that's how my wife found out so much about what we were doing, you know, from my financial statements. no, we don't need -- i don't think people need that. because nobody's challenging me because i have no conflict of interests. and i don't even talk to lobbyists. and i don't take that kind of money. so there's no conflicts. >> all right. governor romney, when will we see yours? >> when my taxes are complete for this year. and i know if i'm the nominee, the president's going to want to insist that i show what my income was this last year and so forth. when they're completed this year in april, i'll release my returns in april and probably for other years as well. i know that's what's going to come. every time the democrats are out there trying their very best to try and attack people because they've been successful. i have been successful. let me tell you, the challenge in america is not people who have been successful. the challenge in america, and president obama doesn't want to talk about this, is you've got a president who's played 90 rounds of golf while there are 25 million americans out of work.

and while the price of gasoline has doubled, he said no to the keystone pipeline. and while we've got $15 trillion in debt, he said, look, i'm going to put another $1 trillion in debt for obama care. that's the problem in america. not the attacks they make on people who have been successful. >> some of the questions about when do you release your taxes, his campaign has raised them, you're right on that. so has some of your rivals up here. speaker gingrich said you owe them to the people of south carolina before they vote. governor perry made that point as well before he left the race. why not should the people of south carolina before this election see last year's return? [ applause ] >> because i want to make sure that i beat president obama. every time we release things drip by drip, the democrats go out with another array of attacks. as has been done in the past, if i'm the nominee i'll put these out at one time so we have one discussion of all this. i obviously pay all full taxes. i'm honest in my dealings with people. people understand that. my taxes are carefully managed. i pay a lot of taxes.

i've been very successful. when i have our taxes ready for this year, i'll release them. >> speaker, is that good enough? >> he's got to decide. the people of south carolina have to decide. if there's anything in there that will help us lose the election, we should know it before the nomination. if there's nothing in there, why not release it? it's a very simple model. but he's got to decide. it's his decision. everybody's got to run their own campaign based on what they think is the reasonable risk. i released mine this evening. we also released the little small charitable foundation we have. so people can see what we do. how we did it and what our values are. >> senator santorum, when will we see yours? >> well, i do my own taxes. they're on my computer and i'm not home. so -- and there's nobody at home right now till i get home. when i get home, you'll get my x taxes. >> you did call on the governor to release his. >> somebody asked.

i said yes. i don't think it's a big deal. if governor romney's told what his tax rate is. mine's higher than that i can assure you. i can't tell you what it was. all i know it was very painful writing a check last april. that's all i can tell you. >> governor romney, you mentioned the democratic attacks. i want to ask you to go back in history a little bit. back in 1967, your father set a ground-breaking what was then a ground-breaking standard in american politics. he released his tax returns. not for one year but for 12 years. when he did that, he said this, one year could be a fluke. perhaps done for show. when you release yours, will you follow your father's example? >> maybe. i don't know how many years i'll release. i'll take a look at what our documents are. [ audience shouting ] >> and i'll release multiple

years. i don't know how many years. i'll be happy to do that. let me tell you, i know there are some who are very anxious to see if they can't make it more difficult for a campaign to be successful. i know the democrats want to go after the fact i've been successful. i'm not going to apologize for being successful. [ applause ] i'm not suggesting these people are doing that. but i know the democrats will go after me on that basis. that's why i want to release these things all at the same time. my dad, as you know, born in mexico. poor. didn't get a college degree. became head of a car company. i could have stayed in detroit like him. and gotten pulled up in the car -- i went off on my own. didn't inherit money from my parents. what i have, i earned. i worked hard. the american way. [ applause ] i'm going to be able -- i'm going to be able to talk to president obama in a way no one else can that's in this race right now about how the free economy works. what it takes to put americans back to work. make sure he understands this divisiveness dividing americans

between 99 and 1 is dangerous. we are one nation under god. >> you've raised the topic of putting american back to work. another question from our audience. not quite yet. let's stay up here. you mentioned putting america back to work. let's talk about something. apple computer. apple computer is a breath-takingly important american company. senator santorum, it's one of the respected companies in the country. i've handed it off but i carry apple products do my work every day. it employs about 500,000 people in china. it is based in the united states. has some employees here. about 40,000 something. most of them in retail stores and at the headquarters. 500,000 of them are in china. as president of the united states, what do you do about that? >> i'm the only person on this stage that will do something about it. i've got a specific plan in place that i've put out there called the made in the usa plan for exactly these kinds of

companies that have great technology and go somewhere else to make them because america is uncompetitive. and that's why we have to cut the corporate tax to zero for all corporations who manufacture and process in this country. people have said, why are you doing it for corporations and only cutting it in half, which i do, to 17.5% for the rest. it's because the local pharmacy's not going to move to china. the jobs we're losing are jobs we have to compete with other countries. and those are manufacturing jobs. the reason they're going there is not because our workers or our management in this country are not productive. we have great productivity gains. it's amazing the transformation that has been made in the last decade or two about our manufacturing processing here. it is simply government getting in the way. none of these folks do anything. i do dramatic things that send a signal. apple, you have all those employees over there. you make all those profits over there. if you want to bring that money back, right now, you pay a 35%

tax. under our plan if you bring it back and invest it in plant and equipment here in charleston, you pay nothing. you put that money to work. if you invest it, you pay nothing. it's a powerful incentive. you throw on top of that the energy policies we put out there to revitalize the energy sector. which will create manufacturing, energy cost is a big keel. we have an energy piece. also a piece having to do with regulations. the obama administration has promulgated 2.5 times the number of regulations that cost american businesses over $100 million a year. 2 1/2 times the last 16 years of presidents. this president is putting a burden on manufactures and business. it's the reason we're not making things here. i'll repeal every single one of those regulations on day one. >> congressman paul, how do you revive made in america?

>> you have to create the right conditions to bring these companies back and they have to bring their capital back and should be taxed. apple's a great company. the way you asked the question, it infers that because there's a bunch of workers overseas, it hasn't benefited a lot of people here. the consumers obviously have been benefited by a good company well run. but obviously there's a lot of employees with apple in this country as well. i don't think that's the number you have to be concerned about. a lot of people worry about us buying and money going overseas. but if you send money to china, let's say they're paying wages over there and we send dollars over there, they don't put the dollars in a shoe box. they have to spend those dollars. unfortunately, they're buying our debt and perpetuating our consumerism here and our debt here. but immediately, there's a benefit to us because those dollars come back. but also when you get products, if you're buying products cheaper over there, let's say the computer cost $100 instead of $1,000. well, the person's just saved $900. that helps the economy. that $900 stays in that person's pocket. so whether it's shoes or computer.

so we shouldn't be frightened about trade or sending money on. but we have to look at the reason why they're doing this. i mean, even the car companies, there's obviously a problem with car companies here. they're in bigger trouble. we had to bail them out. there are foreign companies that build cars in this country and they make a living out of it. so it's more complex than that. but we have to do whatever we can. i think the -- i think the -- the union problem, the right to work states, and of course i've chided senator santorum on this because he has voted, you know, against right to work. but we have to change these conditions to invite people back. but believe me the regulations and the fact that we are the issuer of the reserve currency of the world is a real temporary blessing for us because it's easy for us to export our money. that's unfortunately our greatest export. and they're still taking our money. soon though they're going to quit. and this whole ball game is going to end and we better get prepared for it. [ applause ]

senator santorum, go ahead, quickly. >> i've already signed a pledge and said i would sign a national right to work bill. when i was a senator from pennsylvania which is a state that is not a right to work state. the state made a decision not to be right to work. i wasn't going to go to washington and overturn that from the federal government and do that to the state. that's a very different position. >> quickly, sir. >> yeah, the response should be, yes, i understand that, that's the way politics works. you voted the way you thought -- >> representative government works. >> yes, for your state. as president are you going to represent south carolina or pennsylvania? that's really the question. >> well, maybe you didn't hear what i said. i said i would support a national right to work law and sign it into law. and would support it and advocate for one. >> let's continue the economic conversation with some input from a question from twitter. #cnndebate. what is your take on sopa? how do you believe it affects americans? for those who have not been following it, sopa is the

stop internet piracy act. opponents say it's censorship. our parent company, time warner, says we need a law like this because some of it's products, movies, programming and the like, being ripped off online. let me start with you, mr. speaker. there's two competing ends, two engines even of our economy here. at odds on this. how do you deal with it? >> you ask the conservative about the economic interests of hollywood. i'm weighing it. i'm not rushing in. i'm trying to think through all of the many fond left wing people who are so eager to protect. on the other hand, you have virtually everybody who's technologically advanced including google and youtube and facebook and all the folks who say this is going to totally mess up the internet. the bill in its current form is written badly. and leads to a range of censorship that is totally

unacceptable. well, i favor freedom. and i think that if you -- if we have a patent office, we have copyright law. if a company finds it has genuinely been infringed upon it has the right to sue. but the idea we're going to preemptively have the government start censoring the internet on behalf of giant corporations, economic interests, strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do. [ applause ] >> mr. speaker, governor romney, these companies complain that their software, that their publishing, their movies, their shows, are being ripped off. >> i think you got it just about right. the truth of the matter is that the law as written is far too infetus -- intrusive, far too expansive, far too threatening, the freedom of speech and

movement of information across the internet. it would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in america. which is the internet. at the same time, we care very deeply about intellectual content going across the internet. if we can find a way to very narrowly go after those people who are pirating, we'll do that. a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the internet and saying who can pass what to whom, i think that's a mistake. i'd say no, i'm standing for freedom. >> it's a big issue in the country right now. congressman paul and senator santorum, your views on this one quickly. >> i was the first republican to sign on with a host of democrats to oppose this law. and we have worked -- we have had a concerted effort. i feel like we're making achievement. this bill is not going to pass. but watch out for the next one. i am pleased that the attitude is sort of mellowed up here. because the republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. this is a good example on why it's good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring

people together. freedom and the constitution bring factions together. i think this is a good example. >> those who support the law, senator, argue tens of thousands of jobs are at stake. >> i don't support this law. i agree everybody with up here, that is goes too far. i will not agree with everybody up here there isn't something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people. the internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people. and particularly when we're talking about, in this case we're talking about entities offshore that are doing so, that are pirating things. so the idea that the government -- that you have businesses in this country and the government has no role to try to protect the intellectual property of people who have those rights in this country from people overseas pirating them and then selling them back into this country, it's great, i mean, i'm for free, but i'm not for people abusing the law. that's what's happening right now. i think something proper should be done. i agree this goes too far.

the idea that, you know, anything goes on the internet, where did that come from? where in america does it say anything goes? we have laws. we respect the law and the rule of law is an important thing and property rights should be respected. >> all right, gentlemen, i want to thank you. audience, applaud if you wish. take one more break. much more of our southern republican debate to come, including this question. after months of campaigning, if these candidates could do one thing over what would it be? for my arthritis, i use

new capzasin quick relief gel. (announcer) starts working on contact and at the nerve level. to block pain for hours. new capzasin, takes the pain out of arthritis.

i'm john king. this is the cnn southern republican presidential debate. many of you are watching online. commenting on twitter, facebook and cnn.com. when we come back, we'll ask the four candidates for president this question, after months and months of campaigning, if you could do one thing over, what would be it? stay with us. there is a platform built for the purpose of driving innovation. one that's transforming how companies from every industry-- and of every size-- are doing business. a platform built for now.

and for what's next. this...is the cisco intelligent network. cisco. and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today. learn more at anga.us.

new capzasin quick relief gel. (announcer) starts working on contact and at the nerve level. to block pain for hours. new capzasin, takes the pain out of arthritis. welcome back to the southern republican presidential debate. i'm john king. we're live in charleston, south carolina. a lot more issues to wonder through tonight. just want to take this moment, after months and months of campaigning, maybe this is fun, maybe it isn't. speaker gingrich, i want to start with you. you're at this for months and you're out there.

if there's one thing, just one thing in this campaign you could do over, what would it be? >> i would skip the opening three months where i hired regular consultants and tried to figure out how to be a normal candidate and just go straight at being a big solutions internet-based campaign from day one. just didn't work. it's not who i am. i'm not capable of being a sort of traditional candidate. very idea-oriented candidate. i think the internet makes it possible to create a momentum of ideas that's very exciting. >> governor romney? >> work to get 25 more votes in iowa, that's for sure. and let's see, i guess -- i guess i also would go back and take every moment i spent talking about one of the guys on the stage and spent that time talking about barack obama. the truth is that barack obama

is just way over his head. he's taking our country down a path that is very dangerous. he's making us more and more like a european social welfare state. he's making us an entitlement society. he's taking away the rights off our citizens. look, the right course for america is to return to our fundamental principles. i would be talking about that more and probably about my colleagues less because frankly any one of them would be a better president than the one we got. >> senator. >> i thought about that. you know what, i wouldn't change a thing. for me to be standing here in the final four is about as amazing a thing i could ever conceive of happening. someone who had no money. who lost his last race. who everyone basically ignored. as i traveled around south carolina, iowa and new hampshire. and just talked to people. town hall meeting. 700 town hall meetings. just going around.

and it proved that good ideas and hard work still pay off in america. and it just was an affirmation to me of the great process we have. >> congressman. >> i can't think of any one thing i would do differently, but i would continue to do what i'm always trying to do. one thing i believe about a free society is it provides the opportunity for us to work for our own virtue and excellence. and in campaigning, i think i can still learn a lot about becoming a better deliverer of a message and the conviction i have, i think if i spoke a little slower and maybe with more conviction, i could do a better job. i think in general i could -- i will continue to work on delivering a message which i think is a great message. >> gentlemen, thank you. >> let's get back to our issues discussion. let's begin with a question down in our audience. >> i would like to ask the issue of amnesty of the illegal

aliens. would you -- how would you secure the american citizens would keep the jobs in line first for them. >> mr. speaker, let's start with you on that. she mentioned the word amnesty. you explained your position in this campaign. as you know, some conservatives have said, no, mr. speaker, you say you can't deport maybe it's 10, 11, some people say as high as 20 million people illegally in this country. you say it's unrealistic to deport them. some would have to be given the path to legal status. as you know, many conservatives say no, that's amnesty, mr. speaker. >> let's start with i think you have to first of all control the border. i don't think you can pass a comprehensive bill because nobody trusts the government. first you control the border. we have a bill that would have it controlled by january 1, 2014. i'm prepared both to waive all federal regulations to get it built and controlled by 2014. i'm prepared to move up by half the people who work for homeland

security. they have 23,000 employees in washington. i'd be prepared to move half of them to texas, arizona, new mexico, if that's what it took to control the border. [ applause ] second, i favor english as the official language of government. i think that creates a continuity. [ applause ] third, i would actually modernize the legal system of visas, because currently we make it too difficult to come here legally and too easy to come here illegally. fourth, i would make it much easier to deport people. so if you were a noncitizen who belonged, say, to ms-13, an el salvadorian gang, we should be able to get rid of you in two weeks, not two years. we should have a much easier deportation. i favor a guest worker program. i would outsource it to american express, visa or mastercard because they can run it without fraud and the federal government's hopeless. so you want a system that is accurate and that is anti-fraud,

which leads you then to be able to say to private employers, if you hire somebody who's illegal, we're going to have an enormous economic sanction, because there will be no excuse once you have a guest worker program that's legal. then you get down to the question of people who are already here. i believe in what i just described most of them will go home. the one group i singled out, and we do have a lively debate on this up here. there are people who have been here 25 years. they've been working. they've been paying their bills. they're married. they have children. they may have grandchildren. they may be in your church. now, i don't think we're going to deport grandmothers and grandfathers who have 25 years of networking and relationships in a community. i've suggested a world war ii-style draft board where local citizens would review the applications. you could only apply if you proved that you were financially responsible. you proved you had genuine family ties. and you had an american family sponsor you. you still wouldn't get amnesty. you wouldn't get citizenship.

you would get a residency permit. in order to apply for a citizenship, you would have to go back to your own country and get in line behind everybody else and be processed as a person from that country. but i think this is a doable solvable practical solution. and i think trying to deport grandmothers and grandfathers will never pass the congress and would never be accepted by the american people. >> governor romney, is that the doable practical solution? >> you know, the issue of illegal immigration is relatively straight forward compared to the tough issues we face. issues like how we're going to compete with china as it grows its military of extraordinary scale and navy of that scale. how we're going to deal with radical violent jihadists. medicare, medicaid, social security. making sure they're solvent. we've got real challenge, that are tough. this one is not tough. you build a fence. you have enough border patrol agents to secure the fence. you also have a system of giving to people who come here legally an identification card and you expect employers and insist

employers check that card before they hire someone. if they don't check the card, if they don't run it through the u.s. database and get an instant response from the government or from mastercard, visa, american express or whomever, those employers are going to get severely sanctioned. if you do that, we solve the problem of illegal immigration. with regards to those who come here illegally now, we're not going to round them all up and deport them but we're not going to give them a preferential pathway to become citizens. they need to go back home, apply for citizenship, apply for permanent residency, like everyone else. coming here illegally should not give you an advantage being able to become a permanent resident of the united states. >> do you have the same view, senator? >> well, i come at it from -- as being the son of an immigrant. my grandfather came to this country and brought my dad when he was 7 years old. that's the story that i love and am familiar with and believe in my heart of hearts that

immigration is -- people who want to come to this country and be americans is really the continuing infusion of freedom and enthusiasm for our country. but when you come here illegally, the first act you take is to break our law. that's a different story. two folks here. both governor romney and speaker gingrich. mitt romney has a position now that people have to go home. he said a few years ago there could be a pathway to citizenship. now he's changed his position. i understand that. he's done that on a couple of occasions. speaker gingrich believes there needs a legal pathway. that's what president obama's position is. again, just like health care, we need a clear contrast. someone who can say, look, i have always been for making sure the law's enforced and enforced fairly. i agree for people who have been here 25 years and maybe have to be separated from their family, if they were picked up and

deported, but my father grieved for his father when he came to this country and lived here five years. and other folks who sacrificed. who came here to america. did it the right way according to the law. because america was worth it. and if you want to be an american, the first thing you should do is respect our laws and obey our laws. and the idea that someone who came here and lived here 25 years has only broken one law. if they worked for 25 years, they've been breaking the law for 25 years. if they've been working, they have probably stolen someone's social security number and they've committed social security fraud. this is not just a single occurrence. it's an ongoing issue. if we treat people like that differently than we do with a mother who out of a desperate situation goes out and shoplifts or does something and gets thrown in jail, what are we saying? we're going to treat people

differently? i don't think so. >> you mentioned both governor romney and the speaker -- take a moment quickly. i want to bring congressman paul in the question. >> i ran for president four years ago. this was the position i described when i ran four years ago. wrote a book, laid out my position. i actually agreed i think with what you just said. i believe those people who have come here illegally should not be given a preferential path to become permanent residents or citizens of this country. you shake your head. >> i'll be happy to show you the quotes of what you said. people should have a pathway to citizenship. not citizens, pathway to be legal in this country, not citizenship. >> the pathway i've described is those individuals who have come here illegally should be able to register in this country, have a temporary period to arrange their affairs and return home and get to the back of the line like everyone else. and the position i've had is people who have come here illegally should not be given a preferential pathway relative to others but should be able to get

in the same line at the back of the line. i agree with the senator. i'm sorry you don't acknowledge my agreement. but i agree with you. that this is a nation of laws. at the same time, i think it's important. i'm glad you mentioned this. i didn't in my answer. we need to underscore the fact we're a party of legal immigration. we like legal immigration. we want legal immigration. and to protect legal immigration, we want to stop illegal immigration. we don't want to do anything that would suggest to people come on in here, just wait long enough, whether it's five years or ten years. wait long enough and we'll take you all in on an amnesty basis. i want people to get in line legally. >> congressman paul, you're from a border state. if this is a problem, you've heard your colleagues talk about and making sure employers, companies that hire large numbers of people, making sure they get the message. what about individuals? about a quarter of the illegal immigrants in the country work for individuals. if this is a problem, if i hire

an illegal immigrant to clean my home, should i be prosecuted for doing that? >> i don't believe you should be. those laws are misdirected. that makes you the policeman, the businessman the policeman, the catholic church a policeman if they do anything to help an illegal immigrant. it should be the law enforcers and the government border guards. i don't agree with those laws. i don't agree with those laws. doesn't mean i'm soft in the issue of illegal immigration. i can't imagine anybody standing up here and saying, oh, i'm for illegal immigration. i think what we fail to do is look at the incentives. it has a lot to do with economics. there's an economic incentives for them to come. for immigrants to come. there's also an incentive for some of our people in this country not to take a job that's a low-paying job. you're not supposed to say that but that is true. there's also an economic incentive in the welfare state for immigrants to come in.

in texas, we suffer from the fact that there are federal mandates we have to take care of their medical needs and educational needs and it bankrupts our school systems and our hospitals. so it's those mandates. we need a more generous immigration policy. we need more resources. i find the resources are all overseas. when i was in the military, i was on the pakistan/afghanistan border and that is a no-man's land. you can't see the border. at least we can see the river south of texas. we know where the rio grande is. we're over there fighting and dying over that border. looking for problems. why don't we take those resources and quit pretending we can defend those borders and put them on our borders and take care of our needs here? [ applause ] >> i just think if you're going to raise immigration, i want to make the point from the very first day i'm inaugurated, i

will issue an executive order to the justice department to drop the lawsuits against south carolina, alabama and arizona. the federal government should enforce the law, not stop states from helping it enforce the law. >> i think we have nodding heads. i assume we have agreement on that. another issue this week. that's the life issue. mr. speaker your campaign sent out a mailing to south carolina republicans across this state. essentially questioning governor romney's commitment on this issue. saying he has changed his position on the abortion issue. if you recall, i moderated a debate back in new hampshire in june. there were seven candidates then. we have four tonight. when they came up, we talked about it briefly. then i asked, is that a fair game, an issue in this campaign, or is it case closed? mr. cain who was with us at the time said case closed. i paused. no one else took the opportunity to speak up. if it was case closed then, why

is it a legitimate issue now? >> you just said nobody else spoke. nobody else said yes it was case closed. hermain cain said case closed. the rest of us -- it wasn't a particular issue. we are allowed to run our own campaigns. it's not an automatic requirement we fit in your debate schedule. this is a very straight forward question. governor romney -- and i accept this. governor romney has said that he had a experience in a lab and became pro-life. i accept that. after he became pro-life, romney care does pay for tax-paid abortions. romney care has written into it planned parenthood. the largest abortion provider in the country. by name. does not have any right to life group written into it. he did appoint pro-abortion judges. and a branch of the government which included his appointees did agree to fund an abortion clinic for planned parenthood. all that occurred after he had become pro-life.

now, those are all facts which we validated and essentially that's a legitimate part of the campaign. to say, okay, if you're genuinely pro-life, how come these things are occurring? >> governor romney, he questions whether you're genuinely pro-life. >> i'm not questioned on character and integrity very often. i don't feel like standing here for that but let me clarify the things which are wrong and what the speaker just said. and he can get a scintilla of truth in there to make it seem like this is a significant issue. let's go through one by one. in romney care, there's no mention of abortion whatsoever. the courts in massachusetts, th supreme court, was the body that decided at all times if there was any subsidy of health care in massachusetts that one receive abortion care. that was not done by me. i would have vetoed such a thing. that was done by the courts. it's true, somewhere in that bill of ours, 70 pages, there's

the mention of the word planned parenthood. it describes a person at a technical advisory board about payment structures. there's no requirement or no participation of planned parenthood in our health care plan. with regards to judges, i appointed probably 50 or 60 judges at the trial court level mostly. the great majority. these were former prosecutors, 80% of them former prosecutors. we don't have a litmus test for appointing judges. asking them if they're pro-life or not pro-life. these are people going after crimes and the like. i didn't get to appoint any supreme court justices. i am pro-life. and the massachusetts citizens for life and several other family-oriented groups wrote a letter two weeks ago that said they watched my record, i'm an avidly pro-life governor. i am a pro-life governor. i'm a pro-life individual. i have to be honest here. it is -- this is not the time to be doubting people's words or questioning their integrity. i am pro-life. by the way, is there any

possibility i've ever made a mistake in that regard? i didn't see something i should have seen? possibly. you can count on me as president of the united states to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas. i'll reverse the policies of this president. thank you. >> mr. speaker, he says you're questioning his integrity. >> i yield to senator santorum. >> i just want to make out one point. a lot of legislators here in the room and they know this to be the truth. that if you write a piece of legislation and you say medical care and you do not specifically mention that abortion is not covered, we know from every court decision at the state and federal level the federal court and state courts require it. that is something every governor knows, every state legislature knows. when governor romney did not put that in the bill, you can't say, oh, surprise. he knew very well the court would make them cover abortions. that's number one. number two -- number two, what we're talking about here is

someone who's not going to just check the boxes and say, yes, i'm pro-life. we got a lot of folks who just whisper into the microphone that they're pro-life. then you have other people go out and fight the battle and defend life and come out of the trenches and actually work to make sure the dignity of every human life, innocent human life in this country, is protected. i've done that. [ applause ] i would say in contrast with speaker gingrich who on the social issues in particular when he was speaker and even afterwards, they were pushing the back bench. a pledge to america that the congress tried to put together in 2010. i got phone calls ringing off the hook that speaker gingrich went in and said keep social issues out of the 2010 elections. we need you to come in and help, try to convince these folks to put that back into the pledge. we don't need someone in the back rooms will say social

issues are in the front, the back of the bus and come out here and try to pretend they're pro-life. >> governor romney, speaker gingrich, he mentioned you both. please quickly. >> senator, i admire the fact you've been a stalwart defender of pro-life in a state where that's not easy. i was also a governor in a state where being pro-life was not easy. i battled hard. what came to my desk was a piece of legislation that said we're going to redefine when life begins. in our state, we said life began at conception. the legislature wanted to change that to say no we're going to do that at implantation. i vetoed that. the legislature also said we want to allow cloning for purposes of creating new embryos of testing. i vetoed that. they didn't want abstinence education. i pursued abstinence education. there was an effort to have a morning after pill provided to young women in their teens. i vetoed that. i stood as a pro-life governor. that's why the massachusetts pro-life family association supported my record as governor,

endorsed my record as governor. i did my very best to be a pro-life governor. i will be a pro-life president. i'm proud of that. i wrote about that in my book. my record is solid. i appreciate your record. i hope you'll appreciate mine. >> mr. speaker, he mentioned you specifically. then we want to move on. please respond. >> well, the fact is, i voted with henry hyde, who is the leading pro-life advocate in the house for a generation. the only one we disagreed on was welfare reform which they scored for reasons we never understood. but otherwise was a perfect record on pro-life. when i was speaker, we twice passed a bill that actually rick was active in to end partial birth abortion. twice it was vetoed by clinton but twice we passed it. in the 2010 election, the freshman class has the highest percentage of pro-life members ever in history and my job was to maximize their winning and the fact is we won a huge victory in 2010 with the largest

number of pro-life members ever elected in a freshman class. >> all right, let's take another question. i'll bring you in on this one. let's take a question now from social media. question -- before we move on, you want in on this issue? they want you in on this issue. would you like in on this issue? >> john, once again, it's a medical subject. i'm a doctor. no, i do want to make a couple comments because i can remember the very early years studying obstetrics i was told -- it was before the age of abortion. i was told taking care of a woman that's pregnant, you have two patients. i think that solves a lot of the problem about, you know, when life begins and all. [ applause ] i also experienced a time later on in my training in the 1960s when the culture was changing. the vietnam war was going on. the drugs were there.

pornography came in and abortion became prevalent even though it was illegal. the morality of the country changed. the law followed up. when morality changed, it reflects on the laws. the law's very important. we should have these laws. law will not correct the basic problem. that's the morality of the people. that we must do. now, just very briefly, i want to talk a little bit about that funding. because the flaw there is if you send funding out, you say, well, you can have it for birth control but not for abortion, all funds are fungible. even funds that go to any hospital, if you say, well, it's not for birth control and it's not for planned parenthood, it's not for abortion, if you send it to the hospital, they can still use that money. this is an indictment of government-run medicine because you never can sort that all out. you need the government out of that business or you will always argue over who's paying what bills. >> very quickly, senator.

>> i think that was directed at me. i would just say this, congressman paul has a national right to life voting record of 50%. which is pretty much what harry reid's national right to life voting record is. so for -- to go out and say you're someone who stands up for the right to life, you repeatedly vote against bills on a federal level to promote the right to life. and you say that this is an individual, personal decision or state decision. life should be protected. you should have the willingness to stand up on a federal law and every level of government. what our law protects. that's a federal issue, not a state issue. >> i wasn't thinking about you when i was giving my statements. you are overly sensitive. but it is true that we have a disagreement on how we approach it.

i follow what my understanding is of the constitution. and it does allow for the states to deal with difficult problems. matter of fact, it allows the states to deal with almost all the problems. if you look at it. it is not given -- these powers aren't given to the congress. i see abortion as a violent act. all other violence is handled by the states. murder, burglary, violence. that's a state issue. so don't try to say i'm less pro-life because i want to be particular about the way we do it and allow the states the prerogative. this is the solution. this is the solution. because if we would allow the states to write their laws, take away the jurisdiction by a majority vote in the congress, you repeal roe versus wade overnight, instead of waiting year after year to change the court system. >> all right. we need to take one more break, gentlemen. stand by. less than 35 hours away now from the polling opening in south carolina, a state that is crucial, often decisive, in republican presidential politics. stay with us.

hear the candidate's closing arguments to the voters of a state that takes pride in picking presidents.

welcome back to the southern republican presidential debate, we're in charlestown, south carolina tonight. gentlemen, we're running out of time. time flies. wish we could stay all night. i don't suspect you have campaigning to do. you know the history of the state, inside 35 hours now from voters in south carolina going to the polls and we all know the history of this state in modern times the winner of the south carolina republican primary has gone on to be your party's nominee. we have an interesting race at the moment. senator santorum wins iowa, senator romney wins new

hampshire, everybody's waiting to see, most people believe governor romney wins here he would be the prohibitive favorite. i want each of you, congressman paul, make your case, make your case, south carolina essentially faces this decision, not so fast, let's continue the race or embrace governor romney in make your case to the people of south carolina in these final hours. >> well south carolina is known for their respect for liberty, and a lot of people will ask the question -- [ applause ] -- they will ask the question in a way, what will you do for south carolina or what will you do for new hampshire? what will you do for the various states. if you understand liberty it's equal for everybody and benefits everybody so if you have a protection of liberty which is the purpose of the constitution, protection of individual liberty and that means you protect the private property rights system and if you do that, that benefits everybody, and this is what we have to do is convince people we can bring people together with the understanding of what those beliefs were that

made america great, and it is freedom. it isn't this continued spending money and debt. this is the reason we're in a mountain of debt and we have to deal with it. we really never got around to talking about that tonight, and one of my very modest proposals -- [ applause ] -- my modest proposal is the first year cut $1 trillion out of the budget to get started. because the debt bubble is the great burden, it's a burden to all of us and i mentioned earlier the programs are going to go down if we don't get our budget under control and we have to be willing to look at overseas spending and all of the entitlement system here in this country. [ applause ] >> mr. speaker? >> well let me start i want to thank cnn and i want to thank the people of charlestown for a very, very interesting and useful evening, and we have a real challenge. it is imperative that we defeat barack obama.

[ applause ] this is i believe the most dangerous president of our lifetime, and if he is reelected after the disaster has been the level of radicalism of his second term will be truly frightening, but in addition to beating obama, we have to have a team victory in the senate and the house and we have to have a principled victory so the american people will send a signal that in january of 2013, they want very dramatic, very deep change in washington. [ applause ] i believe the only way to create the momentum is to be able to overcome his billion-dollar campaign with a series of debates which decisively convince the american people that a radical who is incompetent cannot be reelected and i hope you will vote for me on saturday as the person who could do that. [ cheers and applause ] >> senator romney?

>> i agree with a lot of what these last two men have said. i think this is an absolutely critical election. i believe that the founders took very careful thought in the preparation of the words of our declaration of independence that said that the creator had endowed us with certain unalienable rights, not the state but the creator, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and by virtue of those words the pursuit of happiness, this became the place on the planet where we were able to pursue our dreams as we might choose. people came here from all over the world wishing to pursue happiness in their own way and that has made us the most powerful economic engine in the world, where we can guard freedom because our military is the strongest in the world, coming from that powerful economic engine. this president's changing that. he's changing the very nature of america. he's turning us not from a merit society, an opportunity society, where people are free to choose their own course, but instead he's making an entitlement society where people think

they're entitled to what other people have, where government takes from some and gifts gives to others. we need to return to the principles on which this company was founded. our president said i think in a very revealing way that he wants to fundamentally transform america. he's wrong. we need to restore the values that made america the hope of the earth, and i understand those values. i will do everything in my power to restore those values by keeping america free, by fighting for free enterprise, by standing up to president obama and pointing out how he has made it almost impossible for our private sector to reboot. i will get america working again, i will defeat barack obama and keep america as it's always been, the shining city on the hill. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> senator santorum. >> i agree with governor romney, 100% in what he said about what the stakes are. the question is, who is the best person to take on president obama? i would make the argument that a

conviction conservative who has a clear contrast with president obama on the most important issues of the day is the best person, someone who has a clear contrast on health care, a clear contrast on global warming, a clear contrast on the wall street bailout, talk about the one issue that, huge issue in the last couple years where government has come in and taken over and both newt and governor romney have supported that. we need someone who not only says now they're going to staun stand up for conservative issues, big issues but someone who has a track record of doing so and winning. i'm the only one in this race that's ever defeated a democratic incumbent. i did it for the congress and i did it for the senate. [ applause ] we're the only people in this race that actually has won a swing state, and i did it because i have a plan like i outlined today. i come from those states. i come from the background.

i come with the working class and strong credentials not just with a plan but with the character that fits in with exactly the voters with he need, those reagan democrats in pennsylvania and ohio and michigan and indiana, and wisconsin. those are the votes and those are the stakes. you want to win? elect someone who can win in the states we have to win, and draw the clear contrast with president obama. south carolina, you've been told in the past you got to settle for a moderate because they can win, and you said when the last time we had a situation like this in 1980, you said no, we're going to take the strong conviction conservative, and you voted for reagan before reagan was the reagan we knew. vote for the one who can do the job that america needs. vote for me. [ cheers and applause ] >> that concludes our debate this evening. i thank all of our candidates for their time tonight and thank our wonderful audience. we thank the people of south carolina. i do appreciate it and i know the candidates do as well. tune in for cnn, 6:00 p.m.

eastern on saturday our special coverage of the south carolina presidential primary. also next thursday we'll be live in jacksonville, florida, for a republican presidential debate there. this could be the most exciting night in the 2012 presidential election so far. >> south carolina is voting and the results could shake up the republican race. >> south carolina votes for values. we're murdering our libbers, our civil liberties. >> if you thawed iowa and new hampshire were intense, you haven't seen anything yet. >> this is going to be armageddon. >> now it's south carolina's choice. mitt romney is shooting for another win with only three opponents standing in his way. >> it's going to be all guns blazing in my direction. >> newt gingrich may have the best shot at romney and he's taking it with the gloves off. >> why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to owe bbamobama?

>> in the southern brawl for conservative votes everyone is a threat. >> we are danger to the status quo. >> no one is spared. >> republican congressman voted to reprimand the speaker of the house, first time in history. >> will there be a bruising foo igt to the convention? dplo don't buy the baloney we need a moderate to win. >> why should everybody walk away? >> will gingrich pull off his first victory and prove he's a competitor? >> i think we have a real chance to win here. >> or will romney be unstoppable? >> change is coming and the name of that change is mitt romney. >> the polls are closing, the voters are choosing and the republican nomination is on the line. 1y50irks >> we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world to the special edition of "the situation room." the polls e