taxes? >> i certainly support flatter, fairer taxes which is why we have two million people taken out of income tax, to make us competitive with the rest of the world but it is important to put in clearly on the record tax evasion is illegal and wrong and should be chased down, as my right hon. friend some of the tax avoidance that have been put in place in recent years are in my view questionable and the government should be clear that the revenue closed those down to make sure people pay their taxes properly. >> in december last year this house passed a motion calling for reforms to our unfair extradition treaties. seven months of action. what makes the prime minister more uncomfortable? ignoring the will of the house or the plight of those extraditions? ..

>> secretary of state for international development for producing a flag that is going to replace the european union on all our overseas aid. he should be thoroughly congrathated. >> i'm sure that like myself my old friend got the dear connie letter with this excellent new logo showing that the aid that

we send is not on behalf of the british government, it is on behalf of all of the british people who i think support the fact that britain stands for something in the world and stands up for helping the poorest in the world even as we have a difficult time in our own country. >> order. [inaudible conversations] >> here on c-span2 we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament's in session. you can see this again sunday night at 9 eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video, including programs dealing with other international issues.

july 7th and 8th booktv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of missouri's state capital, jefferson city, with c-span's local content vehicles on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous book. this is the one we like to show to visitor when they come into the archives here at page library. and this is a book about harriet tubman. it's called harriet: the moses of her people. and the special thing about this, this book was written in 8-- 1866. harriet tubman made her mark on there, and that's really the most famous autograph, if you want to call it that, of what we have here in page library. and, obviously, she couldn't read or write, so she left her

mark, the sign of the cross. >> watch for booktv in jefferson city, missouri, july 7th and 8th on c-span2 and 3. >> two texas republicans are vying for the seat of retiring senator kay bailey hutchison. former state solicitor general ted cruz faces former lieutenant governor david dewhurst in a july 31st runoff. the two participated in their first debate last week in dallas. from kera-tv, this is an hour. ♪ >> i believe in -- that the republican party is based on smaller government and less intrusion in your private life. >> what i want to see is somebody with some backbone, somebody with some spine. >> liberty is under assault in this country, and texans are rising up to say, no.

>> i am the most fiscally-conservative lieutenant governor in the history of the state of texas. >> why do you think i should vote for you? ♪ >> welcome to the texas debates, race for the u.s. senate. we are broadcasting live from the kera studios in dallas and online at texas debates.org. i'm kate, and i'll be the moderator during the next hour as we bring you the first one-on-one debate between republicans ted cruz and david dewhurst. 41-year-old ted cruz is a harvard law school graduate who served in the federal trade commission. he's currently a private attorney in houston. 66-year-old david dewhurst graduated from the university of arizona and started a successful

energy company, falcon seaboard, based in houston. he was first elected as texas land commissioner and has served as lieutenant governor since 2003. the candidates will be answering questions posed by republican voters who have been following their campaigns and by journalists. political reporter crystal, peggy with the san antonio express news and ross ramsey. he's the executive editor for the texas tribune. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. we have all agreed on some rules for this debate, so let's get started. the first question from peggy goes to ted cruz. >> mr. cruz, more than 11 million undocumented people are in this country. do you support or oppose deporting them, and do you support a guest worker program for which a number of them could qualify as laid out in the state

republican party platform? >> well, thank you for for being here, and thank you for everyone in the studio audience for joining us. the question you raise touches on a crisis in our nation. and the unhappy truth is neither party is serious about solving the problem. in my opinion, we need to do three things. number one, we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. the reason there are 11 million people here illegally is because the federal government has fallen down on securing our borders. number two, i am categorically opposed to amnesty. it's contrary to rule of law, and it's unfair to the millions of illegal immigrants who wait inside line and came here legally. and number three, we need to remain a nation that celebrates legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking the american dream. now, just last week president obama implemented a back door amnesty policy that in my judgment is unconstitutional, it's lawless, and it's wrong.

the constitution explicitly -- >> would you like to answer the question? the question was about a guest worker program. >> i do not support a guest worker program. i do not support expansions in immigration unless and until we secure our borders, and for too long we've been listening to politicians talking about it, and they haven't gotten the job done. >> okay, thank you. mr. dewhurst. >> thanks. illegal immigration is a very serious problem. that combined with illicit drugs and gangs, and the federal government has done a terrible job. i don't support a guest worker program, never have, until and unless congress addresses this but after and only after we have secured our border. for the last three years i've been recommending that we need to triple the size of our border patrol. it is woefully understaffed.

i recommended that by tripling it we'd be adding 40,000 more border patrol. that's an opportunity for 40,000 more veterans coming back from afghanistan and iraq to help secure our border. and that will, because we've bun running surge operations here in the state of texas over the last six years, and that will stop illegal immigration. >> thank you. >> how would you deal with the people that are already here, more than 11 million people? >> first to mr. cruz and then to mr. dewhurst and about 30 seconds each. >> we need to eliminate sanctuary cities where immigration laws are not enforced. we need to enforce the law, and this is an area where my opponent and i disagree. he was responsible for killing the bill that would have prohibited sanctuary cities. number two, what we need to do is end the benefits for those who are here illegally. i oppose in-state tuition for illegal aliens. this, again, is a point of

disagreement between me and my opponent. >> neither statement is true. i've always opposed in-state tuition for illegals. the federal government is incapable of doing two things at once. we're going to have to triple the size of our border patrol, and then and only then can, should congress address these issues. >> [inaudible] >> would you like to respond any further to peggy's question about deportation? >> america is a country of laws, and we need to enforce all of our laws. >> okay. thank you very much. our second question comes from ross ramsey to lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> should the federal government have bailed out general motors? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. the federal government should be

staying out of picking winners and losers. when they do get involved, we end up with something like solyndra, $532 million loss. the federal government should be focused on, on its problems. washington is broken. texas is a good example of what, what a good government should look like. and i'm proud as a lifelong businessman to have come to austin to help create the texas miracle. and i want to take that miracle, the strongest economy in the entire country, i want to take it to washington and get our country back to work. >> mr. cruz? >> of course we shouldn't have. we've got a problem in washington. we've got career politicians in both parties that spend the taxpayer monies. it's how we've gotten a $16 trillion that is bankrupting our country. i don't support bailouts period. i don't support the bailout of the auto companies, i don't support the bailout of the

banks. government shouldn't be in the business of spending taxpayer money to help private corporations. the role of government is to protect our national security, the rule of law and to let entrepreneurs create jobs. that's the problem with washington, career politicians spending must money and diggings into a hole that is threatening the economic future of our generation. >> what would you have have done with the 2500 or more jobs that would have been lost in arlington had the federal government not bailed out general motors? >> you know, at the end of the day we don't know what would have helped jobs. and, you know, that sort of question always assumes that the money from the government comes from nowhere. so i would ask the same question. all of those billions of dollars, the $900 billion plan that obama passed, that money came from the taxpayers, and

every dollar was not in the private sector creating jobs, and it cost many, many more jobs than were saved by the bailouts. >> thank you. >> mr. dewhurst? >> one of the things that i'm proud of is the texas miracle that i didn't do it alone, but i played a large role in taking my business skills to austin and creating not only the best job environment in the country, but the fastest growing job base. as my point mentioned, in a situation where there might be layoffs, we need to continue to do everything we can to grow our state to continue to encourage more investment. this model right here in texas works, and it'll work in washington. >> okay. gentlemen, thank you very much. when we asked our voters in our audience about issues that are important to them, they had some strong opinions about improving the economy. here's what they told us. >> our next senator, we really want him to be concerned with how our future is going to play out, especially when we're done

with school. so if this candidate is saying that they are going to look out for us and keep the economy great in texas so that we can find a job, then that's probably one we're going to support. >> most important to me as a small business person is that the government does everything it can to reduce regulation, overburdening regulation. we do need regulation, obviously, but it's at a point now where it's crushing business. >> we definitely need a balanced budget, and we need to get our economy on a track that we can grow instead of going deeper into debt. >> crystal ayala is with one of the voters you just saw, and i believe we have a question for our candidates. >> thank you. i'm with a student majoring in journalism. good evening, amanda. what's your question for mr. ted cruz? >> one in three young people are

unemployed, and over a third are living back at home with their parents. we have over a trillion dollars of student loan debt. if you were in washington, what would you do to insure that you had jobs and we could pay our bills? >> thank you for that question, amanda. it is a crisis. it's a crisis affecting young people and americans across this country. there are 25 million people out of work, and a huge part of the reason is for the last three years president obama has waged a war on jobs. we need the next senator from texas to be a strong conservative and a fighter to stop the obama war on jobs, to repeal obamacare, and i intend to lead the fight to repeal every word of obamacare, to stop the abusive enforcement of environmental laws, to stop the assault on right-to-work states, to repeal dodd-frank. every one of these obama policies is a boot crushing small businesses which is taking away jobs from young people. that's how we turn our economy

around. >> mr. due husband hurst? >> just look at the contrast between washington and texas. here in texas over the last nine years, we've cut, identify been involved in cutting spending virtually each year by billions of dollars. washington is increasing spending. i've helped cut taxes 51 times for over $14.6 billion on texas businesses and taxpayers. washington wants to increase taxes. i've balanced five straight budgets without raising taxes. harry reid hasn't balanced a budget in over three years. i've run tv ads against obamacare because i think it's a bad piece of legislation, and my first day in the senate i will move to repeal obamacare. >> we have another question regarding jobs. unemployed people in texas can now collect 60 weeks of unemployment benefits. do you support giving more weeks of compensation than they have right now?

mr. cruz? >> i do not. i don't think the answer is to create people being dependent on government. the answer is to get the government policies out of the way to allow jobs to be created by entrepreneurs. you know, the problem we all have as voters is we see politicians, and they talk a good game. my opponent talks about cutting spending and cutting taxes just like the politicians in washington do. but what he doesn't mention is that in his years in elected office, he's repeatedly cut deals with democrats. that's a $72 billion increase, larger than population and larger than inflation. taxes have gone up 49% since he's been lieutenant governor, and all of us are tired of politicians that talk a good game but keep spending more and more money, and that's what's destroying jobs. >> lieutenant governor?

>> oh, i love the math, i love the math. thank you for saying that. you know, quite frankly, one of your big supporters a couple months ago put out a statement on texas and said that the state of texas, its tax structure leads the country. it's exemplary. it also pointed out that over the years between 2002 and 2010 that our, that the inflation and population growth exceeded the increase in our budget so that, in essence, our state spending has gone down. it's a fact. facts are stubborn, my friend. and as far as -- i'm proud of the fact that by cutting taxes, you see this is a fundamental part of economics. when you cut taxes, you grow your revenue. so you have more revenue coming in. that's exactly what happened in the 1980s when, under president reagan when he cut the

marginal federal income taxes revenues. dramatically increased. >> thank you very much. as we said, we've been talking to the voters here, and more than anything else they tell us what they want from the next senator is integrity. let's listen. >> i want to see someone who has integrity, has a good record of things they've done to protect our liberty and our freedoms. >> i want to see a man that'll uphold our wonderful constitution and does not compromise what our country was founded on. >> i'd like to see texas character. we're known as people of our word, where a handshake is as good as a signed contract. >> i'm not looking for somebody that wants to get along, i want somebody that's going to go to washington to do what the people of texas have sent them there to do. >> so this question goes to lieutenant governor dewhurst first.

is there anything you opponent has done that show he lacks the begty and character -- integrity and character these voters say what they want. >> you know, i think what the voters have said is so important. in all of our elected officials, we need men and women of integrity that are consistent, that will, that will do what they say. and i'm going to leave that up to the voters of texas. i'm not here to criticize my opponent. i'm just proud of the fact that i have a record of doing exactly what i say that i'm going to do. i have never compromised my conservative principles once. yes, i've negotiated, i've negotiated to try and get the requisite numbers so we could pass bills, but i've never compromised my conservative principles. >> mr. cruz? >> i'll leave the judgment of character to the voters, but from the beginning what our campaign has been focused on is a straightforward comparison of my record of having spent a

lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and winning on a national level and the lieutenant governor's record of repeatedly compromising with democrats, increasing spending, increasing taxes. and i think the frustration every one of us voters shares with career politicians is they talk a great game. and yet they keep spending more and more and more money. you know, it was interesting a minute ago we were talking about taxes u and the lieutenant governor says he has cut taxes 51 times. that may well be true that he had 51 very small tax cuts, but he had at least one very big tax increase that was introduced under his leadership, jacked up the taxes of the state of texas, was sold to the voters as a way to lower our property taxes, and yet one year later the property taxes were even higher, and as a result, texans -- >> is this an integrity issue with you, mr. cruz? is this an integrity issue? >> i think what the voters care

about is what the record is of each candidate, and that's why i did find it amusing the lieutenant governor says he's not here to attack me given he has spent over $10 million of his own money running false, nasty attack ads. but for my end, we're going to compare his record and mine. >> let's give the lieutenant governor an opportunity to respond if he'd like. >> i'm not going to respond to the fact that you have your washington insider and you have all these washington special interests that have spent millions and millions of dollars saying untrue things about me. i'm not going to go there. the -- i think it's important that when we talk about facts, let's put them on the table. i'm very proud of the fact that in cutting taxes 51 times that includes cutting your local school property taxes by a third, $7 billion a year. that includes cutting, eliminating the -- >> thank you. >> -- business tax for the 40,000 smallest businesses. i want to reduce taxes, get the

state government out of your way. i want to go to washington and do the same thing. >> thank you. thank you very much. we're now going to turn to the candidates, each of you, and ask you to pose a question to each other and based, again, on a coin toss, mr. cruz, you can ask the first question of the lieutenant governor. >> lieutenant governor dewhurst, you have been widely criticized for having proposed a payroll tax on 2.5% of the wages of every employee. your response is to call your critics liars, so i have a very simple question. did you support payroll tax, yes or no, and is that a good idea? >> no and no. >> you did not support a payroll tax? >> no. i've never supported a wage tax, and i've never supported a payroll tax. um, -- >> well, that's very interesting, and at the end of this we have over two dozen

newspaper articles quoting the lieutenant governor supporting a payroll tax, so we can now compare the facts to what he just told the audience. >> okay. lieutenant governor, your question for mr. cruz. >> mr. cruz, we all make decisions in life. when you got out of college, you made a decision that you wanted to go to harvard law school, later you clerked for several judges, then you went in to the federal government as a staff attorney. when i got out of college, i joined the united states air force, and then during the cold war i raised my happened and i joined the cia, and i served abroad during some tough times. and then i came back and formed a business from scratch and built it up. what about your background is, do you think makes you more qualified to be the next u.s. senator? >> well, let me say initially i salute your service as a veteran

both in the armed services and with the cia. what i believe makes me qualified to be a u.s. senator is that i have spent a lifetime fighting for the constitution and winning on a national level. i served five-and-a-half years as the solicitor general of texas, the chief lawyer for the u.s. supreme court and over and over again we led the nation defending the constitution and conservative principles whether it was the ten commandments or the pledge of allegiance or the second amendment or u.s. sovereignty, standing up to the world court and the united nations and defending u.s. sovereignty. we need a fighter, and that's what i've spent a lifetime doing, fighting for the constitution. >> okay. gentlemen, thank you very much. we now have a question from peggy, and it goes to lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> lieutenant governor, is out of balance. governor perry has called it a ponzi scheme. you either have to increase the money coming in or reduce the money going out. how specifically would you fix it? >> all of our entitlements are

broken. i mean, it is a crisis. that's one of my problems with washington politicians. they won't tell the truth. they kick the can down the road, and they're not telling us that, in fact, our unfunded mandates are some 70, $80 trillion, in today's money, some $35 trillion. social security's broken. we need to start funding social security. we're going to have to honor, in my judgment, honor the contract, honor our obligations with people that have retired. but we're going to have to raise the retirement age on a staggered basis. we're going to have to look at the cost of the cost index which is higher than the cpi and adjust that downward, and eventually we're going to have to consider means testing. >> follow on with that at all? >> when you say means testing,

what specifically are you looking at? >> there are -- i think congress is going to have to take a look at whether or not people earning over a certain amount of money even though they've made contributions into social security they would continue to, they would receive those payments or on a voluntary basis. because actuarially social security is bankrupt, and we've got to figure out how to make it solvent. >> would you accept social security? >> under the conditions of today, no. >> mr. cruz. >> look, we have a crisis in spending and entitlements in particular. we must have fundamental entitlement reform. i think the democrats are being grossly irresponsible by not stepping forward to save social security. i'm running on fundamental entitlement reform. i think social security reform should have four elements. number one, those on social security or near retirement, there should be no changes

whatsoever. we should honor the commitments made to our seniors. but for people of my generation, i'm 43. many of us don't think social security will be here for us in the first place. gradually increase the retirement age. number two, set the increase in benefits so that it matches inflation rather than exceeding it. and number three, for younger workers, allow us to keep a portion of our social security taxes in a private personal account that we own, that we control and we can pads on to our -- pass on to our kids and grandkids. what's needed is leadership to step in and solve the problem. >> what do you think of the lieutenant governor's idea of means testing? >> i think means testing is one possible solution that should be on the table. i don't know that it's necessary, but i think we need to do whatever's necessary to save the program. the problem has been we've had too many candidates talk about this, but then they face risk. you know, right now paul ryan, they were running ads showing paul ryan literally throwing

granny off a cliff. you get demagogued on this issue. and what we need on this issue and everything else is leaders with courage to stand for conservative principles and to take the vilification of the left. is. >> okay, thank you very much. our next senator will find himself in the middle of a raging battle over health care. it's an important issue for our voters as well. >> i want the republicans to stand strong and find free market solutions to deal with all the challenges in the health care system instead of moving toward more and more like a social eyesed medicine system. -- socialized medicine system. >> the most important things are medicare and also social security. they're trying to take medicare away. what i want to see is that they make it better for health insurance for elders. >> we need to get out of things like social security and entitlement programs, and that's where most of the growth in spending is expected to come from. we've got to do something about that sector. i want a senator that's willing

to step up and ask those questions and put forward real solutions to those problems. >> and ross ramsey has a question now for study cruz. >> texas has the highest percentage of residents would health insurance, and many of them get their care in taxpayer-funded emergency rooms. if the supreme court overturned all or part of the federal health care law, what would you do about this? >> well, there are two pieces of it. one, what to do about obamacare and, two, what to do about health care generally. with respect to obamacare, i think it's very likely the supreme court's going to cut the baby in half and leave some of it in place. if that happens, it's going to throw the mess into the laps of congress, and it is going to be an epic political fight. the first bill i intend to introduce in the senate is a bill to repeal every syllable of every word of obamacare. there's going to be enormous pressure to compromise. i think we should repeal it in its spirity. now, the second half, we need

fundamental reform of our health care system that moves towards market-oriented solutions that empowers patients and disempowers washington bureaucrats. three that are most important are, number one, throwing the interstate purchase of health insurance so that we have a true 50-state, national market. that will let people buy low-cost health insurance rather than one with all of these government mandates that drives up the cost. number two, expand health savings accounts -- >> thank you. >> and number three, delink health insurance from employment. >> thank you very much. >> governor dewhurst? >> if obamacare is declared unconstitutional but some of the parts of the bill because of the individual mandate, some parts of the bill are still in place or if it's not declared unconstitutional, i'm not sure how both of us on the same day are going to move to repeal it, but i will move to repeal obamacare, every single word, and throw it in the trash can. because it doesn't materially

improve the health outcomes for americans, it's an unconstitutional bill, and financially it'll break the back of every state. that's why i've been working for the last six years or free market, permissive solutions such as what we passed finally after six years last year to provide incentives for doctors and hospitals -- real world incentives -- to work together to have better outcomes, follow best practices, focus on wellness and keep people out of hospitals. um, we also need to pass throughout the country medical malpractice tort reform. when we did that, when i passed it in 2003, we saw our medical malpractice rates decline 40-60%. we ended the frivolous lawsuits by the trial lawyers, and we've got 24,000 new doctors in the state. >> can thank you. great, thank you very much. crystal ayala is with a voter who has a question for lieutenant governor dewhurst.

>> with me is 68-year-old richard dawson who owns a health insurance business. good evening, what is your question in this case for lieutenant governor dewhurst? >> what would you do to develop more energy while being environmentally sensitive and at the same time limit the powers of the overzealous epa? >> first of all, i think the epa is a rogue agency. they're completely out of control. we ought to gut 'em. if we can, if we can win the white house with governor romney and we can pick up four more republican senators, we're on our way to turning this country around. but the epa has been wreaking havoc on texas and other states. those of us, and i'm -- as lieutenant governor, i'm working part time, but we all feel like we've got a bull's eye on our back because of the epa. texas is sitting today as the

saudi arabia of natural gas. we've got the opportunity, first time in our lifetimes, to truly have energy independence from foreign oil. and we need to be using that natural gas. we need to expand drilling, use it in transportation which will lower the emissions, which is part of your question, use it in electric generation, and this would dramatically benefit the economy of texas and reduce emissions. >> thank you. >> mr. cruz? >> look, we need to do everything we can to get the federal government out of the way of energy exploration. we need to be exploring and developing our natural resources. we have the potential, as the lieutenant governor observed, for energy dependence for the first time in modern history because of the incredible advancements in hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling. and right now the epa is stopping exploration, and we

need a fighter to take it on. every candidate for office in texas says they support oil and gas. unless you are a blithering idiot, that's the right thing to say. the heart of my campaign has always been a proven record, have you walked the walk. when obama put the offshore drilling moratorium in place, i represented the u.s. chamber of commerce challenging that moratorium in federal court, and the federal court of appeals agreed with us it was contrary to federal law. obama's using the epa to try to go after drilling in west texas. as the solicitor general of texas, i stood up to the epa and argued that the endangered species act was unconstitutional as it apply today a toad that had never crossed state lines. >> thank you. >> we need a fighter who doesn't just talk, but who has walked the walk. >> thank you. richard, are you satisfy with the their answers? go good answer, thank you. >> thank you. shelley? >> thank you very much. my question goes to ted cruz. mr. cruz, you support the construction of the keystone

pipeline. a number of texas land other thans, however -- landowners oppose the line through their private property, and i'm wondering should the pipeline companies be able to override the landowners by using eminent domain? >> you know, that's ultimately a question for state law to determine. i think i am disturbed about eminent domain abuse because i think private property rights are fundamental to who we are as americans and texans. but i'll tell you, the problem with the keystone pipeline isn't the issue of eminent domain. the problem is the obama administration with the stroke of a pen shut that project down, and it makes absolutely no sense. he killed tens of thousands of jobs that that pipeline would have produced. and in addition to that what will happen is now that oil will simply be sent west, it will be refined in china instead, it will pollute the environment more, and the result is our nation remains dependent and more and more dependent on

foreign oil from the middle east, from nations many of which hate us and would do us harm. it made no sense, and it's an example of how barack obama captive of the far left special interests. with the stroke of a pen, he shut down that project, killed jobs, hurt the environment, hurt the economy and hurt our national security. >> if i might, i think some of the landowners would disagree. they do believe 'em innocent domain is part of -- eminent domain is part of the problem. is there anything you would do to assist these landowners? >> well, my view on eminent domain is that it should be limited with respect to the constitution and the fifth amendment of the constitution that provides it can only be used for public use. for example, a few years pack the supreme court decided the kilo decision. it was 5-4, i think it was wrongly decided. you could use eminent domain for private purposes. in that instance a woman in new london, connecticut, her family

home had been in her family for 100 years, and the city condemned it to build a parking lot for a major pharmaceutical company. it went all the way to the u.s. supreme court, and the u.s. supreme court said wrongly, i think, that the government could do it to help out private interests. i don't think we should be helping out private interests any more than i think if i heard the lieu tet r tent governor -- lieutenant governor right that the federal government should be favoring the natural gas industry. and i think that's what led to solyndra. let the market decide rather than have politicians pick -- >> thank you. thanks, from cruz. want to ask you the same question, mr. dewhurst, i think you're probably aware that there are landowners who do not want eminent domain to be used. what would you do for the landowners? >> once again, this is a great example of why we need proven conservative leadership, and i have that proven conservative leadership. i worked for six years in

passing an eminent domain bill through the legislature that has been approved by landowners, by farmers, ranchers, that is fair. it only with used -- be used when there's a public interest and provides compensation because otherwise i wouldn't have passed the bill. otherwise it's a taking if someone doesn't provide fair market value. >> so how would you address this situation between the landowners and the pipeline company? >> well, i think this is important for the pipeline to sit down with the land owners and negotiate in good faith where the route's going to go because the pipelines have some option in moving that around. and to make sure that the compensation that is paid, if it crosses someone's land, is fair market value. that was the problem with our eminent domain bill in the past -- >> but if they just plain don't want it, if they just plain don't want it and they don't

want the check from the company, do you, do you side with the landowners or the pipeline company? >> i think you'd have to take a look at if there are alternative routes because there are judicial appeals that are available to landowners. but if logically the route goes through someone's property, i know for a fact in dealing with a lot of these companies in the past when people have had complaints, folks have moved pipelines, they've moved electric high line wires. and so there's a lot of opportunity. but i have never favored one fuel over the other. you see, i'm the only person in this race besides being a veteran, besides being in the intelligence business, besides being a businessman, i'm in the oil and gas business. >> thank you. >> so i am very -- i see a wonderful opportunity to grow our state. >> okay, thank you. crystal ayala now has a question again for the lieutenant governor.

>> mexico and texas' largest trade partner. violence in mexico is spilling over the borders into texas. how will you keep the gate open for commerce and trade and the gate closed for criminal activity coming right across the border? >> i think that's an excellent question because mexico is our friend, they are our number one trading partner, and we've got to keep trade going back and forth. although, of course, we've got a tsunami of violation and drug cartel activity, and now this new phenomena with the transnational gangs coming into our cities. so i would push for closing our borders by tripling the size of the border patrol, adding 40,000 more border patrol, at the same time adding -- and the federal government, i think, has been remiss on both points -- adding more in the customs and

protections side so we can move trade back and forth, we can use the smart cards as they're starting to use in el paso and other cities so we can move legitimate trade into texas and keep the bad guys out. >> thank you. mr. cruz? >> i support free trade. over two million texans make their livelihoods in many business and farming and ranching exporting. we're the largest exporting state in the country. but at the same time as you rightly noted, there is a crisis with illegal immigration, there is a crisis with our southern border where the violence is spilling over, and the federal government is utterly failing in it job to secure the borders. just a little over a week ago i was down in the valley meeting with the texas border volunteers. men and women across texas who spend their time guarding the border, and i saw photograph after photograph after photograph of people who have died crossing the border because the federal government is failing in its job. 60% of the people ap rehelped

are -- apprehended are people whose interests are very hostile to our own. many of them, tragically, are asian women being brought in for sex trafficking. we've got to get serious about stopping the violence, and we need to triple the border patrol and use security and technology to solve the problem. >> thank you. thank you very much. ross ramsey now has a question for ted cruz. >> can you justify what the u.s. has spent so far in iraq and afghanistan and how much more are those wars worth? >> well, i think they made sense to go in, and i think we stayed there too long. my view on u.s. foreign policy and on military intervention is very simple, and it's the same as ronald reagan's which is that we should use u.s. military might only to protect the vital national security interests of the united states of america. and that anytime we do we should follow the weinberger doctrine. we should go in with

overwhelming force, we should have a clearly-stated objective and then critically when we're done with that, we should get the heck out. i don't believe in nation building. i think the job of the men and women in our military who bravely risk their lives to protect our freedoms is to hunt down and kill our enemies, not to build democratic utopias across the world. we don't have the money to do that, and it's not their job. and, unfortunately, a lot of politicians in washington when we get somewhere, they want to stay rather than solving the national security threat -- >> thank you. >> -- and coming back home. >> thank you. >> would you cut defense spending to balance the budget? >> no. i do not think that the defense budget should be used as a purpose of balance. i think the defense budget should be key on exactly what i said, the vital national security interests of the united states. number one, i think we need to stand unequivocally with the men and women of the armed forces. one of the things i'm most proud of is right now i'm representing over three million veterans

defending defending the mojave desert veterans' memorial which we went to the supreme court and won on behalf of the veterans. but i don't think the defense budget is immune from pork. every budget cycle in if washington you see the pentagon submits a budget of what the generals and admirals say we need, and members of congress add spending on top of that. and i think that's spending that is added above and beyond what the pentagon asked for ought to be subject to heightened scrutiny as not being necessary for our national security. >> thank you, mr. cruz. >> governor dewhurst, same question about iraq and afghanistan. >> i think we went into both countries for the right turn purposes. we went into afghanistan weeks after 9/11 to search out and destroy the taliban. and al-qaeda. and that was a noble purpose after 9/11. the problem is that we weren't able to continue what we were

doing because they were seeking safe haven in pakistan. in iraq we went in to iraq, i believe, based on the information in front of democrats and republicans at the time for the right reason. it looked as if there were weapons of mass destruction. but i think the obama administration was so anxious to cut and run, should have left some troops there to be able to train the iraqi forces. i agree that there are three overriding principles that i always focus on where if we're going to get involved in a conflict because it's easier to get in than get out. and that is it has to be in the vital national security of the united states. two, we have to have overwhelming force on day one and, three, we have to have a very clear, well understood exit strategy.

>> what about cutting the defense budget in order to -- >> as a veteran, as a former member of the cia having served on a presidential commission to restructure our foreign intelligence agencies we need to keep our military strong as possible. our strong military is our greatest defense against being attacked. but there are ways that we can reduce our costs in the military budget. right now virtually every weapons system which is approved is laced, interlaced with earmarks from different congressmen or senators. all that does, ross, it increases the cost, delays the final delivery system of -- >> thank you. >> -- the weapons system, and we can save money and deliver the weapons to our warriors in the field faster. >> thank you very much.

peggy now has a question for lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> lieutenant governor dewhurst, do you believe the united states should intervene forcefully in syria to help stop the massacre given the parameters you've outlined for intervention? >> pegtygy, first of all -- peggy, first of all, president obama's foreign policy has been a disaster. it's been a unprecedented disaster. president assad is committing a genocide. he's bombing, he's strafing his own citizens. at the present time, the united states is providing some weapons that are being bought by our allies to be moved to the syrian freedom fighters. but before we get involved in any conflict, i think we're going to have to take a very hard look at the three, the three principles which i laid

out and my opponent laid out. it's got to be in the overwhelming, vital national interests of the united states. we have to have overwhelming superiority as far as force, and we have to have a very clear exit strategy. i don't think we're at that point today. if i was in the senate, i'd be a no vote today. but things may change in the future. >> i do not think we should intervene militarily in syria. as i said before, the only justification for doing so is the vital national security interests of the united states. president obama has not even attempted to lay out any such argument. at the end of the day, president obama's trying to get us involved in there because the united nations is leading, and the president famously said he wants to lead from behind. and as far as i'm concerned, the united nations has no jurisdiction whatsoever, and we shouldn't be following the u.n. we should be following the

constitution of the united states and the congress of the united states. there is no issue i am better known for nationally than being one of the leading defenders of u.s. sovereignty, standing up to the united nations and saying you have no jurisdiction in our country. the only binding law -- foreign law is not binding in our country. sovereignty resides in we the people, and we should be defending u.s. interests and not the views of the u.n. which is what president obama's doing right now. >> follow up? >> sure, if you'd like to. >> given what we've all seen happening in syria even though your decision or your view that we should not intervene is based on these principles you've stated, is it difficult to hold to that given the massacre that you see happening there? mr. cruz, first, then mr. dewhurst, please. >> at the end of the day, the job of the united states is not to be the world's policeman.

there are challenges all over the world, and we don't have the resources. it's not our job to intervene all over the globe. it is our job to protect u.s. interests. and, you know, the key on every one of these questions, i think, is to go back to the constitution. none of these questions are hard if you have a firm foundation in the decisions our founding fathers reached over 200 years ago. you know, george washington famously observeed be ware of foreign entanglements. if the violence in syria began to seriously imperil the national security of our friend, the nation of israel, i think we should stand unapologetically with the nation of israel. and to the extent that the one jeopardizes the other, it then becomes in u.s. national security interests to intervene to protect our interests and the interests of the nation of israel. but we should not be intervening -- >> thank you. >> -- just because barack obama wants to follow the lead of the united nations. >> thank you. >> lieutenant governor? >> my view is what is in the

best interest of the united states. and today even though none of us likes to see what we're seeing on tv, no one likes to see babies and children, innocent people slaughtered, our allies are providing arms to the syrian freedom fighters, but this is something that we need to monitor very, very carefully. again, i have little confidence in the foreign policy capabilities of the obama administration, so i think if there was a decision by the administration to intervene, we need a lot more information. and i agree that israel is our best friend, our only ally in the area, and we always have to have israel's back. so if the syrians started firing scud missiles, attacking israel, then we would have an obligation to defend them. >> okay. um, this question first for

mr. cruz. do you support the current tsa airport security searches which we've heard so much about, and if not, how would you change those procedures and still provide a high level of safety in our airports? >> i strongly oppose the tsa's policy of groping innocent civilians. i have spoken out on this for many, many months. and i think it is typical of the left's policy that they violate the law-abiding rights of innocent citizens rather than going after the wrong doers. i think we would be far better off actually following the security approach the nation of israel does. israel targets terrorists. the united states, we're too politically correct to do that, so instead we look for weapons, and that means we do a body cavity search of a 90-year-old nun which doesn't make any sense. we need to defend our liberty and defend the constitution, and i'll point out this issue is a great illustration of a critical different between my opponent

and me. in the texas legislature, there was a strong bill to ban tsa groping. the obama administration threatened the state of texas, and lieutenant governor dewhurst backed down. he asked a liberal democrat to round up temperature votes on the floor -- against the votes on the floor, and he killed the bill. >> thanks. lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> let me tell you what the truth is. the truth is that i'm opposed to the groping by the tsa as much as anyone. i've gone back, i've taken a look at all of the different federal cases, and the facts are awful what have happened to passengers. if that happened to my wife or little girl or it happened to any of you all, i would be outraged. that's why i worked with senator patrick, that's why i asked governor perry to put the anti-groping tsa bill on the call, that's why i brought it up, that's why i passed it out of the senate, a stronger bill

than we had before, stronger bill. i had a lot of help from attorney general abbott. and we passed it out in time for the house to go ahead and take it up and debate it and pass it. but my recommendation is i would do away with it. let's eliminate the tsa and privatize it. >> we have just a minute left before we go to your closing arguments, and so ross ramsey has a question. if you could limit your answer, please, to about 30 seconds, and then we'll go to closing arguments. >> many governor dewhurst, could you give us an example of how senator dewhurst would vote differently than senator cruz? >> i'm not totally sure how senator cruz would vote on all the issues, but i believe him to be a conservative. i like solving problems. i'm the businessman. always have been, always will be. and so i try and solve problems within the narrow fairway of my conservative -- >> thank you. i'm sorry, we only have a little time left.

>> sorry. >> mr. cruz? >> there will be big differences with respect to spending and taxes, but the clearest and simplest one is on obamacare. in 2013 there's going to be enormous compromise to cut the baby in half on obamacare. lieutenant governor dewhurst is a good and decent man who in 15 years in elected office has over and over again been a conciliator. if you look at his record, you know for sure that's what he'd do on obamacare, and i will lead the fight to repeal every word of obamacare. >> thank you. we're now at the end of our debate, and we have time for closing statements. and based on a coin toss, lieutenant governor, you go first. >> well, thank you for this evening and thank you to the panel for being here and, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for watching this evening. i think you've heard some contrast this evening. i feel like over the last four years there's been a loss of freedom and opportunity and jobs

in america because of president obama. i've lived the american dream. i'm so fortunate. i'm a businessman, lifetime businessman. but i didn't want inherit anything. the -- i didn't inherit anything. the only thing i inherited was from my mom faith, integrity and hard work. and my dad was killed when i was 3 years old. i inherited service to country and the heart of a fighter. i am a fighter. i've fought all my life. when i got out of school, i joined the united states air force during the vietnam war, i volunteered during the vietnam war. a couple years later i volunteered again, and i went into the cia and slept every night with weapons under any pillow. i came back to houston, formed a company from nothing and had to fight to build that company, and i'm, you know, we got shock? ed down, but we -- knocked down, but we never gave up. and then i've tried to take my

business skills to austin, and we've created the very best economy in the entire country. we're the fastest-growing job creator -- >> thank you. >> in the entire country, and i want to take those skills to washington and get our country back to work. >> thank you. okay. mr. cruz. >> our country's in crisis. our national debt is larger than our gross domestic product, and the unhappy is it has been career politicians in both parties that have gotten us in this mess. all over the country americans are standing up and saying, enough, that they're fed up with the same tired establishment incumbents who don't believe anything, and they're turning to new leaders, strong conservatives and fighters who will stand up to barack obama, who will stop the spending and turn around the debt. i've spent a lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and to defend conservative principles. we have seen conservatives all over the state unite behind this campaign. we were outspent 5 to 1, and yet we're in this runoff because tea

party leaders and republican women and grassroots conservatives came together. kelly shackleford to kathy adams to david parton and just about every conservative leader nationally has endorsed this campaign from sean hannity to rick santorum. if you think the answer to what's happening in washington is to send another go-along to get along establishment politician to washington, then you have an easy choice in this race. and if you think the answer is to send a strong conservative and a fighter, then i ask for your support. please come out on july 31st and bring ten of your friends. texans are standing up, and i give you my word, when we win this race, texas is going to lead the fight to stop the obama agenda, to defend free market principles and to restore the constitution. >> thank you. thank you, gentlemen, for a great debate. we appreciate your coming and thanks, too, to the voters who are here and my colleagues for taking part in this texas debate, kera and other stations

will also be broadcasting a debate between the democrats, and find details about that at texasdebates.org. don't forget, election day is july 31st. thank you all for joining us. ♪ >> we'll be covering two house hearings today on c-span3. first, the house energy and commerce subcommittee on communications and technology will look at the intersectionover television and the internet and if regulators can adapt to a changing media landscape. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern. at 2 p.m. a hearing on the weather satellites run by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. noaa and nasa officials will testify.

watch live coverage of both hearings on c-span3 and online at c-span.org. .. >> the defense department yesterday hosted its first ever lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride month event. and a gun general counsel jeh johnson who co-chaired the pentagon's review of how to

implement the repeal of thomas don't tell deliver the keynote address. his remarks were followed by discussion on the value of diversity in the military. good afternoon and welcome to department of defense lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride month event. please stand for the presentation of colors and remain standing for the national anthem. [background sounds]

[background sounds] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> right shoulder, arm. [background sounds] >> ladies and gentlemen, please be seated.

please direct your attention to the center screen for the president's lgbt pride month video message, followed by secretary panetta's pride month message. >> i've often said that the true genius of america is that america can change. we can pass laws to right wrongs. we can soften hardened attitudes. our union can be made more perfect. but here's the thing. change never happens on its own. change happens because ordinary people, countless, unsung heroes of our american story, stand up and demand it. the story of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender americans is no different. as we celebrate lgbt pride month, we remember the activists and advocates who refused to be treated like second class citizens. people like jeanne manford and

harvey milk who marched and protested and believe in a better future. but we also remember the unsung heroes. the millions of lgbt americans for whom everyday acts require extraordinary courage. the young people who came out as gay or transgender to their parents, not knowing what to expect, the two moms or two dads who went to an open house or a pta meeting not knowing how they would be received. the couple that got married, even if their bosses or neighbors wouldn't approve, at least not right away. posted these heroes didn't set out to make history, but that's exactly what they did. bit by bit, step-by-step, ey bent the arc of the moral universe towards justice. now it's our turn. so this june let's take some time to sober teachers and students who take a stand against bullying, openly gay and lesbian service members who defend our country with honor and integrity, families and friends who have seen their own

attitude evolve. perfecting our union isn't something we can do in just one month, but we can remember those who came before us. we can summon the courage to build on their legacy. we can renew our commitment to enda out to be the kind of people who make change happen. [applause] >> as we recognize pride month, i want to personally thank all of our gay and lesbian servicemembers, lgbt civilians and their families, for their dedicated service to our country. before the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," you faithfully served your country with professionalism and courage. just like your fellow service members, you put your country before yourself. and now, after repeal, you can be proud of serving your country and be proud of who you are when in uniform.

pursuit of equality is fundamental to the american story. the successful repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" proved to the nations that just like the country we defend, we share different backgrounds, different values, different beliefs. but together we are the greatest military force in the world. it also reminds us that integrity and respect remain the cornerstones of our military culture. the army, navy, marine corps and air force implemented the repeal with a focus on respect and individual dignity. as secretary of defense, i am very proud of how we implemented we feel. going forward i remain committed to removing as many barriers as possible to make america's military a model of equal

opportunity. to ensure all who are qualified cancer in america's military. and to give every man and woman in uniform the opportunity to rise to their highest potential. diversity is one of our greatest strengths. during pride month, and every month, let's celebrate our rich diversity and renew our enduring commitment to equality for all. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable jeh johnson, general counsel for the department of the defense a plot plot. [applause]

>> thank you all very much. can everybody hear me in the back? you know, i have to say i look around this standing room only crowd, and i'm sorry we didn't sell tickets. [laughter] thank you for being here. this afternoon, i want to share with you some insights on the process that led to the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law in the semper 2010. the implementation of the repeal between december 2010 and now, and where i think we are going from here. as recently as three years ago, it would have been hard for many of us, including me, to believe that in the year 2012, a gay man or woman in the armed forces could be honest about their sexual orientation. that 10 usc 654, the "don't ask,

don't tell" law, would be gone from the books and that the process of repeal would have gone even smoother and less eventful than general ham and i predicted in our report. it's a remarkable story, and it's remarkable because of the strength of the u.s. military and its leadership. this is the overall message i hope to convey in these remarks today. we have the mightiest military in the world. not just because of our planes, guns, tanks and ships, but because of our people. their ability to adapt to change and the respect for the rule of law, their commanders, and their civilian leaders. this has been a remarkable thing about the last nine months. but for anyone who knows the men and women of the armed forces, it is not a revelation. at the outset, a personal

disclosure. in 2010, general ham and i did an assessment. we did not advocate for a particular result. our only goal was a comprehensive and accurate report of the risk to military effectiveness if "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed. i do not consider myself an activist on the matter of gay men and women in america. we are all a product of our circumstances, and part of my circumstances include my formative years in the 1970s at morehouse college, an all-male an all-black southern baptist school. in the 1980s, a good friend at the law firm in which i practiced as a young lawyer in new york was openly gay year but it was at least a year before i knew that.

and only because someone else told me. i asked my friend why he had not told me directly that he was gay. and he said to me, and i still remember his exact words, because i didn't think you could handle it. for the next 27 years, i asked myself what gave my friend that impression. but it did not preoccupy me. in 2009, we never talked about "don't ask, don't tell," except in groups no larger than about three or four people. secretary gates knew the president had pledged to seek repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but both of them believed that if repeal was to occur it should happen in a careful and deliberate manner. we did not want the issue to spin out of our grasp.

then, in his state of union address on january 27, 2010, president obama pledged to work with the congress and the military that year to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell." which is exactly what happened. several days later, secretary gates and admiral mullen testified before the senate armed services committee on the subject. it was there that admiral mullen gave his remarkable statement in support of repeal. and secretary gates announced the formation of a working group to be headed by the general counsel of the defense department, and army general carter ham, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the risk of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" on overall military effectiveness. we were to take 10 months, and we were told to systematically engage the force on this issue. in effect, go have a conversation with the entire

u.s. military about this issue and report back to me, the president and the congress, what they told you. i did not know carter ham, then commander of u.s. army europe, no command of u.s.-africa command, at all before admiral mullen volunteer jim for this assignment. but over 10 months i got to know carter and his wife extremely well, to the point where my wife and kids spent thanksgiving 2010 with them in germany. where we visited wounded warriors at the hospital there. carter began as a private in the army in 1973, and he knows the army about as well as anyone. he was just right to navigate this sensitive assignment. and in the development of our report i never let my own civilian legal thinking stray far away from his military perspective, or his own voice.

the study we undertook was the most comprehensive engagement ever of the military on any personnel related matter. over the course of 10 months, we surveyed 400,000 service members, and receive 115,000 responses. surveyed 150,000 military spouses, and received 44,266 responses. solicited and received 72384 e-mails, conducted 95 information exchange forums, at 51 bases around the world, and talked face-to-face over 24,000 service members, many of them general ham and myself. we conducted 140 smaller focus group sessions with servicemembers and their families, visited the military academies, solicited the views of congress, veterans groups,

foreign countries, and groups for and against repeal. and finally the working group engaged in an online conversation with 2691 service members on a confidential, anonymous basis, and thereby give a voice to those who, i virtue of the very lot we were reviewing, had no voice as self-identified gay active duty service members. the results of the report are now well known. the bottom line conclusion was this. based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that when coupled with the prompt implementation of our recommendations, the risk of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to overall military effectiveness was low. as the basis for this conclusion there was, of course, the survey results. they showed, among other things,

that 6943% of those in today's military had already worked in a unit with someone they believed to be gay. and that if "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed, 70% of today's military said they thought it would have either a positive effect, equally positive or negative effect, or no effect at all on their units ability to perform as a team. also key to our conclusion was this. quote, in the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that aside from the moral and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about open service is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay servicemembers were a loud to be open about their sexual orientation. repeatedly we heard service members expressed the view that

open homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of human behavior among men. homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome to advance his within units, indications of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality. based on our review, however, we conclude these concerns about gay and lesbian service members who were permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many servicemembers. in communications with gay and lesbians, current and former servicemembers, we repeatedly heard a patriotic desire to serve and defend the nation, subject to the same rules as everyone else. in the words of one gay service member, weep you would simply take a knife out of my back. you have no idea what it is like to serve in silence.

most said they did not desire special treatment. to use the military for social extreme edition, or to advance a social agenda. some of those separated under "don't ask, don't tell" would welcome the opportunity to rejoin the military, if permitted. from them we heard expressed many of the same values that we heard over and over again, from servicemembers at large. love of country, honor, respect, integrity, and service over self. we simply cannot swear the reality of these people with the perceptions about open service, end quote. and last but not least was this noteworthy quote in the report which seems to be the favorite of a lot of people. we had a gay guy in the unit. he's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. no one cared that he was gay, end quote.

[laughter] finally -- [applause] finally, key to my own views, nowhere reflected in this report, the military members of the working group who worked side-by-side with me throughout dozens of large group sessions told me that in the course of the 10 month review they had started off skeptics, and have become satisfied that our military can do this. by the end of a 10 month study, during which i think we actually saw attitudes shift as we stirred the pot on this issue, we had the overwhelming sense that with proper education and leadership, the military could be ready for this change. the report was issued publicly on november 30, 2010, in the middle of a lame-duck session of congress. repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was passed by the congress three weeks later, signed into

law by the president on december 22, 2010, and took effect on september 20, 2011. how has the military accepted this change? better than we anticipated your eye a tribute visit to the strength of our military, and its army, navy, air force, marine and coast guard leadership. and i know i speak for these leaders when i say we hope this process continues into professional and sober manner that it has taken since last year. in december 2010, as congress was considering repeal, the commandant of the marine corps testified to his honestly held professional military view that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was not a good idea for the marine corps. but at the time, general amos' personal and public message was, if my leaders give me an order to do this, your united states

marine corps will get it done, and get it done smartly. following repeal, general and most, like each of the other chiefs, stepped up and personal delivered messages as part of the education and training of their respective forces. the commandant's message was simple. we will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law. we will continue to demonstrate to the american people that discipline and fidelity, which have been the hallmarks of the united states marine corps for more than 235 years, will continue well into the future. the marine corps was the first service to complete the education and training of its force. general casey of the army, personally led the first repeal education and training session in the army. for all the four-star generals, as part of the chain teach method of training by which the commander is personally responsible for training their subordinate.

admiral roughead of the navy sent this. leadership, professionalism and respect are the basis for executing the change in the law. as always, we expect sales to continue to exhibit the highest degree of professionalism and to treat each other with dignity and respect. general schwartz of the air force, i following our core values we will successfully implement this change with the same unparalleled professionalism. we have demonstrated with every transformation we have undertaken in both peace and war. and the commandant of the coast guard, admiral papp. i need you, commanding officers, supervisors and every coast guardsman to create command climate that fostered retention. the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will also require your leadership, and i'm counting on you to exercise it. it's every coast guardsman's job to make the workplace one of respect. you must value your shipmates,

no matter what their background. since repeal, within each service, there have been isolated incidents, but almost no issues or negative effects associated with repeal on unit cohesion, including within war fighting units. as general amos testified before congress last year, he and his staff were careful to look for issues during the training, and told congress, to be honest with you, we have not seen it. from the frontlines in afghanistan, one marine major general reported to the commandant, sir, quite honestly they are focused on the enemy. going forward, the personnel and readiness community is now in the midst of reviewing which military family benefits can be extended to the partners and other family members of the gay and lesbian servicemembers. the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" exposes certain

inequalities between similarly situated couples in the military community. this troubles many of our leaders. on the other hand, we must comply with current law, including the defense of marriage act. though the department of justice has said it will not defend the constitutionality of doma in court, until final resolution of that issue, adheres to the law is basic for the military and essential to our efforts. because of the number of benefits that are provided to our military community, and the complex legal and regulatory framework, the process has been comprehensive and time-consuming, but it will get done. now, one final note about today's event before i close. this type of event during the month of june has occurred in civilian society, and in civilian agencies of the federal

government, four years. the cia, for example, hosted a gay pride event 12 years ago. this is the first time in history such an event has occurred at the pentagon. within the military, events such as this must occupy a different and qualified place. because in the military, individual personal characteristics are subordinate to the good of each unit and the mission. service above self. from all that we learned in 2010 about the struggles and the sacrifice to remain in the military, i believe gay men and women in uniform readily agree with this. so what should we honor today? for those service members who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders. they no longer have to live a

lie in the military. they will no longer have to somehow teach a child to lie to protect her father's career. as one army chief warrant officer reported, her commander told her, this policy kept me from knowing you. for all of us, we should honor the professional and near flawless manner in which our entire u.s. military intimated and adapt it to this change. and welcomed their brothers and sisters to an unconditional place at the table. thank you very much a plot back -- [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome captain jane campbell, united states navy. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is my great pleasure to serve as your moderator this afternoon for the panel discussion. mr. johnson, thank you for your remarks. most specifically, thank you for providing that behind the scenes perspective of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." before we begin our discussion this afternoon, i'd like to take a moment to provide a brief introduction of our panelists. when i finish these introductions, i think you will see why we are extremely pleased to have these men and women seated in front of you this afternoon. our first panelist is sue fulton, a u.s. army veteran. she is a 1980 graduate of the united states military academy. the first class of women. she is one oft