tv Rep. Mike Conaway Town Hall in Texas CSPAN October 9, 2019 7:13pm-8:04pm EDT
some of the topics covered included the federal deficit, the u.s.-mexico canada trade agreement and the impeachment inquiry of president trump. he announced last summer he would not be seeking reelection. rep. conaway: i am going to make a few comments, like i normally do, and then it will be up to you to ask questions and whatever you want to talk about. if you have any at that point in time. we found out about the c-span coverage this morning but apparently you guys knew about it earlier in the week, because obviously this is a team out of austin that has come to cover it. fantastic. i'm tickled to death they could find santa anna on a map. [laughter] and they have come to be with us this afternoon as part of hat. it is taped. the idea, i think, is they will send a tape back to d.c. and it will be run unedited,
unfiltered, which is the way i prefer it. so whoever runs it, whoever is responsible for that, thank you for letting us have access to the facility again. it is terrific. i will talk about some things in d.c., then get going. the only thing congress has to do year in and year out is fund the government. we do that through the appropriations process. today is october 7, today is the seventh day of the new fiscal year. we should have gotten all the appropriations work done at least before the end of september, and we didn't. which is not unusual. congress usual doesn't get that work done. fiscal '19, we did get about 70% of the spending plan done before the end of september, which meant that the department of defense, the largest block of spending on the discretionary side, had a full year in order to execute that $700
billion-plus budget that they've got. so this year, because we had -- well, mechanically the spending process starts with a budget, which is simply an agreement between the house and senate. it's not law. it's an agreement on how much total we spent on discretionary spending in the next fiscal year. not the entitlement spending or mandatory spending, that is on autopilot, but a third of the budget is what we work on in that process. this year, we had democrats in charge of the house, republicans in charge of the senate and the two bodies were unable to come to an agreement most of the year as to what that would be. so i was worried that we would get into september and be in a jam. late in july, speaker nancy pelosi, the president and chuck schumer and kevin mccarthy and mitch mcconnell got an agreement, a two-year budget agreement which is for 220 -- 2020 and 2021 for the total
amounts we spent. when that was done, we voted it and got it passed. so now appropriators could go to work in a real way. the house had been working on a make-believe number. we passed all 12 of those bills. they adjusted them for the agreement. but the house got work done before the end of the year. the senate had basically not done much because we did not have the number, they did not want to work without that number and so they cranked it up in september, but nothing got done by the end of the month. so now we're operating under what's referred to as a c.r., a ontinued resolution. it basically says agencies can spend in the new fiscal year exactly what they spent in the old fiscal year in exactly the same way. they cannot do away with a program, they cannot start new programs they want to start, they are stuck in autopilot until the congress gets its work
done and the president signs the bill. so we have until november 21 to get this done and get the government funded for 2020. then start the process for 2021 with a number, so that in 2021 we should do better at getting that done in terms of -- in the regular order without this awful tool that we've gotten too used to using called a c.r. that is in the mix going on right now as well. the other high-profile issue, obviously, is certainly the national media -- is whether to impeach the president or not. you have seen the whistleblower complaint that triggered the latest in relation of why my democrat colleagues think they should impeach the president. i am on the intelligence committee. i went back to d.c. i spent all day friday with the inspector general, listening to what he had to say about the aspects of it. we met with him before, before we could do anything. he couldn't tell us what it was
or what the issue was, so we needed to meet with him now the president released the transcripts of the call but also the whistleblower's hearsay allegations about what the whistleblower believes was done wrong by the president. like a lot of the issues out there, you know, there is classified information or information you do not have -- you've got it. you have as much information as i do. i do not know the whistleblower's identity. i just know what he or she wrong in the complaint. you have the complaint, the transcript from the president. and each of us gets to make up our mind whether or not the president did something wrong or not. right now it's breaking down pretty much on party lines. i was on a conference call a bit ago with a national republican congressional committee. they had done some pulling. it's not going to surprise you but the hard-core democrats want to impeach him. the hard-core republicans do not.
and the independents don't either. but we will see now that a second whistleblower has announced that he or she has firsthand information. well, we'll see what that is, but if it's about this phone call we have the transcript from the phone call in that regard. the last thing i will talk about -- then it is your turn. i announcinged in july that i am not running for reelection. this is my eighth term, 15th year, and i will not run for reelection in 2020. i love this job. i really love this job still, so that is not the issue. i would do it forever, but frankly nobody should, and nobody gets to. and we have term limits on the republican side and leadership roles. i'm finishing my third term leading the agricultural committee on the republican side. and in order to compete for another leadership role like in armed services, i would need to commit to another three terms and i cannot ask my family to do that.
so nobody gets to serve forever. everybody comes to a certain point where it is time for them to come home and let somebody else begin to love the job and build a reputation, begin to get in a position of influence and hopefully get in a position of leadership, so they can be more effective than just an individual member. ly not endorse anybody in the campaign. you and i between now and the first tuesday of march have an important job to do, that is figure out who the replacement should be. and as i said, i will not endorse anybody. i have shamelessly used the power of incumbency to seek re-election. [laughter] at least somebody was listening. but i don't think it is appropriate to help anybody else get elected. i will vote. i will evaluate the candidates. but we are in this together and we have to decide. one of the reasons i announced this as early as i did is we
have 29 counties in district 11. there are five counties where the population consideration, including hood county, brown county, all the candidates are going there for sure. but they ought to come to the other 24 counties as well. those folks have just as much right to have the wannabes come and look you in the eye, here is who i am and why you should vote for me, as anybody who lives in the bigger population areas. so i will try to get those folks to make sure they come to all 29 counties, because it is important that they look you in the eye, you get a chance to see who they are. i'll help any of them that have asked. i've talked to most of them and i will help in any way i can, but i will not endorse them. this is a second -- this is the second most republican district in all the u.s., the second is amarillo, wichita falls. so it is important we get this primary deal right. in all likelihood, there'll be the primary on the second
tuesday of march, then a runoff if nobody gets 50% plus one, that will be in the middle of me. so it is pretty well -- may. so by that time it will be pretty well set. so we have some good work to be done. important work to be done between now and march so figure out who should be my replacement. last thing, thank you for electing me eight times. -- whew. love the job. but it is now time for someone else to do it. i will finish the term. you elected me for two years. i have 14.5 months to go. i still love the job so i'm going to finish it up. some of my buddies found out i was doing town halls and he asked me are you still doing town halls?
i said, i am still a member of congress, why would i not? anyway, with those comments, the floor is yours. i have to be at brownwood at a certain time, so i will need to leave, but we have time between now and then to answer questions and respond to whatever comments you've got. again, let's be on our best behavior, because it is being recorded and we want to do santa anna proud. he has it written down. you get to be the first bite at the apple. >> ok. my question is not a criticism of either party or people involved. rep. conaway: make sure everybody gets heard. >> congressman, we have a massive national debt. we have a large yearly budget deficit. we have a large yearly trade deficit. i would ask you to please give e a guess or estimate when the -- will these problems crush our currency and end the dollar
status as the reserve currency, because the chinese and russians are working toward that end. rep. conaway: i would not worry much about the russian ruble. but china does want to replace the u.s. dollar as the reserve currency. our national debt is a strategic threat to our country. obviously, the president is trying to fix the trade deficit. we need to sell more overseas than what we buy, and that is ot the case. the only thing we've seen as a result of what's going on is a subpoenagood step every single day, because we are exporting and selling oil in that regard. let me speak to the national debt. the santa anna city council and the county here have to, by law, operate on a balanced budget. it is hard. they have to make tough decisions. they have to say yes and no to good stuff. no to the silly stuff, but no to some really good things. because they have. to we do not have that at the federal level.
now, theoretically, we're intelligent human beings and we should be able to make those decisions on her own, but so far we have not been able to. back in the late 1990's, the federal government ran a budget surplus for two years. certain previous president wannabes said it was four, but for two years we used social security surpluses to augment and it get there. and i'm a c.p.a. so that's not up for discussion. so there would never be an easier time to implement a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, which would force congress to have the same fiscal discipline that the school district does here in santa anna do every single year, that when you -- when you have a surplus point, you hold it going forward. in 1997 and 1998, the house representatives passed an amendment with a requisite number. it failed in the senate by one vote. the record shows two votes, but bob dole voted no in order to have a chance to bring it back
up and it never did come back up. one republican senator could have made the difference, it was a fellow in oregon who i am told that a high school teacher told him that a balanced budgets was a bad thing so he voted no. if he had voted yes, i think the state would've adopted it quickly. and i do not know what our tax rates would look like today, but we would not have $22 trillion in debt today had that one vote gone the other direction in the late 1990's. we would've had the fiscal discipline to make that happen. if you ask of all the things you think we need to amend the constitution over, the single most important one, held and shoulders above everything else would be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. now, both parties are at fault, both presidents, all presidents, whatever, because we've all contributed to it. now, republicans, when we do a budget the budget includes the amount of money to be spent on discretionary spending, but it also shows a 10-year vision for
what the country should look like. we did not get one adopted this year because the two sides could not get together. but when the republicans were in charge, we would have not only an amount but a budget that showed that amount and a division for the next 10 years. every one of ours show a path to a balanced budget, so we could get to a balanced budget within the 10 year window. in order to reduce the deficit, obviously it's like everything else, you have to quit digging he hole deeper and pay off the deficits. you have to run surpluses to make that happen. and in that vision, there is a some stunningly difficult legislation that has to get done. we have to reset, renegotiate -- we need to make changes to social security. it is not a deficit issue, but a cash flow issue. and medicare and medicaid. there are some really important programs, everything is on autopilot, that we will have to come to grips with. president bush was the last to
try to address social security, but that died when hurricane katrina happened. did not want to take on medicare. president obama did not want to take on medicare, social security. president trump, that is not in his agenda either. in order for us to get those addressed meaningfully, it will take leadership out of the white house in order to make that happen because no single house can make that happen. we can maybe lay lay the oundwork for that, but until it's on the agenda of the president to make that happen, then i am not encouraged that we can do more than just have a conversation, try to build the case for why it is important. yes? >> i am glad that you are going to be with us for two more years. rep. conaway: 14 months. >> i was worried when the information came across my desk on october 3, an executive order on medicare, it may even be too new to have come across your desk. but i am a nurse practitioner,
and i have been here for 25 years in private practice in santa anna. all this time i have had to fight bureaucracy to maintain my independent practice. one of those is having to pay a physician every month to supervise me. rep. conaway: right. >> 22 other states do not have this. they have full practice authority for their nurse practitioners. that has got to change. what is really exciting is that this executive order that president trump signed this week is possibly making -- or putting forth for a lot of those changes, so that nurse practitioners, chiropractors and everybody else will be paid on the level of their scope of practice rather than on who is supervising who. so i hope -- do you want this
copy? i have it rep. conaway: i will be able to get one. >> that you will take the lead or take part of it or support it, so that nurse practitioners can indeed in texas meet the needs of the rural population, because that is where we will serve the best. rep. conaway: a nurse practitioner, that scope of practice issue is a state issue, the state of texas. hopefully in 2021, we will take that up and do that, because access to care in rural america is getting tougher. >> we take it up every year. rep. conaway: i know, and it has to be fixed. >> coming from the federal level with this. rep. conaway: my colleagues in austin are not interested in what i have to say on state issues. you have to work hard to make that happen.
that includes your patients, who come see you because nurse practitioners are more accessible than physicians and others, they need to raise stink with the state legislature to get you in a position where you can do that. it is a couple factors. i do support with the president is trying to do to lead the way in that regard and address your conversation. >> donald trump, the whole thing about medicare, that he was not wanting it, he was not wanting to take it on. rep. conaway: he does not want to take on a payment system, he wants to take on the issue. but here is the harsh truth about medicare. for folks -- i'm looking around the room and most of us are there, but there are some folks here who have a harsh reality coming. for people under 55 years of age, they will as a senior, pay a greater proportion of their own health care costs than their parents and grandparents.
it will be unfair, but that is the reality. we have to renegotiate medicare and medicaid, because if you look at the projections, whether you are a democrat or republican or an independent, every one of those think tanks shows growth will outstrip our ability to pay for them within the next few decades. so we have a wreck coming that we have yet to address. republicans have a plan, we call it a premium support plan. democrats call voucher program. it is the exact same thing. but we have got to address that. the payment side is what nobody wants to address, the delivery side, we are tinkering with that and constantly trying to make it better. there is delivery of health care, the other part is who pays
for it and how you get paid. that is the peace that the president has not been willing to take on. but we have to renegotiate medicare and we have to address social security so it cash flows itself over that horizon. where we are right now, i was talking to somebody before this, about 2032, 2033, social security would've paid out all surpluses accumulated up to this point. current law without change says the federal government can pay out in earned benefits surpluses. we have surpluses now, those will get paid out between now and 2033. at that point, we are limited to collections. the guess is that collections it will be about 75% or 77% of the earned benefits. in one month, you will get 100% of your check. the next month, 77%. so if that was next month, we would be moving heaven and earth to make sure it doesn't happen, but we think we have time to get it done and we really don't.
medicare is a little sooner, the problem with that that we will have to get addressed. that piece of it i am supportive of. yes? >> all i want to say is thank you for all the years you gave us. my wife and my children have been to washington, and your office has been so supportive to help them get into see the different things. and you were kind enough to come out and a talk with them and that made a big impression on my children and the other kids that had gone up there. we appreciate that more than anything, because you realize what people in our part of the world, how we make a living, what we do, and the other people up there have no earthly idea what goes on inside that belt. rep. conaway: thank you. one of the real joys is to be able to share d.c. with folks. thank you for taking advantage of my team.
i have a great team both in the district and in d.c. and we are well served by those people. thank you, i appreciate that. >> i have a question. rep. conaway: yes? >> go ahead. >> who wants to be first? >> ladies first. >> how much faith do you have in the numbers that you have used to -- the budget? rep. conaway: there are so many zeros that it is difficult to comprehend. i have been in banking and i have been in congress for almost 15 years, and i am used to dealing with big numbers but it is stunning. how much -- how would you spend $1 trillion in one year? you would have to spend $33,000
every second. the numbers are big. there are two systems. one that make sure they are spending money in the way that it is supposed to be spent, the way it was appropriated. that is generally pretty good. to audit it, you need a financial audit and we are not able to do that because it is in the department of defense right now. they are working at it, but it is hard to say if the numbers are what they should be because the cpa's cannot tell us that yet. on the things that work off the appropriations bills, the system was built to protect and understand that. that system has set itself up for financial statement auditing, that is what they have to redo with controls and other things associated with it, so we can rely on the numbers without
testing every single transaction. i think that they are purporting with the law, but until we get audited we cannot say that the federal government is totally honest. the department of defense is the largest unaudited piece right now. they are making progress but this is their second year under a full audit. 18 was the first year, they could not do it. it is not likely they will get it done. it will go in till mid november, they will tell us then if they got it done. my guess is they have made progress, but they have not gotten to where they needed to get. it has the attention of leadership, the pentagon, everybody who is supposed to is working toward getting that done. and i am pretty confident it will. yes? [inaudible] >> first of all, thank you for your service for the last 15 years, or it will be 15 when you are through. i appreciate what you have done for us. meanwhile, the democrats need to
get down to business and start representing the people of the united states again. rep. conaway: i get that question a lot. so this is not going to shock you, but speaker nancy pelosi rarely confides in me. [laughter] rep. conaway: so there is a pretty significant group of my colleagues on the democrat side obsessed with overturning the 2016 election. they disagreed with it. even though hillary clinton has called president trump illegitimate, because he got so many votes and she only got 225. the mathworks to say that we have a president trump, so they have been trying to unwind that election and they are about to run out of time, because most folks are like, we have a year left before the election, let's let the voters decide. let's not let nancy pelosi and adam schiff and jerry nadler and
others decide, let that group drive this train, let's let everybody vote in 2020 and that will be the right way to get at it. it impacts a lot of areas, not the least of which is the usmca. it is the replacement for nafta. it has been done for months now and it should have already been implemented and ready to go. mexico has changed their laws that they needed to change in order to implement it and they have begun to do things. canada has read it twice in their parliament, they have to read a third time but they will not do that until we do what we need to do. speaker pelosi is in charge of this issue. i think that we have the requisite number of votes. if she does not take it to the floor, then she will do either of two things -- one, a majority of her team does not want it and she cannot put it on the floor, or two, she is working in the best interest of the nominees in 2020. present trump has campaigned on doing away with nafta, this resets it.
better for the u.s., it is better for mexico and probably not as good for canada, but from mexico and of the u.s. it is better. it is better for this reason. the labor standards and requirements in this treaty are the best ever negotiated. the democrats could not have done better than what is here. it will raise wages in mexico and protects unions, organizing in a way it has never been protected to allow the unions there to represent and protect workers better against employers. wages will come up and that is good for them and good for us. our balance is multibillion dollars of agricultural trade for the united states as a result of this deal. so every evaluation has a said that the usmca is good for america. does nancy pelosi want to do what is good for america, but this on the floor, or operate at what is best for the democratic nomination in 2020? only she can decide. i had encouraging comments from
a democrat colleague from south texas in september that said it is coming to the floor and she will let this happen. so we will see if that is going on. but this anti-donald trump stuff, everything else, is pretty pervasive among democrats. a a lot of them are in districts where donald trump won, and they are in a tough spot. to be fair, speaker nancy pelosi is in a tough spot as well. what she is asking is for a majority of her group, who probably will not vote for usmca, to allow a majority of the republicans and a small number of democrats to vote for it and move it forward. republican -- the republicans would have a hard time doing that, that would violate our hassett rule. but speaker nancy pelosi has got to have enough critical mass of members who represent districts where trade is important, where trade is important to the state, where we really need to get the
deal done so she can look at the majority and say, i know you do not want to do this but we have so many of our folks who need this, and america needs it, that we will move that forward. so -- the long answer to a straightforward question, but i am reading things like you are. yes? >> what is the hassett rule? rep. conaway: unless a majority, the majority would agree to it, we would not put the bill on the floor. >> would that apply to democrats? rep. conaway: it is a self rule. we had a speaker who said this is what we are going to do. we have violated it once in a while, but not often. it is not a requirement on speaker pelosi. it is what she wants to do with her conference, where she would have about 40-60 of her members
and 180 of our members vote to pass the usmca. we will see. yeah, another question? >> it goes along with the electoral college. rep. conaway: ok. >> i think that it was a brilliant device that our founders made in this country because otherwise a more states create a dictatorship. rep. conaway: i agree. i am amazed at how brilliant the founding fathers were. there is guidance and that. they have big and small states then. the concept was the same. our founding fathers did not want to the most popular states running the train and overrunning everybody else, so they put the electoral college in place to make sure that every state had a voice and he would be president. so i agree, it is a brilliant tool.
and i would object to changing it, because then it will put us into a circumstance where much of the world would be a relevant to that process -- would be irrelevant to that process and i do not think that is what we want to do at all. i'm impressed with what our founding fathers have done. yes? >> you told us what you are doing with the impeachment thing. i want to know what you are doing to go on offense against the democrats? >> there is not a lot we can do be in the minority of the house. we have to be reactive. one thing we are doing is trying to put something on the floor that says, speaker pelosi, if this is the right thing to do, then vote on it on the house floor and to trigger the process which it does, under the impeachment inquiry rules, allows the minority to subpoena,
allows the president to have lawyers to protect his constitutional rights as well. if this is the right thing to do, put it on the floor and let's have a vote. so far, she has said no to doing that. what that would say is, rather than just speaker nancy pelosi and a small handful of folks driving this narrative that has captured in the media, being led by a small group, but all of us on the hook. what do you think should be done and set up things the right way. that is what we are trying to do, use whatever pulpit we may have to try to get the american people to begin to tell the speaker, you need to do this the right way, not through the back door with congressional inquiries, the impeachment inquiry, with the way you are doing it. put the members on the hook. she has 31 members who are representing districts that
donald trump won and do not want that vote. they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want noise with impeachment, but they also want to protect their members who are in some tough reelection circumstances from going on the board as to where they stand on the deal. that is one thing we are trying to do is try to get the influence -- get -- influence america to get this on the floor. >> she changed the rules in january. when where you aware of that? rep. conaway: we were eminently aware of that. every congress changes the rules. every congress coming in, the new majority changes the rules. and so that is not -- that is the prerogative for being the majority, you get to set the rules. the house committee rules, everything else, being the minority you are a rule taker, not a rule maker.
>> it makes us not to have a voice. rep. conaway: it does, that is exactly right. but when the republicans were in eight years, i suspect democrats argued they did not have a voice. so it is good to be speaker and a majority in this circumstance. anybody else? >> is there anyway you could -- speaker of the house? rep. conaway: technically, you can, but you would have to have a majority vote on the floor. and it would take a majority to get that motion to the floor because the speaker drives -- the speaker decides what comes and does not come to the floor. you would have to do a petition where 218 members sign a discharge petition and it would
involve almost 20 democrats signing on with us to make that happen. here is how hard it is. we have a bill called the born to life bill. it would require if a child survives an abortion attempt and is born alive, that the medical provider should try to keep that child alive. pretty straightforward stuff. we cannot get that vote to the floor because the speaker won't allow it. so we've got a discharge petition where three democrats have signed it. we've got to get to 218 to get it to the floor without a speaker. the speaker is blocking a bill that has nothing to do with abortion per se. it says a child born makes it outside of the womb alive, we got to work to keep that child alive, and we can't get that vote on the floor. discharge petitions are hard. that's one you would think is pretty straightforward, but a discharge petition to censor the speaker will probably not be high on any democrat's list. anybody else?
yes, sir. last question. one more. >> a few years ago, there was a lot of talk about the cashless society, and every transaction of an american they do with cash would be recorded. has that gone anywhere? i see that is the end of privacy. rep. conway: we are in to get ourselves in a sense that fewer and fewer of us carry cash and function with cash. we carry credit cards, debit cards, or some folks still write checks. we are doing that to ourselves, but i'm not aware of any official effort to eliminate cash from our society is legal tender for transaction. i'm not aware of anything like that, other than, i bet if you asked my staff, they have very little cash in their pockets.
it is a generational issue. i've got a modest amount, but i guess the three of them back there, they are shaking their heads no. i've got evan thomas here today, the district director that supervises all 29 counties. i've got hillery from the offices out of brownwood. she's a fixture in our communities. and alyssa is -- thank you. she's out of the d.c. office. she's helping with social media and all that kind of stuff, while my normal social media person is having a baby. so i've got a great team, but yeah, i got them right in the face back there because they don't have any cash on them. or limited cash. anybody else? one more? ok. that would have shocked me if
you hadn't had one more. it's not her first rodeo, by the way. [laughter] >> you said that there was an effort to try to get everyone to contact speaker pelosi and have her reverse course. how would a republican go about contacting speaker pelosi and have any influence? rep. conway: you can certainly write the speaker, email or those kind of things. the most effective is for you to talk to your democrat friends and ask them to. i will listen to anybody in district 11, republican or democrat. that's not the issue. speaker pelosi, folks in her district have access to her regardless of party. but it really should be folks on her side of the aisle who have the most ability. if you've got democrat friends around the world, friends in districts represent a by a democrat, asking them to do it
is probably the best way to have an impact on that. anybody else? all right, well, let me close out my town hall in the past. as i look at our nation, i'm worried that we are losing the moral high ground in order to continue to self govern. john adams wrote that only the moral and religious people can self govern, that our form of governing is unsuited for amoral people because they can't govern themselves. i think we are a nation that god has been able to look at and bless come but put yourself in god's position today and ask him to bless the america he sees. ask him to bless the killing of 62 million babies in 40 plus
years. ask him to comprehend just how heinous some of the things that's going on in our nation have occurred. i don't think god can bless a nation that does it. he did it when the nation of israel, his chosen people, whose hearts would get separated from god, he would use awful circumstances to reset that nation's heart back to god. we are in control of that. there's nothing i can do from a legislative standpoint. this is stuff that you and i have to do in our own hearts. we have to be able to stand up for those moral values of which this nation was conceived and supported and sustained for 200 plus, more than 240 years. the thing about america, those values are in safekeeping in rural america. you folks live them every single day. it's nothing new to you. it's not a shock to you, but it is to many parts of our
nation. the parts that would take it the other direction are gaining steam every day. we've got to be bold enough in our witness to be able to stand up to those forces and point to a different direction for our nation because if we don't, then this nation will be lost. how do you live a moral life? with a code. i live the a -- i live the judeo-christian model. some days i'm better than others, but each of us have to live that code and be able to stand up for that code as to why this is the right answer for our nation. god made us a promise in -- in ii chronicles 7:14. "those who turn their faces to god and pray, he will hear their sins." that awakening has got to start someplace. that revival has got to start someplace. no better place than santa ana,
texas, for that awakening to begin to happen. my charge to you leaving here today is to begin to think about what you need to do to stand up for those values that this nation was based on. folks that want to take us the other direction, they're not right. the direction they want to go, god can't bless. here's why i think it is the most important. if you look at the last 100 years of world history, i would argue there's never been a nation doing as much good for the rest of the world and asked so little in return as the united states of america. that was god's divine mission for us as a nation, to do what we've done to protect liberty and freedom the way what we've done. looking at the next 100 years, if god takes that away from us or we don't want it, who pick up? xi jinping in china, putin in russia, radical islam? it is important for the rest of the world that we defend, have
someone willing to defend freedom and liberty the way that we've done the last 100 years for the next 100. otherwise, history will write that the long, slow decline into oblivion that was the american experiment to self govern ended in the earliest parts of the 21st century. think about what your personal role is you leave this room. from now on, each of us has a role in trying to reclaim that moral high ground because the stakes could never be more important. god bless each one of you, god bless texas, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you for coming out. [applause] rep. conway: thank you.
campaign 2020. watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. thursday morning, the public opinion trend toward impeachment. pillsbury on china policy. the latest entree talks and the growing rift between the nba and china. clifford young shares the results of the most recent c-span poll on election security and voting. c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. this columbus day weekend
on american history tv, saturday at 10:00 eastern, on real america, the film "the whole world is watching." >> thousands swarmed onto washington circle. more hit georgetown. eastern, at 2:00 harvey pratt shares his vision for the upcoming national native american veterans memorial on the national mall. >> in the middle is a 12 foot stainless fields -- stainless steel circle. at the base of that is a fire. you can use that fire to let your sweet grass and sage and things that you use. you can touch the water and use the fire. draw.l that the
noon, ruth day at bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor discussed the judicial impact of the first woman on the u.s. supreme court, sandra day o'connor. >> if you read between the lines, what she is saying is, if you want to improve the status of women in the nursing profession, the best way to do it is to get men to want to do the job. the pay will inevitably go up. explore our nations passed on american history tv every weekend on c-span3. . >> joe biden speaking in new hampshire, calling for president trump's impeachment. vice president mike pence in iowa speaking on the trade deal between the u.s., mexico, and canada.
later, president trump taking questions from reporters following the signing of executive orders. former vice president joe biden gave a campaign speech in rochester, new hampshire. on thearks focused eighth impeachment inquiry of president trump. inquiry ofmpeachment president trump. >> please give a warm welcome for congresswoman carol shea-porter. [applause] >> thank you very much for being he