iran negotiations that are going on. you have obviously isis. it's kind of become more prominent again, the issue of war, the issue of spending. i think you will see them,
particularly with john mccain and bob corker, who are very vocal and active chairman on this. >> does rubio fit in this discussion? in terms of presidential wannabes. >> yeah, i think so. i think you will see him. if you're running for president, you have to show that you have national security credentials and foreign policy credentials. you will see particularly rubio, who is on foreign relations try , to assert himself here. >> if i may jump in and reference the -- rubio would be certainly the likely candidate. but the other thing is perhaps -- perhaps it is quixotic. but there was a report a couple weeks ago about the potential lindsey graham for 2016. >> his race was too easy. he was bored. but to the point of -- there will be sort of this jocking for a position on foreign policy matters. and senator graham from south
carolina, who david mentioned had really not erased for his -- who had not really a race for his own re-election. he's certainly in this camp with mccain. rubio seems to be in that group. kelly ayotte, who is in cycle, is another person. one of the things i'm interested to watch is what the senator from new hampshire, kelly ayotte, who is up in 2016, is one of these -- and new hampshire was the one place on the senate map where there was a close, contested race that was supposed to be a close contested race and the democrat held on. scott brown is not returning to the senate. senator shaheen won re-election. so it will be interesting to see there, because she's always with mccain or often with mccain and graham on that sort of thing, and she'll be an interesting one
to watch there too. >> the three amigos. >> i think mccain tweeted out that joni ernst is going to be a new member of the amigos. somebody did. i think the hawks are clearly ascendant. i think they are because the isis threat has brought back terrorism, and the instability in the middle east and vladimir , putin don't forget has made national security for republicans much more like it was before the rise of the libertarian wing. if you look at who's coming into the senate, where it is cotton or ernst, or most likely dan sullivan, you have more in the was evident on the campaign trail that house strategists were aware of was that the insecurity over the isis threat was palpable and that's why there were a lot of ads about it down the stretch
. and i think you'll find that there is a carryover there. the one thing in the voting for the authorization of military force is they are going to want -- the republicans are going to want obama to lay out the strategy. if the request is, you guys need to give me an authorization for use of military force, they're going to laugh at him. they don't want to give him a blank check long after he is gone, when they are still hoping to be here. they're going to say what am i authorizing you to do. lay it out. let me see how i feel about it. but the votes i believe are there at least in spirit because republicans take this seriously. i think you will see a carryover in the 2016 campaign in the early states, where rand paul will have a lot more trouble trying to modulate where he is on national defense. this will not be a replay of 2012. >> i'm going to make a segway ue into another topic,
one of my favorite topics, which is in half, believe it or not. inhoff, believe it or not. what other global policy issue is more important over the long term? we have a new chairman over the senate environment committee. can somebody remember the name inhoff'sin half -- last book? it has the word hoax in it. the great hoax. >> it might be the greatest hoax. >> the new chairman of the senate environment committee believes that climate change is a hoax. just put it out there. >> this is a guy who -- it was
not last year's snowmageddon, but a few years before -- built a snowman in his yard and had a sign and took a picture of it with a caption, like, now what gore. and this is true. so that is your new chairman of the environment committee. >> are there any others out of the house or the senate who sort of are in this category and i won't even try to describe this category? i am probably getting myself in deeper trouble. i do believe -- i will betray my own -- i do not think it is a bias. i think there's an overwhelming evidence scientific now that climate change is real, human beings is are part of that. i do not think it is taking a side anymore. if i'm offending somebody, approach me afterward. i'm going to take that and pivot off of it to the other half of what that committee does, if i may. >> oh, public works. >> the relationship between
senator inhofe who is perhaps the most conservative by voting record in the entire senate, and senator barbara boxer from california, who is one of the most liberal members of the u.s. senate, and the two of them completely disagree on climate policy and always will. but when it comes to transportation, senator inhofe says that there are a few things that the government should be doing and the government should be doing a lot of, one of them is national defense, another one is public works projects. and so we have a highway bill that is coming up and hitting its deadline here next year and it will be one of the projects that will be need to be done by the new congress. one of the things that the republicans and the white house
will have to figure out and answer to is the funding and the operation of the highway programs. and on that one, inhofe and boxer have written highway bills before. i have fairly good confidence that particularly if the amendment process is actually allowed to work in the senate that one of the big bills that the senate will do next year is an inhofe-boxer highway bill and we'll probably have a couple weeks of debate on that at some point over the year. >> do you want to jump in on that? >> i think that's an excellent point. every reporter and editor got assigned to write at least one new member profile. i was assigned at random a freshman elect from georgia. barry loudermilk. he should have been elected four years ago, because he is a quizzential tea party time. but he said the same thing, which is the constitution says interstate commerce and highway bill. i want nothing more than to come to washington and be the first
georgian on the transportation committee so i can steer money back home to georgia. so maybe that is -- i wrote this column this morning. about theroll call," five things i think will get done. i think a highway bill is one of the ones that's going to get done. probably with some innovative funding mechanisms, so it could be interesting. so we've done our three quarters of the hour. jump in and ask some questions. i know somebody's got a microphone out there. please let's have some quick q and a. you raised your hand first. >> hi. i am pay ghee with cq years ago. with "cq" years ago. i'm a congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook and cover mainly higher education and immigration. so immigration, it's interesting that now we have a lot of republicans on the house
committee who were immigration lawyers. and have been very positive about certain pieces of immigration bill, including the kids act which would essentially legalized dreamers. to me the whole controversy in congress over immigration has been comprehensive versus piecemeal. i think piecemeal will have some legs. i would like to know what you all think. >> i think it all depends on what the president does with his executive legalization moves that he says are coming. after the election -- we are now after the election, unless he meant after the louisiana runoff. the crisis of the southern border with unaccompanied minors coming across i think has complicated things. and if you look at how the campaign went, being against legalization was a great
campaign line, and so i think that you can see piecemeal moves for security measures. i think you could see piecemeal moves possibly for making sure people you're hiring -- i'm forgetting the terminology here but making sure the people you're hiring are legally allowed to work in the united states, verification measures. >> and h1-b guest workers. and something like visas or high skilled workers might be possible. i think though that anything right now that has to do with legalizing any subset of the undocumented community that is currently in the united states is going to be very difficult. and if the president does move ahead with an executive move to do this, you can just kiss it goodbye until the next administration, and we'll see
what they do. >> let's not forget that there are a lot of business groups , including the u.s. chamber who , really want to see a bigger immigration bill, something more than just a small measure here, maybe letting skilled workers come in. that's something that are a lot of groups that are traditionally aligned with republicans want to see. i think that is going to be a compelling argument for a lot of the newcomers. looking toward 2016, mitt romney lot the hispanic vote i think 27 -- more than -- he got maybe 27 of it. more than bush had lost it by and that's going to be something that the presidential hopefuls are keeping in mind. there's going to have to be something, whether they say absolutely nothing -- but they're going to have to make some kind of statement on that issue. >> sir. >> hi.
joel pac with the raven group. emily mentioned lamar alexander. there is a whole slew of education bills that are stacked up, the re-authorization of no child behind, etc. what's your prediction or sense of do you think we'll see any progress in this congress? and also, how do you see alexander and patty murray the likely new ranking dem getting along? >> it will be interesting to see urray takes onm the full house -- with ties and sweater vests in the winter. which is the thing i will miss most about lamarr, is his winter style. just like tom coburn's beard every winter, the harkin sweater vest. he was the chairman of the appropriations committee.
patty murray could do both of those also if she wanted. i don't think that she will. but she will probably come on at health. so i think that murray has been on health for a long time. she and alexander have a working relationship. she's proven herself to be very willing to get things done at heart, she is a negotiator. she's a legislator. she likes writing bills. and having her name on them. i would not be surprised to see some alexander-murray bills every few months. and the health committee has a long tradition of passing bills. i think when you're talking about no child left behind, doing a big re-authorization on that scale is going to be incredibly difficult to get through one chamber, much less both. and then get it signed into law. i think you might see something on student loans. alexander has different priorities than harkin. but there are things with for-profit colleges, higher education things. i think early preschool, early
education is a big thing of murray's. she is a big proponent of the pre-k i think you might see some i think you might see sort of initiatives. -- the pre-k initiatives. i think you might see some smaller scale educational bills. i think you'll see some areas -- but i think these grand re-authorizations we've been waiting for for years, i don't expect to see them again. >> yes, sir. >> edward roeder, sunshine press. we've not seen much commentary on what effect the elections would have on the democrats? do you see the democratic caucuses moving farther to the left? to the right to accommodate the republican victories? how do you see it changing in each chamber? i will go first, very very quickly, which is i don't know. , i don't think they're going to move to the center.
i think as you probably are aware, the last white male democrat from the deep south was defeated on tuesday. the house democratic caucus will be plurality, but not majority white male once again next year. it is arguably more demographically polarized than any of the other three caucuses. it's now house democrats are the parties of the cities. certainly they're keeping their leadership, pelosi. and hoyer. i think they are going to kind of stand pat for the next two years. that would be my answer. >> can i jump in? on the senate side what has happened is you've seen a similar effect. the sort of many members of the moderate wing of the democratic caucus in the senate were defeated on tuesday. and so -- or will be defeated come the beginning of december
in the other particular case. and if that is the way it is, you're going to see that the democrats who are in the senate are more interested in more sort of liberal issues. so what i would expect, and this is a guess that i have no real basis for, it's just speculating, but i would suspect that they would be pushing more liberal approaches in terms of -- or progressive approaches in terms of amendments and things as part of the process. but that doesn't mean they're not going to be deal making too. so they'll be pushing their own agenda, but i think at the end of the day the calculation is going to have to be made and i think it's too early to know what the calculation will be. but when bills start getting on the floor and you've debated
them for a week, do you then vote against it? -- against cloture? the question for the democrats will be whether to do something that the republicans often did effectively, the minority and -- >> i think that's exactly what they're going to do because they're looking at a good 2016 senate map and they don't want , the republicans to look like they're governing, the same way the republicans didn't want to do democrats any favors. you know what do they get out of , it? they get a republican majority that looks pretty responsible and it helps sell themselves in states like pennsylvania and florida and new hampshire and illinois, just to name a few of the states where republicans are running for re-election to the senate. i think the overall thinking is -- this goes for house and senate among democrats. it is going to be that hillary clinton is likely to be on the ballot for us and they've got nobody and we're going to kill them and we're going to be in the majority and lets just play
this smart, and we'll be back in two short years, and there's no reason to look at this any other way. and if i were them at this moment i wouldn't look at it any other way, putting myself in their shoes. >> yes, ma'am. >> we've spoken a lot about the committee leadership turnover in the senate. but as you mentioned before, with chairman issa, there will be turnover in the house. so can you speak a little bit about that, and do you think that the speaker will use the new chairmanship to kind of andurage bipartisanship dealmaking, instead of someone who is a firebrand? >> one of the more closely
watched ones will be the armed services committee. that traditionally has been a bipartisan committee, they're one of the few committees that get a few bills done every single year. and have 452 years on the defense authorization bill. and it looks like mac thornberry will be the chairman of that committee, although he will have a challenge from randy forbes of virginia. thornberry, he's a hawk just like most democrats and republicans on that committee. he will challenge obama on isis and operations overseas. but you will kind of continue to see the committee operating in the same way it did as before. there's also some other -- there will be an intelligence committee. there's about four members who are in the mix for that. jeff miller could take it, which would then open an opening on
veterans affairs, which will be a closely watched committee early on in the next congress with everything that happened in the last few months there. but i think you will continue to see those committees acting in the way they have been acting. kind of opposing the administration in areas that they can. >> i was going to say on the oversight committee, we've got a four-person race on there to anotherissa, high-profile position to build your reputation. there are a few other guys trying to compete, turner, jordan, micah. also, if you watch ways and means committee, paul ryan is looking at heading ways and means. moving from budget, which is a very natural fit for his interests. but kevin brady, from texas is , also interested in running that post.
right now, he is ways and means health committee chairman. it's going to be a little bit of a race there too. i'll let david talk about who boehner would like to see in the chairman position. >> paul ryan will be the next ways and means chairman. we all know that. i think brady is trying to position himself if ryan runs for president. he would step away from the chairmanship. that is a smart move. i think that the speaker wants wants people in chairmanships that can govern and will not cause unnecessary problems. unnecessary political problems for the conference. and so he will tip the scales on steering committee where he needs to. i think all the names that were mentioned here are the right names, in part the right names because they can get the job done. they've done the work in terms of helping their colleagues and they're not going to go on tv and say anything stupid. the speaker then has to take a bunch of questions from people like us about, so and so said this, what do you think. and so i don't think there will
be any shocking chairmanship appointments or people winning races that you didn't expect. >> also, keep an eye on the appropriations committee sub chairman, the cardinals because , there's a lot of musical chairs happening there and a lot of subcommittees in both chambers. >> yes, including -- i was at another event and i was told that andy harris, the only republican from maryland, a physician, is the leadership's -- they're going to make him hhs of the labor subcommittee. that will be an interesting move. and it will be a good fit for him. >> hasn't been very lucky for the past two chairmen of that subcommittee. >> we need to wrap it up here. i'm going to do one bit of logistics before i adjourn and say the next part of the program is you all are welcomed to grab a box lunch and make a phone call or two but please come back
right at noon because we have a big finish. i'm sorry at 1:00, sorry, at 1:00. big finish. christina will be back to moderate the final panel of the day. smartest names in politics -- former governor ted strickland for the democrats, and former congressman tom davidson, the republican. lunch and then back in the next 15 minutes. then you also the panelists. this was great. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] yu, director of the center for technology. >> the people who oppose should take a look at the internet header.
that is the magic that makes the internet work. there is something in there called the pipe of service flag. that is different service classes. low latency services. that was designed in the internet from the beginning. people think, that is just an old artifact. ,hen we designed the internet they not only cap that field, they included another field called the label field to do another form of prioritization of quality of service. if you suggest prioritization was never intended to be a loud, i think a little engineering knowledge goes along way. it is a design feature of the network from the beginning. people are using the network today to deliver, for example, voice service. we have all called on skype and been frustrated. ip based service
all uses prioritization. a lot of video and other things work the same. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern, on "the communicators," on c-span 2. >> veterans day coverage begins tuesday morning at 8:30 eastern during washington journal, with an interview with the american legion director. gala,00, the annual uso featuring general martin dempsey. and we are live at 11:00 from arlington national cemetery for the wreathlaying at the tomb of the unknowns. later, selections from this white house medal of honor ceremonies. >> in a news conference on wednesday after the midterm elections, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell made reference to a speech he made on the senate floor earlier this
year, where he talked about the workings of the senate and what he would like to see happen should republicans gain control. from the senate floor in january, this is 40 minutes. >> mr. president, over the past several years, those of us who are fortunate enough to serve here have engaged in many fierce debates. some have been forced upon us by external events, including a searing financial crisis, while others were brought about by an unapol jetally liberal president who promised dramatic change and who has worked very hard to follow through on that pledge. in some cases, even in the face of legal obstacles and widespread public opposition. so change has indeed come. despite the daily drumbeat of
headlines about gridlock and dysfunction in washington, the truth is an activist president and a democratic controlled senate have managed to check off an awful lot of items on their wish list one way or another. and yet just as important as what they did, my colleagues, is how they did it. because that's also been at the heart of so many of the fights we've had around here over the past few years. now, these conflicts haven't stemmed have personal grievances or contempt as some would have it. they are, instead, the inevitab