pass on to our kids and grandkids. what's needed is leadership to step in and solve the problem. >> what do you think of lieutenant governor's ideas 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 is necessary to save the program. the problem has been we've had too many candidates talk about this, but then they face risk. right now, paul ryan, they were running ads showing paul ryan literally showing, throwing grannie 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 villification of the left. >> okay that you have. our next senator will find himself in the middle of a raging battle over health care. it's an important issue for voters as well. >> i want the republicans to

stand strong and find free market solutions to deal with the health care system instead of moving more and more like a socialized medical system. >> the most important things are medicare and also social security, they try and take medicare away. what i want to see is that they make it better for the 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 and spending is expected to come from. we've got to do something about that sector. i want a senator willing to step up and ask those questions and put forward real solutions to those problems. >> ross ramsey has a question for ted cruz. >> texas has the highest percentage of residents without health insurance and many of them get their care in taxpayer funded emergency rooms. if the supreme court overturns 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 obama care and two, what to do about health care generally.

with respect to obama care it's likely the supreme court will cut the baby in half, leave some of it in place and get rid of some of it. if that happens it throws 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 u.s. senate is a bill to repeal every syllable of every word of obama care, and i intend to lead the fight to get that done. there's going to be enormous pressure to compromise. i think we should repeal it in its entirety. the second half, what do we do when obama care is gone? we need fundamental reform of our health care system that moves toward market oriented solutions that empowers patients and disempowers washington bureaucrats. three that are most important are, number one, allowing 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.

>> -- 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 obama care, 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 will break the bank of every state. that's why i've been working for the last six years on 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. we also need to pass throughout the country a medical

malpractice tort reform. when we did that, when i passed it in 2003, we saw our medical malpractice rates decline 40% to 60%. >> thank you. >> we ended the frivolous lawsuits by the trial lawyers. >> thank you. >> and we've got 24,000 new doctors in the state. >> great, thank you very much. crystal ayala has a voter with a question for lieutenant governor dewhurst. >> with me is 68-year-old richard dawson. richard owns a health insurance business in mckinney. good evening, what is your question in this case for lieutenant governor dewhurst? >> what would do you 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 them. 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 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 a saudi arabia of natural gas. we've got the opportunity the first time in our lifetime to truly have energy independence from a 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 will dramatically benefit the economy of texas. >> thank you. >> and reduce emissions. >> mr. cruz?

>> look, we need to do everything we can to get the federal government out of the way of energy exploration, and we need to be exploring and developing our natural resources. we have the potential as the lieutenant governor observed for energy independence for the first time in modern history, because of the incredible technological advancements in hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, and right now the epa, the federal government is standing in the way, stopping exploration, and we need a fighter to take it on. now, look, every candidate for office in texas says they support oil and gas. unless you are a blitherring idiot that's the right thing to say. the heart of my campaign has 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 is using the epa to go

after drilling in west texas. as the solicitor gen dwral in texas i stood up and argued the endangered species act was unconstitutional as it applied to an arroyo toad that had never crossed state lines. >> thank you. >> we need a fighter who hasn't just talked but walked the walk. >> thank you. richard, are you satisfied with their answers? >> good answer, thank you. >> shelley? >> thank you very much. my question goes to ted cruz. mr. cruz, you support the construction of the keystone pipeline that would transport tar sands oil to texas refineries. number of texas landowners however oppose the company's using eminent domain to forcefully route that pipeline through their private property. should the pipeline companies be able to override the landowners by using eminent domain? >> 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 who we are as texans. the problem isn't eminent domain. the problem is the obama administration with the stroke of a pen shut that project down and it makes 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 is captive of the far left special interest with a stroke of a pen, he shut down that project, killed jobs, hurt the environment, hurt the economy and our national security. >> if i might, i think some of the landowners would disagree. they believe eminent domain is part of the problem. they're in court because they believe it's 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 back, the supreme court decided the kelo decision. i think it was wrongly decided. the supreme court concluded you could use eminent domain for private purposes. woman in new london, connecticut, her family home, had been in her family 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 lieutenant governor right he thinks that the federal government should be somehow favoring the natural gas industry. >> thank you. >> i think picking winners and losers is what led to solyndra. stay out of the way and let the market decide rather than have

politicians which energy source they like. >> thank you, mr. cruz. thank you. i want to ask you the same question, mr. dewhurst, you supported the keystone pipeline and you're aware probably there are landowners who do not want eminent domain to force it through their supporters. what would you do for the landowners or do you support eminent domain? >> this is a great example 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, that could only be used when there's a public purpose, and provides compensation, because otherwise i wouldn't have passed the bill because otherwise it's a taking, if someone doesn't provide fair market value. >> how would you address this situation between the landowners and the pipeline company?

>> i think this is important for the pipeline to sit down with the landowners and negotiate in good faith where the route's going to go, because the pipelines have some option in moving that route, 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 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 and besides being in the intelligence business besides being a businessman. >> thank you. >> i'm in the oil and gas business, and so i am very -- >> thank you. >> -- i see a wonderful opportunity to grow our state. >> thank you. crystal ayala has a question for the lieutenant governor. >> mexico is texas's largest trade partner, yet drug trafficking and 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 your number one trading partner and we've got to keep trade going back and forth, although of course we've got a tsunami of violence and drug

cartel activity, and now this new phenomena with the transnational gangs coming in to 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 in the federal government i think has been remiss on both points, adding more in the customs and protection side so we can move trade back and forth, we can expedite, we can use the smart cards as they're starting to use in el paso and other cities so we can move legitimate trade in to texas and keep the bad guys out. >> thank you. mr. cruz? >> i support free trade. over 2 million texans make liar lively hoods in 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's a crisis with our southern border, where the violence is spilling over, and the federal government is utterly failing in its 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 apprehended are what they call otms, other than mexicans, many from middle eastern countries 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 securing the border and stopping the violence from crossing over. >> thank you mr. cruz. >> we need to triple the border patrol and use security and technology to solve the problem. >> 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, we should use u.s. military might only to protect the vital national security interests of the united states of america, and that any time we do, we should follow the weinberger doctrine, 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 that 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 to 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 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 keyed on exactly what i said, the vital national security interest of the united states. i think number one we need to stand unequivocally with the men and women of the armed forces. i'm most proud of right now i'm representing over 3 million veterans defending the mojave veterans memorial which we won 5-4 on behalf of the veterans. i don't think the defense budget is immune from pork. every budget cycle in washington the pentagon submits a budget of what the generals and admirals and military leaders say we need for national security and members of congress add spending on top of that and that's spending added above and beyond what the pentagon asks 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 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. we got safe havens in the northwestern part of pakistan, where the al qaeda troops are almost immune from retaliation other than the occasional drones. in iraq, we went into 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. debris that there are three overriding principles that i always focus on, 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 balance it? >> 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, inner laced with earmarks from different congressmen or senators, they want this part manufactured over here, that part manufactured over here and all that does, ross, it increases the cost, delays the final delivery system of the weapons system and -- >> thank you. >> -- we can save money and deliver the weapons to our warriors in the field faster. >> thank you very much. peggy pekak has a question. >> do you believe the united states should intervene forcefully in syria to stop the massacre, given the parameters you've outlined for intervention? >> peggy, first of all, president obama's foreign policy has been a disaster. it's been an unprecedented

disast disaster. president assad is committing a genocide. he's bombing. he's 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 interest 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 would 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 is 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 had 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 in this country of u.s. sovereignty, of standing up to the world court and the united nations and saying you have no jurisdiction in our country. the only binding law, foreign law is not binding in our country. the only binding law is u.s. law and the constitution because sovereignty resides and we the people and we should be defending u.s. interests and not the views of the u.n. which is what president obama is doing right now.

>> given what we've all seen as happening in syria, even though your decision or your view that you should not intervene is based on these principles you stated, is it difficult just 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 policemen. 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 and the decisions our founding fathers reached over 200 years ago. george washington famously observed beware of foreign entanglements. now, i can give you a situation in syria where my judgments would be different, which is 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 nation of israel and to the extent one jeopardizes the other, it then becomes in u.s. national security interests to intervene to protect our interest and the interest of the nation of israel but we should not be intervening just because barack obama wants to follow the lead of the united nations. >> lieutenant governor? >> my view is what is in the best interest of the united states. 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, we would have an obligation to defend it. >> okay. this question first for mr. cruz. do you support the current tsa airport security searches which have been so controversial? we've heard so much about. 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 policy that they violate the law-abiding rights of innocent

citizens rather than going after the wrongdoers. i think we would be far better off actually following the national 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 difference 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 the votes on the floor against the bill and he killed the bill because he didn't want to stand and fight obama. >> 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, 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 less than a minute left before closing arguments. ross ramsey has a question. if you could limit your answer to 30 seconds. then we go to closing arguments.

>> could you give us an example how senator dewhurst would vote differently than senator cruz? >> i believe him to be a conservative. i like solving problems. i'm the businessman, always have been, always will be. so i try and solve problems within the narrow fairway of my conservative principles. >> thank you. i'm sorry, we only have a little time left. >> sorry. >> mr. cruz? >> there will be big differences with respect to spending, with respect to taxes but the clearest and simplest one is on obamacare. in 2013 there's going to be enormous pressure to 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 and cut the baby in half. the difference is if you look at his record, you know for sure that's what he would 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. >> 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 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 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. couple years later, when this country was at risk, when the cold war, i volunteered again and i went into the cia and i served abroad and slept every night with several weapons under my pillow. it was a tough situation. i came back to houston, formed a company from nothing and had to fight to build that company, and we got knocked down but we never gave up. then i tried to take my business skills to austin and we have created the very best economy in the entire country. we're the fastest growing job creator in the entire country. i want to take those skills to washington and get our country back to work. >> okay. mr. cruz. >> our country's in crisis. we're going broke. our national debt is larger than our gross domestic product and the unhappy truth is it has been career politicians in both parties that have gotten us in this mess. all over the country,