The Texas Debates - Race for lieutenant governor

>> THE TEXAS DEBATES, RACE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY KERA, NBC 5, TELEMUNDO 39, THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, THE TEXAS TRIBUNE, "THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE," THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS, HOUSTON PUBLIC MEDIA, KUT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS STATE NETWORKS AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS.   >> WELCOME TO THE TEXAS DEBATES, RACE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. WE'RE BROADCASTING LIVE FROM THE KERA STUDIOS IN DALLAS AND ONLINE AT TEXAS DEBATES.ORG. I'M SHELLEY KOFLER AND I'LL BE THE MODERATOR DURING THE NEXT HOUR AS WE BRING YOU THE FIRST STATEWIDE TELEVISED DEBATE WITH THE FOUR REPUBLICANS COMPETING FOR THEIR PARTY'S NOMINATION.   >> 67-YEAR-OLD JERRY PATTERSON IS FROM HOUSTON. AND HAS SERVED AS TEXAS LAND COMMISSIONER SINCE 2003. HE'S ALSO SERVED IN THE STATE SENATE AND WAS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS. DAN PATRICK IS 63. HE'S REPRESENTED PART OF HIS HOMETOWN OF HOUSTON IN THE TEXAS SENATE SINCE 2007. HE'S A RADIO STATION OWNER AND A TALK SHOW HOST. 50-YEAR-OLD TODD STAPLES IS FROM PALESTINE AND HAS BEEN TEXAS' COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE SINCE 2007. HE'S ALSO SERVED IN THE TEXAS SENATE AND HOUSE AND OPERATED REAL ESTATE AND RANCHING BUSINESSES. DAVID DEWHURST IS 68 AND FROM HOUSTON. HE'S RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND HAS HELD THE OFFICE SINCE 2003. HE'S ALSO SERVED AS STATE LAND COMMISSIONER AND HE FOUNDED FALCON SEABORG. IT'S AN ENERGY AND INVESTMENT COMPANY. THE CANDIDATES WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS POSED BY JOURNALISTS. NORMA GARCIA WITH TELEMUNDO 39, KXTX TV. ROSS RAMSEY, THE EXECUTIVE EDITOR FOR THE TEXAS TRIBUNE AND PEGGY FIKAC. SHE'S THE LEGISLATIVE BUREAU CHIEF FOR THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS AND THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE. AND YOU CAN JOIN THE DEBATE ON TWITTER. YOU CAN TWEET US@TWITTER, WE'LL BE SHARING SOME OF THE COMMENTS DURING THE BROADCAST. GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I THINK YOU KNOW THE RULES TONIGHT. BASED ON A DRAWING OUR FIRST QUESTION IS FROM ROSS RAMSEY AND IT WILL GO TO ALL OF YOU WITH COMMISSIONER JERRY PATTERSON GOING FIRST. YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE TO ANSWER. >> A HOSPITAL IN FORT WORTH UNPLUGGED LIFE SUPPORT FOR A BRAIN-DEAD PREGNANT WOMAN AFTER A JUDGE SIDED WITH HER FAMILY WHO WANTED HER TAKEN OFF SUPPORT DESPITE HER PREGNANCY. SHOULD THE STATE REQUIRE HOSPITALS TO KEEP PATIENTS ON LIFE SUPPORT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS OR SHOULD IT HONOR THE WISHES OF THE FAMILY, WHATEVER THOSE MIGHT BE? >> IT'S A TRAGIC INTERSECTION OF RIGHT TO LIFE CONCERNS AND WHEN DOES LIFE END AS FAR AS THE MOTHER IN THIS CASE. THE LAW HAS CONFLICTED BECAUSE UNDER TEXAS LAW WHEN YOU'RE BRAIN-DEAD, YOU'RE DEAD. ALSO, UNDER TEXAS LAW, POST, THE MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, 20 WEEKS IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH TERMINATING A PREGNANCY IS NOT LAWFUL. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A PERSON THAT UNDER THE LAW IS BRAIN-DEAD AND WE HAVE A 20-WEEK CONFLICTING STATUTE. IN MY VIEW WE SHOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE. AND IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH WAS PAST THE 20-WEEK STATUTORY LIMIT ON ABORTIONS, SO I'M NOT SURE WHO WAS THE RIGHT CASE HERE BUT I WOULD ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS WITH THE JUDGE'S RULING. >> OKAY. SENATOR PATRICK? >> LIFE IS SO PRECIOUS, AND THERE'S NOTHING SO PRECIOUS AS THE LIFE OF A BABY IN THE WOMB. AND REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT LIFE, WE SHOULD ALWAYS DO EVERYTHING TO PROTECT THAT LIFE. I APPRECIATE THE HOSPITAL FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THAT LIFE AND SAVE THAT LIFE AND I THINK THE COURT'S ERROR -- IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM MY RECORD PASSING THE SONOGRAM BILL, PASSING ONE OF THE BILLS IN THE PACKET OF BILL IN THE SESSION THAT I'VE BEEN A STRONG PRO-LIFE SENATOR SINCE BEING ELECTED. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE TRAGIC THAN THE SITUATION WE HAD BOTH FOR THE FAMILY AND THE DIFFICULTY FOR THE HOSPITAL, BUT AT THE END OF THE DECISION, WE'RE BORN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND WHENEVER WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESERVE LIFE, WE SHOULD DO THAT. THAT'S OUR DUTY, AS CHRISTIANS THAT'S OUR DUTY I BELIEVE AS LEGISLATORS AND I BELIEVE THE COURT MADE A WRONG DECISION. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER STAPLES? >> WHAT THE MUNOZ FAMILY HAD TO ENDURE IS UNTHINKABLE FOR MOST FAMILIES AND OUR HEART CERTAINLY GO OUT TO THEM IN THIS TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SITUATION THAT THERE WAS LIFE, AND I THINK IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A SOCIETY TO HAVE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT ENCOURAGES LIFE AND PROTECTS LIFE AND TRIES TO FIND A VIABLE WAY TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THAT LIFE. AND, UNFORTUNATELY, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE COURT ERRED IN THIS SITUATION AND IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION WE'LL HAVE TO GO IN AND CLARIFY WHAT THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE IS IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY. IT'S A DIFFICULT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES BUT WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT AS A SOCIETY WE ARE PROTECTING LIFE AND THAT WE ARE GIVING UNBORN CHILDREN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AND MATURE AND TO ULTIMATELY LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM RIGHT HERE IN THE LONE STAR STATE, AND OUR HEARTS GO OUT TO THEM IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM, I KNOW. >> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST? >> I THINK THIS CASE WAS DECIDED WRONG. I'M A STRONG BELIEVER IN THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. THIS BABY WAS PAST 20 WEEKS. THIS BABY COULD HAVE BEEN BORN AND SO I THINK IT WAS DECIDED WRONG. I HAVE ALWAYS SIDED WITH THE SIDE OF LIFE AND THAT'S WHY I'M PROUD THAT BEFORE I CAME IN AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ONLY ONE PIECE OF PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION THAT HAD BEEN PASSED IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND 6 OR 7 MAJOR BILLS HAVE PASSED SINCE I CAME IN. AND SO I WOULD HAVE -- IF I'D BEEN IN THAT JUDGE'S SHOES, I WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO AROUND ONE MORE TIME, 30 SECONDS EACH IN THE SAME ORDER AND ROSS RAMSEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL OR FOLLOW-UP? >> WELL, COMMISSIONER STAPLES GOT TO THIS BUT WOULD YOU CHANGE THE LAW? DO YOU THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD READDRESS THIS. >> WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE LAW AND DO SOMETHING BECAUSE WE HAVE CONFLICTING STATUTES. WE HAVE A 20 WEEKS PROVISION AND WE HAVE A LEGAL DEFINITION WHAT IS ALIVE AND WHAT IS NOT, IF YOU'RE BRAIN-DEAD YOU'RE DEAD. THE LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE STATUTE BUT WHATEVER WE MUST DO, WHENEVER THERE'S A DOUBT WE SHOULD ALWAYS SIDE ON THE SIDE OF LIFE. >> YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT THE SONOGRAM BILL, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE PASSED IN 2011 THAT WILL SAVE 13,000 TO 15,000 BABIES THIS YEAR AND I WAS PROUD TO OFFER IT BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE END OF LIFE AND USUALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE END OF LIFE WE THINK OF SENIORS. WE DON'T THINK ABOUT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, SO WE NEED TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL. WE NEED TO LEAD, AND WE NEED AGAIN TO GO BACK TO A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT WE MUST PROTECT LIFE OF ALL AGES, AT ALL COSTS, AT ALL TIMES AND THIS HAS BEEN A BATTLE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, I WILL LEAD TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PASSING LEGISLATION THAT WILL DO JUST THAT, PROTECT LIFE AT ALL TIMES. >> WE NEED CLARITY SO FAMILIES DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH UNCERTAINTIES AND WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN AS A STATE WE ARE SUPPORTING THE LIFE OF THE CHILD AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE DEAL WITH THESE VERY EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS. I'M VERY GLAD WHILE I SERVED IN THE LEGISLATURE, I WAS TOP-RANKED BY ALL THE MAJOR PRO-LIFE GROUPS FOR WORKING TO SUPPORT AND STANDING FOR LIFE. >> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR? >> I THINK WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE AGAIN I COME BACK TO THE SAME POINT I MADE EARLIER. IF YOU HAVE A VIABLE BABY AND IT CAN BE BORN, THAT'S A LIFE. AND SO I THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE, SO I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE LAW ON THIS AND PERMIT THIS BABY TO BE BORN. >> THANK YOU, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR SECOND QUESTION NOW AND IT COMES FROM NORMA GARCIA. AND WE BEGIN WITH SENATOR PATRICK. >> ALL OF YOU SUPPORT A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS BUT YOU WILL NOT APPROVE IT UNLESS THE BORDER IS SECURE, WHAT EXACTLY DOES SECURE BORDER MEAN AND CAN YOU DO IT IN FOUR YEARS? >> I WOULD DO IT WHEN I BEGIN IN JANUARY OF 2015. WE'RE GOING TO ENACT LEGISLATION AND PUT PRIORITY ON SECURING THE BORDER. FOLKS, BETWEEN 2006 AND 2012, WE APPREHENDED 1,134,000 ILLEGALS CROSSING OUR BORDER. WE THINK WE GET ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE, WE DON'T KNOW. THAT MEANS FIVE MILLION GOT THROUGH. FROM 2008 TO 2012, WE APPREHENDED AND PUT IN OUR JAILS IN TEXAS, 141,000 HARDENED CRIMINALS THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS BEING HERE ILLEGALLY. THEY COMMITTED OR WERE CHARGED WITH 447,000 CRIMES INCLUDING 5,000 RAPES AND 2,000 MURDERS AND THE QUESTION -- AND I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THIS PANEL WE ALL SUPPORTED GUEST WORKER PANEL BUT WE MUST SECURE THE BORDER FIRST BUT WHAT THAT MEANS PRIORITIZING IT, IS OUR TOP ISSUE TO SECURE THE BORDER AND PROTECT THE LIFE OF TEXANS, THE PROPERTY OF TEXAS AND DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. ANY COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT USE ITS FREEDOM TO DEFEND -- >> TIME. >> -- WILL LOSE ITS FREEDOM. WE MUST DEFEND THE BORDER. >> NEXT WE GO TO COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. >> SAME QUESTION? >> YES. >> WELL, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER, AND THAT IS WE HAVE TO DO ALL THE ABOVE. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM OF TEXAS CALLS FOR A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT ALL FOUR OF US UP HERE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER SUPPORTED THAT. ALL 4 OF US HAVE PUBLICLY STATED THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT, DO NOT THINK IT'S PRACTICAL TO DEPORT 12 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DEPORT 12 MILLION PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE NO PLAN TO DO ANYTHING WITH THOSE THAT REMAIN UNTIL SOME SECURE THE BORDER OR EVERYBODY HAS GOT A JOB, YOU ARE SUPPORTING DE FACTO AMNESTY. WE NEED TO START SECURING THE BORDER. WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES THAT PROVIDE FOR ASSIMILATION AND WE NEED TO START A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM BECAUSE THERE ARE A THREE-LEGGED STOOL, EACH WILL HELP THE OTHER IF WE DO IT CORRECTLY. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS ADOPTED A PLATFORM. IT'S ON MY WEBSITE VOTEPATTERSON.COM. THIS IS REALLY SEMANTICAL WHEN WE START THE GUEST WORKER PROGRAM WE NEED TO DO IT NOW BECAUSE WE CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER. >> TIME. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> DAN THROUGH OUT SOME NUMBERS. WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ILLEGALS BEING ARRESTED HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HOUSING THEM. THAT'S WHY I SENT AN INVOICE TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OF $156 MILLION FOR THE COST TO INCARCERATE THESE ILLEGALS BETWEEN LATE 2011 AND THE BEGINNING OF 2013. MY PLAN ON SECURING OUR BORDER IS NOT A PLAN. IT'S WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING. I STARTED SOME SEVEN YEARS AGO, APPROPRIATING MONEY TO PUT ASSETS ON THE BORDER, HIGH ALTITUDE SPOTTER AIRCRAFT, HELICOPTERS, ARMORED PLATED DPS GUN BOATS, MORE DPS ON THE BORDER AND WE SHOWED IN OUR OPERATION STRONG SAFETY IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF THIS PAST FALL WE COULD SHUT DOWN THE WHOLE BORDER FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO TO LAREDO. NOW, I'VE ASKED THE LEGISLATURE TO PUT THE RESOURCES IN, SO THAT IS -- IT'S NOT A PLAN. WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND SECURE OUR BORDER. >> COMMISSIONER STAPLES? >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING TO SECURE THE BORDER. AND THE BORDER IS NOT SECURED TODAY AND THAT'S WHY LANDOWNERS ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO ME AND ASKED FOR HELP. AND THAT'S WHY I DEVELOPED A SIX POINT PLAN TO REFORM OUR FAILED IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THAT STARTS WITH BORDER SECURITY AND DOES NOT INCLUDE AMNESTY. THAT'S WHY I'VE TAKEN BUDGET SAVINGS FROM MY AGENCY AND USE GRANTS TO HELP FUND OPERATION DRAWBRIDGE. THAT HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTUALLY APPREHENDING THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND CONFISCATING TONS OF DRUGS. THESE ARE SPECIFIC STEPS ALONG WITH RETAINING THE SERVICES OF TWO RETIRED GENERALS WHO DID A STRATEGIC MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER. THAT'S WHY A CONCERTED GROUP OF LANDOWNERS WHO LIVE WITH THIS EVERY DAY REACHED OUT TO ME BECAUSE POLITICIANS FROM BOTH PARTIES HAD LET US DOWN WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION REFORM AND I DEVELOPED A STRONG PLAN THAT STARTS WITH BORDER SECURITY THAT PUTS MORE RESOURCES ON THE GROUND AND RECOGNIZES IT IS WASHINGTON'S RESPONSIBILITY BUT IT IS TEXAS IS ON THE FRONT LINES AND IT'S OUR PROBLEMS AND WE MUST FIGHT FOR A SECURED BORDER AND THESE LANDOWNERS. >> WE'LL GO BACK AROUND AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC, 30 SECONDS THIS TIME, SAME ORDER, AND NORMA GARCIA, DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP FOR -- >> YES, CAN YOU BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO WITH A GROWING UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION ALREADY LIVING AND WORKING IN TEXAS AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THOSE WITHOUT CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS? >> SENATOR PATRICK? >> WE HAVE TO GO BACK, NORMA, TO THIS ISSUE FIRST, AND I DON'T WANT US TO SKIP OVER IT BECAUSE UNTIL YOU SECURE THE BORDER, NORMA, YOU REALLY CAN'T ADDRESS THOSE OTHER ISSUES. THAT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST. AS LONG AS TEXAS DOES NOT SECURE THE BORDER, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PASS REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM. THE MAYOR OF SAN ANTONIO, AS YOU KNOW, RECENTLY, JUST ATTACKED ME BECAUSE I HAVE A TOUGH STANCE ON SECURING THE BORDER, SO NORMA, GOING TO THAT QUESTION, THE FIRST QUESTION IS STOP THE INVASION-- >> TIME. >> --AND THEN WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> WELL, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THE QUESTION AGAIN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MY COLLEAGUE HERE DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE DO NOW? AND MY ANSWER IS THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND IT'S ENUMERATED IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM, IT'S ENUMERATED IN MY WEBSITE. WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE BORDER PATROL CHASING WAIT STAFF OR COYOTES AND NARCOTRAFFICKERS? WE NEED TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO POPULATIONS SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE COYOTES AND NARCO TRAFFIC CRIMINALS AND WE CAN TAKE THE WAIT STAFF AND PROVIDE THEM A WORK PERMIT WITHOUT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP AND NO AMNESTY. >> LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> BUILDING ON WHAT JERRY SAID AND I THINK WHAT THE FOUR OF US ARE SAYING, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS THAT ARE IN THE UNITED STATES. BUT THE PROBLEM IS NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY UNLESS WE SECURE THE BORDER. THAT'S WHY SOME OF MY CHALLENGERS TALK AND TALK AND TALK. THIS IS HISTORIC, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS REALLY HISTORIC. WE CAN SHUT DOWN THE BORDER ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS YEAR SIMPLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE SPEAKER JOINING AND THE LEGISLATURE IN APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS. >> TIME! THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO RETURN TO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU -- >> DO I GET TIME? >> OH, I'M SO SORRY COMMISSIONER, OF COURSE. >> THE REASON WHY SECURING THE BORDER IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LEADER IN WASHINGTON TODAY THAT HAS LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HE SAID IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT. HE'S COME TO TEXAS AND SAID THE BORDER IS SAFER THAN EVER. THOSE FACTS ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE AND THAT'S WHY BORDER SECURITY MUST BE THE FIRST THING THAT WE DO. MY SIX POINT PLAN DOES START WITH BORDER SECURITY. GOVERNOR DEWHURST HAS THROWN MONEY AT THE PROBLEM. IT HAS NOT FIXED IT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT. WE NEED A STRONG BORDER SECURITY PLAN THAT LISTENS TO THE LANDOWNERS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALL OF YOU. AND WE'RE GOING TO RETURN TO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE PANELISTS IN A BIT BUT RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO SPEND SOME TIME TALKING TO EACH OF YOU ONE-ON-ONE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S RELEVANT ABOUT YOUR CAMPAIGN SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH PEGGY FIKAC WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> YOU HAVE A LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO POINT TO AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. YOU ALSO HAVE HAD INSTANCES THAT HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE HANDLING OF SENATOR WENDY DAVIS' FILIBUSTER WHICH LAUNCHED HER AS A POLITICAL STAR AND LEAVING THE CHAMBER DURING ANOTHER ABORTION DEBATE TO MEET YOUR CONSULTANT AT A RESTAURANT AND PERSONAL CALLS YOU MADE TO THE ALLEN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO GET A RELATIVE OUT OF JAIL. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO QUESTION YOUR JUDGMENT IN YOUR POLITICAL CAREER? >> I HAVE SHOWN REPEATEDLY OVER THE YEARS THAT I AM A STRONG, CONSERVATIVE LEADER. WITHOUT A STRONG, CONSERVATIVE LEADER OUR ECONOMY IN TEXAS WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE CALIFORNIA'S. QUITE FRANKLY, BARACK OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS CREATED WENDY DAVIS. AS SENATOR PATRICK KNOWS HE WAS IN THE ROOM. I BROUGHT ALL THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TOGETHER AND -- AND NONE OF THEM WANTED TO GIVE UP THE FILIBUSTER RIGHTS SO WE WENT OUT THERE AND MARCHED OUT THERE TO BREAK THE FILIBUSTER. THE BOTTOM LINE IS RESULTS. I'M A CAREER BUSINESSMAN. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RESULTS, PROTECTING WOMEN'S HEALTH AND THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN, 1. WENDY DAVIS, 0. WENDY DAVIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN FASTER THAN SHE WENT UP WHEN GREG ABBOTT BEATS HER IN NOVEMBER. ON THESE OTHER ISSUES, WHAT KIND OF MAN WOULDN'T CALL WHEN YOUR FAMILY CALLS YOU LATE AT NIGHT? WHAT KIND OF MAN WOULDN'T INQUIRE ABOUT HOW YOU POST BOND? NO, I THINK IT WOULD -- I WOULDN'T LIKE THAT TYPE OF MAN THAT WOULDN'T MAKE A CALL FOR YOUR FAMILY AND -- AND WOULDN'T MAKE A CALL FOR THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS. >> PEGGY IS GOING TO CONTINUE TALKING TO YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION, YOU TOLD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IN A RECENT INTERVIEW THAT IF RE-ELECTED YOU EXPECT THIS WILL BE YOUR LAST TERM BECAUSE YOU NEED TO EARN MORE MONEY. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO WONDER IF YOU'RE EAGER TO CONTINUE IN THIS JOB? >> I WOULDN'T BE RUNNING UNLESS I WAS EAGER TO RUN IN THIS JOB. I CAME IN THIS SESSION HAPPY THAT I WASN'T SITTING IN THE MINORITY IN WASHINGTON WITH A GALE FORCE WIND AT MY BACK AND WE GOT A LOT ACCOMPLISHED. THIS SESSION WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATIVE SESSION WE'VE HAD IN DECADES. I'M PROUD OF THE SESSION. I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE GOT ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS. I'M RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION TO KEEP TEXAS THE MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY ON HOW TO GROW AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOU, SENATOR PATRICK. >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND I WANT TO CHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER. >> SURE. >> YOU WALKED AWAY FROM MORE THAN $800,000 IN DEBT WHEN YOU DECLARED PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY IN THE 1980s. YOU'RE NOW PROSPEROUS. YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO LOAN YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, BUT YOU HAVEN'T REPAID THE BANKRUPTCY DEBT WHICH INCLUDES $340,000 TO A SINGLE HOUSTON DEVELOPER. YOU MAY NOT HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REPAY THEM, BUT I'M WONDERING, DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION? >> YOU KNOW, IN THE '80s I'M A RISK TAKER, I'M AN ENTREPRENEUR AND WHEN YOU'RE AN ENTREPRENEUR, SOMETIMES YOU FAIL ALONG THE WAY BEFORE YOU BECOME SUCCESSFUL. AND IN THE '80s A LOT OF PEOPLE FAILED IN TEXAS WHEN WE HAD OUR RECESSION, WHEN OIL WENT FROM $30 TO $10 A BARREL OVERNIGHT, AND I DID TOO. WE DON'T HAVE DEBTOR'S PRISON IN TEXAS, IN AMERICA. BUT WE HAVE BANKRUPTCY COURTS TO ALLOW YOU TO GET ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET AND START ALL OVER AGAIN AND IT TOOK ME 10 YEARS TO GET BACK ON OUR FEET AND I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED. WE PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES. I'VE RAISED OVER $16 MILLION FOR CHARITY. MY WIFE AND I HAVE DONATED NEARLY A MILLION DOLLARS. AND THAT WAS 30 YEARS AGO, AND I'M PROUD OF THE SUCCESS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THE THINGS WE'VE DONE IN OUR COMMUNITY, SO SOME PEOPLE CAN CRITICIZE THAT IF THEY WISH BUT THOSE WERE THE LAWS. I DECLARED BANKRUPTCY. I STARTED ALL OVER AND I WAS TOLD WHEN I CAME TO TEXAS -- ONE THING ABOUT TEXAS, THEY WILL HELP YOU SUCCEED AND IF YOU FAIL, THEY'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO SUCCEED AGAIN AND WE'VE BEEN VERY BLESSED. >> THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT YOU OWED MONEY TO BUT AT LEAST ONE PERSON YOU LEFT HIM HOLDING $384,000, I THINK, IT WAS IN DEBT. HE WAS A DEVELOPER. DON'T YOU THINK YOU HAD A MORAL OBLIGATION TO REPAY HIM NOW THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO? YOU ARE MORE PROSPEROUS. >> ONCE AGAIN, THE LAW OF BANKRUPTCY ALLOWS YOU TO START WITH A CLEAN SLATE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE, BUT I FOLLOWED THE LAW. IT WAS VERY TOUGH. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, IT'S VERY TOUGH WHEN YOU LOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE, INCLUDING YOUR COLLEGE SAVINGS FOR YOUR CHILDREN. YOU GIVE UP EVERYTHING. >> BUT YOU RECOVERED -- BUT YOU'VE RECOVERED. >> AND WE HAVE RECOVERED. AND IT'S TAKEN -- IT TOOK 10 YEARS TO GET BACK ON MY FEET AND 20 TO 25 YEARS TO RECOVER. AND WE'RE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS, AGAIN, WE'VE GENERATED -- WE GENERATED $16 MILLION FOR BE AN ANGEL FOR OUR RADIO STATION. WE'VE GIVEN ALMOST A MILLION IN CHARITY -- >> LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. >> YES, MA'AM. >> IF SOMEONE OWED YOU AND YOUR RADIO STATION $300,000 AND THEY COULDN'T PAY IT FOR A WHILE BUT THEY WERE IN A POSITION THAT THEY COULD REPAY, WOULDN'T YOU WANT THEM TO REPAY THE DEBT? >> WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT OWE US, AND THEY'VE HAD THEIR FAILURES AND THEY HAVEN'T PAID AND IF THEY DECLARED THE BANKRUPTCY WE MOVED ON. IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. WE DON'T HAVE DEBTOR'S PRISON IN THE UNITED STATES. THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO START OVER ANEW. AND THAT'S WHAT I DID, AND -- AND I'M VERY PROUD OF OUR SUCCESS. >> OKAY, SENATOR PATRICK, THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION COMES FROM NORMA AND IT'S FOR COMMISSIONER STAPLES. >> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT YOUR VOTING RECORD AND CONSISTENCY ON YOUR BELIEFS. YOUR OPPONENTS ACCUSE YOU OF FLIP-FLOPPING ON THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION BY VOTING FOR IN-STATE TUITION AND DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN 2001. YOU NOW SAY YOU ARE AGAINST BOTH OF THEM. DID YOU FLIP-FLOP ON THE ISSUES OR DO YOU BELIEVE YOU MADE A MISTAKE THEN? >> YOU KNOW, WHEN POLITICIANS ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, THEY WILL GET A VERY CREATIVE IMAGINATION AND THE REALITY IS IN 2001, I WAS VOTED AS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE MEMBER OF THE TEXAS SENATE, THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BILL IN QUESTION WAS A DPS CLEANUP BILL ON THE IN-STATE TUITION BILL I ALONG WITH 169 MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OR OF THE ENTIRE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY VOTED FOR IN-STATE TUITION BUT IT WAS BASED ON TWO PRECEPTS. ONE, THOSE STUDENTS WOULD CORRECT THEIR STATUS AND SECONDLY IT WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD SECURE OUR BORDER. I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE TONIGHT THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE LEGISLATURE DURING THAT TIME AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN ENFORCED AND THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT WE NEED TO REPEAL THE IN-STATE TUITION. THAT'S WHY I RESPONDED TO LANDOWNERS WHO REACHED OUT TO ME TO HELP THEM WITH BORDER SECURITY AND DEVELOP THAT SIX-POINT PLAN. WE NEED TO SECURE OUR BORDER, WE NEED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON THAT TEXAS WILL ACT IF YOU DO NOT AND BE VERY FIRM IN FIGHTING FOR BORDER SECURITY AND FIGHTING FOR THOSE LANDOWNERS AND FIXING THE PROBLEM ONCE AND FOR ALL THE RIGHT WAY. >> AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF I CAN ABOUT ANOTHER INSTANCE ON 2011 YOU WERE ON RECORD IN SAYING YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE TWO-THIRDS RULE WHICH ALLOWS THE MINORITY TO BLOCK A BILL IN THE SENATE. YOU NOW SAY YOU ARE AGAINST IT. WAS THAT A MISTAKE? >> IF YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW ABOUT THE TWO-THIRDS RULE WHAT I SAID WAS THE TWO-THIRDS RULE WORKED VERY WELL IN TEXAS FOR 100 YEARS BUT NOW WE'VE COME TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE A TWO-PARTY STATE AND YOU HAVE A LIBERAL GROUP OF SENATORS THAT ARE VOTING EN BLOC AND, THEREFORE, I SAID WE CAN ELIMINATE THE TWO-THIRDS RULE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 60% THRESHOLD. I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN. MY BELIEF IS WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWS, NOT TOO FEW. I'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT, VERY DETERMINED IN ORDER TO MOVE A CONSERVATIVE AGENDA FORWARD AND THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN ON THOSE ISSUES AND WHERE I AM TODAY. >> ARE YOU FOR IT OR AGAINST IT? >> I SAID THAT WE SHOULD REPEAL THE TWO-THIRDS RULE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 60% RULE AND THAT'S WHERE I AM TODAY AND THAT'S WHERE I HAVE BEEN ON FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND NOW ROSS RAMSEY IS GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. >> MR. PATTERSON, YOU HAVE SAID YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ON A $7200 ANNUAL SALARY BY COLLECTING YOUR STATE PENSION WHILE YOU'RE ON THE STATE PAYROLL, AND THAT'S LEGAL BUT HOW DOES IT LOOK FOR VOTERS LOOKING FOR AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE AND LOOKING FOR CONSERVATIVES WRITING A BUDGET? >> WELL, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. I'M GOING TO GIVE UP MY STATE SALARY WHICH I'VE SAID PROBABLY ABOUT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO. AND I KNOW THAT'S SYMBOLIC BUT I HAVE A LEGISLATIVE PENSION. I'M NOT ABLE TO MAKE A LIVING, FRANKLY, ON $600 A MONTH. I'M NOT SURE MANY PEOPLE CAN. AND FRANKLY I HAD A GUY THE OTHER DAY SAY, HOW MUCH DOES THAT JOB PAY? I SAID $600. HE SAID, HOW MUCH DOES THE JOB YOU HAVE NOW PAY? I SAID ABOUT 10 GRAND A MONTH. HE SAID, I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU. IT'S JUST PRETTY SIMPLE. ANYBODY WOULD DO THAT IS NOT SOMEBODY I SHOULD VOTE FOR. >> SHOULD THE STATE ALLOW SOMEBODY WHO ARE ON THE PAYROLL COLLECT THEIR PENSIONS? >> AS A MATTER OF POLICY IF SOMEBODY IS ON THE PAYROLL FOR $600 A MONTH THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO THEM. IF YOU DON'T COLLECT IT NOW, YOU COLLECT MORE LATER. YOUR PENSION MONTHLY AMOUNT IS LESS THE EARLIER YOU TAKE IT. >> BUT YOU BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD ALLOW OFFICER HOLDERS TO COLLECT A SALARY -- >> THAT'S AT $600 A MONTH, FRANKLY, I THINK OFFICE HOLDERS SHOULD NOT EVEN MAKE $600 A MONTH. THAT MONEY SHOULD GO TO THE E.R.S. RETIREMENT PLAN AND HELP FUND THAT PLAN. >> LET ME CHANGE SUBJECTS-- AS THE AUTHOR OF THE STATE'S CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW AND AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE OF GUN RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND? IS THERE A LINE ANYWHERE? SHOULD WE ALLOW HAND HANDGUNS AT A&M AND UT FOOTBALL GAMES AND ALLOW HANDGUNS IN THE CAPITAL WHEN ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE THERE FOR THE ABORTION DEBATE IN JUNE? >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. THE ONE VENUE THAT I BELIEVE THAT MAYBE HANDGUNS SHOULDN'T BE THERE, ALTHOUGH IT ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE IS A BAR, THAT'S ABOUT IT FOR ME. AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. PRIVATE PROPERTY PREMISE HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY YOU CAN'T COME ON MY PROPERTY WITH A GUN. BUT ON PUBLIC VENUES THE PROHIBITED LOCATIONS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED DRAMATICALLY, WE SHOULD HAVE CAMPUS CARRY, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF OPEN CARRY AS WELL. IT'S NOTHING TO FEAR FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE HAD AN FBI CHECK, AND THOSE WHO WANT TO OBEY THE LAW ARE NOT TO BE FEARED. WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE FOR UNLAWFUL CARRY AND YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SHOOT SOMEBODY, WHICH IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THIS IS ABOUT LIBERTY. THIS IS ABOUT GOVERNMENTS FAILING TO INTERFERE WITH OUR ABILITY TO EXERCISE THOSE LIBERTIES. AND FRANKLY, A CITIZEN WHO CANNOT CARRY A FIREARM IS NOT MUCH OF A CITIZEN. FRANKLY HE'S A SERF. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL RETURN TO ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU. THIS ONE COMES FROM PEGGY FIKAC AND WE BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER STAPLES. >> YOU EACH DESCRIBE YOURSELVES AS PRO-LIFE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE ABORTION IN CASES OF *** OR ***? AND SECONDLY, WHAT SHOULD THE STATE DO TO HELP LOW INCOME WOMEN SUPPORT THEMSELVES WHILE ARE PREGNANT AND NEW MOTHERS? >> I BELIEVE THAT ABORTION SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. I THINK WE NEED AS A SOCIETY TO PROMOTE THE CULTURE OF LIFE AND I THINK OUR LAWS SHOULD REFLECT THAT AND I'M VERY PROUD AS A MEMBER OF HOUSE AND SENATE BOTH, I WAS TOP RANKED BY ALL THE MAJOR PRO-LIFE GROUPS FOR TAKING THAT STRONG STANCE. IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER THEN YOU COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT AS A MATTER OF LAW, WE NEED TO PROMOTE LIFE. IT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A FORM OF ABORTION AND I'M VERY PROUD THAT IN MY OWN FAMILY, MY SISTER IS ADOPTED AND WE'RE VERY PROUD TO PROVIDE THAT LOVING ALTERNATIVE AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE WHAT WE DO AS A SOCIETY AND WE NEED TO HELP MOTHERS IN THAT SITUATION. WE CERTAINLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE SO THAT THEY COULD CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND THE CHILD SO THAT THEY CAN BOTH HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A SUCCESSFUL LIFE. >> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> I'M STRONGLY PRO-LIFE AND I'VE BEEN ENDORSED BY THE FOUR LARGEST PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS AND I APPRECIATE THEIR SUPPORT. I'VE WORKED OVER THE YEARS IN ORDER TO PROTECT WOMEN'S HEALTH AND TO PROTECT THE PREBORN. BUT I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER HAS TO BE PROTECTED AND THAT'S WHY -- IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, I AM SUPPORTIVE. BUT LIKE TODD HAD JUST MENTIONED, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ABORTION BEING USED AS A BIRTH CONTROL METHOD. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> WELL, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. I MEAN, THE CAVEATS ABOUT *** AND *** HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. MY ANSWER IS, EITHER IT IS LIFE OR IT'S NOT. AND TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A CHILD, AN UNBORN CHILD THAT IS A RESULT OF A *** AND SOMEHOW THAT'S LESS LIFE-LIKE OR INFERIOR TO THE LIFE THAT WAS DUE TO NATURAL NONCATASTROPHIC EVENT LIKE THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S EITHER LIFE OR NOT LIFE SO I DO NOT SUPPORT EXCEPTIONS FOR *** AND ***. WE HAVE TO ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE AND IF YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE TRUE TO YOUR PRINCIPLES. BUT *** AND *** ARE NOT LEGITIMATE EXCEPTIONS IN MY OPINION. >> SENATOR PATRICK. >> ONCE AGAIN, IT IS A LIFE. AND WE'RE BORN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. YOU KNOW, I TELL FOLKS ALL THE TIME, I'M A CHRISTIAN FIRST, I'M A CONSERVATIVE SECOND AND I'M A REPUBLICAN THIRD. AND YOU DON'T CHECK THOSE VALUES AND BELIEFS AT THE DOOR. NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCE. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE IF THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER WAS TRULY IN DANGER FOR THAT DOCTOR AND THAT FAMILY TO MAKE THAT DECISION OF THE MOTHER AND THE BABY. BUT THAT IS RARE, AND THAT HAS TO BE THAT DECISION. BUT YOU ALWAYS PROTECT LIFE IN EVERY SITUATION. AND FROM EVERYTHING I'VE STUDIED AND EVERYTHING I'VE READ -- IN THOSE RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS ON THE LINE, MOST MOTHERS SAY LET MY BABY LIVE. AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I THINK 100 YEARS FROM NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOK BACK AND SAY WHAT WAS OUR COUNTRY THINKING WHEN WE ABORTED 50 MILLION INNOCENT LIVES? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? >> TIME. >> THEY'LL THINK WE HAD LOST OUR WAY. >> OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AROUND AGAIN FOR 30 SECONDS AND PEGGY, DO YOU WANT TO REDIRECT? >> YES, COMMISSIONER STAPLES AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON YOUR ANSWERS. YOU EACH OPPOSE EXCEPTIONS FOR *** AND ***, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PROMOTING A CULTURE OF LIFE AND I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN WE'RE REALLY WORKING HARD TO PROTECT THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD AND IT'S A TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN THAT WOULD OCCUR AND WE NEED IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO HELP THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD AND HELP BOTH LIVES. >> I FEEL THE SAME WAY. BUT I WANT TO GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT A WOMAN'S LIFE THAT'S AT RISK AS THE MOTHER NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED. GOD FORBID WITH ANY OF OUR RELATIVES THAT SHOULD HAPPEN. WE'D WANT TO PROTECT. I'M NOT MAKE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS EVENING, BUT IF MY WIFE WAS PREGNANT AND HER LIFE WAS AT RISK, I'D CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE SHE'S PROTECTED. >> IF I COULD HAVE ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP -- >> SURE. >> I THINK -- I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHETHER ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHT ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY, IF ANY, THE STATE SHOULD PUT TOWARD HELPING WOMEN WHO ARE LOW INCOME, WHO ARE PREGNANT AND WILL BE GIVING BIRTH TO A CHILD THEY'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR? >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, IT'S YOUR TURN. >> YOU ASK FOR AN AMOUNT, I CAN'T TELL YOU. BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS KIND OF GOES HAND-IN-HAND THAT DIFFERING OPINIONS GO ON. WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR FAMILY CODE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR CHILDREN TO BE ADOPTED. WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS TOO MUCH PROCESS TOO MUCH BURDEN TOO MUCH TIME AND THERE ARE MOTHERS WHO WOULD GLADLY GIVE UP THEIR CHILD FOR ADOPTION BUT THE PROCESS IS CUMBERSOME. AS TO PROVIDING NECESSARY SUSTENANCE FOR MOTHERS, I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. YOU ASKED FOR A NUMBER, I CAN'T GIVE IT TO YOU -- >> TIME. >> WE NEED TO DO MORE WHAT WE'RE DOING, PARTICULARLY IN REFORMING ADOPTION LAWS. >> SENATOR PATRICK? >> AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I WOULD BE CONSISTENT -- I WOULD BE CONSISTENT, ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD OUR FILIBUSTER THIS YEAR WHEN WE SENT THE BILL FROM THE SENATE TO THE HOUSE, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ASKED TO REMOVE THE EXCEPTION OF PROTECTING LIFE AT 5 MONTHS AND IT WAS BECAUSE THE BILL WAS AMENDED TO TAKE THAT OUT THAT IT WENT TO THE HOUSE AND IT WAS AMENDED. IT CAME BACK WHICH CREATED THE FILIBUSTER. AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I WOULD NEVER, EVER WEAKEN A PRO-LIFE BILL. I WOULD ONLY STRENGTHEN IT. AND HAD I BEEN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, >> TIME. >> THERE WOULD NOT BE THAT FILIBUSTER THAT NIGHT. >> WOULD YOU PROVIDE ANY MONEY FOR LOW-INCOMED WOMEN? >> PEGGY, ABSOLUTELY. LOOK, I WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES AND GO TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND RAISE THE MONEY TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROTECT LIFE. THERE'S A LIMIT. WE SHOULDN'T ALWAYS LOOK TO GOVERNMENT. >> TIME. >> BUT LOOK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. WE SHOULD SAVE EVERY LIFE. >> CAN WE FOLLOW-UP. >> OK, WE GAVE A LITTLE EXTRA TIME TO SENATOR PATRICK THERE, HOW ABOUT 15 SECONDS? >> CAN I RESPOND? >> LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER STAPLES, 15 SECONDS AND STICK TO PEGGY'S QUESTION IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT FUNDING FOR POOR WOMEN AND BABIES. >> TEXAS SHOULD BE VERY PROUD THAT WE HAVE FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE RESOURCE CENTERS THAT PROVIDE LIVING ALTERNATIVES AND PREGNANCY HELP CENTERS AND THAT'S AN EXCITING THING WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR COMES TOGETHER TO HELP MEET THE NEEDS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. WE WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS FULFILLING THAT RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE WE LOOK TO GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR? >> IN 2007, BECAUSE OF JUST THIS CHALLENGE, I PUT INTO LAW OUR NURSE PRACTITIONER PARTNERSHIP IN WHICH FIRST TIME YOUNG PREGNANT WOMEN UNDER MEDICAID ARE PROVIDED A NURSE PRACTITIONER SO THAT THEY LEARN HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, TAKE CARE OF THE BABY. >> TIME. >> DAN, WHAT YOU SAID IS NOT TRUE. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER 20 SECONDS? >> THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE DON'T KNOW AND PEGGY JUST BROUGHT UP SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF, THAT WAS FOCUSING ON REFORMING ADOPTION LAWS. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PACKAGE IN THAT COMMITTEE WE'RE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO DAMPEN THE DESPERATION THAT YOUNG MOTHERS TO BE HAVE, TO GIVE THEM ALTERNATIVES AND TO GIVE THEM HELP IN FINDING THOSE ALTERNATIVES. IT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA. >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ANOTHER QUESTION NOW AND I HAVE THIS QUESTION. IT'S FIRST TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST, A RECENT POLL SHOWS A MAJORITY OF TEXANS WANT TO LEGALIZE THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN TEXAS AND LIKE GOVERNOR PERRY SAID A WEEK OR SO AGO, THEY WANT LOWER PENALTIES FOR RECREATIONAL USE. SO IF YOU POSSESS A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'D BE FINED INSTEAD OF GOING TO JAIL. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHAT CHANGES IN TEXAS' MARIJUANA LAWS WOULD YOU SUPPORT? AND WOULD YOU LEGALIZE IT? >> NO. I WOULD NOT LEGALIZE IT. I WOULD NOT DECRIMINALIZE IT. I THINK MARIJUANA CAN BE AN ADDICTIVE DRUG AND CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE IN SUFFERING THAT ADDICTION. AND SO WHAT I WOULD DO IS CONTINUE WHAT WE STARTED DOING IN THE 2005 SESSION WHERE WE'RE PUTTING NOT ONLY CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY BUT ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY CLINICS IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE -- THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THESE ADDICTIONS WELL AND NOT ADDICTED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW COMMISSIONER STAPLES, SAME QUESTION. >> I WOULD NOT LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA IN TEXAS. I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY FIRM IN ENFORCING OUR LAWS. WE NEED TO BE SMART IN ENFORCING OUR LAWS AS WELL. WE KNOW THAT TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION HAS A RIGHT ON CRIME INITIATIVE. WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN WE HAVE PROGRAMS IN PLACE TO GET THE HABITUAL VIOLATORS ON TRACK BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO LOWER OUR STANDARDS TO ALLOW WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY THAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS, I'M VERY PROUD OF OUR GREAT STATE, VERY PROUD THAT WE ARE SUPPORT OUR LOCAL SUPPORT OFFICERS AND OUR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, I WOULD MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE UPHOLD THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN THE LAND. >> SENATOR PATRICK? >> IT'S A NONSTARTER WITH ME. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THE WAY OF COLORADO. WE KNOW THE HARM PARTICULARLY OF MARIJUANA. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERJECTED HIMSELF IN THE PARENTING OF OUR CHILDREN BY BASICALLY SAYING, IT'S OKAY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO USE MARIJUANA. I'M NOW A GRANDPARENT OF 2 AND 1 COMING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND IT OFFENDED ME THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERFERED WITH THE DECISION THAT EVERY FAMILY SHOULD MAKE, AND HE'S SO WRONG ON THE ISSUE. WE KNOW THE MEDICAL RESEARCH PROVES WITHOUT QUESTION THAT MARIJUANA DOES IMPACT YOUNG PEOPLE MORE THAN OLDER PEOPLE. SO IT'S A NONSTARTER WITH ME. LOOK, FOLKS, I JUST WANT TO FINISH UP A POINT -- ON THIS FILIBUSTER AND THAT PRO-LIFE BILL, THE BAN ON ABORTION AT FIVE MONTHS WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE BILL -- YOU CAN GO TO THE RECORD AND LOOK AND GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE AND WATCH. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. >> TIME. >> WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A FILIBUSTER. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> WELL, LIKE ALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES, THEY SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THAT'S OUR DOMINION. IT'S PART OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT AS OUR DOMINION. IT'S A STATE ISSUE WITH THAT I DO AGREE WITH GOVERNOR PERRY. IT'S A STATE ISSUE. IT'S TEXAS' DECISION TO MAKE. NOW, AS FAR AS LEGALIZING IT FROM RECREATIONAL USE I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT BUT WE MUST REALIZE THAT MARIJUANA IS A CHEMICAL. IT MAY HAVE SOME MEDICAL USE AND IF IT DOES, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN CODEINE OR *** AT ONE TIME OR THOSE THINGS BUT MEDICINAL USES WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. IT'S ANOTHER CHEMICAL FOR MEDICINAL USE ONLY BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT GO BACK TO THE '60s WHEN IF A 16-YEAR-OLD KID HAD ONE JOINT IT WAS A FELONY. YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE COMPARABLE PENALTY FOR ALCOHOL OR FOR ALCOHOL ABUSE OR FOR DRUNK AND DISORDERLY, FOR DWI, BUT FELONY PENALTIES FOR WHAT WE USED TO DO BACK IN THE '60s WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK THERE. >> OKAY. WE'LL GO AROUND AGAIN AND I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ISSUE BECAUSE IN THIS POLL I THINK IT WAS MORE THAN 60% OF TEXANS -- AND I HAVE TO SAY IN LOOKING AT THE POLL, THE GREATEST NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WERE REPUBLICANS AND THEY SUPPORT THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. >> SHELLEY, I WAS GOING TO LET IT GO, BUT DAN BROUGHT IT UP A SECOND TIME. DAN, ONE OF THE KEYS ON BEING A LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE INTEGRITY AND PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BELIEVE IN YOUR WORD. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO 'CAUSE I BROUGHT YOU IN, YOU WERE IN THE RAMSEY ROOM AND WE COULDN'T GET THE SENATORS ON BOARD WITH THE FOURTH ELEMENT OF THE PRO-LIFE BILL. YOU WERE THERE. YOU HEARD IT. AND SO I TOLD THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS, FINE, I'M SUPPORTING ALL FOUR PARTS INCLUDING LOWERING THE DEADLINE-- >> TIME. >> FROM 6 MONTHS TO 9 MONTHS-- >> TIME. >> AND WE'LL SEND IT OVER TO THE HOUSE AND THEY'LL PUT IT ON AND IT WILL COME RIGHT BACK, WE'LL NEED IT BY SUNDAY SO WE'RE NOT IN FILIBUSTER RAGE. >> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, YES OR NO, MEDICAL MARIJUANA? >> NO. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER STAPLES? >> I'D SAY NO INFORMATION SUGGESTS THAT WOULD BE GOOD POLICY FOR TEXAS AND I'M OPPOSED TO THAT AND I'LL TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER. I THINK THOSE THAT ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY'RE ILLEGALLY USING NARCOTICS SUBSTANCES IN OUR STATE AND OUR LAWS NEED TO REFLECT THAT FULLY. >> SENATOR PATRICK? >> NO, IN COLORADO, I HAD A FRIEND UP THERE ON A SKI VACATION OVER THE HOLIDAYS AND HE'S SELLING HIS HOUSE AND HE'S NOT GOING BACK WHAT STARTED OUT TO BE MEDICAL AND WIDER USE AND HE SAID, I DON'T WANT MY KIDS EXPOSED TO IT EVERYWHERE AND NO, I DON'T SUPPORT IT. LOOK, I'M JUST -- I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. THE FACTS ARE THIS. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR THE BILL WITH 5 MONTHS IN IT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT THE FIRST TIME. >> TIME. >> HAD WE HAD A LEADER WE WOULD HAVE PASSED IT OUT THE FIRST TIME AND THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FILIBUSTER. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, HOW WOULD YOU IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE? >> WELL, WHEN I MENTIONED STATES' RIGHTS THAT'S ONE EXCEPTION, THE FEDERAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION WOULD ADMINISTER THAT. BUT, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A DOCTOR. BUT I WILL TELL YOU WE HAVE MEDICAL BARBITURATES AND MEDICAL CODEINE AND MEDICAL ALL THESE COMPOUNDS AND I'M NOT A DOCTOR. BUT IF THERE IS MEDICAL EFFICACY FOR THE USE OF MARIJUANA, AND THE DOCTOR PRESCRIBES IT I MEAN, I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. WE'RE TALKING MEDICINE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RECREATIONAL USE. FDA REGULATES DRUGS, THE STATE OF TEXAS REGULATES CRIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ANOTHER QUESTION NOW FROM NORMA GARCIA AND WE BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. >> COMMISSIONER, ALL HAVE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED SUPPORT OF TEACHING CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHAT ASPECT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN TEXTBOOKS AND WOULD IT UNDERMINE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF 1987 WHICH SAID YOU CAN'T TEACH CREATIONISM AS A SCIENCE? >> WE HAVE CREATIONISM, WE HAVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN, WE HAVE EVOLUTION. I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I THINK OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE ARMED WITH KNOWLEDGE SO THAT WHEN THEY GO OUT IN THE WORLD AND THEY HEAR THESE TERMS THEY HAVE AN IDEA WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT. I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. NOW, WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER -- WHETHER CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE OR TAUGHT IN COMPARATIVE RELIGION OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SOCIAL STUDIES I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE ARMED WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE, NOT LESS, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, EVOLUTION AND LET THE PARENTS AND THE MINISTERS THEN DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE SHOULD PREVAIL IN THAT CHILD'S LIFE. THAT'S NOT A DECISION FOR THE SCHOOLS BUT THE SCHOOLS SHOULD ARM CHILDREN WITH INFORMATION THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO THEM. >> COMMISSIONER STAPLES, YOU'RE NEXT. >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO LIVE IN A STATE WHERE WE NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN. AND I BELIEVE THAT CREATIONISM CAN BE TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SOCIAL STUDIES IF IT VIOLATES WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID IS A SCIENCE BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT MOST TEXANS BELIEVE IN AND OUR CHILDREN NEED TO BE EXPOSED TO THIS AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HIDE FROM IT. YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS WE NEED A ROBUST EDUCATION SYSTEM IN TEXAS. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MADE A COMMENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO -- SOMETHING ABOUT TEACHER PAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO PAY GOOD TEACHERS MORE. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET BAD TEACHERS OUT OF THE CLASSROOM. I WISH THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WAS MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT WE'RE SPENDING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS RATHER THAN HAVING -- BEING THE FIRST LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN HISTORY TO HAVE A PERSONAL SECURITY DETAIL. I'LL BE MORE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN SECURITY OF OUR SCHOOLS RATHER THAN HAVING A PERSONAL SECURITY DETAIL THAT DRIVES YOU FROM PLACE TO PLACE AND SWEEPS ROOMS BEFORE YOU GO IN AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED IN FOCUSING ON AN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT DELIVERS AND THAT ARE FOCUSED -- >> TIME. >> WE PROVIDE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM. >> SENATOR PATRICK? >> YOU KNOW, OUR CHILDREN MUST REALLY BE CONFUSED. WE WANT THEM TO GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY AND WE TEACH THEM ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND THEN THEY GO TO SCHOOL ON MONDAY. THEY CAN'T PRAY. THEY CAN'T LEARN ABOUT CREATIONISM. THEY MUST REALLY BE CONFUSED. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONFUSED BECAUSE WE, AS CHRISTIANS, HAVE YIELDED TO THE SECULAR LEFT AND LET THEM RULE THE DAY IN THIS COUNTRY. WE'RE A NATION FOUNDED ON THE WORD OF GOD. THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE BEEN BLESSED BY GOD AS A NATION. WE HAVE BLESSED ISRAEL BUT WE'RE THE ONLY CONSTITUTION EVER FOUNDED ON THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS BY OUR CREATOR, NOT GOVERNMENT. SO WHEN IT COMES TO CREATIONISM, NOT ONLY SHOULD IT BE TAUGHT, IT SHOULD BE TRIUMPHED AND HERALDED. AS THE CHAIR OF EDUCATION THIS PAST SESSION, BESIDES THE SWEEPING REFORMS WE PASSED ONE BILL I WAS PROUD TO COSPONSOR ON THE SENATE AND THAT WAS THE MERRY CHRISTMAS BILL THAT BROUGHT CHRISTMAS BACK INTO OUR SCHOOLS. >> TIME. >> I WAS TIRED OF WINTER HOLIDAYS. >> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> THANK YOU, SHELLEY. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE AS A CHRISTIAN IN CREATIONISM. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT ALONE CANNOT BE TAUGHT. AND I AM FINE WITH TEACHING CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EVOLUTION AND THEN LET THE STUDENTS WITH THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL AND THE LOVE OF THEIR PARENTS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHICH OF THE THREE THEY BELIEVE IN. I THINK THAT'S THE FAIREST WAY AND ALL THREE SHOULD BE TAUGHT. AS FAR AS MY FRIEND HERE IS TALKING ABOUT OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM, I'M PROUD OF HAVING CHAMPIONED IMPROVING PUBLICATION OVER THE YEARS. I'M PROUD OF -- OF PASSING A LANDMARK SCHOOL FINANCE BILL IN 2006 IN WHICH WE PUT A RECORD AMOUNT OF NEW FUNDS IN. I'M PROUD OF PUTTING INCENTIVE PAY FOR GOOD TEACHERS SO THEY WORK TOGETHER. I WANT TO SEE MERIT PAY, I WANT TO SEE ALL OUR GOOD TEACHERS IN THE CLASSROOM. >> THANK YOU. >> NOT AVERAGE TEACHERS, GREAT TEACHERS. >> NOW, WE'LL GO BACK AROUND FOR 30 SECONDS FOR EACH. DO YOU WANT TO REDIRECT? >> CLARIFICATION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CREATIONISM SPECIFICALLY ON TEXTBOOKS? AND HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE DIVERSITY IN SCHOOLS CONSIDERING THE FACT NOT ALL STUDENTS ARE CHRISTIAN? >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> THAT'S THE SAME QUESTION OR IS THIS -- >> THESE ARE FOLLOW-UP. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT IN TEXTBOOKS? >> AS I MENTIONED IN MY EARLIER ANSWER, COMPARATIVE RELIGION, I THINK KIDS GROWING UP IN TEXAS OUGHT TO LEARN ABOUT OTHER RELIGIONS AS WELL IN PART SO THEY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR OWN. IN PART BECAUSE THEY SEE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE THEM PAUSE. SO WHEREVER IT'S TAUGHT, I REALLY DON'T CARE. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM -- AND WE ARE AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, WE ARE A MAJORITY, WE ARE A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN NATION THAT WAS THE FOUNDERS' BELIEFS AND WE SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF THAT BUT WE SHOULD ALSO BE-- >> THANK YOU. >> -- JUST LIKE, THOMAS JEFFERSON, TOLERANT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STAPLES? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO HIDE WHAT WE BELIEVE IN UNDER A BUSHEL AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE EXPOSING OUR CHILDREN TO CREATIONISM. BUT GOVERNOR DEWHURST IT'S VERY REAL THAT WE HAVE NEEDS IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM TODAY. THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. WE NEED TO END THE CULTURE OF TEACHING TO THE TEST AND JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S MORE MONEY AVAILABLE WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM TODAY IF WE DID. I THINK YOUR OWN CURRENT CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND YOUR LOSS TO TED CRUZ IN THAT RACE ACTUALLY SAID THAT-- >> TIME. >> YOU'RE A BIG-GOVERNMENT CHARLIE CRIST -- >> TIME. >> REPUBLICAN THAT'S OUT OF TOUCH ON THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE TEACHERS AND THE SPENDING IN SCHOOLS. >> OKAY. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR? >> DO I GET A CHANCE -- >> I'M SORRY. SENATOR PATRICK AND THEN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST. >> YES. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET A QUESTION OR EDUCATION BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT EDUCATION CHAIR. WE HAVE A CRISIS IN OUR INNER CITIES WITH A DROPOUT RATE OF 40% TO 50%. WE MUST HAVE SCHOOL CHOICE. WE ALREADY HAVE IT IF YOU'RE RICH ENOUGH YOU SEND YOUR KIDS TO PRIVATE SCHOOL IF YOU'RE MOBILE ENOUGH YOU MOVE TO THE SUBURBS BUT IF YOU'RE POOR AND IN THE INNER CITY AND FAILING SCHOOL AND BY THE WAY, 8500 CAMPUSES FOLKS, ALMOST 900 ARE CONSIDERED FAILURES, WE MUST HAVE SCHOOL CHOICE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A QUESTION ON THAT, BUT IT IS THE HUB OF THE WHEEL. WE HAVE NO FUTURE IN TEXAS IF WE DON'T HAVE AN EDUCATED WORKFORCE. >> TIME. >> AND WE MUST FOCUS ON SCHOOL CHOICE AND IMPROVING OUR INNER CITY EDUCATION AND I'LL DO IT AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. >> THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR? >> AS A CHRISTIAN, WITH STRONG BELIEFS, I BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EVOLUTION OUGHT TO BE TAUGHT. I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE AND I WAS ABLE TO WORK WITH DAN THIS PAST YEAR, NOT ONLY DID WE REDUCE TEACHING TO THE TEST, LET ME SHARE SOME FACTS WITH YOU, AND REDUCED FROM A 15 DOWN TO 5 END OF COURSE EXAMS BUT WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE A RECORD INVESTMENT INTO OUR SCHOOLS AND, AN UNPRECEDENTED RECORD OF INVESTMENT TO HOLD ONTO OUR GOOD TEACHERS AND IMPROVE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM. >> WE ONLY HAVE A VERY LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT SO WE HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU'LL ONLY GET 30 SECONDS FOR THIS ONE. I'M SORRY IT'S THAT SHORT BUT PEGGY FIKAC HAS A QUESTION ABOUT TERM LIMITS. >> GOVERNOR PERRY HAS BEEN GOVERNOR FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. I'M WONDERING IF EACH OF YOU THINK THAT'S TOO LONG? DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE TERM LIMITS ON TOP STATE OFFICE HOLDERS? >> AND WE'LL START WITH SENATOR PATRICK? >> I VOTED FOR THE TERM LIMIT BILL FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE HOLDERS AND I WANTED TO AMEND IT FOR ALL LEGISLATORS BUT IT WAS RULED NOT GERMANE TO THAT PARTICULAR BILL. AND I THINK WHETHER IT'S 8 YEARS -- OUR BILL IS 8 YEARS WHICH I SUPPORTED, I THINK OUR FOUNDERS DID SO MANY THINGS SO WELL BUT ONE THING THEY DIDN'T GET RIGHT ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND THE STATE LEVEL WAS TERM LIMITS. WE HAVE TOO MANY POLITICIANS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE TOO LONG. STATUS QUO. THAT'S WHAT THEY DEFEND. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST? >> DAN, IF YOU REMEMBER THIS YEAR I AGREED WITH THE INTENT OF PASSING TERM LIMITS. I PASSED OUT THE TERM LIMIT BILL ON STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND I DID IT ENTHUSIASTICALLY BUT I DID FEEL LIKE YOU MENTIONED, DAN, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT TERM LIMITS ON STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS YOU OUGHT TO BE PUTTING THEM ON SENATORS. YOU OUGHT TO BE PUTTING THEM ON HOUSE MEMBERS AND WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS EVERYONE THE SAME WAY SO THAT IF THAT'S YOUR GOAL, LET'S TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY. >> COMMISSIONER STAPLES? >> I THINK POLITICIANS ARE A LOT LIKE SOCKS AND THEY NEED TO BE CHANGED ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE NEED TO INSTILL NEW BLOOD AND NEW ENERGY AND NEW IDEAS ON WAYS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. I FOLLOWED 8 YEARS OF SUSAN COMBS AND 8 YEARS OF RICK PERRY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, YET I FOUND WAYS TO GIVE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BACK TO THE TAXPAYER TO BE EFFICIENT WITH THE DOLLARS AND GOVERNOR DEWHURST, IT JUST RINGS A LITTLE HOLLOW TO SUGGEST YOU'RE FOR TERM LIMITS WHICH I AM AND OUR TOP OFFICES WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR YET, I THINK, IT'S A FOURTH TERM HERE. >> TIME. >> SO IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN THEM I THINK YOU'D BE GOING BACK AND REPLENISHING YOUR POCKETBOOK WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO DO LAST WEEK. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. >> CALIFORNIA HAS TERM LIMITS. HOW IS THAT WORKING? WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR THE EASY WAY OUT. AND WHEN I TELL YOU IS TERM LIMITS WILL EMPOWER BUT THEY WON'T EMPOWER VOTERS. THEY'LL EMPOWER THE BUREAUCRACY, THEY'LL EMPOWER THE STAFF AND THEY'LL EMPOWER THE LOBBY THAT WERE THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE. I TRUST THE VOTERS. AND I DO NOT ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT VOTERS ARE INCOMPETENT OR IRRESPONSIBLE TO MAKE GOOD CHOICES. I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS. I BELIEVE POLITICIANS HAVE SHELF LIVES AND I BELIEVE VOTERS SHOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE'D LIKE TO GIVE EACH OF YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT AND BASED ON A DRAWING, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEWHURST WILL BE FIRST, 60 SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING THIS EVENING. LET ME JUST START OFF BY SAYING THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING YOUR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND WANTING TO BE YOUR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I'M A CAREER BUSINESSMAN. I LOOK AT RESULTS SO WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION I'M LOOKING AT THE RESULTS. WE ARE -- WE HAVE PROVEN AND WE'RE THERE TO GO AHEAD AND SHUT DOWN THE BORDER NOW, THIS YEAR. WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PASSING A PRO-LIFE BILL. I GOT IT PASSED AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. LET ME SAY THAT I'M FLATTERED THAT MY CHALLENGERS ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT THINGS THEY WANT TO DO THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING HERE IN THE STATE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. I'M AN UNASHAMED CONSERVATIVE AND I DON'T COMPROMISE MY CONSERVATIVE VALUES. IT HADN'T BEEN EASY BUT OVER THE LAST DECADE I'VE BEEN PROUD TO LEAD AND TO GROW THIS STATE ECONOMY IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD TIMES, CREATING THE TEXAS MIRACLE. MAKING TEXAS NUMBER 1 IN JOBS AND NUMBER 1 IN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF YOU. >> TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> WELL, I'LL MAKE A PROMISE TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE WATCHING OUT THERE. IT'S JUST REAL SIMPLE I'M GOING TO BE STRAIGHT WITH YOU. MY STORY, MY ANSWER WILL BE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE VENUE OR REGARDLESS WHO ASK THE QUESTION. I WON'T TELL YOU IN OCTOBER THAT I SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF THE 17th AMENDMENT AND THEN TELL YOU IN JANUARY, NO, THEY MISQUOTED ME. I'M GOING TO BE STRAIGHT WITH YOU. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH AND YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME ON EVERYTHING BUT I HAVE TO TELL FOLKS I DO IT ALL THE TIME. IF YOU WANT SOMEBODY YOU CAN AGREE WITH ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THEN YOU NEED TO RUN. WE'VE ALSO HEARD TONIGHT THAT WE ALL ESSENTIALLY AGREE ON, YOU KNOW, NO AMNESTY WE AGREED THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND WE AGREE ON GUEST WORKER PROGRAM BUT JUST YESTERDAY SENATOR PATRICK IN THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE SAID THAT I SUPPORT AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS. DIDN'T SAY THAT TONIGHT WHEN I'M HERE. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME STORY REGARDLESS OF WHERE I AM BUT I THINK VOTERS WANT THAT. AND I WILL PROVIDE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL BE HONORED TO HAVE YOUR VOTE. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR PATRICK? >> IT'S BEEN SAID THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT WANT ME TO BE ELECTED BECAUSE THEY WANT THE STATUS QUO TO BE PROTECTED. IT'S SAID IF THE OTHER 3 GENTLEMEN IS ELECTED IT WILL BE BUSINESS AS USUAL BUT ALL BETS OFF WITH DAN PATRICK. THE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT ME ELECTED I'M NOT GOING TO APPOINT WHAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HAS DONE FOR A DECADE. I'M NOT GOING TO APPOINT HALF THE DEMOCRATS TO BE CHAIRMAN THE COMMITTEES AND RUN THE SENATE. IT'S TIME THE MAJORITY, THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN THIS STATE HAD AN AUTHENTIC CONSERVATIVE LEADER. THE OTHER SIDE THAT DOESN'T WANT ME -- IT'S NOT BECAUSE I CAN'T LEAD. IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE. THEY KNOW I CAN LEAD. PASSING THE SONOGRAM BILL, $172 MILLION BUSINESS TAX GOING TOE-TO-TOE WITH THE TSA AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THIS YEAR PASSING SWEEPING REFORMS IN EDUCATION GETTING ALMOST UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARTIES FROM ALL PARTS OF THE STATE. IF YOU WANT A CONSERVATIVE LEADER WHO'S GOING TO COMPLETE THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA, SECURE THE BORDER, LOWER YOUR PROPERTY TAXES WHICH GO UP 8% TO 9% A YEAR. PASS SCHOOL CHOICE, CAMPUS CARRY, FUND TRANSPORTATION AS YOU GO BASIS I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. >> DANPATRICK.COM THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS. >> MR. STAPLES. >> FIRST I WANT TO THANK KERA AND THE VOTERS WATCHING AT HOME. TEXAS IS A GREAT STATE BUT WE CAN DO BETTER AND THAT'S WHY I'M RUNNING FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. LIKE YOU, I'M SICK AND TIRED OF POLITICIANS NOT LISTENING TO VOTERS LIKE YOU AND ME. THAT'S WHY I'VE DEDICATED MY LIFE IN PUBLIC SERVICE FIGHTING FOR TEXANS. I FOUGHT FOR LANDOWNERS WHO ARE BEING CHASED OFF THEIR LAND BY DRUG CARTELS. I HAVE FOUGHT FOR TAX CUTS TO HELP TEXAS LEAD THE NATION IN JOB GROWTH. I FOUGHT FOR TEXAS JOBS BY SUING OBAMA'S EPA. I FOUGHT FOR IMMINENT DOMAIN TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND I'M PROUD THAT I HAVE FOUGHT FOR TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES AND CARRIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING BETTER FOR TEXAS, IF YOU WANT A FIGHTER, THEN I'M ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE TONIGHT. I'LL DELIVER REAL RESULTS AND NOT RHETORIC. GOD BLESS YOU AND MAY GOD BLESS TEXAS. >> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING PART IN THIS DEBATE TONIGHT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR ASKING QUESTIONS AND ALL OF YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS TEXAS DEBATE. EARLY VOTING BEGINS FEBRUARY 18th. ELECTION DAY IS MARCH 4th. THANKS FOR JOINING US.   >> THE TEXAS DEBATES, RACE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY KERA, NBC-5, TELEMUNDO 39, THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, THE TEXAS TRIBUNE, THE HOUSTON CHRONICAL, THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS, HOUSTON PUBLIC MEDIA, KUT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS STATE NETWORKS AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS.