governor clinton, now president bill clinton. >> too close call. >> governor george bush re-elected. >> president-elect of the united states. >> this is cnn. tonight, the final face-off before florida voters choose. a presidential race that's breaking all the rules. comes to a state that wrote the book on election cliffhangers. >> you're are in florida. >> that's how important florida is. >> only one thing is certain in this contest. expect the unexpected. >> you have three candidates who have won three primaries. >> you're going to have to make a decision. which of the three should become your nominee? i think you know. >> tonight, the candidates together in jacksonville, florida. newt gingrich, the south carolina winner, hoping to capitalize on his recent

victory, and his strong record in debates. >> it's not that i am a good debater. it is that i articulate the deepest felt values of the american people. >> mitt romney, the new hampshire winner, trying to run his appeal and reclaim the title of front-runner. >> we're not choosing a talk show host. we're choosing the person who should be the leader of the free world. >> rick santorum. the iowa winner. looking for a new burst of momentum after his upset in the heartland. >> there was one race that was in nobody's backyard and we won that race. >> ron paul, still in search of a win. a fierce competitor with a diehard following. >> we have the determination and we will win this battle for peace and prosperity. >> now, the 2012 republicans in florida. it's the biggest battleground so far, and this could be the most

important debate yet. from the university of north florida in jacksonville, this is the florida republican presidential debate. tonight, the four republican candidates are here to tell us why they're the most qualified to take on president barack obama. i'm wolf blitzer. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world and also want to thank our co-sponsors. the republican party of florida, and the hispanic leadership network. members of the florida republican party are here in the audience with us, and some of them will have a chance to question the candidates. in addition, our sister network, cnn in espanol is stand big in

miami with members of the hispanic leadership network who will also have a chance to question the candidates. it's now time to welcome the 2012 republican presidential contenders. joining us onstage, texas congressman ron paul. former massachusetts governor, mitt romney. the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. and the former u.s. senator from pennsylvania, rick santorum.

ladies and gentlemen, the republican candidates for president of the united states. candidate, please, take your podiums while i tell you more about how this debate will work tonight. i'll be the moderator and as i mentioned our partners from the republican party of florida and the hispanic leadership network will also ask questions. i'll follow-up and try to guide the discussion. candidates, i'll try to make sure each of you gets your fair share of questions. you'll have one minute to answer. 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals and i'll certainly make sure you get time to respond if you're singled out for criticism. now the candidates, introduce yourselves to florida voters. please, keep it short. here's an sample. i'm wolf blitzer and i'm thrilled to here on on the campus ever the university of north florida in jacksonville. senator santorum, let's begin

with you. >> i'm rick santorum and i'm thrilled toer here on the campus of north florida. [ applause ] and i'm especially thrilled because i'm here way north florida resident who lives right down the beach from jacksonville. my mom, who's 93 years old is with me here tonight, and -- [ applause ] i better just stop right there. >> i'm newt gingrich from the neighboring state of georgia, i'm delighted to be in jacksonville which will be the site of the next nuclear aircraft carrier battle group.

>> i'm mitt romney, and i'm pleased to be here with my wife and my oldest son tag romney, we're the parents of five sons. five daughter-in-laws, 16 grandkids and it's great to be back in jacksonville. thank you. >> i am ron paul. i'm a congressman from texas, 12 terms. i am the champion of a sound monetary system a gold standard, as it is under the constitution, and a foreign policy based on strength which rejects the notion that we should be the policemen of the world and that we should be a nation builder. we need -- [ applause ] >> all right. let's start with a question from the audience. >> hello. can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration, while

preserving it's rights of those who seek to immigrate legally? >> senator santorum, let's take that question. but i also, in the course of that question, express your opinion on what we heard from governor romney, that self-deportation or illegal immigrants leaving the country v voluntarily is a possible solution? >> the possible solution i actually agree with governor romney. bottom line, we freed to enforce the laws of this country. we are a country of laws. people come to this country. my grandfather came to this country because he wanted to come to a country that respected him, and a country that respects you is a country that lives by the laws that they have. and the first act when they come to this country is to disobey a law is no a particularly welcome way to enter this country. i've said from the very beginning, we have to have a country that not only do you respect the law when you come here, but respect the law when you stay here and people have come to this country illegally,

have broken the law repeatedly. ful unless you're here on trust fund, working ill locally, probably stolen someone social security number illegally. it's not just one thing you've done wrong, a lot of things. as a result of that, i believe people should not be able to stay here, and so i think we need to enforce the law at the border, secure the border. secondly, we need to have employer enforce finance, everify and we need to have not only employer sanction gut people found working here illegally, they need to be deported nap is again, the principle of having a rule of law and living by it. i am very much in favor of immigration. my dad came to this country and i'm someone who believes that we need immigration. we are not replacing ourselves. we have, we need not only immigration for, to keep our population going but we need immigration, because immigrants bring a vitality and love of this country that infuses this country with great energy and so

i support legal immigration, but we freed to enforce the law and in fact, if you don't create an opportunity for people to work, they will leave, because they can't afford to stay here. >> speaker gingrich, you've suggested that self-deportation add advocated by governor romney is in your words, an abonable fantasy. why? >> you should control the border. i would do january 1 of 2014. fix legal immigration in terms of visas so people can come and go more easily than doing it illegally. also make deportation easier so when you deport people who shouldn't be here, 13 gang member, for example, very quick and very clear. we should have a guest worker program. probably american express, visa, mastercard, minimize fraud, which the federal government won't do, and i actually agree the self-deportation will occur if you're single. only here a short time. there are millions of people who

are faced with that would go back home, file for a guest worker program and might or might not come back. the one group i singled out, people that have been here a very long time, married, my well have children and grandchildren and i would suggest that grandmothers or grandfathers aren't likely to self-deport. then you've got a question. i offered a proposal. a citizen panel to review whether or not somebody who had been here a very long time who had family and who had an american family willing to sponsor them, should be allowed to get residency but not citizenship so that they would be able to stay within the law but would not have any chance of becoming a citizen, unless they went back home. i don't think grandmothers and grandfatherless self-deport. >> governor romney, the few time, i think only once they experimented with self-deportation. only a handful of individuals voluntarily left. what makes you think that program could work? >> you just heard the last two

speakers indicate they support the concept. simply, for those who come into the country legally, they would be given an identification card points out they're able to work here and have an everify system effective and efficient so em mothers dorm who is legally here and employers hire someone without a card or checking to see whether it's counterfeited, those employers severely sanctioned. if do you that, people who have come here illegally won't be able to find work and would tend to leave the country or self-deport. i don't think anyone is interested in rounding up people around the kubts and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants into america. now, let's look at, people say, isn't that unfair to those 11 million here? and lived their lives here? perhapsed raised children here? it's important to remember, there you three groups of people are concern to us. one of those that have come here legally. 11 million. the second is a group of people brought over by co-yotte, many

cases oh bused by she chew of coming in ill leelee and the third, 4 million to 50 million waiting am home's in their own mations trying to get here illegally. have family member here's asking them to come here. grandparents, uncle, aunts. those are the people we have a responsibility for. the second group, abuzed, we're concerned about them. focus our attention how to make legal immigration work and stop illegal immigration. >> all right. governor -- congressman paul, you're from texas. the state with the longest border with mexico. is this a viable option? what we just heard? >> well, talk about it, but i don't see it as being very practical. i think it's -- a much bigger problem. you can't deal with immigration without dealing with the economy. the weaker the economy and more resentment when illegals come in. if you have a healthy, vibrant economy, it's not a problem. we're usuallily looking for workers. today's circumstances, a lot of business, looking for work aernsd don't have them. they're not at well trained

here. also, the way we're handling our boreds is hurting our economy because the business people, you know, visitors have a hard time coming in. we don't have a well managed border. so i think we need more resources and most of the other candidates would agree we need more resources but where are the resources coming from? i have a suggestion. i think we spend way too much time worrying about the border between afghanistan and pakistan. use some of those resources on our own border. >> speaker gingrich, you had an ad, but pupped it this week, you described governor romney as the most anti-immigrant candidate. why did you do that? >> why did i describe him that way? because in the original conversations about deportation, the position i took which he attacked ferociously was that grandmothers and grandfathers aren't going to be successfully deported. we as nation are not going to walk into some family, and by the way, end up in a church,

which will declare them a sanctuary. we're not walking in there and grab a grandmother out and kick them out. you have to be realistic in your indignation. i want to control the border. i want english to be the official language of government. i want us to have a lot -- [ applause ] i am prepared to are very tough and bold but also prepared to be realistic you because i've actually will to pass ledge sflags washington and i don't believe, and on realistic promise is going to get through, but i do believe if there's some level of humanity for people who have been here a long time, we can pass legislation that will decisively reduce illegal tishgs decisively control the border and will once again mean the people who are in america are here legally. >> i just want to make sure i understood. he is still the most anti-immigrant candidate? >> of the four of us, yes. >> gd, governor. >> simply inexcusable. and actually, senator marco rubio came to my defense and said that ad was inexcusable,

infamiliarer to and inappropriate. my father was born in motion coe. my wife's father born in wales. they came to this country. the idea i'm anti-imsgrant repulsive. don't use a temple like that. you can sigh we disagree on certain policy fops say enforcing the u.s. law to protect our borders, to welcome people here legally, to expand legal immigration as i approved that that's somehow anti-immigrant? it's simply the kind of over the top rhetoric that has characterized american politics too long, and i'm glad that marco rubio called you out on it, glad you withdrew it. i think you should apologize for it and recognize having differences of opinions on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged epithets. >> tell you what -- [ applause ] >> i'll give you an opportunity

positive self-describe. tell me what language you would use to describe somebody who thinks that deporting a grandmother or a grandfather from their family, just tell me the language. i'm perfectly happy to explain what language it is. >> mr. speaker i think i described following the law as it exists in this country, which it to say i'm not going around rounding peel up and deporting them. come here legally, get a work permit do not come here legally, do not get a work permit, those who don't get work will tend over time to self-deport. i'm not going to find grandmothers take them out of homes and deport them. those are your words, not mine words. to use that rhetoric suggests to people somehow if you're not willing to keep people here who violate the law you're anti-ip grant. nothing is further from the truth. i am pro-imgant and want people to come to america with skill, vitality and vibe bans. i want them to come legally. grandmothers live on the other side of the border waiting to come here legally. i want them to come here too,

not just those that are already here. >> so we have gone, we've gone from your washington attack when i first proposed this, and you said it was outrageous and a magnet to you're accepting the fact that a family's going to take care of their grandmother and grandfather. the idea that you're going to push them out in some form by simply say they go can't get a job. i think the grandmother will still be here. all i want to do, allow the grandmother to be here legally with some rights to have residency, not citizenship, so he or she can finish their life with dignity within the law. >> they're not 11 million -- there are not 11 -- or sprob not 11 million grandmothers. our problem is -- all right? our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many

americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. it's schoolkids in schools districts are having a hard time paying for. people getting free health care because we're required under the law to provide that health care and the real concern, with he l people who want to gill legally. let's stop illegal immigration. >> the rhetoric on immigration, governor, has been intense, you well know. all for of you know. anyone who watches television knows. you've had an ad running saying that speaker gingrich calmed spanish "the clang of the ghetto." what do you mean by that? >> i haven't seen the ad. i'm sorry i don't get to see all the tv ads. did we say that? did you say that? >> i said we want everybody to learn english because -- i didn't use the word spanish. we do not want anyone trapped in a situation where they cannot get a commercial job, they cannot rise and virtually every parent of every ethnic group, there are 94 languages spoken, by the way, in the miami-dade college. 94 languages. that's why i think english

should be the official lack of governme language of government, and every american learning english and no one trapped in a linguistic situation where they can't get a job and ge out and work. as much as governor romney doesn't like my use ever language, i found his use of language and deliberate distortion equally offensive. >> i'd like -- i doubt that's my ad, but we'll take a look and find out. there are a bunch of ads organized by the people, but i think our position on english at our schools, in our nation is the same. which i believe english should be the official language of the united states, as it is. i also believe in our schools we should teach kids in english. when i was governor, i fought for, actually before i gas governor i fought for during by election a program top have english emergent in our schools so our kids could learn in english. we agree on this. kids in this country should learn english.

♪ ( whirring and crackling sounds ) man: assembly lines that fix themselves. the most innovative companies are doing things they never could before, by building on the cisco intelligent network. but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems...

... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. and it's surprising what it goes through in the course of a day. but what's even more surprising is that brushing alone isn't enough to keep it clean. fortunately, you've got listerine. unlike brushing which misses 75% of your mouth, listerine cleans virtually your entire mouth. so what are you waiting for? it's time to take your mouth to a whole new level of health. listerine... power to your mouth.

let's take this question from miami, cnn espanol carlos lopez has a guest. >> at the viewing party for the hispanic leadership party and it really is party holding a yearly conference, and i'm joined by an attorney in miami, practices business and international law and has a question for the candidates. >> yes. good evening. the u.s. has been largely away in its foreign and trade policy with latin america. in the meantime, iran and china have been increasing their influence over an involvement in latin america through the leftist and left-leaning governments. what would each of you do as president to more deeply engage in latin america and importantly to support the governments and the political parties that support democracy and free markets? >> congressman paul?

>> i think free trade is the answer, free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world so i'm always promoting pretrade. y might add cuba. we'd be a lot better trading with cuba. i think the more can you do to promote free trade, the better off we'll be, but as far as us having an obligation, a military or financial obligation to go down and dictate to them what government they should have, i don't like that idea. i would work with the people, encourage free trade, and try to set a standard here where countries in central america or south america or any place in the world would want to emulate us and set the standards that we have. unfortunately, sometime wes slip up on our standards, and we go around the world and we try to force ourselves on others. i don't think the nations in south america, central america, necessarily want us to come down there and dictate which

government they should have, and yet i believe with friendship and trade, can you have a lot of influence, and i strongly believe that it's time we have friendship and trade with cuba. >> senator santorum, are you with congressman paul? >> no, i'm not with congressman paul and not with barack obama on this issue. our policy in central and south america under this add min installation been abysmal. the way we have treated in particular countries like honduras. honduras stood up for the rule ever law, threw out a would-be dictator using the chavez playbook from venezuela to try to run for re-election in honduras. the united states government instead of standing behind the pro-democracy, in the court, trying to enforce the constitution of honduras, instead of siding with them, the democrat, president obama sided with two other people in south america. excuse me. central america and south america. chavez and castro and obama. sided against the people of

honduras. this is a consistent policy of siding with the leftist, siding with the marxists, siding with those who don't support democracy. not standing up for our friends in colombia, for our friends who count to engage and support america. who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country, to be able to form that kind of bond that is so essential in our own hemisphere. the european union understood how important it was for diverse people to be able to come together in an economic unit. we not only have to come together as an economic unit, but the threat of terrorism, the threat of iran now in venezuela and in other places and cuba and in nicaragua, the threat of radical islam growing in that region is as importance, absolutely important for to us have a person who understands that threats and understands the solution is closer ties. i will visit that area of the world, repeatedly, to solidify those ties when i become president.

>> let me let congressman paul quickly respond. >> the senator mentioned standing up for some of these nations but he doesn't define it but standing up for nations like this usually means that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments. also sending them a lot of money. it doesn't work. most of the time this backfires. they resent us. we can achieve what he wants in a much different way than us using the bully attitude you will do it our way. this is the -- this is not a benefit to us, and besides, where are you going get the troops and the money? because you're talking about force. and i know a much better way than using force get along with people. >> i don't know where -- i don't know what answer congressman paul was listening to. he obviously wasn't listening to my answer. what i talked about is bidding

strong economic relationships, strong national security relationships. no one's talking about force. nobody's talking about going into cubao venezuela. 9 other countries in the region, which are influenced greatly by those countries, tending and moving towards the militant socialists instead of the united states. why? because we've ignored them. the president of the united states held a colombian free trade agreement. clon colombia, working against the narco terrorists standing up against chavez. what did we do? for political purposes the president of the united states sided with organized labor and the environmental groups answer hung colombia out to dry three years. we cannot do that to our friends in south america. >> we're going to come back to this and cuba as well. stand by for are that. we did double check just now, governor nap ad we talked about where i quoted you as saying that speaker gingrich calmed spanish the language of the ghetto. just double checked.

it was weren't of your ads running near florida, and i'm on the radio, and at theened you say, i'm mitt romney and i approved this ad. it is -- it is here. >> let me ask you a question -- let me ask the speaker a question. did you say what the ad says or not? i don't know. >> taken totally out of context. >> he said t. i did not say it about spanish. i said in general. about all languages. we are better for children to learn english in general. period. >> let's take a look at what he said. >> all right. we have a very important subject. housing. not only here in florida, foreclosures really, really bad, but all over the country and a lot of people are wondering if the federal government contributed to the housing collapse in recent years. we got a question that came in to us, and let me put it up there and i'll read it to you. how would you phase out fanny mae and freddie mac? does the private mortgage industry he's in additional

regulation? from william schmidt, governor romney? >> i think you know fannie mae and freddie mac were a big part of why we have the housing crisis in the nation that we have,ened we've had this discussion before. speaker gingrich was hired by freddie mac to promote them. to influence other people throughout washington, encouraging them to not to dismantle these two entities. "normous mistake. i think instead we should have had as withing blower, not a horn tooter. saying they were causing a housing collapse we've seen in florida and around the country. are that he problem today? absolute absolutely. offering mortgages again to people who weren't possibly repay them, creating another housing bubble which will hurt the american people. the right course for our housing industry is to get people back to work so they can buy homes again. we have 9.9% unemployment in florida. it's unthinkable.

18% real unemployment here. get people back to work, we'll get people into home, get foreclosures out of the system. let people get into home, rent properties if necessary and get america's housing industry growing again. >> speaker gingrich? >> let me start by saying florida is one of the two or three most hard-hit states on foreclosures. how many of you know somebody who's had a house foreclosed? just raise your hand. raise your hand. okay. the governor are has cheerfully -- the governor cheerfully has been attacking me inaccurately he knows it. the contractses released from freddie mac, said i would do no consulting, no lobbying, none. there's a moral to the story. we began digging in after monday night. i've had enough of this. discovered to our shock, governor romney owns shares of both fannie mae and freddie mac. governor romney made $1 million often of selling some of them. governor romney has an investment in goldman sachs

which is today foreclosing on floridians. maybe governor romney in the spirit of openness should tell us how much money he's made off of how many households that have been foreclosed by his investments? let's be clear about that. >> this is fine. first of all. my investment, not made by me. my investments for the last ten years have been in a blind trust manageed by a trustee. secondly, the investments that they've made, we learned about this making our financial disclosure, in mutual funds and bonds. i don't own stock in either fannie mae or freddie mac. there are bonds that the investors has held through mutual funds. and mr. speaker i know that sounds like an enormous revelation. you have checked your own investments? you also have investments through mutual funds that also invest in fannie mae and freddie mac. >> right.

>> let me -- let me finish. i've got more time. let me just continue. there's a big difference between buying u.s. savings bonds and getting a return. that's not taking money out of the united states. that's loaning money to the united states. and what my trustee did is he loaned money to fannie mae and freddie mac. and they got paid interest, of course, just like if you buy u.s. savings bonds. but what the speaker did was to work as a spokesman to promote fannie mae and freddie mac. to protect them from those people that wanted to take them down. he got paid $1.6 pll to do that. said his first contract indicated there would be no lobbying, but his second contract didn't have that prescription taken out of it and so you have to ask yourself, why is that? what he was doing was clearly promoting fannie mae and freddie mac in this case, freddie mac, to the tune of $1.6 million. that is one of the reasons we're in the trouble we're in. >> first of all, notice that the governor wasn't aware of the ad he was running. he's not aware of the investments made in his name. >> of course i -- a blind trust.

>> and my investments with his, comparing a tuinei mouse with a giant elephant. the fact is -- that there is a very substantial question. you didn't give instructions to say, gee, let's not do this or let's not do that. you're very quick to draw the widest possible exaggeration. the fact is the only time i ever spoke to the congress about this issue was in july of 2008, the "new york times" reported it. i told the republicans in the house, vote no. do not give them any money. they need to be reformed and answering it's question earlier i would break each of them up into five or six separate units and over a five-year period wean from them all federal sponsorship because we need to get away from those gigantic systems. >> a follow-up question to you, but specifically, it seems they both acknowledge, both made money from fannie and freddie. should they return that money? >> that subject really doesn't

interest me a whole lot. but the question does. the question is what are we going to do about fannie mae and freddie mac? should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. it would have been trashed by now, sold. but maybe it's my physician background, but i think, an ounce ever prevention is what we ought to talk about so we quit doing this, but we know how the bubble came about. it was excessive credit, interest rates held too low too lon. the federal reserve responsible for that. community reinvestment act, affirmative action telling banks they have to make risky loans at the same time there was a line of credit which allows fannie mae and freddie mac to you know, make more money. and it was -- it was assumed they would always be protected. now, you can't argue. i've talk add long time about cutting off that credit from the fed. i was trying to prevent this stuff.

also, i apposed community reinvestment act as well as i had legislation in ten years before the bus came to remove that line of credit to the -- to the treasury. >> senator santorum? >> i would say in answer to the question that as i mentioned last debate, in 2006 i went out and authored a letter with 24 our senators asking for major reform of freddie and fannie. warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market. stood out. i stood tall and tried to get a reform and we couldn't do it. the reform we need, gradually decrease the amounts of more gooch that can be financed by freddie, underwrit bein freddie and fannie overtime. reduce that until we get rid of fannie and freddie. the bigger issue here is, these two gentlemen who are out distractsing from the most important issue wes have playing meti personal politics. can we sets a aside that newt was a member of congress and used the skills that he developed as member of congress to go out and advise companies

and that's not the worst thing in the world and that mitt romney is a wealthy guy because he worked hard and is going out working hard. leave that alone and focus on the issues. >> we're going to take a quick break but have a lot more to discuss. coming up, the debate questions. the final frontier. going to space. stay with us.

we're continuing the debate here in jacksonville, florida. let's get to the issue of transparency. voters out there want to know as much about you four gentlemen as

possible before they vote. tax returns. bring tlois speaker gingrich. earlier in the week, governor romney after releasing his taxes you said you were satisfied with the level of transparency of his personal finances when it comes to this. i want to reiterate and ask you, are you safrd root now wit level of transparency as far as hi personal finances. >> and i have a great relationship that goes back a long way. i'm with him. this is a nonsense question. how about -- how about if the four of us agrees the rest of the evening we'll stick -- >> mr. speaker, you made an issue say heg lives in a world of swiss bank and cayman island bank accounts. i didn't say that. you did. >> i did, and i'm perfectly happy to is a that on an interview in a tv show. this is national debate where you have a chance to get the

four of us to talk didn'-- >> if you make a serious allegation against governor romney like that, you need to explain that. >> you want to try again. i mean -- >> wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here? >> okay. given that standard, mit, i did say, i thought it was unusual and i don't know of any american president way swiss bank account. glad for you to explain that sort of thing. >> okay. i will. i will. i'll say it again. i have a trustee that manages my invests in a blind trust. that was so i would avoid conflicts of interests nap trustee said he wanted to diversify the investments i had, and for a while had money in a swiss account reported in the u.s. full taxes paid on it. u.s. taxes. there's nothing wrong with that, and i know there may be some trying to make deal of that, as you have publicly. look, it's importance for people

to make sure we don't castigate those who are successftion succ having a return on investments. speaking youy indicate i haven't hearn earned that money. i take risks, make investments. they lead to america. i'm proud of being successful, creating jobs for other people. i'm not run from that. i'm proud ever the tax ice pay, plus trartable contributions, 2011 about 40%. put behind the idea of attack meeg because of investments and money get republicans to say what you've accomplished shouldn't be seen as a detriment but seen as an asset to help america. >> mr. speaker, i'm ready to move on, if you are. i said, i'm ready to move on to the next subject, if you are.

>> happy to. happy to simply have say you know it would be nice if he had the same standard for other people he would like applied to you and didn't enter into personal attacks about which are factually long. glad to have a truce. but it's a two-way truce. >> happy on any oh digs describe the thing ice believe with regards to the speak's background. probably get a chance to do that as time goes on. >> mr. speaker, explain why you think the money he made over these many recent years under your tax -- hold on, mr. speaker. under your tax plan. talking about taxes right now. this is substance. under your proenposed tax plan would pay zero taxes. explain that. >> depends on the particular kind of payments he made were counted under that plan as capital gains ob income. as regular income, he'd pay about the same. i've said this. where i'm the opposite of obama. i believe we need somebody who fights for hard working

taxpayers. my interest is in reducing everybody's toox 15% not raise him to the obama level. i propose an alternative flat tax -- you know i have proenlzed an alternative flat tax people could fill out. keep the current system, what they do in hong kong. keep the current systems with deductions and earned this amount. this be in of dependents. here's 15%. my goal is to shrink the government to fit the revenue, not to raise it's revenue to catch up with the government, and i'd be happy -- i'd -- i would be happy to have the mitt romney flat tax for every american to pay at that rate and i haven't complained about the rate he pays. >> senator santorum, most of the poll, almost all of the polls, want the wealthiest americans to pay more in taxes in order to balance the budget. why are they wrong in your opinion? >> because we need to have as much money funneling through

this economy as possible and the people who make those investment, people with resources and the wet. we want they to deploy the wealth in the most productive way possible. increase taxes and make things, rate isn't profitable they tend to invest in non-taxable struchlts and other things that don't employ people. so what i believe is we need to reduce taxes. look, i'm honest. i don't reduce the higher top rate, i take the reagan approach. ronald reagan 20shgs% top, good enough for reagan good enough for me, that's what we put the top rate as, and we have a bottom rate of 10%. i believe in a differential. a simplified tax code with five deductions and focused on simplify, creating two rates. i disagree with newt also on this. i don't believe in a zero capital gains tax rate. i don't think you freed to get to zero to make shush there's an efficient deployment of capital and investment. i think if you get to vere seer

guy s like mitt romney, i wish made as much money as mitt romney but he wouldn't be paying much at all in taxes. i think that as long as the tax is not one that deters a proper investment to be able to deploy capital and to get jobs createsed, then lower rates are better than zero when it comes to the issue of capital gains. >> are you with the ronald reagan as far as the tax rates, senator santorum, sutsed congressman paul? >> no. my goal is to get rifd the 16th amendment. the only way you can do that -- the only way you can do that, not run a welfare system and warfare system in place in the world. i do want to address the subject about taxing the rich. that is not a solution. but i understand and really empathize with the people talk about the 99 and the 1, because there's a characteristic about what happens when you destroy a currency. there is a transfer of wealth

from the middle class to the wealthy, and thas been going on for 40 years. so the middle class is shrinking, getting poorer and losing jobs and losing their how but wall street isn't getting poorer. they are the one whose are getting the bailout. we have to address the bailout and the system that favors a certain group over another group. if you don't have sound money and if you have a welfare state no matter whether the welfare state is designed to help the poor. the welfare helps the wealthy. there's been a transfer of wealth. if we could stop all of the transfers to the wealthy class, but the solution isn't to tax. the wealthy. if you give an honest product and customers buy that product, you deserve to keep that money and earn that money, but there's a big difference between those who earn money and those who rip us off through the government and the monetary system. >> congressman paul, you're a

physician. you're 76 years old. you would be the oldest president of the united states if you were elected. are you prepared to release your medical records so voters out there know what your health is? >> oh, obviously. because it's about one page, if even that long. i'm willing to -- i'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25-mile bike ride any time of the day, in the heat of texas. and -- you know, that subject has come up, and sometimes in fun, sometimes not in fun, but you know, there are laws against age discrimination. if you push this too much, you better be careful. >> i raise the question because you remember four years ago the same question came up with john mr. clinton contain and he released his records finally. i remember our own dr. sanjay gupta sent hour rees viewing those records. let me ask all of you. are you ready to release your

medical records? >> happy to do so. >> i'm happy to and also want to attest, i'm confident that dr. paul is quite ready to serve if elected. watching him campaign, he's in great shape. >> we have another question from our audience. i look forward to seeing your medical records. please introduce yourself as well. >> good evening, my name is matthew bathel. what about your plan be for the future of manned space flight and the future of nasa? >> governor romney on this one, the important issue especially in florida where a lot of people have lost jobs as a result of the decline of the space program. yesterday speaker gingrich outlined a pretty long plan on what to do about it, and he said that by the end of his second term if he were elected president there would be a permanent base on the moon.

>> that's an enormous expense. to define the mission for our space program i'd like to bring the top professors in physics, top people from industry so it translates into commercial products, bring in top military experts on space needs and finally of course people from the administration, if i have an administration, i'd like to come together and talk about different options and its cost, i'd like corporate america as well as the defense network and others come together in a partnership, if you will, basis to create a plan that will keep our space program had riving and growing. i believe in a manned space program. i'd like to see whether they believe in the same thing. i'm not looking for a colony on the moon. i'd rather be rebuilding housing here in the u.s. >> we have a question i want the speaker to weigh in as well.

this's question from twitter. speaker gingrich, how do you plan to create a base on the moon while keeping taxes down in eight years. >> do you believe nasa in its current form is the most effective way of leverageing air and space. you almost wonder what is the washington office of nasa do? does it sit around and think space? does it contemplate that someday we could have a rocket? my point in the speech i made yesterday which is on c-span, and i'd love to have all of you looked at it, having looked at space issues since the late 1950s when missiles and rockets was a separate magazine and working with nasa and others. i believe by the use of prizes, by the use of incentives, by opening up the space port so it's available in a ready basis for commercial flight, by using common sense, for example, the atlas 5 could be fixed into a manned capable vehicle so you didn't have to rely on a russian

launch or a chinese launch, there are many things you can do to leverage accelerating the development of space, if we had a handful of serious prizes you'd see an extraordinary number of people trying to get to the moon first in order to build that and i'd like to have an american on the moon before the chinese get there. >> senator santorum? >> i believe america say frontier nation and the frontier is the next one which is space. we need to inspire, one of the big problems in our country, young people are not involved in math and science and not dreaming big dreams. nasa and the space program is important but nasa, space defense is another area. both of which are very important. i agree we need to bring good

minds and the private sector but let's be honest, we run a $1.2 trillion deficit, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar and to promise new programs and big ideas it's a great thing but not responsible, especially when we talk about cut programs no the to grow them. we're going to spend under my administration spend less money every year, year to year to year the federal government amount of spending will go down for four years until we get a balanced budget. you can't do that by grand schemes, whether it's the space program or the speaker's social security program. those things sound good and maybe make big promises to people but we've got to be responsible in the way we allocate our resources. >> we'll get to that in a moment. congressman paul, texas space

program very important as well. where do you stand on this? >> i don't think we should go to the moon. i think maybe we should send some politicians up there sometimes. [ applause ] i went into the air force in 1962, and studied aerospace medicine. had a day dream becoming the first physician to go into space. but i see space, the amount of the money we spend on space, the only part that i would vote for is for national defense purposes. not to explore the moon and go to mars. i think that's fantastic. i love those ideas. but i also don't like the idea of building government business partnerships. if we had a healthy economy and had more bill gates and more warren buffetts, the money would be there. it should be privatized and people that work in the industry, if you had that, there would be jobs in aerospace. i just think that we don't need a bigger, a newer program, when

you think of the people -- i mean -- health care, something else deserves a lot more priority than going to the moon. so, i -- i would be very reluctant, but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes but not just for the fun of it and, you know, for, you know, for scientific -- >> we're going to leave this subject but before we do, speaker gingrich, i want you to clarify what you said yesterday in that speech you delivered on space. you said that you would support a lunar colony or lunar base and that if 13,000 americans were living there, they would be able to apply for u.s. statehood from the moon. >> i was meeting rick's desire for grandiose ideas. but -- >> pretty grandiose idea. >> let me make just two points about this. it is really important to go back and look at what john f. kennedy said in may of 1961 when he said, "we will go to the moon in this decade." no american had orbited the earth. the technology didn't exist.

and a generation of young people went into science and engineering and technology and they were tremendously excited. and they had a future. i actually agree with dr. paul. the program i envision would probably end up being 90% private sector. but based on a desire to change the government rules and change the government regulations to get nasa out of the business of trying to run rockets and to create a system where it is easy for private sector people to be engaged. i want to see us move from one launch occasionally to six or seven a day because so many private enterprises walk up and say, we're prepare to do it, but i'll tell you, i do not want to be the country that having gotten to the moon first, turned around, said, it doesn't really matter, let the chinese dominate space, what do we care? i think that is a path of national decline and i am for america being a great country, not a country in decline. >> we're going to move on. go ahead, governor romney. >> i spent 25 years in business. if i had a business executive

come to me, said they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, i'd say "you're fired." the idea that corporate america wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea but it's not a good idea. we've seen politicians and newt, you've been part of this, from state to state and promise exactly what that state wants to hear. the speaker comes here to florida, wants to spend untold amount of money having a colony on the moon. i know it is exciting on the space coast. in south carolina, it was a new interstate highway and dredging the port in charleston, in new hampshire, burying a power line coming from canada. and building a new vha hospital in new hampshire so people don't have to go to boston. look, this idea of going state to state and promising what people want to hear, promising billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to make people happy, that's what got us into the trouble we're in now. we've got to say no to this kind of spending.

>> i want to make two points. first, i thought we were a country where one of the purposes of candidates going around was to actually learn about the states they campaigned in and actually be responsive to the needs of the states they campaigned in. for example, the port of jacksonville is going to have to be expanded because the panama canal is being widened. and i think that's a useful thing for presidents to know. i think it's important for presidents to know about local things. second. and, at the other end of the state, the everglades restoration project has to be completed. and it's the federal government which has failed, and second in response to what rick said, we had four balanced budgets, we doubled the size of the national institute of health because we set priorities. it is possible to do the right things in the right order to make this a bigger, richer, more exciting country. you don't just have to be cheap everywhere. you can actually have priorities to get things done. >> we're going to move on. go ahead, ron paul.