CNBC's "Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate" Live from Oakland University in Rochester, MI ...

BARTIROMO: And good evening, everyone. I'm Maria Bartiromo.

HARWOOD: I'm John Hardwood.

And welcome to CNBC's Republican Presidential Debate.

(APPLAUSE)

CNBC's "Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate" Live from Oakland University in Rochester, MI ...

BARTIROMO: Tonight, we are here in the great state of Michigan for a debate that will focus almost exclusively on the economy and how to fix the financial problems of our country.

On the stage tonight from left to right: Senator Rick Santorum.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Speaker Newt Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Governor Mitt Romney.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Mr. Herman Cain.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Governor Rick Perry.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Congressman Ron Paul.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: And Governor Jon Huntsman.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: The candidates will have 60 seconds to respond to questions, 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. Those will be at the discretion of the moderators.

We also want you, the candidates, to help us out a little bit, by answering the questions as directly and specifically as you can. I know you want to. You have proven that. But just in case you get off topic, maybe by accident, we may have to interrupt you.

BARTIROMO: Throughout the evening tonight we will be joined by an all-star lineup of the smartest people on CNBC.

First up tonight, Jim Cramer, the host of "Mad Money."

Jim, welcome.

CRAMER: Thank you, Maria.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: And we also want to hear your voice. Go to our Web site, Debate.CNBC.com, and tweet us at CNBCDebate.

All night we'll be showing your tweets on the bottom of the screen, so all of the candidates will have even more of a motive to impress.

BARTIROMO: In the interest of time, the candidates have agreed to forego opening and closing statements tonight. So let's get started.

And we begin with you, Mr. Cain. I want to begin with what we saw today, another rough day for our money, for our 401(k)s. Once again, we were all impacted by the news that the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 400 points today. The reason, Italy is on the brink of financial disaster.

It is the world's seventh largest economy. As president, what will you do to make sure that their problems do not take down the U.S. Financial system? It is the world's seventh largest economy.

As president, what will you do to make sure their problems do not take down the U.S. financial system?

CAIN: Let's start with two things. First, we must grow this economy. We have the biggest economy in the world. And as long as we are stagnant in terms of growth in GDP, we impact the rest of the world. We must do that.

But we're not going to be able to do that until we put some fuel in the engine that drives economic growth, which is the business sector. This administration has done nothing but put stuff in the caboose, and it's not moving this economy.  We must grow this economy, number one.

Number two, we must assure that our currency is sound. Just like a dollar must be dollar when we wake up in the morning, just like 60 minutes is in an hour, a dollar must be a dollar. If we are growing this economy the way it has the ability to do and at the same time we are cutting spending seriously, we will have things moving in the right direction in order to be able to survive these kind of ripple effects.

BARTIROMO: So, to be clear, focus on the domestic economy, allow Italy to fail?  

CAIN: Focus on the domestic economy or we will fail, so, yes, focus on the domestic economy first. There's not a lot that the United States can directly do for Italy right now, because they have -- they're really way beyond the point of return that we -- we as the United States can save them.

BARTIROMO: Governor Romney, should we allow Italy to fail? Should we have a stake in what's going on in the eurozone right now?

ROMNEY: Well, Europe is able to take care of their own problems. We don't want to step in and try and bail out their banks and bail out their governments. They have the capacity to deal with that themselves. They're a very large economy.

And there will be, I'm sure, cries if Italy does default, if Italy does get in trouble. And we don't know that'll happen, but if they get to a point where they're in crisis and banks throughout Europe that hold a lot of Italy debt will -- will then face crisis and there will have to be some kind of effort to try and uphold their financial system.

There will be some who say here that banks in the U.S. that have Italian debt, that we ought to help those, as well. My view is no, no, no. We do not need to step in to bail out banks either in Europe or banks here in the U.S. that may have Italian debt. The right answer is for us...

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: But -- but the U.S. does contribute to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF has given $150 billion to the eurozone. Are you saying the U.S. should stop contributing to the IMF?

ROMNEY: I'm happy to continue to participate in world efforts like the World Bank and the IMF, but I'm not happy to have the United States government put in place a TARP-like program to try and save U.S. banks that have Italian debt, foreign banks doing business in the U.S. that have Italian debt, or European debt. We're just -- banks there.

There's going to be an effort to try and draw us in and talk about how we need to help -- help Italy and help Europe. Europe is able to help Europe. We have to focus on getting our own economy in order and making sure we never reach the kind of problem Italy is having.

If we stay on the course we're on, with the level of borrowing this administration is carrying out, if we don't get serious about cutting and capping our spending and balancing our -- our budget, you're going to find America in the same position Italy is in four or five years from now, and that is unacceptable. We've got to fix our -- our deficit here.

CRAMER: Congressman Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

(inaudible) to say, and I really get that. But I'm on the frontlines of the stock market. We were down 400 points today. We're not going to be done going down if this keeps going on, if Italy keeps -- the rates keep going up. Surely you must recognize that this is a moment-to-moment situation for people who have 401(k)s and IRAs on the line and you wouldn't just let it fail, just go away and take our banking system with it?

PAUL: No, you have to let it -- you have to let it liquidate. We've had -- we took 40 years to build up this worldwide debt. We're in a debt crisis never seen before in our history. The sovereign debt of this world is equal to the GDP, as ours is in this country. If you prop it up, you'll do exactly what we did in the depression, prolong the agony. If you do -- if you prop it up, you do what Japan has done for 20 years.

So, yes, you want to liquidate the debt. The debt is unsustainable. And this bubble was predictable, because 40 years ago we had no restraints whatsoever on the monetary authorities, and we piled debt on debt, we pyramided debt, we had no restraints on the spending. And if you keep bailing people out and prop it up, you just prolong the agony, as we're doing in the housing bubble.

PAUL: Right now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are demanding more money because we don't allow the market to determine what these mortgages are worth. If you don't liquidate this and clear the market, believe me, you're going to perpetuate this for a decade or two more, and that is very, very dangerous.

CRAMER: Governor...

(APPLAUSE)

(inaudible) Italy's too big to fail. It's great. I'd love it if we were independent. It would be terrific to say, "It's your fault. It's your fault.  It's your problem." But if this goes, the world banking system could shut down.  Doesn't that involve our banks, too?

HUNTSMAN: So we wake up this morning, and we find that the yield curve with respect to Italy is up, and prices are down. So if you want a window into what this country is going to look like in the future if we don't get on top of our debt, you are seeing it playing out in Europe right now.

You are seeing the metastasy (ph) effect of the banking sector. And what does it mean here? What am I most concerned about, Jim? I'm concerned that it impacts us in way that moves into our banking sector where we have got a huge problem called "too big to fail" in this country.

We have six banks in this country that combined have assets worth 66 percent of our nation's GDP, $9.4 trillion. These institutions get hit. They have an implied bailout by the taxpayers in this country, and that means that we are setting ourselves up for disaster again.

Jim, as long as we have banks that are "too big to fail" in this country, we are going to catch the contagion and it's going to hurt us. We have got to get back to a day and age where we have properly sized banks and financial institutions.

HARWOOD: Thank you, Governor.

Governor Romney, I want to switch...

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: ... to the bailout drama that we lived through in this country, and no state understands it better than the state of Michigan. I'm going to talk a little bit about your record on that. Four years ago when you were running for the Republican nomination and the auto industry was suffering, you said, where is Washington? After the election, when the Bush administration was considering financial assistance for the automakers, you said, no, let the Detroit go bankrupt.

Now that the companies are profitable again, after a bailout supported by your Republican governor here in Michigan, you said, well, actually, President Obama implemented my plan all along -- or he gravitated to my plan.

With a record like that of seeming to be on all sides of the issue, why should Republicans be confident in the steadiness of your economic leadership?

ROMNEY: John, I care about this state and about auto industry like -- I guess like no one else on this stage having been born and raised here and watched my parents make their life here. I was here in the 1950s and 1960s when Detroit and Michigan was the pride of the nation.

I have seen this industry and I've seen this state go through tough times. And my view some years ago was that the federal government, by putting in place CAFE requirements that helped foreign automobiles gain market share in the U.S., was hurting Detroit. And so I said, where is Washington? They are not doing the job they ought to be doing.

My view with regards to the bailout was that whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go. I said from the very beginning they should go through a managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process.

We have capital markets and bankruptcy, it works in the U.S. The idea of billions of dollars being wasted initially then finally they adopted the managed bankruptcy, I was among others that said we ought to do that.

And then after that, they gave the company to the UAW. They gave General Motors to the UAW and they gave Chrysler to Fiat. My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand.

HARWOOD: Governor, let me follow up, because...

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: ... the auto bailout is part of a larger issue facing your candidacy, as you know. Your opponents have said you switched positions on many issues. It is an issue of character, not personal, but political, you seemed to encapsulate it in the last debate when you said, "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake."

What can you say to Republicans to persuade them that the things you say in the campaign are rooted in something deeper than the fact that you are running for office?

ROMNEY: John, I think people know me pretty well, particularly in this state, in the state of Massachusetts, New Hampshire that's close by, Utah, where I served in the Olympics. I think people understand that I'm a man of steadiness and constancy.

I don't think you are going to find somebody who has more of those attributes than I do. I have been married to the same woman for 25 -- excuse me, I will get in trouble, for 42 years.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: I have been in the same church my entire life. I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years. And I left that to go off and help save the Olympic Games. I think it is outrageous the Obama campaign continues to push this idea, when you have in the Obama administration the most political presidency we have seen in modern history.

They are actually deciding when to pull out of Afghanistan based on politics.  Let me tell you this, if I'm president of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America. That's my belief.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Perry, I want to ask you about this, because you have raised this issue yourself about Governor Romney. And you are running as a politician with strong convictions.

HARWOOD: From the flip side, Ronald Reagan raised taxes when the deficit got too big, George W. Bush supported TARP and the auto bailout when he thought we might face a great depression -- second great depression. Does that -- examples like that tell you that good, effective leaders need to show the kind of flexibility that Governor Romney has shown on some issues?

PERRY: The next president of the United States needs to send a powerful message not just to the people of this country, but around the world, that America is going to be America again, that we are not going to pick winners and losers from Washington, D.C., that we are going to trust the capital markets and the private sector to make the decisions, and let the consumers pick winners and losers. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's Wall Street or whether it's some corporate entity or whether it's some European country. If you are too big to fail, you are too big.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Speaker Gingrich, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called unemployment in this country a national crisis due to the amount of days people are out -- months that people are out of work and the number of people out of work. Many of you have come up with tax reform plans. Why is tax reform the path to job creation? And if it's not the only path, what else can you implement to get people back to work?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I think Ben Bernanke is a large part of the problem and ought to be fired as rapidly as possible.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: I think the Federal Reserve ought to be audited and we should have all the decision documents for 2008, '09 and '10 so we can understand who he bailed out, why he bailed them out, who he did not bail out, and why he did not bail them out.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: So, I'm glad that Ben Bernanke recognizes some of the wreckage his policies have led to.

The reason we follow -- I think most of us are for tax policies that lead to jobs is because we have had two cycles in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, and the Contract with America, both of which had the same policy: lower taxes, less regulation, more American energy, and have faith in the American job creator as distinct from the Saul Alinsky radicalism of higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy with more regulations, no American energy, as the president announced again today in his decision on offshore, and finally class warfare.

So I would say that all of us on the stage represent a dramatically greater likelihood of getting to a paycheck and leaving behind food stamps than does Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Congresswoman Bachmann, same question to you. How can you create jobs as quickly as possible?

BACHMANN: Well, I think one thing that we know is that taxes lead to jobs leaving the country. All you need to know is that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

And if you go back to 1981, and you look around the world, we had a lot of high corporate tax countries. It was 47 percent on average on a lot of countries across the world.

But if you look today in the United States, we have an effective rate if you average in state taxes, with federal taxes, of about 40 percent. But the world took a clue, because capital is mobile, and capital went to places where corporate tax rates went to 25 percent and falling.

We're still stuck in a 1986 era of about a 40 percent tax rate. We have to lower the tax rate because it's a cost of doing business, but we have to do so much more than that.

Our biggest problem right now is our regulatory burden. The biggest regulatory problem we have is Obamacare and Dodd/Frank. I will repeal those bills. I have written those bills to repeal those bills that have got to go. But beyond that --

(APPLAUSE)

BACHMANN: But beyond that, we have to legalize American energy. And here is something else that we have to do that will help the economy. We have to build the fence on America's southern border and get a grip on dealing with our immigration problem.

BARTIROMO: OK.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Senator Santorum, you proposed a zero tax on manufacturing businesses.

SANTORUM: I have.

HARWOOD: I understand the sentiment behind that. And the state of Michigan has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades.  Isn't that the kind of distortion in the tax code that people want to get away from in order to get rates down: flatter, simpler, fairer?

SANTORUM: I think getting the rate down to zero is down -- is pretty far down.  That's good.

HARWOOD: But it's down for the manufacturing industry, as opposed to people doing other things. Isn't that picking winners and losers?

SANTORUM: It's down for a sector of the economy, not picking an individual winner or loser. It's down for an entire sector of the economy that we are getting our hat handed to us by losing jobs.

We see that here in Michigan, we see it across this country. And the reason is government has made us uncompetitive.

We need to compete on taxes. We need to compete on regulations. We need to repeal Obamacare. We need to -- I've said I'm going the repeal every single Obama-era regulation that cost businesses over $100 million. Repeal them all.  We'll -- we'll send a very clear message out to manufactures in this country and all over the world that America will compete.

Some have suggested we need to go into a trade war with China and have tariffs.  That just taxes you. I don't want to tax you. I want to create an atmosphere where businesses and manufacturers can be profitable. We'll lower taxes, repatriating funds, 0 percent tax if you repatriate those funds and invest them in plant and equipment.

And then, of course, an energy policy that everyone on this stage is going to agree with that says, we are going to produce energy in this country. I'm different than many of them, that I'm going to cut all the subsidies out and let the market work, as opposed to creating incentives for different -- different forms of energy that the government supports.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: You have all said that -- that you will repeal the president's health care legislation. We will get into that, because we want to know, then what?  What is the plan once you repeal Obamacare?

But, first, Mr. Cain, the American people want jobs, but they also want leadership. They want character in a president. In recent days, we have learned that four different women have accused you of inappropriate behavior. Here we're focusing on character and on judgment.

(BOOING)

You've been a CEO.

CAIN: Yes. BARTIROMO: You know that shareholders are reluctant to hire a CEO where there are character issues. Why should the American people hire a president if they feel there are character issues?

CAIN: The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations. That's...

(APPLAUSE)

And I value my character and my integrity more than anything else. And for every -- one person that comes forward with a false accusation, there are probably -- there are thousands who would say none of that sort of activity ever came from Herman Cain.

You're right. This country's looking for leadership. And this is why a lot of people, despite what has happened over the last nine days, are still very enthusiastic behind my candidacy. Over the last nine days...

(APPLAUSE)

Over the last nine days, the voters have voted with their dollars, and they are saying they don't care about the character assassination. They care about leadership and getting this economy growing and all of the other problems we face.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, when you were at Bain Capital, you purchased a lot of companies. You could fire the CEO and the management team or you could keep them. Would you keep a CEO -- are you persuaded by what Mr. Cain has said? Would you keep him on if you bought his company?

(BOOING)

ROMNEY: Look, look, Herman Cain is the person to respond to these questions. He just did. The people in this room and across the country can make their own assessment. I'm not...

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Huntsman, let me switch back to the economy. The...

(APPLAUSE)

Many Republicans have criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement, but we had an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll this week that showed a large proportion of the American people -- 76 percent -- said they believe there's something wrong with our economy that tilts toward the wealthy at the expense of others. Do you consider something wrong with the structure of our economy in the income inequality that it produces? Is that something government should do something about? And if so, what?

HUNTSMAN: Let me just say that I want to be the president of the 99 percent. I also want to be the president of the 1 percent. This nation is divided, and it's painful, and it is unnatural for the most optimistic, blue-sky people this world has ever known. We are problem-solvers.

When I hear out the people who are part of the Wall Street protests, I say, thank goodness we have the ability to speak out. I might not agree with everything they say. I don't like the anti- capitalism messages. But I do agree that this country is never again going to bail out corporations. I do agree...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. I do agree that we have blown through trillions and trillions of dollars with nothing to show on the balance sheet but debt, and no uplift in our ability to compete, and no addressing our level of unemployment.

HUNTSMAN: And I do agree that we have institutions, banks that are too big to fail in this country. And until we address that problem -- we can fix taxes. We can fix the regulatory environment. We can move toward energy independence. So long as we have instant banks (ph) that are too big to fail, we are setting ourselves up for long-term disaster and failure.

HARWOOD: So, Governor, you agree with Governor Romney that the bailout that Governor Snyder supports in Michigan was a mistake?

HUNTSMAN: The bailout here in the auto sector, $68 billion worth, we are going to end up footing a bill -- Governor Snyder knows that -- of probably $15 billion when all is said and done. I don't think that's a good use of taxpayer money.

Instead, there ought to be some way of taking the auto sector through some sort of reorganization, get them back on their feet. The people in this country are sick and tired of seeing taxpayer dollars go toward bailouts, and we're not going to have it anymore in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

CRAMER: Governor Romney, do you believe public companies have any social responsibility to create jobs, or do you believe, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the most important, most influential conservative economist of the 20th century held, that corporations should exist solely to create maximum profit for their shareholders?

ROMNEY: This is a wonderful philosophical debate. But you know what? We don't have to decide between the two, because they go together.

Our Democratic friends think when a corporation is profitable, that's a bad thing. I remember asking someone, "Where do you think profits go? When you hear that a company is profitable, where do you think it goes?" And they said, "Well, to pay the executives their big bonuses."

I said, "No, actually, none of it goes to pay the executives. Profit is what is left over after they have all been paid."

What happens with profit is that you can grow the business. You can expand it.  You have working capital and you hire people.

The right thing for America is to have profitable enterprises that can hire people. I want to make American businesses successful and thrive.

What we have in Washington today is a president and an administration that doesn't like business, that somehow thinks they want jobs, but they don't like businesses. Look, I want to see our businesses thrive and grow and expand and be profitable. I want to see more --

(APPLAUSE)

CRAMER: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to you.

Do you think that companies can both be profitable and be able to create jobs?  Do you think it's a dichotomy? Do you think they can do it?

PERRY: There better be. And that's the reason the tax plan that I laid out, a 20 percent flat tax on the personal side and a 20 percent corporate tax rate, that will get people working in this country. We need to go out there and stick a big old flag in the middle of America that says "Open for business again."

(APPLAUSE)

CRAMER: Mr. Speaker, how about to you, can corporations do both?

GINGRICH: Sure. Look, obviously, corporations can and should do both. And what is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: In this town, Henry Ford started as an Edison Electric supervisor who went home at night and built his first car in the garage. Now, was he in the 99 percent or the one percent?

Bill Gates drops out of college to found Microsoft. Is he in the one percent or the 99 percent?

Historically, this is the richest country in the history of the world because corporations succeed in creating both profits and jobs, and it's sad that the news media doesn't report accurately how the economy works.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Mr. Speaker -- I'm sorry, but what is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy?

GINGRICH: What?

BARTIROMO: What is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy?

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: I love humor disguised as a question. That's terrific.

I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, "Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?"

(APPLAUSE)

CRAMER: Senator Santorum, I want to talk about a high-quality problem our country has.

I just came back from North Dakota. We have made the largest oil discovery in a generation there. Not only is it a -- the find a big step toward creating energy independence, it stands to create as many as 300,000 jobs. But what the guys tell me up there is that they can't handle the rush without federal help.

Would you favor incentives, incentives to get workers and businesses to where the jobs are to support this boom?

SANTORUM: No, because we have done it in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has Marcellus Shale. It took a while for us to ramp up, but we're drilling 3,000 to 4,000 wells.

The price of natural gas, because of Marcellus Shale, which is the second largest natural gas find in the world, has gone from $12 to $3.65. And we let the marketplace work. So, no, we didn't have the federal government come in and bail us out.

I want to make the point about manufacturing jobs again, because if you're -- if you're talking about creating jobs that trickle down, I agree with Newt. We have folks who have innovators. But he always -- he talked about innovators that -- that created jobs for blue- collar workers. The unemployment rate among non-college-educated is well into the double digits in America. It's 4 percent or 5 percent for people who have college degrees.

The reason I put forth this manufacturing plan is not just so we can say "Made Here in America," that we can create opportunities for everyone in America, including those that don't have that college skill set, people who built this country, like my grandfather, who was a coal miner. So -- so that is a very important part that Republicans, unfortunately, are not talking about.

We need to talk about income mobility. We need to talk about people at the bottom of the -- of the income scale being able to get necessary skills and rise so they can support themselves and a family. And that's what manufacturing does, and that's why I'm laser-beam focused on it.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Let's get back to tax reform. Mr. Cain, let's talk fairness in taxation. Ever since this country started taxing income 100 years ago, our system charges those people who make more money a higher rate than those people who make less money. Governor Perry has said he doesn't believe in that approach, and your 9-9-9 plan suggests you don't, either.

Why now, when the higher income group is doing better than the rest of America, is the time to switch to the same rate for all of us?

CAIN: My proposal is the only one that solves the problem by throwing out the current tax code, which has been a mess for decades, and we need to put in something different that I proposed, 9-9-9. It satisfies five simple criteria.  It is simple. The complexity costs us $430 billion a year. It is transparent.  People know what it is. There are thousands of hidden sneak-a-taxes in the current tax code. That's why I want to throw it out.

It is fair. The reason it's fair is because of the definition in Webster which says everybody gets treated the same. All businesses get treated the same, not having Washington, D.C., pick winners and losers. This is why I have proposed a bold plan of 9-9-9, 9 percent business flat tax, 9 percent tax on personal income, and a 9 percent national sales tax. It treats everybody the same. And it will boost this economy.

BARTIROMO: How do you ensure that, when the government needs more revenue, that the sales tax doesn't go up and that plan doesn't turn in 19-19-19?

CAIN: Tax codes do not raise taxes. Politicians do.

(APPLAUSE)

And as long as (inaudible) the people will hold the politicians' feet to the fire. It's not the code that raises taxes. It's the politicians, because the code -- because the approach, 9-9-9, would be very visible, the American people are going to hold the rates at 9.

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, Mr. Cain's got a flat tax. Rick Perry's got a flat tax. Congresswoman Bachmann is talking about a flat tax. You don't have a flat tax. You're proposing to preserve the Bush-era tax rates. What is wrong with the idea that we should go to one rate? Why do you believe in a progressive tax system?

ROMNEY: Well, I would like to see our tax rates flatter. I'd like to see our code simpler. I'd like to see the special breaks that we have in the code taken out. That's one of the reasons why I take the corporate rate from 35 down to 25, is to take out some of the special deals that are there.

With regards to our tax code, what I want to do is to take our precious dollars as a nation and focus them on the people in this country that have been hurt the most, and that's the middle class. The Obama economy has really crushed middle-income Americans.

This president has failed us so badly, we have 26 million people out of work, working part-time jobs that need full-time work, or stopped looking for work altogether. Median incomes have dropped 10 percent in the last three years. At the same time, gasoline prices are up, food prices are up, health care costs are up.

And so what I want to do is help the people who've been hurt the most, and that's the middle class. So what I do is focus a substantial tax break on middle-income Americans. Ultimately, I'd love to see -- see us come up with a plan that simplifies the code and lowers rates for everybody. But right now, let's get the job done first that has to be done immediately. Let's lower the tax rates on middle-income Americans. HARWOOD: Congresswoman Bachmann, Governor Romney is accepting the premises of the Democratic argument that you have to have a fair approach to taxation that preserves different rates for different people. Why is he wrong?

BACHMANN: Well, I would say President Obama is the one that's wrong, because President Obama's plan for job creation has absolutely nothing to do with the true people who know how to create jobs. He should really be going to job-creators if he wants to know how to create jobs. Instead, he continues to go to a General Axelrod in Chicago to look for his orders to figure out how to deal with the economy. That won't work.

We know what needs to be done. We have a real problem. When you have 53 percent of Americans paying federal income taxes, but you have 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, you have a real problem.

And that's why in my tax plan, I have everyone paying something because everyone benefits by this magnificent country. So even if it means paying the price of two Happy Meals a year, like $10, everyone can afford to pay at least that.

And what it does is create a mentality in the United States that says that freedom is free. But freedom isn't free. We all benefit. We all need to sacrifice. Everybody has to be a part of this tax code.

BARTIROMO: Congressman Ron Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: ... you have said you want to close down agencies. Tell us about your tax plan as well as closing agencies -- federal agencies. Where do those jobs go?

PAUL: Well, eventually they go into the private sector. Then don't all leave immediately when the plan goes into effect. But what my plan does is it addresses taxes in a little different way.

We are talking about the tax code. But that's the consequence, that's the symptom. The disease is spending. Every time you spend, spending is a tax. We tax the people, we borrow, and then we print the money and the prices go up, and that is a tax.

So you have to address the subject of spending. That is the tax. That is the reason I go after the spending. I propose in the first year cut $1 trillion out of the budget in five departments.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) PAUL: Now the other thing is that you must do if you want to get the economy going and going again is you have to get rid of price- fixing. And the most significant price-fixing that goes on, that gave us the bubble, destroyed the economy, and is preventing this from coming out, is the price-fixing of the Federal Reserve, manipulating interest rates way below market rates.

You have to have the market determine interest rates if you want a healthy, viable economy.

BARTIROMO: So you think the economy would be stronger if interest rates were higher right now?

PAUL: You would have more incentive. You would take care of the elderly. They get cheated. They get nothing for their CDs. Why cheat them and give the banks loans at zero percent? And then they loan it back to the government at 3 percent. They are ripping us off at the expense of those on fixed incomes and retirees.

BARTIROMO: Even though higher interest rates would make it much more expensive to borrow, mortgages.

PAUL: But you want is the market to determine this. Whoever thought that one person, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, knows what the money supply should be? Just in the past six months, M1 has gone up at the rate of 30 percent. That spells inflation. That spells lower standard of living and higher prices and watch out. They are coming.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: We are just getting started tonight. When we return, how will the candidates breathe new life into the lifeless housing market?

HARWOOD: Plus, the view of the economy from the corner office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): I think we are in serious trouble. Business people are struggling.

(UNKNOWN): The problems in the economy didn't arrive in 20 minutes and they won't be resolved in 20 minutes.

(UNKNOWN): The most important economic issue of concern to me is lack of leadership in government, and the lack of any focus on building confidence both with consumers and the business community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARWOOD: So how are the candidates going to turn things around? CNBC's "Republican Presidential Debate" will be right back. Stay with us.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back to be CNBC's Republican Presidential Debate.

With us for this portion of the program, CNBC's senior economic reporter, Steve Liesman.

Welcome, Steve.

LIESMAN: Great to be here, Maria. Thank you. BARTIROMO: Most economists agree that there can be no economic recovery without a recovery in housing. American families have lost some $7 trillion in home value in the last five years. Right now, four million people are behind on their mortgage or in foreclosure, 25 percent of homeowners owe more to the banks than their house is actually worth.

Governor Romney has said that the government should let the foreclosure process play out so that the housing market can recover and the free markets can work.

Speaker Gingrich, is Governor Romney right?

GINGRICH: We, he's certainly right in the sense that you want to get through to the real value of the houses as fast as you can, because they're not going to rise in value as long as you stay trapped, as Japan has done now for 20 years.  But I think there are two specific steps you have got to understand in terms of housing.

To pick up on something Congresswoman Bachmann said, if the Republican House next week would repeal Dodd/Frank, and allow us to put pressure on the Senate to repeal Dodd/Frank, you would see the housing market start to improve overnight.  Dodd/Frank kills small banks, it kills small business. The federal regulators are anti- housing loan, and it has maximized the pain level.

You could also change some of the rules so it would be easier to do a short sale where the house is worth less than mortgage than it is to do a foreclosure.  Today, the banks are actually profiting more by foreclosing than encouraging short sales.

But in the long run, you want the housing market to come back? The economy has to come back.

When you are at four percent unemployment, you suddenly have a dramatic increase in demand for housing. When you're at nine percent- plus unemployment, it's hard to get the housing market to come back.

BARTIROMO: Governor Romney, respond in 30 seconds. Not one of your 59 points in your economic plan mentions or addresses housing. Can you tell us why?

ROMNEY: Yes, because it's not a housing plan. It's a jobs plan. And the right way to get --

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: The best thing you can do for housing is to get the economy going, get people working again, seeing incomes, instead of going down, incomes coming up so people can afford to buy homes. The things the Speaker just indicated are excellent ideas as well. You have to let the market work and get people in the homes again, and the best way for that to happen is to allow this economy to reboot.

What we know won't work is what this president has done, which is to try and hold off the foreclosure process, the normal market process, to put money into a stimulus that failed, and to put in place a whole series of policies from Obamacare to Dodd/Frank that it made it hard for this economy to get going. You want to get America's economy going? We know how to do it. Just do almost the exact opposite of what President Obama has done.

(APPLAUSE)

LIESMAN: Governor Romney, we have created 2.7 million jobs since February, 2010.  Over that period of time, the housing market has continued to decline. We are at 2003 price levels now.

LIESMAN: If we keep going the way we are going, in four or five years, we'll be at 1999 price levels. The $7 trillion figure that Maria mentioned could almost double.

Are you willing to let that happen in America?

ROMNEY: And exactly what would you do instead? Would you decide to have...

LIESMAN: I'm asking you.

ROMNEY: ... well, to have the federal government go out and buy all the homes in America? That's not going to happen in this country. Markets work. When you have government play its heavy hand, markets blow up and people get hurt.

And the reason we have the housing crises we have is that the federal government played too heavy a role in our markets. The federal government came in with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told banks they had to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back.

(APPLAUSE)

And so -- and so our friends -- our friends in Washington today, they say, oh, if we've got a problem in housing, let's let government play a bigger role.  That's the wrong way to go. Let markets work. Help people get back to work. Let them buy homes. You'll see home prices come back up if we allow this market to work.

(APPLAUSE)

LIESMAN: But, Governor -- Governor Perry, every quarter I get to report the GDP figures, and it's a negative number for housing, and we've lost some 2 million construction jobs. Housing creates jobs, as well, doesn't it?

PERRY: Not a negative number in Texas. And one of the reasons is because we have put policies into place that follow my plan to get America back working again.

LIESMAN: OK, so translate that plan to America.

PERRY: When -- when you look at what I've laid out, whether it -- the energy side and getting the energy industry going -- and Rick Santorum is absolutely correct on that, is let's get our energy industry freed up, federal lands, federal waters, pull back all of those regulations. Everybody on this stage understands it's the regulatory world that is killing America.

(APPLAUSE)

The tax side of it, yeah. Have a flat tax. Have a corporate flat tax in there, as well. But the real issue facing America are regulations. It doesn't make any difference whether it's the EPA or whether it's the federal banking -- the Dodd-Frank or Obamacare. That's what's killing America.

And the next president of the United States has to have the courage to go forward, pull back every regulation, since 2008, audit them for one thing: Is it creating jobs, or is it killing jobs? And if that regulation is killing jobs, do away with it.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Congresswoman Bachmann, in one of the last debates, you were asked what you would do about foreclosures, and you told moms to hang on. But your advice, as your colleagues have mentioned, was let the economy recover. So you agree with Governor Romney that the way to fix the housing market is to let the foreclosure process proceed more rapidly?

BACHMANN: Well, what I agree with is that we have got to stop what we're doing now. When we had the financial meltdown, 50 percent of the homes are being financed by Fannie and Freddie. Today it's 90 percent of the homes. In other words, the government is the backer of the homes.

Well, let's take a look, an analysis of what a great, brilliant job Freddie and Fannie are doing. They just applied this week for another $7 billion bailout because they're failing. The other one applied for a $6 billion bailout because they're failing.

But what did they do? They just gave bonuses of almost $13 million to 10 top executives. This is the epicenter of capital -- crony capitalism. That's what's wrong with Washington, D.C.

For these geniuses to give 10 of their top executives bonuses at $12 million and then have the guts to come to the American people and say, "Give us another $13 billion to bail us out just for the quarter," that's lunacy. We need to put them back into bankruptcy and get them out of business. They're destroying the housing market.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Since -- since you mentioned Fannie and Freddie, Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds to you, your firm was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac in 2006. What did you do for that money?

GINGRICH: Were you asking me?

HARWOOD: Yes.

GINGRICH: I offer them advice on precisely what they didn't do.

(LAUGHTER)

Look -- look, this is not -- this is not...

HARWOOD: Were you not trying to help Freddie Mac fend off the effort by the Bush administration...

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: No. No, I do -- I have never...

HARWOOD: ... and the -- to curb Freddie Mac.

GINGRICH: I have -- I assume I get a second question. I have never done any lobbying. Every contract was written during the period when I was out of the office, specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice.

And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, "We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do," as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.

GINGRICH: It turned out, unfortunately, I was right and the people who were doing exactly what Congresswoman Bachmann talked about were wrong. And I think it's a good case for breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and getting much smaller institutions back into the private sector to be competitive and to be responsible for their behavior.

(APPLAUSE)

LIESMAN: Mr. Cain, government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as Congresswoman Bachmann said, now underwrite or guarantee 90 percent of the home financing in this country. What would you do with these -- with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Would you shut them down even though it could mean higher interest rates for America? Does it make it even harder than it is right now for Americans to get home loans?

CAIN: You don't start there. You start with fixing the real problem, which is growing this economy, which is why I have put a bold solution on the table, 9-9-9.

Secondly, then you get the regulators off of the backs of the banks like someone mentioned. Get the regulators out of the way, such that the small banks and the medium-sized banks aren't being forced out of the business.

They would then be in a better position, and they might develop a desire in order to help homeowners reset their mortgages if they were able to see, number three, some certainty. Uncertainty is what's killing this economy. And until we throw out the tax code, and put in something bold, get government out of the way by reducing the regulatory environment, we are going to still have our housing problem.

LIESMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Cain, but you would come into office and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be there. The question was, what would you do with them?

CAIN: OK. After I did those three things that I outlined, then deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You don't start solving a problem right in the middle of it. So we've got to do that first.

I would also turn those GSEs into private entities. The government does not need to be in that business. I would find a way to unwind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, such that the marketplace can determine the future of the housing market.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Huntsman, I want to go back to the issue that you raised before about too big to fail. If anything, that problem has gotten worse since the financial crisis than before. The 10 biggest bank holding companies in this country now hold nearly 90 percent of all the assets in the banking system, up from 75 percent in 2006.

So, what would you do? Would you break up the banks to remove the risk, or diminish the risk for American taxpayers?

HUNTSMAN: Let me just say, on the housing discussion here, lost in all of this debate is the fact that there are people tuning in tonight who are upside down in terms of the financing of their homes. They are feeling real pain. People who probably heard today that they lost a job.

These issues are very real. They are complicated. For us to say that there is an easy solution to housing, that's just not right, and that's not fair. The economy does have to recover in order for the housing market to pick up its slack and for us to get on to housing starts, which ought to be 15 percent of our nation's GDP, and today it's two percent.

With respect to the banks that are too big to fail, you know today we've got, as I mentioned earlier, six institutions that are equal to 60, 65 percent of our GDP, $9.4 trillion. They have an implied guarantee by the taxpayers that they will be protected. That's not fair, that's not right for the taxpayers.

HARWOOD: So you break them up?

HUNTSMAN: I say we need to right-size them. I say, in the 1990s, you had Goldman Sachs, for example. That was $200 billion in size. By 2008, it had grown to $1.1 trillion in size. Was that good for the people of this country, or --

HARWOOD: Well, how would you accomplish that? How would you right-size that?

(CROSSTALK)

HUNTSMAN: I think we ought to set up some sort of fund. I think we ought to charge some sort of fee from the banks that mitigates the risk that otherwise the taxpayers are carrying. There has got to be something that takes the risk from the taxpayers off the table so that these institutions don't go forward with this implied assumption that we're going to bail them out at the end of the day. That's not right, and it's not fair for the taxpayers of this country.

BARTIROMO: Let's stay on regulation for a moment. You have all said that you will repeal President Obama's health care legislation.

Down the line, 30 seconds, if you repeal Obamacare, what's the answer?

Jon Huntsman?

HUNTSMAN: I would say -- and I would meet with the 50 governors of this country, and I would say, I did health care reform in my state, it took us three years to get it done. We delivered an insurance connector that was not a costly mandate.

You can sit down with the 50 governors and you can address cost containment.  This is a $3 trillion industry, half of which any expert will tell you is totally nonsense and superfluous spending.

How do you get costs out of the system? How do you empower patients to better understand what they are getting when they go into the doctor's office?

Number two, we need to do a better job in harmonizing medical records so that we can pull up on a consistent basis the most efficacious course of treatment for patients.

HUNTSMAN: And third, we need to close the gap on the uninsured without a costly mandate, letting the free market work and bringing people together with truly affordable insurance.

BARTIROMO: That's time.

We want to get each of your comments on what the plan is.

Ron Paul?

PAUL: We need to get the government out of the business, and we do need to have the right to opt out of "Obama-care." But we ought to have the right to opt out of everything. And the answer to it is turn it back over to the patient and the doctor relationship with medical savings accounts.

So I would say that we have had too much government. I have been in medicine, it has gone downhill. Quality has gone down. Prices have skyrocketed because of the inflation. So you need to get a market force in there, a medical savings account.

But this mess has been created -- it's a bipartisan mess. So it has been there for a while. So what we need is the doctor-patient relationship and medical savings account where you can deduct it from your taxes and get a major medical policy. Prices then would come down.

BARTIROMO: Thirty seconds, Governor Perry?

PERRY: Obviously on the Medicare side, you have to have an insurance type of a program where people have options of which -- give them a menu of options of which they can choose from. I think you have to have the doctors and the hospitals and the other health care providers being given incentives on health care rather than "sick care."

And then on Medicaid, it is really pretty simple, just like Jon and Mitt both know, you send it back to the states and let the states figure out how to make Medicaid work, because I will guarantee you we will do it safely, we will do it appropriately, and we will save a ton of money.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Mr. Cain. CAIN: The legislation has already been written. H.R. 3000.  In the previous Congress it was H.R. 3400. And what that does -- it has already been written. We didn't hear about it in the previous Congress because "Princess Nancy" sent to it committee and it stayed there. It never came out.

(LAUGHTER)

CAIN: H.R. 3000 allows the decisions to be with the doctors and the patients, not with the bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. The legislation has already been written.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Health care in 30 seconds is a little tough. But let me try. Number one, you return to the states the responsibility for caring for their own uninsured.  And you send the Medicaid money back to the states so they can craft their own programs. That's number one.

Number two, you let individuals purchase their own insurance. Not just getting it through their company. But buy it on their own if they want to, and no longer discriminate against individuals who want to buy their insurance.

Number three, you do exactly what Ron Paul said. I don't always say that. But I have got to say it right now.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: And that is, you have to get health care to start working more like a market. And for that to happen, people have to have a stake in what the cost and the quality as well as of their health care. And so health savings account, or something called co- insurance, that's the way to help make that happen.

And finally, our malpractice system in this country is nuts. We have got to take that over and make sure we don't burden our system with it.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I just want point out, my colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question. To say in 30 seconds...

BARTIROMO: You have said you want to repeal "Obama-care," correct?

GINGRICH: I did. Let me finish, if I may. To say in 30 seconds what you would do with 18 percent of the economy, life and death for the American people, a topic I've worked on since 1974, about which I wrote about called "Saving Lives and Saving Money" in 2002, and for which I founded the Center for Health Transformation, is the perfect case of why I'm going to challenge the president to seven Lincoln- Douglas style three-hour debates with a timekeeper and no moderator, at least two of which ought to be on health care so you can have a serious discussion over a several-hour period that affects the lives of every person in this country.

BARTIROMO: Would you would like to try to explain...

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Would you like to -- would you like to try to explain in simple speak to the American people what you would do after you repeal the president's health care legislation?

GINGRICH: In 30 seconds?

BARTIROMO: Take the time you need, sir. Take the time you need.

GINGRICH: I can't take what I need. These guys will gang up on me...

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: Do you want the answer the question tonight on health care or no?

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: Do you want to try to answer the question tonight, Speaker?

GINGRICH: Let me just say it very straight. One, you go back to a doctor-patient relationship and you involve the family in those periods where the patient by themselves can't make key decisions. But you re-localize it.

Two, as several people said, including Governor Perry, you put Medicaid back at the state level and allow the states to really experiment because it's clear we don't know what we are doing nationally.

Three, you focus very intensely on a brand-new program on brain science because the fact is the largest single out-year set of costs we are faced with are Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, mental health, and things which come directly from the brain.

GINGRICH: And I am for fixing our health rather than fixing our health bureaucracy because the iron lung is the perfect model of saving people so you don't need to pay for federal program of iron lung centers because the polio vaccine eliminated the problem. That's a very short (inaudible).

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Congresswoman.

BACHMANN: The main problem with health care in the United States today is the issue of cost. It's just too expensive. And President Obama said that's what he would solve in Obamacare, we'd all save $2,500 a year in our premiums.

Well, we have Obamacare, but we didn't have the savings. So what I would do to replace it is to allow every American to buy any health insurance policy they want anywhere in the United States, without any federal minimum mandate. Today there's an insurance monopoly in every state in the country. I would end that monopoly and let any American go anywhere they want. That's the free market.

Number two, I would allow every American to pay for that insurance policy -- their deductible, their co-pay, their pharmaceuticals, whatever it is that's medical-related -- with their own tax-free money.

And then, finally, I'd have true medical malpractice liability reform. If you do that, it's very simple. People own their own insurance policies, and you drive the costs down, because what we have to get rid of is government bureaucracy in health care. That's all we bought in Obamacare, was a huge bureaucracy. That has to go away.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Senator?

SANTORUM: This is, I think, the difference between me and a lot of the candidates here. I heard a lot of responses, but I haven't -- I haven't seen a lot of consistency in some of -- some of those responses on the last few questions.

When it comes to health care, back in 1992, I introduced the first health savings account bill that everybody up here said was the basis for consumer-driven health care. I was leading on that before anyone else was even talking about it. Secondly, I was someone who proposed a block grant for Medicaid way back in 1998 with Phil Gramm, again, leading on this issue. Same thing, reforming the Medicare program back in the 1990s, again, I led on these issues.

I was always for having the government out of the health care business and for a bottom-up, consumer-driven health care, which is different than Governor Romney and some of the other people on this panel.

Number two -- and I didn't get a chance to answer any of the housing questions.  I was on the banking housing committee in -- in the United States Senate. I was one of 24 people who wrote a letter to Harry Reid saying, please let us bring up this housing legislation, which I voted for in the committee, that would have put curbs on Fannie and Freddie. I -- I was out there before this bubble burst saying this was a problem. I -- I was in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the other day, and I had one of a -- a home-builder, who was a head of the association, came up to me and said, Rick, I'm here to apologize. We came here to push you so you would oppose, you know, putting caps on Fannie and Freddie. You were right; we were wrong.

Time and time again, Wall Street, the Wall Street bailout, five of the eight people on this panel supported the Wall Street bailout. I didn't. I know that we saw problems best from the bottom up, not the top down and government intervention in the marketplace.

BARTIROMO: Governor Romney, you have 30 seconds to respond.

ROMNEY: That's -- that's fine. I believe very deeply in the functioning of markets. The work I've done in health care, actually worked as a consultant to the health care industry, to hospitals and various health institutions. I had the occasion of actually acquiring and trying to build health care businesses. I know something about it, and I believe markets work.

And what's wrong with our health care system in America is that government is playing too heavy a role. We need to get our markets to work by having the consumer, the patient have a stake in what the cost and quality is of health care, give them the transparency they need to know where the opportunities are for lower cost and better quality, to make sure that the providers offer them the broadest array of options that they could have.

And once we have that happening, you'll see us -- 18 percent of our GDP is spent on health care. The next highest nation in the world is 12 percent. It's a huge difference. We have to get the market...

BARTIROMO: Time.

ROMNEY: ... to work to make sure that we get the kind of quality and value that America deserves.

HARWOOD: But, Governor, let me ask you about health care, because Congressman Paul said, put it back to the doctor and the patient. You said a few moments ago that you thought states should have the responsibility for insuring the uninsured. And, of course, in Massachusetts, you enacted an individual mandate and subsidies to have people who didn't have insurance get it. So you think there's a pretty large role for government in this area.

ROMNEY: Well, I think that people -- that people have a responsibility to receive their own care, and the doctor-patient relationship is, of course, where that -- where that exists -- where that exists.

HARWOOD: But the government has the responsibility to force them?

ROMNEY: I -- I didn't know whether Ron Paul was saying we're going to -- he's going to get rid of Medicaid. I would not get rid of Medicaid. It's a health program for the poor.

What I said was I would take the Medicaid dollars that are currently spent by the federal government, return them to the states so that states can craft their own programs to care for their own poor, rather than having the federal government mandate a one-size- fits-all plan in the entire -- entire nation.  Obamacare is wrong. I'll repeal it. I'll get it done.

(APPLAUSE)

(UNKNOWN): John?

HARWOOD: Congressman?

PAUL: My plan of cutting the budget by a trillion dollars does deal with Medicaid. And that is that it preserves it, and there is a transition period, with the goal that eventually we would hope to move that back into the economy.  But right now, it would be too much to do it in one year.

You know, finding a trillion dollars was a job and a half, and getting rid of five departments.

So, yes, my budget takes into consideration health care for the elderly, health care on Medicaid, as well as child health care. At the same time, we deal with the bailouts, the banks, and all the benefits that they get from the financial system, because what we're facing today is the crisis in this housing crisis.

If I could just have one second on that.

We face a housing crisis once again because it's price-fixing. They're fixing the prices of these mortgages too high, and this is why nobody will buy them.

This is why you have to get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sell all of that into the marketplace. And the reason they do this is to prop up the banks, because the banks have invested in Europe, they've invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and these credit defaults swaps.

They're in big trouble, and that is why they're getting bailed out. And that's why they are not allowing these mortgages to go down, and that is why we will most likely bail out Europe, which will be a real tragedy.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Congressman, thank you for that. It's time for a quick break.

LIESMAN: Hold it, John. I wanted to give them 15 seconds each to solve the deficit problem.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: We'll come back to the deficit.

HARWOOD: When we return, balancing the budget, cutting the deficit, making college education more affordable.

BARTIROMO: Plus, a little lesson on Social Security.

You're watching CNBC's "Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate."

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Next, we tackle the issues of Social Security, a spiraling deficit, and so much more, when "Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate" continues in 90 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARWOOD: And welcome back. Joining us for this portion of the debate, Rick Santelli, CNBC's on-air editor...

(APPLAUSE)

... and Sharon Epperson, our personal finance correspondent.

Now, we'll get to them in a moment, but, first, Senator Santorum, you were known as a tough partisan fighter in the Senate, but look where partisan fighting got us this summer, gridlock and a debt-rating downgrade. The American people don't much like it, and neither does Doug Oberhelman, the CEO of Caterpillar. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBERHELMAN: Most people think our politicians are not helping the country get back on its feet. The last two presidents made promises to work across party lines, and both failed. How will you put our country ahead of your political party and solve the issues that are so critical for Americans? Be specific, please. These are promises.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARWOOD: And, Senator, let me ask you about -- to set up that question. If everyone on this stage rules out any tax increases, even at a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts, as you have done, what could you possibly offer Democrats to get them to go along and compromise with you on the things that Republicans want?  SANTORUM: You create -- you create a platform that they can buy into, because they see advantages of your -- of your plan. For example, one of the reasons that I -- I've put forward this manufacturing plan is because folks here in Michigan, Democrats and Republicans will vote for it.

I was at the New Hampshire House of Representatives the other day and spoke to a bipartisan group, talked about the -- the tax plan, not just the manufacturing, but the broad-based plan that I have. And I had two Democratic House members go over to -- to my chairman, Dan Tamburello, and said, hey, I want him to come to my district and talk about this. We can support it.

So when you put together a plan -- look, if the Republican Party is just about keeping the top rate, you know, lower or cutting taxes, we're not going to be reaching people. We've got to look at plans that bring people together. That's why I focused on this sector. I understand, John, that the Wall Street Journal won't like that I'm picking one sector over another. I don't care.

What I need to do is bring America together, find a plan that can work, that can be implemented right away. It may not be the boldest plan in the world, but it's one that will work. It'll put people back to work. It will give the ability of people to rise in our society. It's help with the jobs out in rural America, where the manufacturing loss has been the greatest and the employment rate is the highest.

You put a plan like that together, you'll get Democrats and Republicans, and we'll create jobs in the country, and we'll get things done.

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, you've shown that you can work with Democrats. When you were governor, of course, you collaborated with Ted Kennedy on the health care plan that you enacted. You raised fees to balance the budget, and you used that as an argument to get the credit rating of your state upgraded. Independent voters might like that. Should Republican primary voters be nervous about it?

ROMNEY: Thanks for reminding everybody.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, what I found is, in a state like mine where there are a few Democrats in the legislature -- 85 percent of my legislature was Democrat -- to get anything done -- I was always in an away game, if you will. And to get something done, I had to see if there were Democrats who cared more about the state than they cared about their re-election or their party, and there were.

And right now, America faces a crisis. I think people on both sides of the aisle recognize that this is no longer a time just for worrying about the next election. This is a time to worry about America.

GINGRICH: You deal with Social Security as a free-standing issue. And the fact is, if you allow younger Americans to have the choice to go to a Galveston or Chilean-style personal Social Security savings account, the long-term effect on Social Security is scored by the Social Security actuary as absolutely stabilizing the system and taking care of it.

The key is there is $2.4 trillion in Social Security which should be off budget, and no president of the United States should ever again say because of some political fight in Washington, I may not be able to send you your check. That money is sitting there. That money is available. And the country ought to pay the debt it owes the people who put the money in there.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, if I could follow up, Speaker Gingrich just said he is not prepared to raise taxes on the American people in the middle of a slow economy like this. That's what would happen if the payroll tax cut is not extended.

Do you agree with him, and would you also support, when it comes down to it, an extension of the payroll tax cut?

ROMNEY: I don't want to raise taxes on people in the middle of a recession. Of course not.

HARWOOD: So you're for it?

ROMNEY: And that's one of the reasons why we fought so hard to make sure the Bush tax cuts weren't taken away by President Obama.

But, look, this issue of deficits and spending is not about just dollars and cents. It's a moral issue. It's a moral imperative.

We can't continue to pass on massive debts to the next generation. We can't continue to put at risk the greatest nation in the history of the Earth because of the profligate spending that's going on in Washington, D.C.

HARWOOD: But to clarify, you agree with President Obama the payroll tax cut should be expanded?

ROMNEY: I want to keep our taxes down. I don't want to raise any taxes anywhere.  Let me tell you, I'm not looking to raise taxes. What I'm looking to do is to cut spending. And that's why this last week I put out a plan that dramatically cuts spending in Washington, that gets us to a 20 percent cap, and makes sure that we have a balanced budget thereafter. And how do I do it? I have three major steps.

Number one, cut programs. Get rid of programs we don't have to have like Obamacare.

Take a lot of programs that we have at the state level, number two -- excuse me, at the federal level -- and send them back to the states where they can be better run with less fraud and abuse.

And number three, finally, bring some productivity and management expertise to the federal government. I would cut the workforce by 10 percent and -- I want to say one more, and that is this -- I want to make sure we link the compensation of our federal bureaucrats to that which exists in the private sector. People who are public servants shouldn't get more money than the taxpayers that they're serving.

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Does any candidate on this stage disagree? Does any candidate disagree and oppose an extension of the payroll tax cut?

BACHMANN: Say that again.

HARWOOD: Does any candidate disagree with the Speaker and Governor Romney and oppose the extension of the payroll tax cut?

(UNKNOWN): Yes.

HARWOOD: You oppose it?

BACHMANN: I do. I opposed it when it was first proposed, because I knew that it would blow a hole of $111 billion in the Social Security trust fund.

President Obama clearly did this for political reasons. That's why he did it.  And so I had made that warning then, because we actually have already run Social Security in the red. We aren't just about to, we already have, six years ahead of time.

Now, consider the context. We have baby boomers in their peak earning years.  This is when money should be flooding into the Social Security trust fund.  Instead, we're already in the red.

When we talked this evening about how much trouble we are in with spending, we are in a tremendous amount of trouble with spending. Just consider we pay a lot of taxes in this country, $2.2 trillion is what we send into Washington. The problem is, we spent at the government level $3.7 trillion. Your started out tonight talking --

(CROSSTALK)

HARWOOD: Out of time, Congresswoman. Governor Huntsman?

HUNTSMAN: Thank you. It's getting a little lonely over here.

SANTELLI: Our federal government still owns 500 million shares of GM stocks, guarantees trillions -- trillions with a "T" -- dollars of mortgages. They are basically the lender doing 90 percent of all the mortgage origination right now.  And you consider the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve has purchased $2.62 trillion -- again, with a "T" -- of treasury securities, agency securities, and mortgage securities.

If you were president, how would your administration and would your administration reverse these obligations?

HUNTSMAN: I would clean up the balance sheet. And let me tell you what I worry about as much as anything else.

We talk about failed leadership. We certainly have failed leadership.

President Obama had two years to get this economy going and to move us toward an environment that speaks to job growth, and he's failed miserably. But along with that, we have a real trust crisis in this country.

Between the American people and our institutions of power, Congress, the executive branch, Wall Street as well, there is no trust. We are running on empty. And when a democracy begins to run on empty because of government holdings and bailouts and being involved in ways that are absolutely inappropriate, based on constitutional and where we should be, that results in a diminution of trust by the American people. We've got to raise that trust.

So let me just tell you what I think needs to be done, in terms of bringing our economy up. We've heard about all these great tax plans. I think I'm the only one on this stage who's actually delivered a flat tax. And I did that as governor of my state.

I put forward a proposal that I think is right for this country and getting it back on its feet. The Wall Street Journal has come out -- the most respected editorial page economically, maybe in the entire world -- has come out and endorsed my plan, said it's the very best of the bunch.

And it very simply calls out just as I did as governor. So I'm not sitting here talking about academic theory. I stand here as a practitioner. I've done it before. I want to phase out the loopholes and the deductions on the individual side, phase out corporate welfare and subsidies on the corporate side, and lower the rates, make us more competitive. That's the kind of work that is realistic.  It can get done in Congress and fire the engines of growth that are so desperately needed to boost trust in this country.

(UNKNOWN): Sharon Epperson?

EPPERSON: I want to turn the attention to why we're here on this campus and what many students are very interested in, and that is the fact that, Congressman Paul, right now, we are looking at student loan debt that is near $1 trillion.  Americans owe more on student loans right now than credit cards, and the average debt for a college senior right now is over $25,000. It's obviously a very hot topic right here on this campus and with students across the country. Just listen to what they have to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): Tuition rates have increased roughly three times that of inflation over the last three decades.

(UNKNOWN): More students have to take out loans or forego college.

(UNKNOWN): My generation is graduating with student debt levels at an unprecedented level.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EPPERSON: So, Congressman Paul, you've already talked about the fact that you want to get rid of the Department of Education. You've said that you want to get rid of federal student loans. So how would you make college more accessible, more affordable for these students and students around the country?

PAUL: Well, I think you proved that the policy of student loans is a total failure. I mean, a trillion dollars of debt?

(APPLAUSE)

And it's going to be dumped on the taxpayer? And what have they gotten? A poorer education and costs that have skyrocketed because of inflation, and they don't have jobs. There's nothing more dramatically failing than -- than that program.

So, no, there's no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. We should get rid of the loan programs. We should get rid of the Department of Education and give tax credits, if you have to, to help people.

But the inflation is the big problem. It's three times the rate that the government admits that inflation is, and that is natural and normal. When governments inflate the currency, it goes in the areas that the government gets involved in, housing, high prices, stock market, skyrocketing prices, medical care, skyrocketing, education...

EPPERSON: But how do they pay for it? How do they now pay for college, if they're not...

PAUL: The way -- the way you pay for cellphones and computers.

(APPLAUSE)

You have the marketplace there. There's competition. Quality goes up. The price goes down. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Department of Homeland Security was in charge of finding one person or one company to make the cellphones? I mean, it would have been a total disaster. So when the government gets involved in the delivery of any service -- whether it's education, medical care, or housing -- they cause higher prices, lower quality, create bubbles, and they give us this mess that we're in. That's why we have to eventually get our -- we have to wise up.

And look at where the bubbles come from. It's from the Federal Reserve. And we should start by auditing the Fed, and then we should end the Fed.

(APPLAUSE)

EPPERSON: Thank you, Congressman.

Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Paul just talked about a bubble. And there are many that are concerned that, unlike other types of debt, student loan debt does not have the same type of consumer protections. It cannot be wiped out in bankruptcy by law. There's really little way to refinance it. Are you worried about student loan debt becoming the next government bailout?

GINGRICH: You know, this is a good place to talk about the scale of change we're about to live through. We're at the end of the welfare state era of dependency, debt, distortion, and dishonesty.

The student loan program began when Lyndon Johnson announced it, I think, with a $15 million program. It's an absurdity. What does it do? It expands the ability of students to stay in college longer because they don't see the cost. It actually means they take fewer hours per semester on average. It takes longer for them to get through school. It allows them to tolerate tuitions going up absurdly. By 2014, there will be one administrator for every teacher on college campuses in the United States.

Now, let me give you a contrast that's very startling. The College of the Ozarks is a work-study college. You cannot apply to it unless you need student aid, and they have no student aid.

You have to work 20 hours a week during the year to pay tuition and books. You work 40 hours a week during the summer to pay for room and board. Ninety-two percent of the students graduate owing no debt, the eight percent who owe debt owe $5,000 because they bought a car.

Now, that is a model so different, it will be culture shock for the students of America to learn we actually expect them to go to class, study, get out quickly, charge as little as possible, and emerge debt free by doing the right things for four years.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Governor Perry, name the top programs that you would cut in terms of long-term deficit reduction. Include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense spending in the order you see fit.

PERRY: Well, every one of those -- and by the way, that was the Department of Energy I was reaching for a while ago.

(APPLAUSE)

PERRY: So here what's we have to look at as Americans. And it's the entitlement programs that are eating up this huge amount of money that's out there.

And it's also the spending, Congressman Paul. And when you look at Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and those unfunded liabilities, I think are over $115 trillion just in those three programs. Those are the places where you go where you have to make the really hard decisions in this country.

BARTIROMO: So what is your order? And you didn't mention defense spend.

PERRY: Well, obviously, Social Security is one of those where we either can go to a blended type of a program where we blend price and wages, and come up with a program, and can save billions of dollars there. But the people who are on Social Security, they need to understand something today. It's going to be there for them.

Those that are working their way towards Social Security, we've made a pledge to them. Those individuals are going to have those dollars there for them.

But the young people out there, who is going to stand up for the young people in this country, those that are at the workforce today, and stand up and say, we are going to transform this program so it's going to be there for you? I will do that. I will stand up for the young people in this country and put a program into place that will be there for them.

HARWOOD: Speaking of young people, a quick answer. Do you agree with Congressman Paul that we should kill the federal student loan program?

PERRY: I happen to think there are a substantial number of ways. As a matter of fact, I've called for a $10,000 graduate program --

HARWOOD: But would you kill the federal student loan program?

PERRY: I don't think the federal government should be in the business of paying for programs and building up huge debt out there. I think we need to look at, how do you --

HARWOOD: So get rid of it?

PERRY: -- force these universities to be efficient? And one of the ways is that the governors who appoint the trustees, they step in and they basically say, listen, you are going to have graduation rates that are moving upwards, you're going to have tuition that is moving down. You have to have control over those boards of regents, of that's how you do that, or the legislature has to have control.

But the bottom line is, we have to put powerful economic forces into place. And one of those is using our technology --

HARWOOD: Thank you, Governor.

PERRY: -- to be able to let our kids have the opportunity to get an education through long distance learning, for instance.

BARTIROMO: That's time.

HARWOOD: Thank you, Governor.

BARTIROMO: We're going to take one more quick break. When we return, final questions to the candidates.

HARWOOD: Our CNBC's Republican Presidential Debate will be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back to CNBC's "Republican Presidential Debate."

HARWOOD: Mr. Cain, let me ask you a question, under a Republican governor, the state of California hired a company in China to build major portions in the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, creating thousands of jobs in China. And California did that because it was cheaper. Is that smart, purchasing by government in a global economy, or is there something wrong with that?

CAIN: There's something wrong that, which is why I have proposed a bold plan, 999...

(LAUGHTER)

CAIN: ... and allow me to explain how on the 999 that that company would be more inclined to keep the business here. On the first 9, you take sales minus purchases, net exports, and capital, it levels the playing field between goods produced here in the United States and the rest of the world.

It makes the United States much more competitive and businesses won't be tempted to build overseas and send jobs overseas. The tax code is what sends jobs overseas. The tax code is what caused them to buy the articles from the Chinese.  It starts with replacing the tax code.

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, was it a mistake for Governor Schwarzenegger to hire the firm in China to build portions of that bridge?

ROMNEY: Well, that's a -- a long answer to that, because what China is doing is not playing fairly by the rules that exist in our -- in the WTO and the world.  China is, on almost every dimension, cheating. And we've got to recognize that.  It is good for America...

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: It is good for America to have free trade. It is good for us to be able to send our goods and services around the word and vice versa.

HARWOOD: So a good decision to build the bridge over there?

ROMNEY: That is normally a good thing. But China is playing by different rules.  One, they are stealing intellectual property. Number two, they're hacking into our computer systems, both government and corporate. And they are stealing, by virtue of that as well, from us.

And finally, they are manipulating their currency, and by doing so, holding down the price of Chinese goods, and making sure their products are artificially low-priced. It's predatory pricing, it's killing jobs in America.

If I'm president of the United States, I'm making it very clear, I love free trade. I want to open markets to free trade. But I will crack down on cheaters like China. They simply cannot continue to steal our jobs.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: But how do you crack down? How do you crack down, Governor? Are you talking about new tariffs? How are you cracking down?

ROMNEY: I'm sorry, pardon?

BARTIROMO: How would you crack down on China?

ROMNEY: Well, number one, I would do something this president should have done a long time ago, which is to label China a currency manipulator. And then I would bring in action at the WTO level, charging them with being a currency manipulator.

Number three, where they have stolen intellectual property, where they have hacked into computers, and where their artificial pricing is causing their goods to have predatory levels of pricing, I would apply, if necessary, tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play at a level playing field.

We want -- we have to have free trade. That's essential for the functioning of a strong economy. But we cannot allow one nation to continue to flaunt the rules and kill our jobs by allowing them continue as they have.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Speaker, in addition to that, so many companies -- multinational companies, want to try to get a foothold in China and sell to the billion-and-a-half people there. They can only do joint ventures. They're not getting a fair shake in terms of selling to that 1.5 billion person population.  How would you move the needle?

GINGRICH: Well, there are two things here. And let me say in advance that I would yield in part to Governor Huntsman, because he speaks fluent Chinese, he has worked in China, and he's been the ambassador. And I'd be curious to get his reaction.

But there are two different parts here. The problem with building the bridge is simple. What -- what is it about American regulations, American taxation, American labor cost and attitudes that makes it cheaper to go to China than to go to the United States? Now, we...

(APPLAUSE)

... first of all, you've got to decide, how are we going to be more competitive and how are we going to be the lowest cost? And there's a new Boston consultant (ph) that says, by 2015, South Carolina and Alabama will be cheaper than the Chinese coastal provinces to manufacturing.

Second, in terms of dealing with China strategically, I think we're going to have to find ways to dramatically raise the pain level for the Chinese cheating, both in the hacking side, but also on the stealing and intellectual property side. And I don't think anybody today has a particularly good strategy for doing that.

BARTIROMO: Time. Thirty seconds. Jon Huntsman, you were the ambassador to China, 30 seconds to respond.

HUNTSMAN: Thirty seconds? For Heaven's sake. Let me just say that we've had a 40-year relationship with China. It's a -- it's a troublesome and problematic relationship, very, very complicated.

But the bottom line is, I mean, you can give applause lines and you can kind of pander here and there. You start a trade war if you start slapping tariffs randomly on Chinese products based upon currency manipulation. That's not a good idea.

But longer term, we're just going to have to keep doing business the way we've always done, is sit down, you find solutions to the problems, and you move forward. It isn't easy. It isn't glamorous. It's grinding it out the way we've done for 40 years. And for 40 more years, we're going to have to do it the same way.

HARWOOD: Are you saying Governor Romney's pandering?

HUNTSMAN: I'm saying that you can throw out applause lines and you can say that you're going to slap on tariffs. You know, that doesn't work...

(CROSSTALK)

HARWOOD: But you're suggesting it. He's standing right here. Would you say that he's pandering on this issue?

HUNTSMAN: Well, I've said it before. I think that -- that that policy is one of simply pandering, just throwing a tariff on for the sake of an artificially valued currency, which is, in fact, the case.

But here's what they do in response. They say, you have an artificially valued currency, too, with those quantitative easing programs. You, too, are manipulating you're -- and we're going to slap something on your products. And before long, you have a trade war.

But let me tell you longer...

(APPLAUSE)

HARWOOD: Governor Romney, are you pandering?

ROMNEY: Look, I've been in business all my life, 25 years. I consulted to businesses around the world. I've been in business where we competed around the world. I understand free trade; I like free trade. I know that America can compete with anyone in the world. Newt is right about -- about our capacity to manufacture and compete heads-on versus the Chinese.

But I've also seen predatory pricing. I've seen people price their goods at an artificial level for an extended period of time, such that they can drive other people out of business. And then when the other people are out of business, they can raise their prices. That's what China's doing, by holding down the value of their currency.

Let the currencies float. If the U.S. currency, for instance, is being inflated, let it float. Let us float. Let us have a market mechanism determine the value of our respective currencies, as opposed to the Chinese government continuing to put an advantage to their -- their producers. This -- this is no longer a time for us just to sit back and say we're going to let them steal our jobs.

BARTIROMO: Congresswoman Bachmann, weigh in here. How do you open the markets in China for American companies?

BACHMANN: Well, the Chinese have been bad actors. Recently we found out that they dumped counterfeit computer chips here in the United States. We're using some of those counterfeit computer chips in the Pentagon in some of our weapons systems. This has national security implications.

We also found out that the Chinese just finished building 3,000 miles of underground tunnels where they are housing some nuclear weapons. There's some very real consequences to the United States overspending to such an extent that we're in hock to them over a trillion dollars.

We've sent so much interest money over to the Chinese to pay our debts off that we effectively built their aircraft carrier. And by 2015, we will be sending so much interest money over, we will be paying for the entire People's Liberation Army of China, the number- one employer of the -- of the world.

What we need to do is stop enriching China with our money. And we do that by stop borrowing from them, by stop spending money that we don't have.

(APPLAUSE)

CRAMER: Mr. Cain, I want to go to you with this question. This does not lend itself to 9-9-9 or any other number.

CAIN: Sorry, I didn't hear the first part.

CRAMER: This question does not lend itself to 9-9-9 or any other thing. This is our final word, OK? And it comes from our viewers. And it is all about restoring trust and faith in our markets and in our way of life. I'm going to be quoting Joanne Kornbly (ph). She e- mails us.

She says, "Our stock market has turned into a casino with high- frequency computerized trading comprising 70 percent of all transactions and hedge fund speculation resulting in market swings. Before privatizing Social Security, how would you make the stock market safer for individual investors?

And Mr. Cain, just simple, how do we restore faith in the markets for the little guy?

CAIN: The first thing we do is restore faith in business by providing certainty so businesses can grow. A lot of the volatility is being driven by uncertainty.

Businesses are uncertain about what the health care rules are going to be, they don't know what the tax rules are going to be. All of the uncertainty has this economy stagnated.

So, the way you restore that, grow this economy. That's job one.

Many of the things we talked about up here today starts with growing the economy. And that's why we have got to use a bold plan -- I won't mention it -- in order to grow the economy.

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER: When the economy was going great, sir, there was no trust. When the economy was going great, people were getting ripped off and there was insider trading. When the economy was going great, people were getting hurt in the stock market.

Forget the economy. Talk about the way the market is regulated.

CAIN: Jim, I feel your pain. Look, here is what I'm saying.

CRAMER: How about the 90 million people that got --

(CROSSTALK) CAIN: Jim, you've got to provide certainty in this environment so businesses will grow. They have been in a mode of survive. They need to be in a mode of growth. That's where we have got to do first.

And I agree with some of the others who have said we have got to repeal Dodd/Frank. There's three big things wrong with Dodd/Frank, which is why it needs to be a top priority to repeal.

Number one, it doesn't provide oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And we all agree that that was a catalyst for the meltdown in 2008.

The two other biggest problems with Dodd/Frank, Dodd and Frank.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Governor Perry, same question to you. The same question to you and Congressman Ron Paul.

How do you restore faith in the public markets?

PERRY: Well, we have the regulations in place, and we had the regulations in place well before the meltdowns occurred. We have a culture in Washington, D.C., where these corporate lobbyists have these cozy relationships with the people that they are regulating. And we have to have leadership in this country that not only recognizes that, but demands that those individuals who are working for us are in those agencies, whether it's in the stock market or whether it's Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

And when there are individuals who are breaking the laws, who are pushing the bounds, that there are clear efforts that are made to take those people either out of those jobs or prosecute them for criminality. One of the two, that has to happen.

And you can pass legislation like you said until the world looks level. But you have got to have men and women who are committed to the laws of this country and a president that will push his administration to make sure that they're done.

HARWOOD: Congressman Paul, Governor Perry was just talking about the culture of Washington. His critics in the state of Texas -- you're a congressman from Texas -- say crony capitalism is what he practices as governor. Are they right?

PAUL: I haven't analyzed it enough to call him a crony or not. So, no, I don't know the details of that. But there is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country.

And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this occupation stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it.  And those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from the Federal Reserve, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve taxation, or they don't -- they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two.

And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what crony -- what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. And believe me, when you have an inflationary environment, and all this speculation, and all the bailouts due to monetary system, believe me, you get a majority of crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today.

BARTIROMO: We want to thank all of you tonight. That is all the time we have for CNBC's Republican Presidential Debate.

We thank all the candidates for being here tonight and spending the time and putting their plans forward.

We hope you now have a better understanding of where each of them stand on the economy, jobs, and your money.

HARWOOD: We would also like to thank our partners, the Michigan Republican Party, and all of the Grizzlies of Oakland University.

(APPLAUSE)

==== Full Transcript CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate (08:00pm - 10:00pm)

Aired October 18, 2011 - 20:00   ET

Republicans Get heated during CNN WRLC Debate (Media Credit: CNN) ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: I'm Anderson Cooper in Las Vegas.

Tonight, the presidential candidates come here to win the West.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NARRATOR: The west. From the mountain majesty of the Rockies, to the desert sands of the Mojave, the American frontier is a historic land of opportunity for Republicans.

GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Believe in America.

NARRATOR: Tonight, the fight for the GOP presidential nomination comes here, to a region where Barack Obama made inroads four years ago, to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election, to a city where dreams are made and crushed.

Stand by for a Las Vegas event, the Republican presidential contenders on stage and in depth after a dramatic reshuffling of the pack.

Herman Cain, now among the leaders surging in recent weeks.

PERRY: We put more boots on the ground.

NARRATOR: Rick Perry, trying to get back on track after a meteoric rise.

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for being here today.

NARRATOR: And Mitt Romney, steady, holding his place in the top tier.

They could have the most to win or lose. But Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul could be wildcards. And Rick Santorum, eager to beat the odds.

The candidates facing tough questions about jobs and the economy, the immigration wars, and other issues that matter to westerners and voters across the nation.

Now, with nothing less than America's future at stake, the presidential campaign goes West.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: And welcome to the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian in Las Vegas, our host of the Western Republican Presidential Debate.

Tonight, seven contenders will be on this stage to convince you he or she should be the Republican nominee for the president of the United States.

I'm Anderson Cooper.

Welcome to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world.

Tonight's debate is airing on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, and the American Forces Network.

We want to thank our cosponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, representing 16 western states and territories. Western voters will play an active role in tonight's debate. Voters here in our audience will have a chance to put questions directly to the candidates on this stage.

Let's meet the 2012 Republican presidential contenders.

Joining us on stage, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Texas Governor Rick Perry.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: The former president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Herman Cain.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: And the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican candidates for president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Well, the crowd is on its feet. Everyone, please remain standing. It's time now for our national anthem performed tonight by Tony award-winner Anthony Crivello, starring as the Phantom in "Phantom Las Vegas," the Las Vegas spectacular. Please stand for the national anthem.

(APPLAUSE)

CRIVELLO: (SINGING NATIONAL ANTHEM)

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: I want to ask the candidates to please take your podiums. While the candidates are taking their podiums, I just want to tell you a little bit more about how tonight's debate is going to work. I'll be the moderator. I'll ask questions on a wide range of issues. And I'll work to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of questions.

Also, Western voters right here in the hall will be asking questions, as well, and viewers watching at home can participate, also. We're accepting questions for the candidates on Twitter. If you send a question for the candidates on Twitter, make sure to include the hash tag #cnndebate, on Facebook at facebook.com/cnnpolitics, and on cnnpolitics.com.

Now, each candidate will have about one minute to answer the questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. I'll make sure candidates get time to respond if they're singled out for criticism. There are no buzzers. There's no bells. I'll just politely inform the candidates when they need to wrap things up.

We want everyone watching to emerge from this debate more informed about the candidates, more able to judge who should be the next president of the United States.

Now that everyone is in place, it's time for the candidates to introduce themselves to our audience. All the candidates are going to keep it short. Here's an example. I'm Anderson Cooper. I'm usually anchoring "AC 360" on CNN, but I'm honored to be here in Las Vegas at the Western Republican Presidential Debate. That will be my introduction.

(APPLAUSE)

So, Senator Santorum, you're first. Let's start with you.

FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Anderson. I'm Rick Santorum. My wife, Karen, and I are the parents of seven children. And my little girl, Isabella, 3 years old, had some surgery today. She's doing fine. But I just wanted to send to her a little "I love you" and I will take the red eye home to be with you tomorrow and make sure that you're feeling fine.

(APPLAUSE)

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. I'm the champion of liberty. I am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in  --  in a sincere method. And also, I present the case for a free society as being the best defense for peace and prosperity.

(APPLAUSE)

HERMAN CAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am businessman Herman Cain. I've been married to my wife, Gloria, for 43 years. And I'm a 42-year businessman, which means I solve problems for a living.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: I'm Mitt Romney. I was a businessman for 25 years. Then I had the fun of getting the chance to help run the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City next door. And then I had the fun also of being governor of Massachusetts. I also solve problems, sometimes for a living, sometimes for other people to make things better. And I hope to be your president. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

PERRY: Good evening. I'm Texas Governor Rick Perry, a proven job-creator and a man who is about economic growth, an authentic conservative, not a conservative of convenience.

(APPLAUSE)

FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Newt Gingrich. And unlike President Obama, I'm glad to be in Las Vegas. I think it's a great place to have a convention.

(APPLAUSE)

And  --  and when I am president, we're going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all Americans can get off food stamps and onto paychecks.

(APPLAUSE)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, my name is Michele Bachmann. I am thrilled to be able to be with you tonight in Las Vegas. And this is one night when I hope what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: All right. Let's  --  time to begin. We'll begin with actually a question in the hall.

QUESTION: This is for all candidates. What's your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?

COOPER: I'll direct that to Congresswoman Bachmann. You've been very critical of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9 percent sales tax, a 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent corporate tax. In fact, you've said it would destroy the economy. Why?

BACHMANN: Well, I am a former federal tax litigation attorney. And also, my husband and I are job-creators.

One thing I know about Congress, being a member of Congress for five years, is that any time you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn't go away. When we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980, the top rate was 70 percent. If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent? Who knows?

What I do know is that we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you'd be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit. That's the worry.

In my plan  --  again, that's a tax plan, it's not a jobs plan  --  my plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now. I have a tax plan. I have a jobs plan. I have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high-paying jobs.

COOPER: Mr. Cain, a lot of prominent conservatives now are coming forward saying that your 9-9-9 plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class voters, on lower-income voters.

CAIN: The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at hermancain.com. It was performed by Fiscal Associates. And all of the claims that are made against it, it is a jobs plan, it is revenue-neutral, it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. All of those are simply not true.

The reason that my plan  --  the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don't want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that's simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess.

Let's throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan, which will liberate the American workers and liberate American businesses.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Santorum, will his plan raise taxes?

SANTORUM: Herman's well-meaning, and I love his boldness, and it's great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That's the analysis. And it makes sense, because when  --  when you don't provide a standard deduction, when you don't provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we're talking about major increases in taxes on people.

He also doesn't have anything that takes care of the families. I mean, you have  --  you have a situation where, under Herman's plan, a single person pays as much in taxes as a  --  as a man and a woman raising three children. Ever since we've had the income tax in America, we've always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to  --  to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes  --  we gave some breaks for families. He doesn't do that in this bill.

And we're going to  --  we've seen that happen in Europe. And what happened? Boom, birth rates went into  --  into the basement. It's a bad tax for  --  again, it's bold. I give him credit for  --  for starting a debate, but it's not good for families, and it's not good for low-income...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I'm going to give you 30 seconds to respond. That 84 percent figure comes from the Tax Policy Center.

CAIN: That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available.

Secondly, the  --  the point that he makes about is a value-added tax  --  I'm sorry, Representative Bachmann  --  it's not a value-added tax. It's a single tax.

And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least.

COOPER: I want to bring in Congresswoman Bachmann since she was referenced by you.

BACHMANN: But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.

And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It's a hidden tax. And any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the American people think that it's  --  that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it's the government that creates the tax.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Perry, in your state, you have a 6.25 percent sales tax. Would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?

PERRY: No.

Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something, you don't need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire, where they don't have a sales tax, and you're fixing to give them one.

They're not interested in 9-9-9. What they're interested in is flatter and fairer. At the end of the week, I'm going to be laying out a plan that clearly  --  I'll bump plans with you, brother, and we'll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again.

And one of the ways, right here in Nevada you've got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that, and nine cents on a new home  --  or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more?

I don't think so, Herman. It's not going to fly.

COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds.

(APPLAUSE)

CAIN: This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it's not correct to mix apples and oranges.

Secondly, it is not a value-added tax. If you take most of the products  --  take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent.

So you're absolutely wrong. It's not a value-added tax.

Now one other quick thing.

COOPER: Your time's up, I'm sorry.

CAIN: This whole thing about -

COOPER: You'll have another 30 seconds. Trust me, they're going to go -

CAIN: Tonight?

COOPER: Yes, I guarantee it. In about a minute.

Congressman Paul, you called his plan dangerous today.

PAUL: Oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it's regressive. A lot of people aren't paying any taxes, and I like that. I don't think that we should even things up by raising taxes.

So it is a regressive tax. So it's very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues.

But the gentlemen asked the question  --  he didn't even ask what we're talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That's what we should replace it with.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it's a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money.

And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax.

So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Mr. Cain, in 30 seconds?

CAIN: Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They're wrong about it being a value-added tax.

We simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate 9 percent. I invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic.

COOPER: Governor Romney, you have your only 59-point plan. In the last debate, Mr. Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?

ROMNEY: Oftentimes simpler is better. And I know we're not supposed the ask each other questions, but if you permit.

Herman, are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?

CAIN: No, that's an apple.

ROMNEY: OK.

CAIN: We're replacing a bunch of oranges.

ROMNEY: OK.

So, then Governor Perry was right that -

CAIN: No, he wasn't. He was mixing apples and oranges.

ROMNEY: Well, but will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9 percent tax? CAIN: Governor Romney, you're doing the same thing that they're doing. You're mixing apples and oranges. You're going to pay -

ROMNEY: I'm -

CAIN: No, no, no, no. You're going to pay the state sales tax, no matter what.

ROMNEY: Right.

CAIN: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you're still going to pay that. That's apples and oranges.

ROMNEY: Fine. And I'm going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I've got to pay both taxes, and the people in Nevada don't want to pay both taxes.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Now let me make this comment. Let's just step back here. We've got a lot of people in America that are out of work. We've got a lot of people in this state, 13.4 percent of the people in this state out of work. We've got home prices going down. We've got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes, and tax is part of it.

I want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle income families. I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.

If it's lower for the middle class, that's great. But that's not what I saw. I have to tell you, I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector as opposed to putting a damper on it.

I want to get trade, opening up new markets for America. I want to also find a way to get our energy resources  --  and they're all over the world, are all over this country, used for us. This is time to get America growing again. And that's what this campaign ought to be about.

COOPER: Thank you, Governor.

Mr. Speaker...

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain's 999 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?

GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.

(LAUGHTER) GINGRICH: I mean, look, there are  --  first of all, I think that Herman Cain deserves a lot of credit. He has had the courage to go out and take a specific very big idea at the right level.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: And he has us at least talking about something that matters as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politics in this country. So I think that's important.

There are two parts to this. The first is, if you take his plan, and I think it's in the interest of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step. There are much more complexities than Herman lets on. OK. I mean, 999, when you get into details like you pay it on a new product, you don't pay it on an old product, et cetera, there's a lot more detail here than he lets on.

Second, I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100 percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you're going to do it right.

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you said in the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don't pay taxes?

BACHMANN: I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it's a dollar.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BACHMANN: Everyone needs to pay something in this country. That's why with my tax plan, I take a page out of not theory but what's provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That's the plan that I look at.

I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.

Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn't end with the tax code. It's the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it's more than that cost. It's jobs that are lost.

So we need to repeal "Obama-care," repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama's plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure.

COOPER: Thank you.

BACHMANN: I plan to change that with real jobs right now at michelebachmann.com.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We've been talking about Herman Cain's plan. Let's talk about Governor Romney's plan.

Governor Perry, you have said that Governor Romney was an abject failure at creating jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts. If you've read his 59-point plan, has it changed your mind?

PERRY: Well, here's the nine that we need to get focused on. And it's not 999, it's not 59. It's that 9 percent unemployment in this country. And that's where we've got to get focused in America, is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work.

It's the reason I laid out a plan, Newt, this last week to get this energy that's under our feet. We've got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. Yet we've got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it's our petroleum, our natural gas, or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work.

Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say: Listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job. And that's exactly what I did with my plan, laid it out where Americans understand we don't have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don't have to let them hold us hostage. America's got the energy. Let's have American energy independence.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Romney, does Governor Perry have the answer?

ROMNEY: Well, he's absolutely right about  --  about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We're an energy-rich nation that's acting like an energy-poor nation. And that's something I've been talking about for some time, as the governor has. He's absolutely right.

But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing, and high-tech jobs, and good service jobs, technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that's very, very broad. And that's why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and  --  and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget, and that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Santorum, does Mitt Romney have the answers for jobs? SANTORUM: I agree with  --  with all of what Governor Romney and both  --  and Governor Perry said. I would add the fact that  --  that I've put forward the plan that's going to allow for income mobility. That's a new term, but I've been using it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society.

Believe it or not, studies have been done that show that in Western Europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale actually have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in America. And I believe that's because we've lost our manufacturing base. No more stamp "Made in America" is really hurting people in the middle.

And that's why I focus all of the real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing. I cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero, repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over $100 million and replace them with something that's friendlier, they can work with. We repatriate $1.2 trillion that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here, if they invest in plants and equipment. They can do it without having to pay any  --  any excise tax.

The final point I would make to Governor Romney, you just don't have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. You are  --  you are  --  your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you're going to repeal it, you just  --  you have no track record on that that  --  that we can trust you that you're going to do that.

COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: You don't.

ROMNEY: You know, this I think is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I've  --  I've had to talk about Obamacare, I've made it very clear, and also in my book. And at the time, by the way, I crafted the plan, in the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.

SANTORUM: That's not what you said.

ROMNEY: You're  --  you're shaking  --  you're shaking your head.

SANTORUM: Governor, no, that's not what you said.

ROMNEY: That happens  --  to happens to be...

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: It was in your book that it should be for everybody.

ROMNEY: Guys... PERRY: You took it out of your book.

SANTORUM: You took it out of your book.

ROMNEY: Hey, his turn. His turn, OK, and mine.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: I'll tell you what? Why don't you let me speak?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: You're allowed  --  you're allowed to change  --  you're allowed to change...

ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.

SANTORUM: You can't change the facts.

ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.

SANTORUM: You're out of time. You're out of time.

COOPER: He ate into your time.

(BOOING)

Rick...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: I haven't had a chance to respond yet, because you were interrupting the entire time I was trying to speak.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Let me make it very clear.

COOPER: I'll give another 20 seconds.

ROMNEY: And  --  look  --  look, we'll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I'd impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not.

It was something crafted for a state. And I've said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It's unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I'm president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: All right. Senator Santorum?

SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs.

What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you've got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance without controlling costs. You've blown a hole in the budget up there. And you authored in Obamacare, which is going to blow a hole in the budget of this country.

COOPER: Governor Romney, I'm going to give you 30 seconds.

ROMNEY: I'm  --  I'm sorry, Rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan, but I'll tell you, the people in Massachusetts like it by about a 3-1 margin.

And we dealt with a challenge that we had, a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way. And we said, you know what? If people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should.

Now, I can tell you this, it's absolutely right that there's a lot that needs to be done. And I didn't get the job done in Massachusetts in getting the health care costs down in this country. It's something I think we have got to do at the national level. I intend to do that.

But one thing is for sure. What Obama has done is imposed on the nation a plan that will not work, that must be repealed. And when it comes to knowledge about health care and how to get our health care system working, I may not be a doctor like this one right over here, but I sure understand how to bring the cost of health care down and how to also make sure that we have a system that works for the American people.

SANTORUM: It didn't do it. It didn't do it.

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you've also been very critical of Mitt Romney's plan not only on Obamacare, but his plan to lower the capital gains tax only on those earning under $200,000.

GINGRICH: I want to say on health for a minute  --  OK, let's just focus. "The Boston Herald" today reported that the state of Massachusetts is fining a local small business $3,000 because their $750-a-month insurance plan is inadequate, according to the bureaucrats in Boston.

Now, there's a fundamental difference between trying to solve the problems of this country from the top down and trying to create environments in which doctors and patients and families solve the problem from the bottom up.

And candidly, Mitt, your plan ultimately, philosophically, it's not Obamacare, and that's not a fair charge. But your plan essentially is one more big government, bureaucratic, high-cost system, which candidly could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a Medicare program as lavish as yours, and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment. So there's a lot as big government behind Romneycare. Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I'm just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn't true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

BACHMANN: Anderson?

COOPER: He still has time. Let him finish.

ROMNEY: I get a little time here.

Number two, we don't have a government insurance plan. What we do is rely on private insurers, and people  --  93 percent of our people who are already insured, nothing changed. For the people who didn't have insurance, they get private insurance, not government insurance.

And the best way to make markets work is for people to be able to buy their own products from private enterprises. What we did was right for our state, according to the people in our state. And the great thing about a state solution to a state issue is, if people don't like it, they could change it.

Now, there are a lot of things.

BACHMANN: Anderson?

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann.

BACHMANN: Anderson, I think it has to be stated that Obamacare is so flat-out unpopular, that even the Obama administration chose to reject part of Obamacare last Friday, when they tried to throw out the CLASS Act, which is the long-term care function.

Secretary Sebelius, who is the head of Health and Human Services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out. And now the administration is arguing with itself.

When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing. We're going to repeal it! And I will!

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. We will continue this discussion on the other side.

We have a long way to go. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: And welcome back to the continuing debate. We got a Twitter question. We ended talking about medicine, Obamacare. We actually have a Twitter question about it. It was a question left at CNN debate.

If Obama's health plan is bad for the U.S., what is the alternative, and how will you implement it?

Congressman Paul, is there any aspect of Obamacare that you would like to keep, whether it's keeping kids to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 or no pre-existing conditions?

PAUL: Really not, because he's just adding on more government. There's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. Our problem is we have too much. We've had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid.

And what we need  --  I mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare, because it's a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we'd all agree on this.

But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine. And... (APPLAUSE)

And the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship. There is inflation worked into it. When a government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine.

But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. As soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, these insurance companies line up. And even with Obamacare, the industries, the corporations get behind it and affect the outcome, and already insurance premiums are going up.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Herman Cain, same question. Is there any aspect of so- called Obamacare that  --  that you would keep?

CAIN: No. I think we all agree that Obamacare must be repealed because it is a disaster. And the more we learn about it and the more time goes along, the more we see. We're all in agreement with that.

But here's where I would start in answering that question. It's called H.R. 3400. This was introduced back in 2009, but you didn't hear a lot of talk about it. Instead of government being imposed on  --  on our system, it imposes  --  it basically passes market-centered, market-driven, patient-centered sort of reforms to allow association health plans, to allow loser pay laws, to allow insurance products to be sold across state lines, and a whole list of other things. So that's a great place to start.

It allows the patient and the doctors to make the decisions, not a bureaucrat. I'd start with HR-3400.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Perry, in the last debate, Governor Romney pointed out that Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country, over one million kids. You did not get an opportunity to respond to that. What do you say? How do you explain that?

PERRY: Well, we've got one of the finest health care systems in the world in Texas. As a matter of fact, the Houston, Texas, Medical Center, there's more doctors and nurses that go to work there every morning than any other place in America. But the idea that you can't have access to health care, some of the finest health care in the world  --  but we have a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and the fact is we have a huge number of illegals that are coming into this country.

And they're coming into this country because the federal government has failed to secure that border. But they're coming here because there is a magnet. And the magnet is called jobs. And those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized.

And Mitt, you lose all of your standing, from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy.

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Rick, I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life. And so I'm afraid  --  I'm looking forward to finding your facts on that, because that just doesn't -

PERRY: Well, I'll tell you what the facts are.

ROMNEY: Rick, again  --  Rick, I'm speaking.

PERRY: You had the  --  your newspaper  --  the newspaper -

ROMNEY: I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm speaking.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: You get 30 seconds. This is the way the rules work here, is that I get 60 seconds and then you get 30 second to respond. Right?

Anderson?

PERRY: And they want to hear you say that you knew you had illegals working at your -

ROMNEY: Would you please wait? Are you just going to keep talking?

PERRY: Yes, sir.

ROMNEY: Would you let me finish with what I have to say?

(BOOING)

ROMNEY: Look, Rick -

COOPER: I thought Republicans follow the rules.

ROMNEY: This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick, and I understand that. And so you're going to get testy.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: But let's let  --  I'll tell you what, let me take my time, and then you can take your time. All right?

PERRY: Great. Have at it.

ROMNEY: All right.

My time is this, which is I have in my state  --  when I was governor, I took the action of empowering our state police to enforce immigration laws. When you were governor, you said, I don't want to build a fence. You put in place a magnet.

You talked about magnets. You put in place a magnet to draw illegals into the state, which was giving $100,000 of tuition credit to illegals that come into this country, and then you have states  --  the big states of illegal immigrants are California and Florida. Over the last 10 years, they've had no increase in illegal immigration.

Texas has had 60 percent increase in illegal immigrants in Texas. If there's someone who has a record as governor with regards to illegal immigration that doesn't stand up to muster, it's you, not me.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds.

PERRY: You stood here in front of the American people and did not tell the truth that you had illegals working on your property. And the newspaper came to you and brought it to your attention, and you still, a year later, had those individuals working for you.

The idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having an immigration issue is beyond me. I've got a strong policy. I've always been against amnesty. You, on the other hand, were for amnesty.

COOPER: I've got 30 seconds, then we've got move on to another immigration question.

ROMNEY: OK.

You wrote an op-ed in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty. That's number one.

Number two, we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants that were working there. And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go. And we went to them and said -

PERRY: A year later?

ROMNEY: You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. And I suggest that if you want to become president of the United States, you have got to let both people speak. So first, let me speak.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals. It turns out that once question, they hired someone who had falsified their documents, had documents, and therefore we fired them. And let me tell you, it is hard in this country as an individual homeowner to know if people who are contractors working at your home, if they have hired people that are illegal. If I'm president, we'll put in an E-Verify system, which you have opposed -

COOPER: Out of time.

ROMNEY:  --  to make sure that we can find out who's here illegally and not, and crack down on people who come here illegally.

COOPER: All right. We're going to stay on the topic of immigration.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We're going to stay on the topic of immigration. Everyone is going to get a chance to weigh in.

This is a question that was left at CNNPolitics.com. "As president, will you order completion of the physical border fence along the entire border between the U.S. and Mexico?" That's from Marilyn L.

Herman Cain, let me start with you. Obviously, over the weekend, you got a lot of headlines by saying you would have an electrified fence. You then later said it was  --  you then later said it was a joke. And then last night, you said, "It might be electrified. I'm not walking away from that. I just don't want to offend anyone."

(LAUGHTER)

So...

(APPLAUSE)

So would you build an entire fence along the entire border, and would you have it be electrified?

(LAUGHTER)

CAIN: Allow me to give a serious answer. Yes, I believe we should secure the border for real, and it would be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas. I don't apologize at all for wanting to protect the American citizens and to protect our agents on the border, no.

(APPLAUSE)

Secondly, the second thing that I would do  --  see, I believe in let's solve the whole problem. We must shut the back door so people can come in the front door. Secondly, promote the existing path to citizenship by cleaning up the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

Thirdly, enforce the laws  --  the immigration laws that are already on the books. (APPLAUSE)

And here's another one of these bold ideas by the non-politician up here. Empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing in terms of enforcing those laws.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Perry, you have  --  you have the  --  your state has the longest border with Mexico. Is it possible  --  to the question  --  is it possible to build a fence, an  --  across the entire border?

PERRY: Sure. You can  --  you can build a fence, but it takes anywhere between 10 and 15 years and $30 billion. There's a better way, and that's to build a virtual defense zone, if you will, along that border, which  --  not unlike what Herman's talking about, and you can do it with strategic fencing in the obvious places where it matters.

But the way you really stop the activities along that border that are illegal, whether it's the drug cartels or whether it's bringing in illegal weapons or whether it's illegal immigrants that are coming in, is to put boots on the ground.

I will tell you, Herman, you put a lot of boots on the ground. You use Predator drones that are being trained right up here at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada to use that real-time information to give those boots on the ground that information, and they can instantly move to those areas. And that is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border, and really make America safe from individuals, like those Iranians that are using the drug cartels to penetrate this country.

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you agree with Governor Perry?

(APPLAUSE)

BACHMANN: Well, I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens...

(APPLAUSE)

... who've been allowed to stay in this country, despite the fact that they're illegal.

This last Saturday, I was the very first candidate that signed a pledge that said that, by a date certain, I will build a double-walled fence with  --  with an area of security neutrality in between. I will build that, because this is what we know. This is an economics issue and a jobs issue. Every year...

COOPER: You're saying you would build a fence along the entire border? BACHMANN: I will build it on the entire border, and I'll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can't afford that.

I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government.

(APPLAUSE)

And every  --  every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen...

COOPER: Time.

BACHMANN: Thank you.

COOPER: Governor Perry, does that  --  can you actually  --  does that make sense? She says she can build the  --  the fence along the entire border.

PERRY: As I said, you can build that fence, but by the time that fence gets built...

COOPER: She's also talking about your taxpayer-subsidized benefits.

PERRY: But my  --  my point is that, by the time that fence gets built, there is a lot better way than to stand here and to  --  to play to some group of people somewhere and say, "We're going to build a fence," and then wipe our hands of it.

I've been dealing with this border for 10 years as the governor. And the reason that we have this issue is because the federal government has failed miserably to defend and secure that border.

BACHMANN: Which is why we build...

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: You know, for someone that's been in the United States Congress to  --  to lecture me on the issues that are going on, on that border is not right. Let me tell you, we've had to deal with that issue in the state of Texas. We've had to deal with the impact on our state. And I put $400 million on that border of Texas, taxpayers' money, Texas Ranger recon teams there.

We know how to secure the border. I shared with you earlier how to do it. You put the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air, and you secure that border.

COOPER: Governor...

BACHMANN: Anderson, can I respond?

COOPER: He wasn't talking about you directly.

BACHMANN: No, he did respond.

ROMNEY: Let's step back. I think it's important for us as Republicans on this stage to say something which hasn't been said. And that is I think every single person here loves legal immigration. We respect people who come here legally.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: And the reason we're so animated about stopping illegal immigration is there are 4.5 million people who want to come here who are in line legally, we want that to happen in an orderly and legal process.

And in terms of how to secure the border, it's really not that hard. You have a fence, you have enough Border Patrol agents to oversee the fence, and you turn off the magnets. And that's employers that hire people who they know are here illegally.

That's why you have an E-Verify system so they can know that. And, number two, you turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally. It is not that hard. We have to have the political will to get the job done.

And, Governor Perry, you say you have got the experience. It's a bit like saying that, you know, the college coach that has lost 40 games in a row has the experience to go to the NFL.

But the truth is, California  --  I'll say it again, California and Florida have both had no increase in illegal immigration and yours is up 60 percent...

COOPER: Time.

ROMNEY: ... over the last 10 years.

COOPER: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond.

PERRY: Well, the bottom line is that we have a federal government that has failed. There is a clear problem here. And he hit the nail on the head a while ago. He said there was a magnet of people that will hire illegals. And you are number one on that list, sir.

And people need to understand that. You're one of the problems, Mitt.

COOPER: I think we've been down that road.

ROMNEY: Yes...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: We've been down that road sufficiently. It sounds like the audience agrees with me.

COOPER: We are continuing on immigration. We have a question in the audience.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

ROBERT ZAVALA, LAS VEGAS RESIDENT: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. We have 50 million Latinos and not all of us are illegal. What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich? President Obama got I think 67 percent of the Latino vote last time around.

GINGRICH: Look, I think that there's a very clear message to Americans of all backgrounds. Latinos, Korean-Americans, Vietnamese- Americans, there are hundreds of different groups who come to America.

As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration.

But the truth is most Latinos in the United States aren't immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants.

They want an economy that is growing. They want a job that has take home pay. They want access to health insurance that they can afford. They want a chance to get educated that is actually useful and worthwhile. They want to be able to know that their family is going to grow up in safety. And they want to have a chance that their country is going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future.

I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background that we want to make America work again. And you'll know it's working because you will have a job and you'll have a chance to take care of your family.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Congressman Paul, there's some Latino voters who believe that some of these strong anti-immigration laws  --  anti-illegal immigration laws are actually anti-Latino laws. What do you say to them?

PAUL: Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that. And I can understand why somebody might look at that. But when we approach this immigration problem, we should look at the incentives and that  --  or the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate, you must give them free education.

You have to remove these incentives. But I don't think the answer is a fence whatsoever. But in order to attract Latino votes, I think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they're in groups, and then they reward people because they're in groups.

But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy, we wouldn't be talking about this. We need to se everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they're treated that way and they're never penalized that way.

So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away. As long as there's no abuse  --  one place where there's still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. And I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system.

COOPER: Herman Cain, the 14th Amendment allows that anybody born in the United States is an American citizen. Should that change?

CAIN: I want to go back and answer this question first, OK? And that is, my message to Latinos, blacks, whites, and all Americans is that we must first start with significantly boosting this economy, which is on life support.

This is why I have put forth a very bold plan, and I'm not afraid to try and sell it to the American people. I'm not afraid to fight for it when I become president of the United States of America. So that's my message.

If we have this economy growing, people will be able to take care of their families and go after their American dream. And until we boost this economy, all of us are going to suffer for a long time.

COOPER: Then let me ask the question of Governor Perry.

Governor Perry, the 14th Amendment allows anybody. A child of illegal immigrants who is born here is automatically an American citizen. Should that change?

PERRY: Well, let me address Herman's issue that he just talked about.

COOPER: Actually, I'd rather you answer that question.

PERRY: I understand that. You get to ask the questions, I get to answer like I want to. And Herman talked about -

COOPER: That's actually a response, that's not an answer, but go ahead.

PERRY:  --  the issue of how we get this country back working. And truly, the plan that I laid out last week, where we talk about the energy industry and this treasure trove that we have under this country, and we need to recognize that the administration that we have today is blocking mining that could be going on in the state of Nevada. I talked to Brian Sandoval before I came in here today. You have an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy. You have a secretary of energy who has basically said he wants to see gas prices up close to the European model. The president himself said electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket.

That's what we've got to stop. That's the reason we got to have a president of the United States that understands that if you get Americans working, and it addresses these issues that we have in this country, then the fastest way to do it is open up these federal -

COOPER: Time.

PERRY:  --  plants, to pull back those regulations, and get America working again.

COOPER: Time.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: To the question on the 14th Amendment, do you support repealing the 14th Amendment?

PERRY: No.

COOPER: No, you do not?

PERRY: I do not.

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you support it?

BACHMANN: I think there's a very real issue with magnets in this country. And I think the issue that you're referring to is the issue of anchor babies. And that's an issue that  --  I was just in Arizona this last weekend, and the state is very concerned, because when someone comes illegally across the border, specifically for the purpose of utilizing American resources for having a baby here, then all of the welfare benefits then attach to that baby.

This is an issue that we don't have to deal with the Constitution. This is an issue that we can deal with legislatively. And there are a lot of Americans that would like us to deal with this issue of anchor babies legislatively.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Santorum?

SANTORUM: I'd like to address the issue that the gentleman brought up, which is, what are we going to say to the Latino community? And not one person mentioned the issue of family, faith, marriage.

This is a community that is a faith-filled community, that family is at the center of that community. I disagree in some respects with Congressman Paul, who says the country is founded on the individual.

The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It's the family. That's the basic unit of society.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: And the Latino community understands that. They understand the importance of faith and marriage. They understand that bond that builds that solid foundation, and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom. And I think the Latino community knows that's at stake in this country.

There's a lot going on right now that's eroding our religious freedom, that's eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. And there's one candidate up here who consistently sounds that theme.

Look, I'm for jobs, too. I have got an economic plan, and I agree with everything that's been said. But we keep running roughshod over the fact that family in America and faith in America is being crushed by the courts and our government, and someone has stand up and fight for those institutions (ph).

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Time.

Congressman Paul, you were referenced directly. Thirty seconds.

PAUL: Well, I would like to explain that rights don't come in bunches. Rights come as individuals, they come from a God, and they come as each individual has a right to life and liberty.

But I might add about the border control and the Latino vote, is we lack resources there. I think we should have more border guards on it, a more orderly transition, and run it much better. But where are our resources?

You know, we worry more about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to bring the guard units home and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We have a question in the audience.

QUESTION: My question for you is, do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, we'll start with you.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Sorry, go ahead.

GINGRICH: Look, we  --  we worked on this when I was speaker. I think that it has to be looked at scientifically. But I think at some point we have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste. And today, because this has been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous to the United States than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 and 30,000 years of geological safety.

COOPER: Is Yucca Mountain that place?

GINGRICH: I'm not a scientist. I mean, Yucca Mountain certainly was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the United States. It has always had very deep opposition here in Nevada. And, frankly...

COOPER: You were for opening it in Congress, right?

GINGRICH: Huh?

COOPER: When you were in the Congress, you were...

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: When I was in Congress, frankly, I worked with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place, and most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, you oppose this?

PAUL: Yes. Yes, I've  --  I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was a time when I voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong.

But I think it's very serious. I think it's very serious. But quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then they assume this responsibility. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this. And then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage.

So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.

COOPER: Governor Romney, where do you stand on this?

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Congressman Paul was right on that.

(APPLAUSE) I don't always agree with him, but I do on that. The  --  the idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste," doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that, and my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat.

(APPLAUSE)

And by the way, if  --  if Nevada says, "Look, we don't want it," then let other states make bids and say, hey, look, we'll take it. Here's a geological site that we've evaluated. Here's the compensation we want for taking it. We want you electric companies around the country that are using nuclear fuel to compensate us a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount per ton of this stuff that comes.

Let  --  let the free market work. And on that basis, the places that are geologically safe, according to science, and where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff. That's the right course for America.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Perry?

PERRY: You know, from time to time, Mitt and I don't agree. But on this one, he's hit it, the nail, right on the head. And I'll just add that when you think about France, who gets over 70 percent of their energy from nuclear power, the idea that they deal with this issue, that their glassification, and that the innovation  --  and, Congressman Paul, you're correct when it comes to allowing the states to compete with each other. That is the answer to this.

We need to have a  --  a  --  a discussion in  --  in this country about our 10th Amendment and the appropriateness of it, as it's been eroded by Washington, D.C., for all these many years, whether it's health care, whether it's education, or whether it's dealing with energy. We don't need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion, allow the states to make the decision. And some state out there will see the economic issue, and they will have it in their state.

COOPER: We're going to move on to an issue very important here in the state of Nevada and throughout the West. We have a question from the hall.

QUESTION: Yeah, my question is, those of us who own property here in Nevada have been devastated by the real estate bubble. What would you do as president to help fix the overall problem of real estate and foreclosures in America?

COOPER: Senator Santorum, Nevada has the highest rate of foreclosure. SANTORUM: Yeah, I mean, it's  --  it's a situation right now where obviously the market's in  --  has been decimated. And so now you're looking at, how do you repair it? The problem is  --  in the first place, is that several people up here, the, quote, "businesspeople," supported the TARP, supported the bailout. Governors Perry, Romney...

PERRY: Wrong.

SANTORUM: No, you wrote a letter on the day of the vote  --  you wrote a letter on the day of the vote, Governor, saying to vote for the plan. That's what you  --  I mean, that  --  the letter's been...

PERRY: No, I didn't.

SANTORUM: Yes, you did, Governor. You sent...

COOPER: You'll have a chance to respond. Let him finish.

SANTORUM: Joe Manchin signed it with you. So you  --  you supported it. Governor Romney and Herman Cain all supported the  --  the TARP program, which started this ball...

CAIN: Not all of it.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: I mean, I  --  I mean, you guys complain about Governor Romney flip-flopping. I mean, look at what's going on here. I mean, the  --  the bottom line is, you all supported it, you all started this ball rolling, where the government injected itself in trying to make  --  trying to fix the market with the government top-down trying to do it, and (ph) managed decline. And what happened was, people who did things that were wrong invested in things, took risks, were bailed out, and the folks who acted responsibly are now getting hurt because their houses have gone down in value. We need to let the market work, and that's what hasn't been happening so far.

COOPER: I'm going to allow each of the three of you to respond.

Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds.

PERRY: The fact is, Rick just has that wrong. We wrote a letter to Congress asking them to act. What we meant by acting was, cut the regulations, cut the taxation burden, not passing TARP.

There is clearly a letter out of our office that says that, Rick. I'll get you a copy of it so you'll understand it.

SANTORUM: Hold on. I need to respond to that.

He sent a letter the day of the vote on the floor of the House saying, pass the economic plan. There was only one plan, and that was the plan that was voted on the floor. It was TARP.

You sent a letter on that day saying, vote for that plan. Now, you can send a letter later saying I didn't mean it, but when you said it, it was the only plan that was in play, and that was the TARP plan.

COOPER: Governor Perry  --  do you want to respond, Governor Perry?

PERRY: I'm just telling you I know what we sent, I know what the intention was. You can read it any way you want, but the fact of the matter, I wasn't for TARP, and have talked about it for years since then.

COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.

ROMNEY: There's an effort on the part of people in Washington to think somehow they know better than markets, how to rebalance America's economy. And the idea of the federal government running around and saying, hey, we're going to give you some money for trading in your old car, or we're going to give you a few thousand bucks for buying a new house, or we're going to keep banks from foreclosing if you can't make your payments, these kind of actions on the part of government haven't worked.

The right course is to let markets work. And in order to get markets to work and to help people, the best we can do is to get the economy going. And that's why the fundamental restructuring I've described is so essential to help homeowners and people across this country.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Mr. Cain, I want you to be able to respond. Thirty seconds.

CAIN: I have said before that we were in a crisis at the end of 2008 with this potential financial meltdown. I supported the concept of TARP, but then, when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the American people didn't like, I was then against it. So yes, and I'm owning up to that.

Now, getting back to the gentleman's question in terms of what we need to do, we need to get government out of the way. It starts with making sure that we can boost this economy and then reform Dodd-Frank and reform a lot of these other regulations that have gotten in the way -

COOPER: Time.

CAIN:  --  and let the market do it just like Mitt has talked about.

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from foreclosure, in the state of Nevada?

BACHMANN: That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this  --  every day I'm out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I'm talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you're talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they're losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can't keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house.

I'm a mom. I talk to these moms.

I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It's got to be solved.

President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around.

We will turn the economy around. We will create jobs. That's how you hold on to your house.

Hold on, moms out there. It's not too late.

COOPER: We have another question. This one is a Twitter question.

"How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country? And how does it relate with your message?"

Herman Cain, I've got to ask you, you said,  --  two weeks ago, you said, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself."

That was two weeks ago. The movement has grown. Do you still say that?

(APPLAUSE)

CAIN: Yes, I do still say that. And here's why.

(APPLAUSE)

CAIN: I still stand by my statement, and here's why.

They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good. Wall Street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration.

(APPLAUSE)

So I do stand by them.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, you've been  --  Congressman Paul, you've been critical of Governor Romney for  --  for holding fundraisers with  --  with Wall Streeters. Do you think he understands what the protest is about? Do you understand?

PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can't blame the victims.

But we also have to point  --  I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve.

(APPLAUSE)

They  --  they create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that you can't solve these problems if you don't know where these bubbles come from.

But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? The big corporations of people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world's going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved.

But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Mr. Cain, do you want to respond? He referenced you. So if you want to respond, you have 30 seconds.

CAIN: All I want to say is that representative Paul is partly right, but he's mixing problems here. It's more than one problem. Look, the people  --  the banks  --  yes, the banks and the businesses on Wall Street, yes, the way that was administered was not right.

But my point is this: What are the people who are protesting want from bankers on Wall Street, to come downstairs and write them a check? This is what we don't understand. Take  --  go and get to the source of the problem, is all I'm saying.

COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds.

CAIN: And that's the White House.

COOPER: And then we'll go to Governor Romney.

PAUL: Yes, the argument is it's  --  the program was OK, but it was mismanaged. But I work on the assumption that government's not very capable of managing almost anything...

(APPLAUSE)

... so you shouldn't put that much trust in the government. You have  --  you have to trust the marketplace. And when the government gets involved, they have to deal with fraud. And how many people have gone to jail either in the government, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, that participated in this? And nobody suffers the consequences. All these investigations, and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses, it's their fault, according  --  that's why they're on Wall Street. And we can't blame them. We have to blame the business cycle...

COOPER: Time.

PAUL: ... and the economic policies that led to this disaster.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Romney, you  --  you originally called the protests "dangerous." You said it was class warfare. You recently sounded more sympathetic. Where do you stand now? What is your message to those people protesting?

ROMNEY: Look, we can spend our time talking about what happened three years ago and what the cause was of our collapse. But let's talk about what's happened over the last three years. We've had a president responsible for this economy for the last three years, and he's failed us.

He's failed us in part because he has no idea how the private sector works or how to create jobs. On every single issue, he's made it harder for our economy to reboot. And as a result, we have 25 million Americans out of work or stopped looking for work or in part- time work and can't get full-time employed. Home values going down. You have median income in America that in the last three years has dropped by 10 percent.

Americans are hurting across this country, and the president's out there campaigning. Why isn't he governing? He doesn't  --  he doesn't have a jobs plan even now. This  --  this is a critical time for America.

(APPLAUSE)

And I  --  and I can tell you that this is time to have someone who understands how the economy works, who can get America working again. Instead of dividing and blaming, as this president is, let's grow America again and have jobs that are the envy of the world. And I know how to do it.

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. We're going to continue on the other side. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: I'm Anderson Cooper, the western Republican presidential debate, live from the Venetian in Las Vegas. As you watch the debate tonight, send us your comments and questions for the candidates on Twitter. Use the hashtag #CNNDebate. Also contact us on Facebook and cnn.com.

When we come back, the right to bears and should a candidate's faith matter? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: And welcome back to the CNN GOP debate live from the Venetian in Las Vegas. Let's continue. We've got an e-mail question that was left at cnnpolitics.com. This is from a Mike Richards who says: "With the controversy surrounding Robert Jeffress, is it acceptable to let the issue of a candidate's faith shape the debate?"

Senator Santorum, this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter Summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of  --  said that "Mitt Romney is not a Christian," and that "Mormonism is a cult." Those were his words.

Should...

(BOOING)

COOPER: Should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion?

SANTORUM: I think they should pay attention to the candidate's values, what the candidate stands for.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: That's what is at play. And the person's faith  --  and you look at that faith and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person's belief structure. So that's  --  those are important things.

I  --  I'm a Catholic. Catholic has social teachings. Catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong. And those are legitimate things for voters to look at, to say if you're a faithful Catholic, which I try to be  --  fall short all the time, but I try to be  --  and  --  and it's a legitimate thing to look at as to what the tenets and teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and  --  and how you would govern this country.

With respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story. That's not applicable to what  --  what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you agree with that?

GINGRICH: Well, I think if the question is, does faith matter? Absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truths which begins we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? How can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters. That's the order: religion, morality and knowledge.

Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree. (APPLAUSE)

But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment  --  how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?

(APPLAUSE)

Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.

COOPER: Governor Perry, Mitt Romney asked you to repudiate the comments of that pastor who introduced you on that stage. He didn't make the comments on the stage; he made them afterward in an interview. Will you repudiate those comments?

ROMNEY: Well, our faith  --  I can no more remove my faith than I can that I'm the son of a tenant farmer. I mean, the issue, are we going to be individuals who stand by our faith? I have said I didn't agree with that individual's statement. And our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of  --  of freedom of religion.

And this country is based on, as  --  as Newt talked about, these values that are so important as we go forward. And the idea that we should not have our freedom of  --  of religion to be taken away by any means, but we also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn't agree with it, Mitt, and I said so. But the fact is, Americans understand faith. And what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Time.

Governor Romney, is that  --  is that acceptable to you?

ROMNEY: You know, with  --  with regards to the disparaging comments about my faith, I've heard worse, so I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

(LAUGHTER)

What I actually found was most troubling in what the reverend said in the introduction was he said, in choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion. And someone who is a good moral person is not someone who we should select; instead, we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious belief.

That  --  that idea that we should choose people based upon their religion for public office is what I find to be most troubling, because the founders of this country went to great length to make sure  --  and even put it in the Constitution  --  that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion, that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there's a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance for other people and faiths. That's bedrock principle.

And it was that principle, Governor, that I wanted you to be able to, no, no, that's wrong, Reverend Jeffress. Instead of saying as you did, "Boy, that introduction knocked the ball out of the park," I'd have said, "Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong. We should select people not based upon their faith." Even though  --  and I don't suggest you distance yourself from your faith any more than I would. But the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think, is a very dangerous and  --  and enormous departure from the principles of our  --  of our Constitution.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Would you still like him to say that?

(UNKNOWN): I'm sorry?

COOPER: Would  --  would you still like the governor to say that? Or was that something you wanted him to...

ROMNEY: I'll let him  --  that's his choice.

COOPER: Do you want to respond to that, Governor Perry?

PERRY: I have. I said I did not agree with the  --  Pastor Jeffress's remarks. I don't agree with them. I  --  I can't apologize any more than that.

ROMNEY: That's fine.

COOPER: We've got a question from the audience.

QUESTION: Currently, there's a deficit reduction measure to cut defense spending by $500 billion. Would you support such a reduction in defense spending? And if elected president, how will you provide a strong national defense?

COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, should defense be cut?

BACHMANN: Well, $500 billion is the amount that the questioner had mentioned. And don't forget, this was an historic week when it came to American foreign policy.

We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much, that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that.

Then, we saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.

Then, on Sunday, we heard the reports that now that  --  in Iraq, the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it's because of President Obama's failed policies.

He's taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. That's an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us in much danger.

COOPER: Time.

BACHMANN: And the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Congresswoman -

BACHMANN: And as president of the United States, I will. We will be respected again in the world.

COOPER: The question though was about budget cuts. And is everything on the table in terms of cutting the budget?

BACHMANN: Absolutely everything.

COOPER: So defense spending would be on the table, should be?

BACHMANN: Defense spending is on the table, but again, Anderson, now with the president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our Special Operations Forces in Africa.

COOPER: I just want to make sure. OK. It's on the table.

BACHMANN: It's on the table, but we cannot cut it by $500 billion. We can't do that to tour brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

GINGRICH: I mean, if you want to understand how totally broken Washington is, look at this entire model of the super committee, which has now got a magic number to achieve. And if it doesn't achieve the magic number, then we'll all have to shoot ourselves in the head so that when they come back with a really dumb idea to merely cut off our right leg, we'll all be grateful that they're only semi-stupid instead of being totally stupid.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Now, the idea that you have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country in both parties. The fact is, we ought to first figure out what threaten us, we ought to figure out what strategies will respond to that. We should figure out what structures we need for those strategies. We should then cost them.

I helped found the Military Reform Caucus. I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. But the fact is, to say I'm going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, you've proposed -

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Congressman Paul, you just proposed eliminating the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Housing and Urban Development. You say it will save a trillion dollars in one year.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: You're proposing a 15 percent cut to the Defense Department. Can you guarantee national security will not be hurt by that?

PAUL: I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. And you have to get it straight. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense.

How does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We're broke. We have to borrow this money.

Why are we in Japan? Why do we subsidize Germany, and they subsidize their socialized system over there? Because we pay for it. We're broke.

And this whole thing that this can't be on the table, I'll tell you what, this debt bubble is the thing you better really worry about, because it's imploding on us right now. It's worldwide.

We are no more removed from this than man the man on the moon. It's going to get much worse.

And to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren't in so many places.

We have an empire. We can't afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what's happened throughout history, and we're doing it to ourselves.

The most recent empire to fail was an empire that went into, of all places, Afghanistan...

COOPER: Time.

PAUL: ... they went broke. So where are we? In Afghanistan. I say it's time to come home. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

COOPER: It's time.

We have a Twitter question. Given that Israel has just negotiated with Palestine for a soldier, would any of you negotiate for a hostage?

Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al Qaeda had an American soldier in captivity, and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote: "I can see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer. Can you explain?

CAIN: The rest of the statement was quite simply, you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first, I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first.

Now being that you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I'm sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that.

So on the surface, I don't think we can say he did the right thing or not. A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.

COOPER: But you're saying you could  --  I mean, in your words, you've said that I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer. Isn't that negotiating with, in this case, al Qaeda?

CAIN: I don't recall him saying that it was al Qaeda-related.

COOPER: Yes, he did. He said...

CAIN: Well, I don't really  --  my policy will be we cannot negotiate with terrorists. That's where we have to start as a fundamental principle.

COOPER: Senator Santorum?

SANTORUM: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, you can't negotiate with terrorists, period.

To address Congressman Paul's answer and the other answer on military spending, I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. The first order of the federal government, the only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. It is the first duty of the president of the United States is to protect us.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: And we should have the resources  --  we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed.

That has been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success. And that's why we haven't succeeded. And as Michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is Iran.

The disrespect, yes, but it's more than that. They sent a message. The two countries that they went after was the leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia, and the leader of the, quote, "secular world," the United States.

This was a call by Iran to say we are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the Islamic world...

COOPER: Time.

SANTORUM: ... and we are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. And that's why they attacked here. And, by the way, they did it in coordination...

COOPER: Time.

SANTORUM: ... with Central and South Americans, which I have been talking about and writing about and talking about for 10 years.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, you were referenced in that answer, 30 seconds.

PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 150 bases  --  900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially.

And we want to spend more and more, and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something. Something real.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

PAUL: This budget is in bad shape and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever invading this country. Which country  --  are they going to invade this country? They can't even shoot a missile at us.

COOPER: We have a question in the hall that gets to your question. The question in the hall on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.

VICKI O'KEEFE, BOULDER CITY, NEVADA: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?

COOPER: Governor Perry, what about that? I mean...

(APPLAUSE) PERRY: Absolutely. I think it's time for this country to have a very real debate about foreign aid. Clearly there are places. As a matter of fact, I think it's time for us to have a very serious discussion about defunding the United Nations.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

PERRY: When you think about  --  when you think about the Palestinian Authority circumventing those Oslo Accords and going to New York to try to create the conflict and to have themselves approved as a state without going through the proper channels is a travesty.

And I think it's time not only to have that entire debate about all of our foreign aid, but in particular the U.N. Why are we funding that organization?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Romney, should foreign aid be eliminated?

ROMNEY: Foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.

Part of it is humanitarian aid around the world. I happen to think it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give to another country for humanitarian aid. We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are  --  and think of that borrowed money on today (ph).

And finally there's a portion of our foreign aid that allows us to carry out our activities in the world such as what's happening in Pakistan where we're taking  --  we're supplying our troops in Afghanistan through Pakistan.

But let me tell you: We're spending more on foreign aid than we ought to be spending. And Congressman Paul asked, is there a place we can cut the budget? Let me tell you where we cut the budget. Discretionary accounts you bring back to 2008 level. We get rid of Obamacare. Number three, we take Medicaid, turn it back to the states, grow it at only 1 percent to 2 percent per year. Number three, we cut  --  number four, rather, we cut federal employment by at least 10 percent through attrition. And finally, we say to federal employees: You're not going to make more money than the people in the private sector who are paying for you. We link their compensation.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Time.

Congressman Paul?

PAUL: On foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. It's not authorized in the Constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war. Essentially, no well  --  no matter how well-motivated it is...

COOPER: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?

PAUL: I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don't think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. We're on a bankruptcy course.

And  --  and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave to Egypt? I mean, their  --  their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars, and now there's a more hostile regime in Egypt. And that's what's happening all around Israel. That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us. It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back. They should be able to deal with their neighbors...

COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann...

PAUL: ... at their own will.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?

BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact...

(APPLAUSE)

... that the president  --  the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.

Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.

COOPER: Herman Cain, I've got to give you 30 seconds, because she was referring to  --  basically saying you were naive or if  --  if that's what you were suggesting. CAIN: No, I  --  I said that I believe in the philosophy of we don't negotiate with terrorists. I think  --  I didn't say  --  I would never agree to letting hostages in Guantanamo Bay go. No, that wasn't  --  that wasn't the intent at all.

But let me go back to this, if I could, very quickly in the time that I have left, the question that you asked about, foreign aid. My approach is an extension of the Reagan approach: Peace through strength, which is peace through strength and clarity. If we clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are, and stop giving money to our enemies, then we ought to continue to give money to our friends, like Israel.

COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Congressman Paul, and then we've got to go.

PAUL: Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, I don't want to make a statement. I want to ask a question. Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.

SANTORUM: That's not  --  Iran was a sovereign country. It was not a terrorist organization, number one.

PAUL: Oh, they were our good friends back then, huh?

SANTORUM: They're not our good friends. They're  --  they're  --  they're a sovereign country, just like the  --  the Palestinian Authority is not the good friends of Israel.

PAUL: He negotiated for hostages.

SANTORUM: There's  --  there's a role  --  we negotiated with hostages (inaudible) the Soviet Union. We've negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale. But there's a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to a terrorist demand...

PAUL: But they're all suspects. They're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.

SANTORUM: Then  --  then  --  then negotiating with other countries, where we may have an interest, and that is certainly a proper role for the United States, too.

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. I do want to give Speaker Gingrich 30 seconds, and then...

GINGRICH: Just very straightforward. Callista and I did a film on Ronald Reagan. There's a very painful moment in the film when he looks in the camera and says, "I didn't think we did this. I'm against doing it. I went back and looked. The truth is, we did. It was an enormous mistake."

And he thought the Iranian deals with a terrible mistake.

COOPER: We're going to take a short break. Our debate though continues on the other side of the break, so stay tuned.

When we return, which candidate has the best chance to beat Barack Obama, and should it matter in your vote?

Stay with us.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: And welcome back. The GOP debate is under way.

Let's talk about probably the most important issue to everybody on this stage, and probably just about everybody in this room, which is, who can beat President Barack Obama in this next election?

In today's new CNN/ORC poll, 41 percent of Republican voters think that Governor Romney has the best chance of beating the president.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: To Senator Santorum, you got one percent. Why shouldn't Republican voters go with the candidate they feel that can best beat President Obama?

SANTORUM: Well, the Pew poll last week asked how many people in this country can name any of us? And less than 50 percent could come up with even one. So, the idea that this has any relevance to people who aren't paying close attention to this debate is, in fact, irrelevant. What's relevant is to look at the track record.

No one in this field has won a swing state. Pennsylvania is a swing state. We win Pennsylvania, we win the election. The Republicans nominate it.

I've won it twice. I defeated a Democratic incumbent, winning it the first time, and I won the state of Pennsylvania, the only senator to win a state who was a conservative that George Bush lost. Bush lost it by 5, I won it by 6.

So, you have someone who is defeated and been matched up against three Democratic incumbents. I'm 3-0.

Nobody in this field has won a major race against a Democratic incumbent except me. No one has won a swing state except me as a conservative.

I didn't run as a Democrat in Texas when it was popular, won and win there. I didn't run as a liberal in 1994. I ran in 1994, the same year Mitt did in Massachusetts. He ran as a liberal, to the left of Kennedy, and lost. I ran as a conservative against James Carville and Paul Begala, and I won.

In 2002, he ran as a moderate. He ran as a moderate in  --  in Massachusetts. I ran for re-election having sponsored and passed welfare reform, having authored the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

COOPER: Time.

SANTORUM: I was a  --  a moral conservative, I was a foreign policy conservative...

COOPER: Time, Senator.

SANTORUM: ... I was a fiscal conservative, and I got elected in a state that hasn't elected a president since 1988 as a Republican.

COOPER: Thank you.

Governor Romney, I've got to give you 30 seconds, since he referenced you.

ROMNEY: I think the people of America are looking for someone who can beat President Obama and can get the country on the right track. And I believe that they've recognized that if they elect someone who's spent their life in politics that they're not going to be able to post up well against President Obama and convince the American people of the truth of the  --  of the principles that we believe in.

I believe that, having spent my life in the private sector, having actually created jobs is what allows me to have the kind of support that's going to allow me to replace President Obama and get the country on the right track again. That, for me, is a distinguishing feature that's going to get me elected as the president of the United States.

COOPER: Governor...

(APPLAUSE)

Governor Perry, was he referring to you?

PERRY: If you want to know how someone's going to act in the future, look how they act in the past. I mean, so, Mitt, while you were the governor of Massachusetts in that period of time, you were 47th in the nation in job creation. During that same period of time, we created 20 times more jobs. As a matter of fact, you'd created 40,000 jobs total in your four years. Last two months, we created more jobs than that in Texas.

What we need is someone who will draw a bright contrast between themselves and President Obama. And let me tell you one thing: I will draw that bright contrast.

COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds. Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Yeah. With regards to track record in the past, Governor, you were the chairman of Al Gore's campaign, all right?

(LAUGHTER) And there was a fellow  --  there was a fellow Texan named George Bush running. So if we're looking at the past, I think we know where you were.

Secondly, our unemployment rate I got down to 4.7 percent, pretty darn good. I think a lot of people would be happy to have 4.7 percent. And with regards...

(APPLAUSE)

With regards to the  --  to the record  --  to the record in Texas, you probably also ought to tell people that if you look over the last several years, 40 percent, almost half the jobs created in Texas were created for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.

PERRY: That is an absolute falsehood on its face, Mitt.

COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Governor Perry.

ROMNEY: It's actually  --  it's actually...

PERRY: That is  --  that is absolutely incorrect, sir.

ROMNEY: Well, take a look at the study.

PERRY: There's a third  --  there's been a third party take a look at that study, and it is absolutely incorrect. The fact is, Texas has led the nation in job creation. eBay and Facebook and Caterpillar didn't come there because there weren't jobs and there wasn't an environment to be created.

That's what Americans are looking for. They're looking for somebody that they trust, that knows has the executive governing experience. I've got it. You failed as the governor of Massachusetts.

COOPER: I've got to give Governor Romney 30 seconds. He said you failed.

(BOOING)

ROMNEY: I'm very proud of the fact  --  actually, during the four years we were both governors, my unemployment rate in Massachusetts was lower than your unemployment rate in Texas. That's number one.

Number two, getting it down to 4.7, I'm pretty happy with. We worked very hard to balance our budget, did every year, put in place a rainy-day fund of $2 billion by the time I was finished.

And I'll tell you this, the American people would be happy for an individual who can lead the country who's actually created jobs, not just watching them get created by others, but someone who knows how the economy works because he's been in it. I have. I've created jobs. I'll use that skill to get America working again. That's what we want.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Herman Cain, you're  --  Herman Cain, you're tied with Governor Romney in some of the polls for the top leadership position right now. Is a  --  are they the ones  --  are either Governor Perry or Governor Romney, are they the ones who should be president?

CAIN: No, I should be president.

COOPER: Well, obviously.

(APPLAUSE)

CAIN: Governor Romney has a very distinguished career, and I would agree with much of what he has said. And there's one difference between the two of us in terms of our experience. With all due respect, his business executive experience has been more Wall Street- oriented; mine has been more Main Street.

I have managed small companies. I've actually had to clean the parking lot. I've worked with groups of businesses, et cetera.

And as far as contrasting me with President Obama, if I am fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, it's going to be the problem-solver who fixes stuff versus the president who hasn't fixed anything in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Romney, you've got 30 seconds.

ROMNEY: I  --  I appreciate that. And probably the fact that we're doing as well as we are is we both have a private-sector background. That probably helps.

But I just want to set the record state on my record  --  record straight on my record. I've been chief executive officer four times, once for a start-up and three times for turnarounds. One was a financial services company. That was the start-up. A  --  a consulting company, that's a mainstream business. The Olympics, that's certainly mainstream. And, of course, the state of Massachusetts. In all those settings, I've learned how to create jobs.

COOPER: Your campaigns are telling us we have to end. It's time...

(CROSSTALK)

BACHMANN: Oh, no, no, no...

GINGRICH: Wait a second.

COOPER: Sorry.

BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson, that is...

COOPER: It's your campaigns. I'm... BACHMANN: Anderson...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: If you want to defy your campaigns, go ahead. Congresswoman Bachmann, 30 seconds.

BACHMANN: Anderson  --  Anderson, the good news is, the cake is baked. Barack Obama will be a one-term president; there's no question about that.

(APPLAUSE)

Now the question is, we need to listen to Ronald Reagan who said no pastels, bold colors. I am the most different candidate from Barack Obama than anyone on this stage.

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

BACHMANN: We can't settle in this race.

COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

GINGRICH: Let me  --  let me just point out for a second that maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

And the  --  the technique you've used maximizes going back and forth over and over again.

I just want to say two things. I think that I would be the strongest candidate because of sheer substance, if you go to newt.org and look at the 21st Century Contract with America. As the nominee, I will challenge Obama to meet the Lincoln-Douglas standard of seven three-hour debate, no time  --  no moderator, only a timekeeper. I believe we can defeat him decisively to a point where we re-establish a conservative America on our values. And I think that is a key part of thinking about next year.

COOPER: We'd love to host those on CNN.

I want to thank all the candidates, the GOP candidates tonight.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I want to thank all the candidates for a spirited debate on the stage. We also want to thank our co-sponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, our host, the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian. Our coverage of "America's Choice 2012" continues right now here on CNN.

(Source: CNN)

====
The following is a transcript of the 2012 Republican presidential debate on Sept. 7, 2011, in Simi Valley, Calif., as transcribed by Roll Call.
Blogs

SPEAKERS: REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

HERMAN CAIN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, R-GA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN JR., R-UTAH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

BRIAN WILLIAMS, POLITICO

JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO

JOSE DIAZ-BALART, MSNBC

WILLIAMS: Tonight, from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, in a place dedicated to the memory of this Republican icon, in the 100th year after his birth, we will hear from the eight candidates who would like to claim his legacy. They're all here tonight ready to explain and defend their positions on job creation, on spending, debt, and taxes, on America's costly dual wars, and the toxic gridlock that is Washington, D.C.

ANNOUNCER: Live from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, the Republican candidates debate. Here now are Brian Williams and John Harris.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good evening, and welcome.

Thank you especially for joining us here in this spectacular space, this spectacular presidential library, where we are all gathered under the wings of Air Force One. We're going to get right to it tonight because we have a lot of candidates on stage, a lot of issues to talk about.

And for the next hour and 45 minutes, give or take, along with my colleague and friend, John Harris of the website Politico, we will be putting questions to the eight candidates on stage tonight. By agreement, they will have one minute to answer and then 30 seconds for follow-up or rebuttal, as they say, at the moderator's discretion. There will be no opening or closing statements during this debate tonight. With that out of the way, we're going to start with jobs and the economy. The numbers from our new NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll this week are, candidly, jaw-dropping. The country thinks the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. A majority of people in this country now believe the Republican policies of the first eight years of the past decade are responsible for the economic mess we're in. And we should quickly add, a majority also don't believe the current Democratic president has set the right policies to fix the fix we're in. Question is, really, who can?

Governor Perry, we're going to begin with you. You're the newcomer here on stage. You probably saw this coming a mile away. You have touted your state's low taxes, the lack of regulation, tough tort reform as the recipe for job growth in the Lone Star State, but Texas ranks last among those who have completed high school, there are only eight other states with more living in poverty, no other state has more working at or below the minimum wage. So is that the kind of answer all Americans are looking for?

PERRY: Actually, what Americans are looking for is someone who can get this country working again. And we put the model in place in the state of Texas. When you look at what we have done over the last decade, we created 1 million jobs in the state of Texas. At the same time, America lost 2.5 million.

So I will suggest to you that Americans are focused on the right issue, and that is, who on this stage can get America working? Because we know for a fact the resident of the White House cannot.

WILLIAMS: But you know by now the counterargument to that is the number of low-wage jobs and the fact that unemployment is better in over half the states of the union than it is right now in Texas.

PERRY: Well, the first part of that comment is incorrect, because 95 percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage.

So I'm proud of what we've done in the state of Texas. And for the White House or anyone else to be criticizing creation of jobs now in America, I think is a little bit hypocritical.

You want to create jobs in America? You free the American entrepreneur to do what he or she does, which is risk their capital, and I'll guarantee you, the entrepreneur in America, the small businessman and woman, they're looking for a president that will say we're going to lower the tax burden on you and we're going to lower the regulation impact on you, and free them to do what they do best: create jobs.

WILLIAMS: Governor Romney, over to you. You've opened the door on this topic, at least where Governor Perry's concerned. Despite your own private-sector experience, as you know, Massachusetts ranked only 47th in job creation during your tenure as governor. As for your private-sector experience, as Governor Perry's strategist recently put it, consisted of being, quote, "a buyout specialist." Your response to that?

ROMNEY: Well, not terribly accurate, at least with regards to the latter. And our state -- I'm happy to take a look at the Massachusetts record, because when I came in as governor, we were in a real freefall. We were losing jobs every month. We had a budget that was way out of balance.

So I came into office, we went to work as a team, and we were able to turn around the job losses. And at the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see.

As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country. The policies that will get us working again as a nation are policies I understand having worked in the private sector.

Look, if I had spent my whole life in government, I wouldn't be running for president right now. My experience, having started enterprises, having helped other enterprises grow and thrive, is what gives me the experience to put together a plan to help restructure the basis of America's economic foundation so we can create jobs again, good jobs, and compete with anyone in the world.

This country has a bright future. Our president doesn't understand how the economy works. I do, because I've lived in it.

WILLIAMS: Time, Governor.

Let's get a little more specific. Bain Capital, a company you helped to form, among other things, often buys up companies, strips them down, gets them ready, resells them at a net job loss to American workers.

ROMNEY: You know, that might be how some people would like to characterize what we did, but in fact, we started business at Bain Capital, and when we acquired businesses, in each case we tried to make them bigger, make them more successful and grow. The idea that somehow you can strip things down and it makes them more valuable is not a real effective investment strategy. We tried to make these businesses more successful.

By the way, they didn't all work. But when it was all said and done, and we looked at the record we had during the years I was there, we added tens of thousands of jobs to he businesses we helped support. That experience, succeeding, failing, competing around the world, is what gives me the capacity to help get this economy going again. WILLIAMS: Time.

I mentioned one more reference to being a career politician. Is it a disqualification to be in government all your career?

ROMNEY: It's a fine profession, and if someone were looking to say how can we restructure government, and which agency should report to which other agency, well, maybe that's the best background. If you're thinking about what it takes to reshape and update America's economy, and to allow us to compete with China and other nations around the world, understanding how the economy works fundamentally is a credential I think is critical.

WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, a 30-second rebuttal.

You spent your career in that fine profession of elected office. Your reaction to that?

PERRY: Well, Governor Romney left the private sector, and he did a great job of creating jobs in the private sector all around the world. But the fact is, when he moved that experience to government, he had one of the lowest job creation rates in the country. So the fact is, while he had a good private sector record, his public sector record did not match that. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.

WILLIAMS: Well, let's widen this out and let's bring in Mr. Cain on one side --

ROMNEY: Wait a second.

WILLIAMS: Go ahead. I'll give you 30 seconds.

ROMNEY: Listen, wait a second.

WILLIAMS: We could do this all evening.

ROMNEY: States are different. Texas is a great state. Texas has zero income tax. Texas has a right to work state, a Republican legislature, a Republican Supreme Court. Texas has a lot of oil and gas in the ground.

Those are wonderful things, but Governor Perry doesn't believe that he created those things. If he tried to say that, well, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Look, the reality is, there are differences. There are differences between states.

I came into a state that was in real trouble -- a huge budget gap, losing jobs every month. We turned it around. Three out of four years, we had unemployment rate below the national average, we ended up with 4.7 percent unemployment rate. I'm proud of what we were able to do in a tough situation.

WILLIAMS: Time.

Governor Perry?

PERRY: I know back and forth -- Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.

ROMNEY: Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor.

(LAUGHTER)

PERRY: That's not correct.

ROMNEY: Yes, that is correct.

WILLIAMS: Nice to see everybody came prepared for tonight's conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: As I said, I'd like to bring in both wings here, figuratively, of course, Senator Santorum and Mr. Cain.

Let's talk about this debate between public sector life's work and private sector life's work.

You've spent your life's work, Mr. Cain, in the private sector.

And Senator Santorum, most of yours in the public sector.

Weigh in on what you're hearing (ph).

SANTORUM: Yes, I think what people are looking for is someone to get something done. And that's what I have a track record of doing in Washington, D.C., across the board. Not just on economics, but on moral cultural issues, on national security issues, national defense issues.

I've done things. We've brought Democrat and Republicans together.

SANTORUM: I've put forward a plan because I think it's the best plan. But it's also the best plan of anybody here that actually can pass the Senate, which is probably going to have to have Democratic votes. And what I focussed on was a sector of the economy that can get Democratic votes.

We cut the corporate tax from 35 percent to zero, because we want to build the great middle of America again, get those jobs that were shipped overseas by companies that were looking too make a profit because they couldn't any longer do it here.375, and bring those jobs back to America.

We cut that corporate rate to zero. We've passed repatriation to get that resources that are seen overseas, $1.2 trillion, and we bring them back here.

We'll create jobs, and I'll get Democratic votes to pass it. We'll bring things together, because those industrial state Democrats -- and I know, because I'm from an industrial state -- they will vote for this bill. You want to get something going, elect someone who knows how to get things done.

(UNKNOWN): Time, Senator.

Mr. Cain, same question.

CAIN: Let's cut to the chase, this is what business people do and politicians don't do. Here's how I would fix this economy, first, eliminate the current tax code. It is a drain on entrepreneurs, it is the biggest barrier that's holding this economy back, and what I would do is to propose a bold plan, which I have already released.

I call it my 9-9-9 economic growth plan. Throw out the current tax code, a 9 percent tax on corporate income, our 9 percent tax on personal income and a 9 percent national sales tax. If 10 percent is good enough for God, 9 percent ought to be good enough for the federal government. This will replace all federal income taxes. It'll replace all federal income taxes.

It will also replace the payroll tax, so everybody gets some skin in the game. And it replaces the capital gains tax.

This economy is on life support. We do not need a solution that just trims around the edges. This is a bold plan and a bold solution. Additionally, with something as simple as 9-9-9, it gives us a easy mechanism to go after -- help those cities that are the most blighted in terms of empowerment zones, and we can modify that very easily versus the current code.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Cain, thank you.

Governor Huntsman, as you know, Governor Romney's new economic plan calls for the U.S. government to officially label China a currency manipulator, But "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page says such a move would cause a trade war, perhaps.

You're a former ambassador to China. You have served four U.S. presidents. In your view, what does Governor Romney not get about China?

HUNTSMAN: He doesn't get the part that what will fix the U.S- China relationship, realistically, is fixing our core right here at home, because our core is weak, and it is broken, and we have no leverage at the negotiating table.

And I'd have to say, Mitt, now is not the time in a recession to enter a trade war. Ronald Reagan flew this plane. I was in China during the trip in 1984. He went on TV, he spoke to the Chinese people -- I'd love to do that too, in Chinese itself -- and he talked in optimistic, glowing terms.

And it reminds me about this, Ryan, we are the most blue sky, optimistic people on earth. We're going to find solutions, and I have an offer for the two great governors over here.

And I hate to rain on the parade of the Lone Star governor, but as governor of Utah, we were the number one job creator in this country during my years of service. That was 5.9 percent when you were creating jobs at 4.9 percent.

And to my good friend, Mitt, 47 just ain't going to cut it, my friend, not when you can be first. We've got to remember, that to beat President Obama, we have to have somebody who's been in the private sector, understands the fragility of the free market system, has been a successful governor as it relates to job creation, and knows something about this world.

I've lived overseas four times, I've been an ambassador to my country three times, I think I understand that.

(UNKNOWN): Governor Huntsman, time.

Congresswoman Bachmann, over to you. Of all of you on this stage, you've been very vocal about wanting less regulation in American life. Which current federal regulations have been prohibitive or damaging in terms of your own small business?

BACHMANN: Well, I think without a doubt, there's two that you look to. First of all are the new regulations that are just being put into place with ObamaCare. As I go across the country and speak to small business people, men and women, they tell me ObamaCare is leading them to not create jobs. I spent three weekends going to restaurants, and I talked to business owners, said I have 60 people on my payroll, I have to let 10 go. At the same time, a 17-year-old girl came in and said, I'd like a job application for the summer.

He said, I'm sorry, dear, I'm not hiring this summer, I'm actually letting people go. ObamaCare is killing jobs. We know that from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. But I know it first-hand from speaking to people.

We see it this summer. There are 47 percent of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36 percent of Hispanic youth. I'm a mom. I've raised five biological kids and 23 foster kids in my home. One thing I know is that kids need jobs. And ObamaCare is clearly leading to job-killing regulations, not job-creating regulations.

(UNKNOWN): (Inaudible), thank you.

Over to Congressman Paul, you're known as the absolutist in the bunch, someone who has consistently opposed federal government from having any role -- and I think by your definition -- that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

So this makes people curious: Is there a line with you? Where do you draw it? Does this include things like making cars safe, making medicine safe, air traffic control controlling the jets above our heads?

PAUL: I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. We live in a society where we have been adapted to this, and you can't just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it.

On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it. Just think if we had the regulations on the market that dealt with the bankruptcies? They'd have had to go bankrupt. We wouldn't have been able to bail out the big banks and the big corporations and dump onto poor people.

So the market would dictate it. You can't commit fraud. If you need detailed regulations, you can do it at the state level. But the federal government is not authorized to nitpick every little transaction. The way they use the interstate commerce clause is outrageous, as far as I'm concerned.

WILLIAMS: Well, 30 seconds more for devil's advocate here, because would you then put it on the drug companies to say, "No, we're bringing this to market, trust us, it's a fantastic drug"? All the pilots in the sky, to add to their responsibilities, their own air traffic control, in an organic way?

PAUL: What I said is, theoretically, you could -- it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us. Who gets -- who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy.

But you would have private institutions that could become credible. And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, thank you.

Over to Speaker Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)

Mr. Speaker, as you remember, you wrote the foreword to Rick Perry's most recent book called "Fed Up," and you called him, quote, "uniquely qualified to explain what's taking place with the economy." Does that mean, in terms of job creation credentials, he has your proxy at a gathering like this?

GINGRICH: No, but it means that, if he wants to write another book, I'll write another foreword.

(LAUGHTER)

As he himself -- look, he's said himself, that was an interesting book of ideas by somebody who's not proposing a manifesto for president. And I think to go back and try to take that apart is silly.

But let me just use my time for a second, if I might, Brian. I served during the Reagan campaign with people like Jack Kemp and Art Laffer. We had an idea for job creation. I served as a freshman -- or as a sophomore helping pass the Reagan's jobs program. At newt.org, I put out last Friday the response to the Obama stagnation.

The fact is, if you took the peak of the Reagan unemployment, which he inherited from Carter, by last Friday, going month by month, under Ronald Reagan, we'd have 3,700,000 more Americans working.

When I was speaker, we added 11 million jobs, in a bipartisan effort, including welfare reform, the largest capital gains tax cut in history. We balanced the budget for four straight years.

The fact that President Obama doesn't come to the Reagan Library to try to figure out how to create jobs, doesn't talk to any of these three governors to learn how to create jobs, doesn't talk to Herman Cain to learn how to create jobs tells you that this is a president so committed to class warfare and so committed to bureaucratic socialism that he can't possibly be effective in jobs.

WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. (APPLAUSE)

The questioning -- the questioning continues with John Harris.

HARRIS: Thank you. Thank you, Brian.

It didn't take you folks long to mix it up on the question of jobs. I'd like to turn to another subject that's been dominating this campaign. It's health care. Governor Romney, four years ago on this same stage, you had this to say about your record in Massachusetts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: ... great opportunity for the entire country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Well, he had a lot more to say than that, didn't he?

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: I'm sorry. We had a little bit of a glitch right there, but, Governor, you said that what you did in Massachusetts was a great opportunity for the country. I'm going to get to you in just a minute.

What I'd first like to do is ask if anyone else on this stage agrees that the Massachusetts example was a great opportunity for the rest of the country.

(UNKNOWN): No.

(UNKNOWN): No.

PERRY: It was a great opportunity for us as a people to see what will not work, and that is an individual mandate in this country.

HARRIS: Got it. That actually, Governor Romney, leads to my question. I've heard you on this many times before. You said some things about the Massachusetts law worked; other things didn't work as well. Let's go to what Governor Perry mentioned, the individual mandate, the government saying that people have to buy health insurance. Was that one of the things that worked in Massachusetts?

ROMNEY: Let's step back and make sure I make something very clear from the very outset. I understand health care pretty darn well, having been through what I went through as a governor. And one thing I'd do on day one if I'm elected president is direct my secretary of health and human services to put out an executive order granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. It is bad law, it will not work, and I'll get that done in day one.

(APPLAUSE) Now, number two, what we face in our state is different than what other states face. What we had is a lot of people who found that they could simply stop getting insurance, go to the hospital, and get free care paid for by the people, paid for by taxpayers. We were spending hundreds of millions of dollars in our state giving care to people who in some cases could afford to take care of themselves.

And we said, you know what? You've either got to get insurance, if you can afford it, or you're going to have to help pay the cost of providing that care to your -- to you. And that was the approach that we took.

It's a model that lets other states take a look at it. Some parts of it have been copied by other states; some haven't. One thing I know, and that is that what President Obama put in place is not going to work. It's massively expensive. In our state, our plan covered 8 percent of the people, the uninsured.

HARRIS: Governor, time.

ROMNEY: His plan is taking over 100 percent of the people, and the American people don't like it and should vote it down.

HARRIS: Thank you, Governor.

Governor Perry, you clearly don't like the Massachusetts plan as an example for other states, but Massachusetts has nearly universal health insurance. It's first in the country. In Texas, about a quarter of the people don't have health insurance. That's 50 out of 50, dead last. Sir, it's pretty hard to defend dead last.

PERRY: Well, I'll tell you what the people in the state of Texas don't want: They don't want a health care plan like what Governor Romney put in place in Massachusetts. What they would like to see is the federal government get out of their business.

For Medicaid, for instance -- as a matter of fact, I bet Mitt and Jon would both agree -- and I know Newt would, as well -- Medicaid needs to be block-granted back to the states so that we can use the innovation in the states, come up with the best ways to deliver health care.

My wife is a nurse. And I'll promise you, we understand that if we can get the federal government out of our business in the states when it comes to health care, we'll come up with ways to deliver more health care to more people cheaper than what the federal government is mandating today with their strings attached, here's how you do it, one-size-fits-all effort out of Washington, D.C.

That's got to stop. And I'll promise you: On day one, as the president of the United States, that executive order will be signed and Obamacare will be wiped out as much as it can be.

HARRIS: Governor, quick follow-up. Why are so many people in Texas uninsured? PERRY: Well, bottom line is that we would not have that many people uninsured in the state of Texas if you didn't have the federal government. We've had requests in for years at the Health and Human Services agencies to have that type of flexibility where we could have menus, where we could have co-pays, and the federal government refuses to give us that flexibility.

We know for a fact that, given that freedom, the states can do a better job of delivering health care. And you'll see substantially more people not just in Texas, but all across the country have access to better health care.

BACHMANN: John? John?

HARRIS: Thank you. Just one minute. I'd like to go to Governor Huntsman, if I could, because at the heart of this is this argument about the individual mandate. Is it ever appropriate for government at any level -- federal or state -- to force people to buy health insurance?

HUNTSMAN: Absolutely not. You know, at some point, we're going to get around to talking about individual and personal responsibility. And I'm raising seven kids. I've got a couple of them here. The most important thing we can do in this health care debate -- right, Rick -- is talk about individual responsibility, personal responsibility.

But I've got another solution for you, with these two great governors over there, both of whom I like and admire. And I hate to tell you that the situation in Utah is pretty darn good, but I want to draw you to another example there. We embarked upon health care reform. We did better than Rick, in terms of covering the uninsured, and we don't have a mandate. It allows the free market to create a marketplace of choices and options for people.

I believe that once Obamacare is repealed -- and it will be -- the question will then be, what do we do now? And I'm here to tell you that what we did in Utah is going to be a perfect example of what we do now.

We approach cost-cutting, cost overruns, harmonizing medical records, which doctors will tell you is a hugely consequential deal, and expanding the marketplace for choices and options for individuals to choose from, without a heavy-handed and expensive mandate that has caused...

HARRIS: Thank you.

HUNTSMAN: ... for the average family in Massachusetts $2,500 bucks to go up.

HARRIS: Thanks. Thanks, Governor.

Congresswoman Bachmann, let's turn to you. Is Governor Romney's support of an individual mandate...

HARRIS: OK, Governor. Time.

Congresswoman Bachmann, why don't we hear from you on that? It's your plan.

BACHMANN: Energy is one of the greatest opportunities for job creation that we have in the United States. We just learned today that if the federal government would pull back on all of the regulatory restrictions on American energy production, we could see 1.2 million jobs created in the United States.

We could also see created over 50 percent more American energy production. And we could also see $800 billion more revenue coming into the United States government.

Don't forget the day that President Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. It's entirely possible for us to get back to inexpensive energy.

The problem is, energy is too high. Let's have a goal of bringing it down, because every time gasoline increases 10 cents a gallon, that's $14 billion in economic activity that every American has taken out of their pockets. This is a great solution, and this is the place to start with American job creation.

(UNKNOWN): John?

HARRIS: Governor Huntsman, everybody would like $2 gas, but is it realistic for a president to promise that?

HUNTSMAN: Of course not. We live in -- we live in the free- market economy. I'm not sure that dictating prices is going to get you anywhere.

But let's face the reality of where we are. This is a perfect example of where presidential leadership matters. To have a president who would actually walk out from behind the TelePrompTer, get out of the way, speak from your heart and soul, just tell us about...

(APPLAUSE)

... just tell us about where you want this country to go, in terms of what we have in such great abundance, tell us where we think we can find that which we have and convert it into jobs and expanding our industrial base, and reminding the American people that they're not paying $4 per gallon for gas. When you add up the cost of troop deployments, when you add up the cost of keeping the sea lanes open for the importation of imported oil, the bulk and distribution and terminaling costs (ph), it's $13 a gallon, so says the Milken Institute. And I say the American people have had enough. We need a president who's going to provide a little bit of leadership in getting us some direction and opening up the opportunities.

(UNKNOWN): We don't...

HARRIS: Thank you. Congressman Paul, another question from a Politico reader. Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage? Would that create more jobs?

PAUL: Absolutely. And it would help the poor, the people who need a job. The minimum wage is a mandate. We're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial.

But I was trying to get your attention a little while ago. There's eight of us up here. I'm a physician, but you sure weren't going to ask me any medical question. But I would like to address that just a little bit.

First off, you know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for Romneycare, but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare. So we probably ought to ask him about that.

But mandates, that's what the whole society is about. That's what we do all the time. That's what government does: mandate, mandate, mandate. And what we -- we talk so much about the Obama mandate, which is very important, but what about Medicare? Isn't that a mandate? Everything we do is a mandate. So this is why you have to look at this at the cause of liberty. We don't need the government running our lives.

And I -- I do want to address the subject of $2 oil or gasoline, because I can do it much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime.

HARRIS: Time. Time. Thank you, Congressman.

PAUL: Well, I've got to finish the sentence. You didn't give me time before.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: These are rules that all of you agreed to that Brian...

ROMNEY: Let's hear that.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: Finish the sentence, or you're all done?

PAUL: OK, I'm going to finish the sentence then. HARRIS: Quickly, please.

PAUL: OK, you can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.

HARRIS: Good. Thank you, sir.

Now, Governor Perry, I saw you nod your head.

(APPLAUSE)

I saw you nod your head, Governor Perry, at the answer on the minimum wage that would create jobs. Do you agree with that?

PERRY: I actually was nodding my head when he said that I wrote a letter to Hillary and we were hoping...

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: ... that she would be able to come up with something that would not leave the agriculture men and women -- because I was the agriculture commissioner at that particular point in time. We had no idea it was going to be the monstrosity that's known as Hillarycare.

Speaking of letters, I was more interested in the one that you wrote to Ronald Reagan back and said I'm going to quit the party because of the things you believe in.

PAUL: Oh, I need an answer on that.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: You've got a 30-second rebuttal, Congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs.

But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message.

WILLIAMS: Funny thing about the mail. It kind of tends to live on forever.

To all of you, thank you. We're going to hold in place, take a quick break. Our coverage of the debate from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: And we are back. Our live coverage continues of the GOP debate here tonight, Simi Valley, California, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, beneath the huge Air Force One Boeing 707.

I'm with John Harris of the website Politico, and we would be remiss, of course, any gathering in this space would, without a mention, perhaps a short tribute, to one of the most important people here tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS (voice-over): The legacy represented here at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library is impressive: over 1 million photos, 60 million pages of documents, tens of thousands of audio and videotapes encompassing the life and work of the late president.

R. REAGAN: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: But even this great place can't evoke the full magnitude and spirit of Ronald Reagan's life like his partner.

N. REAGAN: I was very blessed to find him.

WILLIAMS: Mrs. Reagan has always said her life started when she met Ronald Wilson Reagan. And from that point onward, they tackled everything together.

RONALD WILSON REAGAN, PRESIDENT Of THE UNITED STATES: I, Ronald Reagan, do solemnly swear --

WILLIAMS: All along, Mrs. Reagan was his advisor and champion- in-chief. Their love for one another was an enduring image at the White House. That bond would sustain them through the unthinkable.

Though forever shaken, the work of the nation went on. Mrs. Reagan decided to dedicate herself to the Just Say No campaign.

N. REAGAN: If you're ever offered drugs, please, please, just say no.

WILLIAMS: It was with great dignity and grace that President Reagan announced in 1994 he'd been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

N. REAGAN: Each day brings another reminder of this very long good-bye.

WILLIAMS: Since saying farewell to her companion of over 50 years back in 2004, Mrs. Reagan has stayed active in public life, advocating for stem-cell research, and devoting herself to the celebration of her husband's life and his lasting legacy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: And so, Ladies and Gentlemen, Mrs. Nancy Reagan.

The questioning continues -- John Harris.

HARRIS: Governor Perry, you said you wrote the book "Fed Up" to start a conversation. Congratulations. It's certainly done that in recent weeks.

In the book, you call Social Security the best example of a program that "violently tossed aside any respect for states' rights." We understand your position that it's got funding problems now. I'd like you to explain your view that Social Security was wrong right from the beginning.

PERRY: Well, I think any of us that want to go back and change 70 years of what's been going on in this country is probably going to have a difficult time. And rather than spending a lot of time talking about what those folks were doing back in the '30s and the '40s, it's a nice intellectual conversation, but the fact is we have got to be focussed on how we're going to change this program.

And people who are on Social Security today, men and women who are receiving those benefits today, are individuals at my age that are in line pretty quick to get them, they don't need to worry about anything. But I think the Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program, and it is a monstrous lie.

It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you're paying into a program that's going to be there. Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right.

HARRIS: OK. Thank you, sir.

Let me follow on that. You mentioned the phrase "Ponzi scheme."

Just this morning, your former political adviser, Karl Rove, said that type of language could be "toxic," as he put it, in a general election. Vice President Cheney gave an interview today to ABC News, when he said it's not a Ponzi scheme, "It's a program that a great many people depend on."

My understanding is you're standing by every word you've written in that book. Is that right?

PERRY: Yes, sir. You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I'm not responsible for Karl anymore. But the fact is --

HARRIS: Vice President Cheney though said it's not a Ponzi scheme. You say it is.

PERRY: Absolutely. If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that, expect that program to be sound, and for them to receive benefits when they research retirement age, that is just a lie. And I don't care what anyone says. We know that, the American people know that, but more importantly, those 25-and-30-year-olds know that.

HARRIS: Governor, time. Thank you. Governor, time.

(APPLAUSE) HARRIS: Governor Romney, let's be blunt. Let's be blunt. Democrats are itching to use that kind of provocative language against Republicans, yet you acknowledge yourself that Social Security has funding problems.

How do you have a candid question about Social Security without scaring seniors?

ROMNEY: Well, the issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree and have for years that the funding program of Social Security is not working, and Congress has been raiding the dollars from Social Security to pay for annual government expenditures. That's wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue.

The issue in the book "Fed Up," Governor, is you say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure. You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it.

The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security.

We have always had, at the heart of our party, a recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure. We save Social Security.

And under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure. It is working for millions of Americans, and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans. And we've got to do that as a party.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Thank you, Governor.

Governor Perry, a 30-second rebuttal. Governor Romney said Vice President Cheney is right and you're wrong about Ponzi schemes.

PERRY: Well, here's -- again, we're not trying to pick fights here.

HARRIS: Understood.

PERRY: We're about fixing things. You can either have reasons or you can have results. And the American people expect us to put results in place.

You cannot keep the status quo in place and not call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme. It is. That is what it is. Americans know that, and regardless of what anyone says, oh, it's not -- and that's provocative language -- maybe it's time to have some provocative language in this country and say things like, let's get America working again and do whatever it takes to make that happen. (APPLAUSE)

CAIN: John, I think the American people would like to hear a solution.

HARRIS: OK.

CAIN: Do you want to hear some more rhetoric or do you want to hear a solution?

I happen to believe that yes, Social Security, it needs fixing, not continuing to talk about it. I believe in the Chilean model, where you give a personal retirement account option so we can move this society from an entitlement society to an empowerment society.

Chile had a broken system the way we did. Thirty years ago, a worker was paying 28 cents on a dollar into a broken system. They finally awakened and put in a system where the younger workers could have a choice. A novel idea.

Give them a choice with an account with their name on it, and over time we would eliminate the current broken system that we have. That is a solution to the problem. Rather than continuing to talk about how broken it is, let's just fix it using the Chilean model.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Thank you.

Congressman Paul, we've been talking just now about Governor Perry's rhetoric, but let's talk about his record.

Just this morning, your campaign put out a statement accusing him of pushing for bailout money, supporting welfare for illegal immigrants, and trying to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases.

He's your home state governor. Is he less conservative than meets the eye?

PAUL: Much more so, yes.

Just take the HPV. Forcing 12-year-old girls to take an inoculation to prevent this sexually transmitted disease, this is not good medicine, I do not believe. I think it's social misfit.

It's not good social policy. And therefore, I think this is very bad to do this. But one of the worst parts about that was the way it was done.

You know, the governorship in Texas traditionally is supposed to be a weak governorship. I didn't even know they could pass laws by writing an executive order. He did it with an executive order, passed it.

The state was furious, and the legislature, overwhelmingly, probably 90 percent -- I don't know exactly -- overwhelmingly repealed this. But I think it's the way it was passed, which was so bad.

I think it's a bad piece of legislation. But I don't like the idea of executive orders. I, as president, will not use the executive order to write laws.

HARRIS: Time. Thank you, Congressman.

Governor Perry, we'll get to you.

But, Congresswoman Bachmann, this is an issue you have also talked about, HPV.

BACHMANN: Well, what I'm very concerned about is the issue of parental rights. I think when it comes to dealing with children, it's the parents who need to make that decision. It is wrong for government, whether it's state or federal government, to impose on parents what they must do to inoculate their children. This is very serious, and I think that it's very important, again, that parents have the right.

Educational reform is another area. That's where I cut my teeth in politics, was being involved in educational reform, because the problem you see is one of framing.

It's the idea, should the federal government control these areas, or should parents and localities control these areas? We have the best results when we have the private sector and when we have the family involved. We have the worst results when the federal government gets involved, and especially by dictate to impose something like an inoculation on an innocent 12-year-old girl.

I would certainly oppose that.

HARRIS: Thank you.

Governor Perry, we've had candidates talking about you. Let's hear from you.

PERRY: I kind of feel like the pinata here at the party, so...

HARRIS: Welcome.

PERRY: But here's the facts of that issue. There was an opt-out in that piece of -- it wasn't legislation. It was an executive order.

I hate cancer. We passed a $3 billion cancer initiative that same legislative session of which we're trying to find over the next 10 years cures to cancers. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. We wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of -- of -- of -- tens of thousands of young people in our state. We allowed for an opt-out.

I don't know what's more strong for parental rights than having that opt-out. There's a long list of diseases that cost our state and cost our country. It was on that list.

Now, did we handle it right? Should we have talked to the legislature first before we did it? Probably so. But at the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Senator Santorum, one final note on this book, "Fed Up." Governor Perry says in his book that it was, quote, "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote in favor of creating the Department of Homeland Security. You were one of those Republicans who voted yes. Respond.

SANTORUM: We created the Department of Homeland Security because there was a complete mess in the internal -- in protecting our country. We had all sorts of agencies that had conflicting authority. We had no information sharing that was going on. This was right after 9/11. We saw the problems created as a result of 9/11. And we put together a plan to try to make sure that there was better coordination.

I want to get back to this Gardasil issue. You know, we have -- Governor Perry's out there and -- and claiming about state's rights and state's rights. How about parental rights being more important than state's rights? How about having, instead of an opt-out, an opt- in?

If you really cared, you could make the case, instead of forcing me, as a parent -- and I have seven children, too, the wide receivers here have -- have -- on the ends here have -- have -- have seven children each -- but I am offended that -- that the government would tell me -- and by an executive order, without even going through the process of letting the people have any kind of input. I would expect this from President Obama; I would not expect this from someone who's calling himself a conservative governor.

HARRIS: Time.

Governor Romney, you've been listening to this exchange. Who's got the better end of it?

ROMNEY: You know, I believe in parental rights and parental responsibility for our kids. My guess is that Governor Perry would like to do it a different way second time through. We've each get -- we've each taken a mulligan or two. And -- and my guess is that that's something you'd probably do a little differently the second time. He just said he'd rather do it through legislation second time through.

And I recognize he wanted very badly to provide better health care to his kids and to prevent the spread of cancer. I agree with -- with those who said he went about it in the wrong way, but I think his heart was in the right place.

Right now, we have people who on this stage care very deeply about this country. We love America. America is in crisis. We have some differences between us, but we agree that this president's got to go. This president is a nice guy. He doesn't have a clue how to get this country working again. And -- and...

(APPLAUSE) GINGRICH: Brian?

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds. I have another line of questioning. Go ahead.

GINGRICH: Yeah, I just want to go back, frankly, to the homeland security question, because it's important for us to confront this. I helped develop the model for homeland security. It hasn't been executed well.

The fact is, we have enemies who want to use weapons against us that will lead to disasters on an enormous scale. And the original goal was to have a Homeland Security Department that could help us withstand up to three nuclear events in one morning.

And we need to understand, there are people out there who want to kill us. And if they have an ability to sneak in weapons of mass destruction, they're going to use them. We need to overhaul and reform the department, but we need some capacity to respond to massive events that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in one morning.

WILLIAMS: Congressman Paul, this same line. You want to demolish the TSA. What would exist in its place?

PAUL: With the airlines that are responsible for carrying their cargo and their passengers. I mean, why -- why should we assume that a bureaucracy can do better? And look at the monstrosity we have at the airports. These TSA agents are abusive. Sometimes they're accused of all kinds of sexual activities on the way they maul people at the airport. So the airlines could do that.

WILLIAMS: I'll give them your best at LAX tonight.

PAUL: The -- you know, I would -- I would think the airlines should treat passengers as well as a company that hauls money around, and they -- they protect their money. They have private guards. And -- and they could do it.

Just remember, 9/11 came about because there was too much government. Government was more or less in charge. They told the pilots they couldn't have guns, and they were told never to resist. They set up the stage for all this. So, no, private -- private markets do a good job in protecting -- much better than this bureaucracy called the TSA, let me tell you.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask you about something else. It's related in a way, has to do with Mother Nature. Before the broadcast, Senator Santorum's got flooding today in Pennsylvania, Governor Perry is just back from the wildfires, out east, a Category 1 laid waste to entire areas. There's standing water tonight in Paterson, New Jersey, many of the towns around where I live, eight days without power. We had people eating in outdoor and public parks because the supermarkets were closed down.

The question is, federal aid, something like FEMA, if you object to what its become, how it's run, your position is to -- is to remove it, take it away, abolish it. What happens in its absence?

PAUL: Well, what happened before 1979? We didn't have FEMA. And that -- FEMA just conditioned people to build where they shouldn't be building. We lose the market effect of that.

But, yeah, my position is, we should have never had it. There's a much better way of doing it. I mean, this whole idea that the federal government can deal with weather and anything in the world, just got to throw a government there -- FEMA's broke. They're $20 billion in debt.

But I'm not for saying tomorrow close it down. A lot of people pay the insurance. I work real hard to make it work, and I did that in my district, too.

But I'll tell you how we should do it. We're spending -- believe it or not, this blew my mind when I read this -- $20 billion a year for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq in the tents over there and all the air conditioning. Cut that $20 billion out, bring in -- take $10 off the debt, and put $10 into FEMA or whoever else needs it, child health care or whatever. But I'll tell you what, if we did that and took the air conditioning out of the Green Zone, our troops would come home, and that would make me happy.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Mr. Cain, along these same lines, Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that federal disaster aid -- this has been a big discussion of late -- shouldn't be given out unless there are kind of concurrent spending cuts to offset the cost. Do you join in on that?

CAIN: I believe that there's enough money to go around. And I believe that, yes, you can find the concurrent spending cuts in order to be able to do that. No, don't eliminate FEMA. Let's fix FEMA. Let's fix Homeland Security.

There's a responsible way for the federal government to do the things that it should do. Running organizations like the TSA, I would agree with Representative Paul, no. Having the federal government responsible for trying to micromanage Medicare, no, trying to micromanage education, no. The federal government is not good at micromanaging anything. This is why I believe in empowering the states to do more and limit what the federal government does with regard to those kinds of program.

WILLIAMS: Governor Huntsman, you know, the upside to this is, I guess, you could fly with your shoes on. The downside is, who does the job the next day?

HUNTSMAN: Let me just say, while this is an important discussion that we're having, we've spent about 15 minutes now on homeland security. The greatest gift we could give this country on the 10th year anniversary, Rick, is a Homeland Security Department that really works, that doesn't give people a sense when they walk through they're going to get shaken down, a department that doesn't make us all feel like there's a fortress security mentality that is not American. And I've got to say there's something wrong with that.

But I'm guessing there are a whole lot of people tuned in around this country who are saying, why are we spending all this time talking about the smaller issues? We've got 14 million people unemployed. We've got millions more in this country who are so dispirited they've quit looking. This is a human tragedy that we're talking about, moms and dads and families that completely go without.

And all I would ask the people here and the people tuning in around this country, look at where we stand in terms of how we are going to get this country back on its feet.

And I just want to point out that we have offered -- based on where I've been and what I have done -- as governor of a state where we became number one in job creation, where we fixed the economy, made it the best economy for business in this entire country. We've got to get back on our feet.

This is a crisis situation. While all these other issues are important, let's not lose sight, folks, of the bottom line here. We've got to get back in the game as a country. We've got to make this economy work.

MORE99

WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, you can't have much of a workforce without a basis of education. As you know, your state ranks among the worst in the country in high school graduation rates, as we established, yet you recently signed a budget cut for millions in education funding. You pushed for greater cuts than were in the budget that the legislature passed. You've said that education is a top priority, but explain cutting it the way you did, please.

PERRY: Well, I think the reductions that we made were thoughtful reductions, and the fact of the matter is, Texas has made great progress in the 10 years that I've been governor, from the standpoint of our graduation rates now are up to 84 percent, higher than they've been during any period of time before that.

We're seeing the type of commitment. Our 4th and 8th grader African-American and Hispanics on the NACH (ph) test, they were some of the highest in the country. We're making progress. When you share the border with Mexico, and when you have as many individuals that we have coming into the state of Texas, we have a unique situation in our state.

But the fact is, I stand by a record from what we've done with the resources that we've had, and I think that the reductions that we put in place were absorbed by our schools, and we will continue to have one of the finest workforces made available. When Caterpillar and Toyota and eBay and Facebook move to your state, it's not because you've got a workforce that's not capable.

WILLIAMS: Time, Governor.

Speaker Gingrich, this reminds of "Race to the Top," the Obama administration education program. You supported it, Governor Perry opted out, some people don't like it. What did you like about it?

GINGRICH: I liked very much the fact that it talked about charter schools. It's the one place I found to agree with President Obama. If every parent in America had a choice of the school their child went to, if that school had to report its scores, if there was a real opportunity, you'd have a dramatic improvement.

I visited schools where, three years earlier, there were fights, there were dropouts, there was no hope. They were taken over by a charter school in downtown Philadelphia, and all of a sudden the kids didn't fight anymore, because they were disciplined. They were all asked every day, what college are you going to? Not are you going to go to college, what college are you going. And so I would -- I am very much in favor of school choice.

My personal preference would be to have a Pell Grant for K-12 so that every parent could pick, with their child, any school they wanted to send them to, public or private, and enable them to have the choice.

I don't think you're ever going to reform the current bureaucracies. And the president, I thought, was showing some courage in taking on the teacher's union to some extent and offering charter schools, and I wanted, frankly, to encourage more development towards choice.

WILLIAMS: I want to introduce another line of questioning by introducing yet another colleague of ours, Jose Diaz-Balart, from our sister network Telemundo.

Hey, my friend, how are you?

DIAZ-BALART: Good evening. Nice to see you all. Nice to see you all.

I want to talk about a subject that was very dear to the heart of President Reagan, which is immigration reform.

As you know, he was the last U.S. President to sign immigration reform in 1986. All of you, I think, have said that you don't think immigration reform should be discussed until the border is secure.

And, Governor, I'd like to ask you, border state governor, what specifically, in your mind, would make the border secure?

PERRY: Well, the first thing you need to do is have boots on the ground. We've had a request in to this administration since June -- or January of 2009 for 1,000 border patrol agents or National Guard troops, and working towards 3,000 border patrol. That's just on the Texas border.

There's another 50 percent more for the entire Mexican border. So you can secure the border, but it requires a commitment of the federal government of putting those boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air.

We think predator drones could be flown, that real-time information coming down to the local and the state and the federal law enforcement. And you can secure the border. And at that particular point in time, then you can have an intellectually appropriate discussion about immigration reform.

For the President of the United States to go to El Paso, Texas, and say that the border is safer than it's ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel of a president in the history of this country, or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that border.

DIAZ-BALART: Governor, specifically, do you agree or disagree with some of the issues that the governor of Texas says, as far as what you would consider enough to be able to declare the border safe?

ROMNEY: Well, first, we ought to have a fence. Secondly...

DIAZ-BALART: The whole fence, 2,600 miles?

ROMNEY: Yes. We got to -- we got to have a fence, or the technologically approved system to make sure that we know who's coming into the country, number one.

Number two, we ought to have enough agents to secure that fence and to make sure that people are coming over are caught.

But the third thing, and I learned this when I was with border patrol agents in San Diego, and they said, look, they can always get a ladder to go over the fence. And people will always run to the country. The reason they come in such great numbers is because we've left the magnet on.

And I said, what do you mean, the magnet? And they said, when employers are willing to hire people who are here illegally, that's a magnet, and it draws them in. And we went in and talked about sanctuary cities, giving tuition breaks to the kids of illegal aliens, employers that, employers that knowingly hire people who are here illegally. Those things also have to be stopped.

If we want to secure the border, we have to make sure we have a fence, technologically, determining where people are, enough agents to oversee it, and turn off that magnet. We can't talk about amnesty, we cannot give amnesty to those who have come here illegally.

We've got 4.7 million people waiting in line legally. Let those people come in first, and those that are here illegally, they shouldn't have a special deal.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, your perception on immigration reform? And you've been, I think, in some ways, a little different on your initial positions.

GINGRICH: I think we have to find a way to get to a country in which everybody who's here is here legally. But you started by referencing President Reagan.

In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which in fact did grant some amnesty in return for promises. President Reagan wrote in his diary that year that he signed the act because we were going to control the border and we were going to have an employer program where it was a legal guest worker program. That's in his diary.

I'm with President Reagan. We ought to control the border, we ought to have a legal guest worker program. We ought to outsource it, frankly, to American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, so there's no counterfeiting, which there will be with the federal government. We should be very tough on employers once you have that legal program.

We should make English the official language of government. We should insist --

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We should insist that first-generation immigrants who come here learn American history in order to become citizens. We should also insist that American children learn American history.

And then find a way to deal with folks who are already here, some of whom, frankly, have been here 25 years, are married with kids, live in our local neighborhood, go to our church. It's got to be done in a much more humane way than thinking that to automatically deport millions of people.

HARRIS: Senator, your solution?

SANTORUM: Well, my solution is very similar to Newt Gingrich's.

Look, I'm the son of an Italian immigrant. I think immigration is one of the great things that has made this country the dynamic country that it continues to be, people who are drawn because of the ideals of this country. And so we should not have a debate talking about how we don't want people to come to this country, but we want them to come here like my grandfather and my father came here.

They made sacrifices. They came in the 1920s. There were no promises. There were no government benefits.

They came because they wanted to be free and they wanted to be good law-abiding citizens. So we have to have a program in place that sets that parameter that says, you're going to come to this country, come here according to the rules. It's a very good first step that the first thing you do here is a legal act, not an illegal act.

HARRIS: A quick follow-up, 30 seconds.

So there are 11 million people that -- fait accompli. They're here. What do you do with them if you are able to secure the border?

SANTORUM: Well, I think we can have the discussion, that whether what we do with people, how long they've been here, whether they had other types of records. But to have that discussion right now and pull the same trick that was pulled in 1986 -- we said, well, we'll promise to do this if you do that -- no more. We are going to secure the border first, and that's the most important thing to do, then we'll have the discussion afterwards.

HARRIS: Congresswoman, you said the fence -- that you believe the fence is fundamental as an integral part of controlling the border. Let's say that in 2012 or 2013, there's a fence, the border is secure, gasoline is $2 a gallon.

What do you do then with 11 million people, as the Speaker says, many of whom have U.S.-born children here? What do you do?

BACHMANN: Well, again, understand the context and the problem that we're dealing with.

In Mexico right now, we're dealing with narco terrorists. This is a very serious problem. To not build a border or a fence on every part of that border would be, in effect, to yield United States sovereignty not only to our nation anymore, but to yield it to another nation. That we cannot do.

One thing that the American people have said to me over and over again -- and I was just last week down in Miami. I was visiting the Bay of Pigs Museum with Cuban-Americans. I was down at the Versailles Cafe. I met with a number of people, and it's very interesting. The Hispanic-American community wants us to stop giving taxpayer- subsidized benefits to illegal aliens and benefits, and they want us to stop giving taxpayer-subsidized benefits to their children as well.

HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question.

The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?

BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.

But one thing that we do know, our immigration law worked beautifully back in the 1950s, up until the early 1960s, when people had to demonstrate that they had money in their pocket, they had no contagious diseases, they weren't a felon. They had to agree to learn to speak the English language, they had to learn American history and the Constitution.

And the one thing they had to promise is that they would not become a burden on the American taxpayer. That's what we have to enforce.

HARRIS: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Mr. Cain?

CAIN: Let's make sure -- let's solve all of the problems. It's not one problem.

I do believe we can secure the border with a combination of boots on the ground, technology, and a fence, but we've got three other problems. And to get to it, we've got to secure the border.

Secondly, let's promote the path to citizenship that's already there. We don't need a new one, we just need to clean up the bureaucracy that's slowing the process down and discouraging people.

The third thing we need to do, enforce the laws that are there, and the way we do it, empower the states. I believe that the people closest to the problem are the best ones to be able to solve that problem. Empower the states to do what the federal government hasn't done, can't do, and won't do. This is how we solve the entire problem.

HARRIS: Thank you.

Governor?

HUNTSMAN: I would just have to say that I agree with so much of what has been said here today.

President Reagan, when he made his decision back in 1987, he saw this as a human issue. And I hope that all of us, as we deal with this immigration issue, will always see it as an issue that resolves around real human beings.

Yes, they came here in an illegal fashion. And yes, they should be punished in some form or fashion.

I have two daughters that came to this country, one from China, one from India, legally. I see this issue through their eyes.

We can find a solution. If President Reagan were here, he would speak to the American people and he would lay out in hopeful, optimistic terms how we can get there, remembering full well that we're dealing with human beings here. We have to agree.

But let me just say one thing about legal immigration. Let's not lose sight of the fact that our legal immigration system is broken. And if we want to do something about attracting brain power to this country, if we want to lift real estate values.

For example, why is it that Vancouver is the fastest-growing real estate market in the world today? They allow immigrants in legally, and it lifts all votes (ph). And we need to focus as much on legal immigration.

HARRIS: Congressman, your thoughts?

PAUL: Obviously, it's a very big problem. I think we need to remove the incentive -- easy road to citizenship. Nobody has mentioned the fact that they qualify for benefits as well, you know, the welfare benefits. We shouldn't have to give -- the state of Texas shouldn't be forced to provide free health care and free education.

But there is a mess down there, and it's a big mess. And it's the drug war that's going on there. And our drug laws are driving this. So now we're killing thousands and thousands of people. That makes it much more complicated. But the people who want big fences and guns, sure, we can secure the borders -- a barbed-wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick.

I don't believe that's what America is all about. I just really don't.

We can enforce our law. If we had a healthy economy, this wouldn't be such a bad deal. People are worrying about jobs. But every time you think about this toughness on the border and I.D. cards and real ideas, think that it's a penalty against the American people, too.

I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to lead (ph) with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.

HARRIS: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: To my colleague, Jose Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you very much.

HARRIS: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: This is -- we're going to take our final break now.

When we come back, the final portion of our debate from the Reagan Presidential Library, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We are back. And as we said, this is the final portion of our debate. The campaigns have told us they wish not to have anything called anything close to a lightning round, but let's just say we'd like the frequency and velocity of the questions to quicken in this segment. We'll try to move it along and fit a lot in.

Starting with you, Governor Romney, are you a member of the Tea Party?

ROMNEY: I don't think you carry cards in the Tea Party. I believe in a lot of what the Tea Party believes in. The Tea Party believes that government's too big, taxing too much, and that we ought to get -- get to the work of getting Americans to work.

So I put together a plan with a whole series of points of how we can get America's economy going again. Tea Party people like that. So if the Tea Party is for keeping government small and spending down, and helping us create jobs, then, hey, I'm for the Tea Party.

WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, you missed this at the last debate. At the previous debate, everyone on stage raised their hand to say they would -- I want to get this exactly right -- not have accepted a debt deal that included $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. We've been anxious to get you on the record now that you have jumped into this. Would you take that deal?

PERRY: I join my fellow participants here. What we should have been looking at is a way to get the spending under control and capping it, cutting it, and getting a balanced budget amendment. When you get a balanced budget amendment in Washington, D.C., you will finally start getting the snake's head cut off. I mean, the fact of the matter is, until you get a balanced budget amendment -- I don't care whether Democrats or Republicans are going to be in control in Washington, D.C. -- balanced budget amendment, and then the American people can go to sleep at night with a little more comfort that they're going to wake up and not be broke in the morning.

WILLIAMS: Did anyone else who had their hand up at that last debate want to amend your comment or vote since then? Congresswoman Bachmann?

BACHMANN: Well, I wanted to say is, there's someone else who would join us in that agreement, and that would be Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan made a deal where he took $3 in -- in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. And, in fact, what happened is that there ended up being $3 in tax increases and $1 in tax cuts.

That's the problem with Washington, D.C. I've seen it all the time. That's why I've been leading on this issue for the last five years and why we can't trust the status quo in Washington, D.C.

We have to have a president with a core sense of conviction that's going to fight on these issues and recognize. And so we would -- we would welcome the former president to this club.

WILLIAMS: Governor Huntsman, you've said some interesting things about pledges. Everyone up here has taken a pledge not to raise taxes. Dangerous business to you?

HUNTSMAN: I'd love to get everybody to sign a pledge to take no pledges. I -- I have a pledge to my wife, and I pledge allegiance to my country, but beyond that, no pledges. I think it diminishes the political discussion. I think it jeopardizes your ability to lead once you get there.

And I started when I approached, when I first ran for governor in 2004, as someone who wanted to pin me down on taxes, I said, no thanks, I'm not going to sign it. I didn't raise taxes. We had historic tax cuts in our state. So look at somebody's record. That's always a pretty good indicator and barometer of where they're likely to go.

WILLIAMS: I want to go back to your comments on 9/11 to ask kind of an obvious follow-up. Do you think we're safer today?

HUNTSMAN: I think we've lost our confidence as a country. I think we have had our innocence shattered. I think, 10 years later, we look at the situation and we say, we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is not about nation-building in Afghanistan. This is about nation-building at home.

Our core is broken. We are weak. We have got to strengthen ourselves. I say we've got to bring those troops home.

(APPLAUSE) In Afghanistan -- in Afghanistan, the reality is it is an asymmetrical counterterror effort. We need intelligence. We need special forces. And we need some training on the ground.

But I think one way to commemorate our 10-year anniversary of 9/11, remembering the 3,000-plus people who died in New York and in Pennsylvania and in Washington, is to say it's time for this country to set a goal for ourselves: We're going to get our core fixed. We're going to do some nation-building right here at home.

WILLIAMS: Time, Governor.

Governor Romney, would you agree that there's a crisis of confidence in the United States right now?

ROMNEY: Oh, absolutely. People are convinced that we're going to go into another recession. I sure hope we don't. People are worried about whether they can make their bills at the end of the month. A lot of folks have stopped looking for work. People who have jobs are worried they might lose their jobs.

Look, we have -- we have a crisis in confidence in part because we have an absence of leadership. We selected as a president a guy who had never worked in the private sector, a person who'd never been a leader, who'd never been able to get anything moving, and -- and we said, let's let this guy run the country, and he's -- he's just over his head, and right now, he's flailing about. We'll see his plan tomorrow; it will be more like the plans in the past.

We need to have an individual lead this country who not only loves America, but has the experience to get us back on track of being competitive globally. That's -- I put together -- I want to make it very clear -- I put together an outline of what it takes to get America back on the right track. It's a whole series of changes that have to occur, from energy policy, to tax policy, regulatory policy, changes in our trade policies.

We've got to change the way we're -- we're structured economically if we want to get people back to work in this country and keep America as we've always been, this extraordinary job machine. We can be the best place in the world to be in the middle class again, with jobs plentiful for our kids and for each one of us that are looking for those jobs today. I know how to do that. And that's why I'm in this race.

WILLIAMS: Time, Governor.

To John Harris.

HARRIS: Governor Perry, as we approach the 9/11 anniversary, I'd like to stick with national security for a moment. You recently said, quote, "I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism." Looking back, do you think President George W. Bush was too quick to launch military intervention without thinking through the risks?

PERRY: I was making a comment about a philosophy; I don't think America needs to be in the business of adventurism.

But let me just say something about the president of the United States. And I know he's -- he's taken lots of slings and arrows here today. But one thing that I want to say that he did do that I agree with is that he maintained the -- the chase and -- and we took out a very bad man in the form of bin Laden, and I -- and I tip my hat to him.

I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again.

And I might add that he kept Gitmo open against the will of his base, and I'm glad he did that. America's safer for it.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: Sir, just if I could quickly follow on that, you said you were making a philosophical comment, but it's hard to understand philosophy without understanding specifics. Where are some of the places where you think we've seen military adventurism?

PERRY: As I said, that is -- that was a philosophical statement that Americans don't want to see their young men and women going into foreign countries without a clear reason that American interests are at stake. And they want to see not only a clear entrance; they want to see a clear exit strategy, as well.

We should never put our young men and women's lives at risk when American interests are not clearly defined by the president of the United States, and that's one of the problems this president is doing today.

HARRIS: Congresswoman Bachmann, on the same theme, you opposed the U.S. intervention in Libya. If President Obama had taken the same view, Gadhafi would, in all likelihood, still be in power today.

To be clear, are you advocating a shift away from the George W. Bush freedom agenda with its emphasis on removing dictators from power and promoting human rights?

BACHMANN: Well, I want to say, as devastating as our economy is with the policies of Barack Obama, I think that he has actually weakened us militarily and with the United States presence globally. We have, for many years, maintained global order in the world with our United States military. We have the finest military. But in this last debt ceiling debate, one of the alternatives that came forward that we're going to be looking at with this new super committee of 12 different members of Congress is to see that our military could be hit with a huge reduction in resources.

The president has not done what he needs to do to keep the United States safe. If you look at the biggest issue in the Middle East, it's a nuclear Iran, and the president has taken his eyes off that prize.

As a matter of fact, what he's done is he's said, in fact, to Israel that, they need to shrink back to their indefensible 1967 borders. I sit on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation's classified secrets. And I firmly believe that the president of the United States has weakened us militarily and put us more at risk than at any time.

HARRIS: Congresswoman, time. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

HARRIS: I just want to follow up on that. The Arab Spring is a big, big issues in the world. And the question is, what role does the U.S. have, including militarily, to promote democracy and topple dictators? I didn't hear your answer with respect to Libya.

BACHMANN: Well, I believe that it was wrong for the president to go into Libya. Number one, his own secretary of defense, Gates, said that there was no American vital interest in Libya. If there is no vital interest, that doesn't even meet the threshold of the first test for military involvement.

The other thing is, we didn't know who the rebel forces were in Libya. Take a look at where we're at in Libya today.

Take a look at the oil revenues. We don't know if they will get in the hands of people who will have designs on radical Islam and the implication of a global caliphate. These are very serious issues, and I think it was wrong for the president of the United States to go into Libya.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, your reaction to Congresswoman Bachmann's stand on what we're watching take place in Libya right up until tonight.

SANTORUM: Well, we're in the Reagan Library, and I'm hearing from at least a couple of people on this panel a very isolationist view of where the Republican Party should be headed about pulling troops out with Governor Huntsman and with Ron Paul.

The bottom line is, Ronald Reagan was committed to America being a force for good around the world. We were a society that believed in ourselves and believed that we can spread our vision to the rest of the world and make this country a safer country as a result of it.

We didn't have missions where we put exit strategies saying this date is when we're going to leave. We didn't say that we are the problem and the cause of the problems that confront us around the world.

We were -- we are a source for good. We could have been a source for good from the very get-go in Libya, but this president was indecisive and confused from the very beginning. He only went along with the Libyan mission because the United Nations told him to, which is something that Ronald Reagan would have melted like the old Wicked Witch of the West before he would have allowed that to happen.

WILLIAMS: Senator, time.

SANTORUM: This is a very important issue for our party. Are we going to stand in the Reagan tradition, or are we going to go the isolationist view that some in this party are advocating?

WILLIAMS: Time.

HARRIS: Governor Huntsman, I'd like to get to you. I've got a question. Your chief political adviser has been quoted very prominently as describing the Republican Party as "a bunch of cranks," and said your opponents on the stage "make a buffet of crazy and inane comments." I'm sure that's insulting to some of these people up here.

We're now here face to face. Tell us which one of these people are saying crazy or inane things.

HUNTSMAN: Well, I'm sure you have John Weaver's telephone number. You can go ahead and give him a call.

HARRIS: OK.

HUNTSMAN: But let me just say --

HARRIS: Well -- hand on. Let's follow up on that, because you speak for yourself.

You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti- science. Who on this stage is anti-science?

HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.

We've got to do what I did as governor, when I was re-elected. We reached out and we brought in independents. I got independents. I got conservative Democrats. If we're going to win in 2012, we've got to make sure that we have somebody who can win based upon numbers of the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

Number two, we've got to have somebody who can lead. This president was successful in getting elected. He can't lead this country. He can't even lead his own party.

I'm here to tell you: I can get elected. I can bring the numbers together to make this successful in 2012. And I can lead based upon where I've been as governor.

HARRIS: Governor Perry -- Governor Perry, Governor Huntsman were not specific about names, but the two of you do have a difference of opinion about climate change. Just recently in New Hampshire, you said that weekly and even daily scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?

PERRY: Well, I do agree that there is -- the science is -- is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at -- at -- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just -- is nonsense. I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.

But the fact is, to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.

HARRIS: Just to follow up quickly. Tell us how you've done that.

(APPLAUSE)

Are there specific -- specific scientists or specific theories that you've found especially compelling, as you...

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent.

That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, "Here is what we think is happening out there." The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy.

WILLIAMS: Governor, time.

Congresswoman Bachmann, a question about energy, back to that subject for a moment. Were you quoted correctly -- and do you stand by it -- as wanting to drill in the Everglades in Florida?

BACHMANN: The question was asked of me about that. And what I said is we have American energy resources all across this nation. And, of course, we would do it responsibly. That was my response at the time.

And on this issue on human -- human activity as being the cause of climate change, I think it's important to note that the president recognized how devastating the EPA has been in their rulemaking, so much so that the president had to suspend current EPA rules that would have led to the shutting down of potentially 20 percent of all of America's coal plants.

Coal is the source that brings 45 percent of America's electricity. What we're seeing is that a political agenda is being advanced instead of a scientific agenda. And this is leading to the -- to massive numbers of jobs being lost.

The president told us he wanted to be like Spain when it came to green job creation, and yet Spain has one of the highest levels of unemployment. The president is bringing that here in the United States. And I think tomorrow night, when the nation tunes in to the president, I'm afraid that we won't be seeing permanent solution. I'm afraid what we'll be seeing are temporary gimmicks and more of the same that he's given before.

WILLIAMS: Congresswoman, time.

Speaker Gingrich, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, will come to the end of his term in 2014. Would you reappoint Ben Bernanke?

GINGRICH: I would fire him tomorrow.

WILLIAMS: Why?

GINGRICH: I think he's been the most inflationary, dangerous, and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed. I think the Fed should be audited. I think the amount of money that he has shifted around in secret, with no responsibility, no -- no -- no accountability, no transparency, is absolutely antithetical to a free society. And I think his policies have deepened the depression, lengthened the problems, increased the cost of gasoline, and been a disaster.

I want to take the rest of my time, Brian, to go back to a question you asked that was very important. We were asked the wrong question at the last debate. The question isn't, would we favor a tax increase? The question is, how would we generate revenue?

There are three good ways. The Ronald Reagan technique put 3,700,000 more people back to work as of last Friday. You reduce government spending. You raise government revenues enormously. The committee of 12 ought to be looking at, how do you create more revenue, not how do you raise taxes.

Second, you go to energy, exactly as Michele Bachmann has said. You open up American energy, $500 billion a year here at home, enormous increase in federal revenue.

Third, we own -- with all due respect, Governor -- we own 69 percent of Alaska. That's one-and-a-half Texases. Now, let's set half of Texas -- let's set a half Texas aside for national parks. We could liberate an area the size of Texas for minerals and other development. That would raise even more revenue, not the normal Washington viewpoint.

WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, time. Governor Romney...

(APPLAUSE)

... you -- you often here this figure, 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, and -- and the promised effort underway soon, at least, in Washington to correct that. Isn't some of this argument semantics? And won't the effort to correct that be a de facto tax increase? ROMNEY: You know, I must admit, I have a bit of a hard time with the idea that there are people who don't feel like they're supporting our troops by contributing tax revenue through -- through the income tax or through other tax vehicles.

I don't want to raise taxes on the American people, but I think everybody ought to feel that they're part of this effort and that they're providing for our military, providing for our roads, providing for our schools. That ought to be part of what -- what every American experiences.

But right now, the question is not the people at the -- that are not paying taxes at the low end. The question is not the people who are very, very rich. The question is, how about middle-income Americans?

Who are the people most hurt by the Obama economy? And the answer is the middle class. The great majority of Americans are having a very, very difficult time. And our effort has to be to find ways to reduce to burden on those people.

And that's why I've proposed that anybody who's earning $200,000 a year and less ought to be able to save their money tax-free, no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains. Let people save their money, invest in America, and not have to give more money to the government. The middle class needs our help.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Would Ben Bernanke have a job in your administration?

ROMNEY: No, I'd be looking for somebody new. I'm -- I think Ben Bernanke has -- has over-inflated the amount of currency that he's created. QE2 did not work. It did not get Americans back to work. It did not get the economy going again. We're still seeing declining numbers in prior quarter estimates as to what the -- the growth would be. We're growing now at 1 percent to 1.5 percent.

The plan I put forward just two days ago in Nevada will grow our economy at 4 percent per year for four years and add -- add -- 11.5 million jobs. That's a very different approach than Ben Bernanke's taken, and it's a demonstrably different approach than Barack Obama has taken, and that's in part because we have very different life experiences.

WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you...

(APPLAUSE)

Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?

PERRY: No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which -- when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that's required.

But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be executed.

WILLIAMS: What do you make of...

(APPLAUSE)

What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?

PERRY: I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of -- of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens -- and it's a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don't want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice.

HARRIS: Mr. Cain, Mr. Cain, I'd like to get you into this tax discussion we've had recently.

CAIN: Yes.

HARRIS: The General Electric Corporation last year -- this is a prominent case -- made $14.2 billion in profits worldwide, but paid no U.S. taxes. Perfectly legal, but does it strike you as fair?

CAIN: This is why I proposed my 9-9-9 plan. The government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. The government needs to get out of the business of trying to figure out who gets a tax break here, who gets a tax break there.

When you go to 9-9-9, it levels the playing field for all businesses. What a novel idea. And the government won't be in the business of trying to determine who's going to be able to make more money and pay no taxes and vice versa.

Secondly, this recession is the worst recession since the Great Depression. If the recovery that this administration claims would just tie for last place, we would have another 6 million jobs. If it would tie for the recovery that took place in the '80s under President Reagan, we'd have 12 million more jobs out there, which would be music to the ears of the 14 million people looking for jobs. The president simply does not understand that the business sector is the engine for economic growth.

WILLIAMS: Congressman Paul, a long time ago...

(APPLAUSE) A long time ago, a fellow Texan of yours, a young student teacher in Cotulla, Texas, was horrified to see young kids coming into the classroom hungry, some of them with distended bellies because of hunger. He made a vow that if he ever had anything to do about it, the government would provide meals, hot meals at best, in schools. The young student teacher, of course, was -- later went on to be President Lyndon Johnson. Do you think that is any more -- providing nutrition at schools for children -- a role of the federal government?

PAUL: Well, I'm sure, when he did that, he did it with local government, and there's no rules against that. That'd be fine. So that doesn't imply that you want to endorse the entire welfare state. You imply (ph) I'd endorse all welfare (ph). Any time I challenge it, you're going to challenge the whole welfare system.

No. It isn't authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn't work. All it's filled up with is mandates. And the mandates are what we're objecting to. I want to repeal all the mandates.

But, yes, if there are poor people in Texas, we have a responsibility -- I'd like to see it voluntary as possible -- but under our Constitution, our states have that right -- if they feel the obligation, they have a perfect right to.

So don't always try to turn around and say that we who believe in liberty, we lack compassion, because we who believe in liberty and understand the market, we're the only ones that really understand how people are taken care of, how they are fed, and how people have jobs. It's the market. It's never the government that does it.

So this whole idea that there's something wrong with people who don't lavish out free stuff from the federal government somehow aren't compassionate enough. I resist those accusations.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Congressman, thank you.

Somewhat -- somewhat hard to believe. The campaigns have notified us we're actually a few minutes over the time we were allotted for tonight, and so our questioning will have to come to an end, with hearty thanks to so many people, most notably the candidates here on stage, but to the good folks here at the Reagan Library, the Reagan Foundation, notably, Mrs. Reagan.

To our partners in all of this, Politico, my partner in the questioning, John here, thank you very much. Terrific.

And thank you all for watching. Our coverage will continue. One of the few things you can count on, we'll be back at this. There will be many more of these discussions. That wraps up our live coverage of this portion of the debate from Southern California.

(APPLAUSE)

====
The following is a transcript of the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC)/CNN Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nev., as provided by Federal News Service.

Speakers: Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MINN.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-TEXAS

Gov. Rick Perry, R-TEXAS

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA.

Former Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-GA.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-MASS.

Hermain Cain

Moderator: Anderson Cooper

 

ANDERSON COOPER: All right. Let's  --  time to begin, and we'll begin with actually a question in the hall.

       Q: This is for all candidates. What's your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?

MR. COOPER: I'll direct that to Congresswoman Bachmann . You've been very critical of Herman's Cain 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9 percent sales tax and 9 percent income tax and 9 percent corporate tax. In fact, you said it would destroy the economy. Why?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): Well, I am a former federal tax litigation attorney, and also my husband and I are job creators.

One thing I know about Congress, being a member of Congress for five years, is that any time you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn't go away. When we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980 the top rate was 70 percent. If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent?

Who knows?

What I do know is that we all have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you'd be taxing that item 9 percent on the profits. That's the worry. In my plan  --  again, that's a tax plan, it's not a jobs plan. My plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now.

I have a tax plan, I have a jobs plan, I have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high- paying jobs.

MR. COOPER: Mr. Cain, a lot of prominent conservatives now are coming forward saying that your 9-9-9 plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class voters, on lower-income voters.

HERMAN CAIN: The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at Hermancain.com. It was performed by Fiscal Associates. And all of the claims that are made against it, it is a jobs plan. It is revenue neutral. It does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. All of those are simply not true.

The reason that my plan  --  the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don't want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that's simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess. Let's throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan, which will liberate the American workers and liberate American businesses. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Senator Santorum, will his plan raise taxes?

RICK SANTORUM: Herman's well-meaning. I  --  and I love his boldness and it's great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That's the analysis. And it makes sense, because when you  --  what you  --  when you don't provide a standard deduction, when you don't provide anything for low-income individuals and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we're talking about major increases in taxes on people.

He also doesn't have anything that takes care of the families. I mean, you have a  --  you have a situation where under Herman's plan a single person pays as much in taxes as a  --  as a man and a woman raising three children. We  --  every  --  ever since we've had the income tax in America, we've always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to  --  to have children and not have to pay more  --  already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes. We gave some breaks for families. He doesn't do that in this bill. And we're going to  --  we've seen that happen in Europe, and what happened? Boom! Birth rates went in the  --  into the  --  into the basement.

It's a  --  it's a bad tax for  --  I  --  again, it's bold. I give him credit for starting a debate, but it's not good for families and it's not good for low-income people.

MR. COOPER: I'm going  --  I'm going to give you 30 seconds to respond. That 84 percent figure comes from the Tax Policy Center.

MR. CAIN: That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis which we make available. Secondly, the point that he makes about it's a value added tax, I'm sorry, Representative Bachmann, it's not a value added tax. It's a single tax. And if  --  I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are kneejerk reactions.

And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call "opportunity zones"  -- 

MR. COOPER: All right.

MR. CAIN:   --  that will in fact address the issue of those making the least.

MR. COOPER: I want to bring Congresswoman Bachmann in, since she was referenced by you.

REP. BACHMANN: But Anderson, how do you not have a value added tax? Because at every level of production, you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vender at the next level and you have  --  you have an exchange. That is a taxable event. And ultimately, that becomes a value added tax. It's a hidden tax, and any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate.

And the American people think that it's the  --  the  --  it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it's the government that creates the tax. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor  --  Governor Perry, in your state, you have a 6 1/4 percent sales tax. Would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something: You don't have to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire, where they don't have a sales tax, and you're fixing to give them one. They're not interested in 9- 9-9. What they're interested in is flatter and fairer. At the end of the week, I'm going to be laying out a plan that clearly  --  I'll bump plans with you, brother  --  and we'll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again.

And one of the ways  --  right here in Nevada, you've got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that and 9 cents on a new home  --  or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more? I don't think so, Herman. It's not going to fly.

MR. COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds. (Scattered applause.)

MR. CAIN: This is  --  this is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it's not correct to mix apples and oranges.

Secondly, it is not a value-added tax  --  tax. If you take most of the products  --  take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent. So you're absolutely wrong. It's not a value-added tax.

Now one other quick thing.

MR. COOPER: Your time's up. I'm sorry.

MR. CAIN: This whole  --  this whole thing about  -- 

MR. COOPER: You'll have another 30 seconds, trust me. They're going to go  -- 

MR. CAIN: Tonight?

MR. COOPER: Yes, I guarantee it. (Laughter.) In about a minute.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you called his plan "dangerous" today.

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Oh, it is, because it raises revenues. And the worst part about it, it's regressive. A lot of people that have  --  aren't paying any taxes  --  and I like that. I don't think that we should even things up by raising taxes.

(Applause.) So it is a regressive tax. So it's very, very dangerous in that thing, and it will raise more revenues.

But the gentleman asked the question  --  he didn't even ask what we're talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with. And I say, nothing. That's what we should replace it with. (Cheers, applause.)

But I do want to make the point that spending is a tax. As soon as the government spend money, eventually it's a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money. And then when prices go up, like today the  --  the  --  the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate. And if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax.

So spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program to cut $1 trillion out of the first-year budget that I offer. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds.

MR. CAIN: Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They're wrong about it being a value-added tax. We simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate, 9 percent. I invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, you have your own 59-point plan. In the last debate, Mr. Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?

MR. ROMNEY: Oftentimes simpler is better. But  --  and I know we're not supposed to ask each other questions, but if you permit, Herman, are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?

MR. CAIN: No. That's an apple.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh. Oh, OK.

MR. CAIN: We are replacing a bunch of oranges. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. ROMNEY: So  --  so then Governor Perry was right.

MR. CAIN: No, he wasn't. He was mixing apples and oranges.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, but will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax and, in addition, pay the 9 percent tax?

MR. CAIN: Governor Romney, you are doing the same thing that they're doing. You're mixing apples and oranges.

You're going to pay the state  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: I'm  -- 

MR. CAIN: No, no, no, no. You're going to pay the state sales tax, no matter what.

MR. ROMNEY: Right.

MR. CAIN: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you're still going to pay that. That's apples and oranges.

MR. ROMNEY: Fine.

MR. CAIN: Yes.

MR. ROMNEY: And I am going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it, because I'm going to pay both taxes.

MR. CAIN: No, no.

MR. ROMNEY: And the people of Nevada don't want to pay both taxes. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. CAIN: No -

MR. ROMNEY: Let me make this comment. Let me  --  let's just  --  let's just step back here. We got a lot of people in America that are out of work. We got a lot of people in this state  --  13.4 percent of the people in this state out of work. We got home prices going down. We got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes.

And tax is part of it. I want to reduce taxes on our employers, to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle-income families.

I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle- income people see higher taxes under your plan. If it's lower for the middle class, that's great, but that's not what I saw. I have to tell you, I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector, as opposed to put a damper on it. I want to get trade opening up new markets for America.

I want to also find a way to get our energy resources  --  and they're all over the world or all over this country  --  using for  --  used for us. This is time to get America growing again, and that's what this campaign ought to be about.

MR. COOPER: Thank you, Governor.

Mr. Speaker, you  --  (cheers, applause)  --  Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.

MR. : Yeah. (Laughter.)

REP. BACHMANN: (Inaudible.)

MR. GINGRICH: I mean, there  --  look, there  --  there  --  there are  --  first of all, I think that Herman Cain deserves a lot of credit. He's had the courage to go out and take a specific, very big idea  --  (applause)  --  at the right level  --  and he has us  --  he has us at least talking about something that matters, as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politics in this country.

So I think that's important.

There are two parts to this. The first is, if you take his plan  --  and I think it's in the interest of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step  --  there are real  --  there are much more complexities than Herman lets on. OK? When 9-9-9  --  when you get into details, like you pay it on a new product, you don't pay it on an old product, et cetera, there's a lot more detail here than he lets on.

Second, I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts, such as zero capital gains, a hundred percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number-one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you're going to do it right. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you also said at the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don't pay taxes?

REP. BACHMANN: I believe absolutely, every American benefits by this magnificent country; absolutely, every American should pay something, even if it's a dollar. (Cheers, applause.) Everyone needs to pay something in this country.

That's why, with my tax plan I take a page out of not theory but what's provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That's the  --  that is the plan that I look at.

I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have, because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code but it doesn't end with the tax code.

It's the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it's more than that cost. It's jobs that are lost. So we need to repeal "Obamacare," repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. (Applause.)

President Obama's plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy just  --  and failure.

MR. COOPER: Thank you.

REP. BACHMANN: I plan to change that with real jobs right now: michelebachmann.com. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: We've been talking about Herman Cain's plan. Let's talk about Governor Romney's plan. Governor Perry, you have said that Governor Romney was an abject failure in creating jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts. If you've read his 59-point plan, has it changed your mind?

GOV. PERRY: Well, here's the nine that we need to get focused on, and it's not 9-9-9 and it's not 59; it's that 9 percent unemployment in this country. And that's where we got to get focused in America, is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work. It's the reason I laid out a plan, Newt, this last week to get this energy that's under our feet.

We've got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. Yet we've got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the  --  to the surface, whether it's our petroleum or our natural gas or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work. Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say: Listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job.

And that's exactly what I did with my plan: laid it out where Americans understand we don't have to wait on OPEC any more. We don't have to let them hold us hostage. America's got the energy. Let's have American energy independence. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, does Governor Perry have the answer?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, he's absolutely right about  --  about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We're an energy-rich nation that's acting like an energy-poor nation. And that's something I've been talking about for some time, as the governor has. He's absolutely right.

But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing and high-tech jobs and good service jobs, technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that's very, very broad, and that's why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget. And that starts with  --  with repealing "Obamacare," which is a huge burden on this economy. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Senator Santorum, does Mitt Romney have the answers for jobs?

MR. SANTORUM: I agree with  --  with  --  with all of what Governor Romney and both  --  and Governor Perry said. I would add the fact that  --  that I've put forward the plan that's going to allow for income mobility. That's a new term, but I've been using it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society. Believe it or not, studies have been done that show that in Western Europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale actually have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in America.

And I believe that's because we've lost our manufacturing base. No more stamp, "Made in America" is really hurting people in the middle. And that's why I've focused all of the real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing. I'd cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero, repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over $100 million and replace them with something that's friendly they can work with. We repatriate $1.2 trillion that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here if they invest it in plants and equipment. They can do it without having to pay any  --  any excise tax.

The final point I would make to Governor Romney: You just don't have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing "Obamacare." You are  --  you are  --  your plan was the basis for "Obamacare." Your consultants helped Obama craft "Obamacare." (Applause.) And to say that you were going to repeal it, you just  --  you have no track record on that that we can trust you that you're going to do that.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. PERRY: We don't.

MR. ROMNEY: You know, this, I think, is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I've had to talk about "Obamacare," I've made it very clear, and also my book. At the time  --  by the way, I crafted the plan in the last campaign, I was asked: Is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no; this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.

MR. SANTORUM: That's not what you said.

MR. ROMNEY: You're shaking  --  you're shaking  --  you're shaking your head.

MR. SANTORUM: Governor, no, that's not what you said. That happens  --  that happens  -- 

(Cross talk.)

MR. COOPER: Guys  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: Let me  --  his turn, OK, and mine.

(Cross talk.)

MR. SANTORUM: Governor, Governor, hold on.

MR. ROMNEY: I'll tell you what. Why don't you let me speak? Why don't you let me speak?

MR. SANTORUM: You're allowed to speak. You're allowed to change your  --  (inaudible). You can't change the facts.

MR. ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance, let me speak. Rick, you had your chance, let me speak. Rick  -- 

MR. SANTORUM: You're out of time. You're out of time.

MR. COOPER (?): He ate into your time. (Boos.) I'm sorry, Rick.

(Cross talk.)

MR. ROMNEY: I haven't had a chance to respond yet  -- 

MR. SANTORUM: You did.

MR. ROMNEY:   --  because you were interrupting me the entire time I was trying to speak. So let me make it very clear.

MR. COOPER: Another 20 seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: Look, we'll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was interviewed in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I'd impose on the nation. And the answer is: absolutely not. It was something crafted for a state. And I've said time and again, "Obamacare" is bad news. It's unconstitutional, it caused way too much money  --  a trillion dollars  --  and if I'm president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right, Senator Santorum.

MR. SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just  --  is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by  --  by "Romneycare," which is doing something about cutting health care costs. What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you've got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access.

You expanded the pool of insurance without controlling costs. You've blown a hole in the budget up there. And you authored in "Obamacare," which is going to blow a hole in the budget of this country.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, I'll give you 30 seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry, Rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan. But I'll tell you, the people of Massachusetts like it by about a 3-to-1 margin. And we dealt with the challenge that we had, a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way. And we said, you know what? If people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should.

I can tell you this. There's  --  it's absolutely right that there's a lot that needs to be done. And I didn't get the job done in Massachusetts, and getting the health care costs down in this country is something I think we got to do at the national level. I intend to do that.

But one thing's for sure: What Obama has done has imposed on the nation a plan that will not work, that must be repealed. And when it comes to knowledge about health care and how to get our health care system working, I may not be a doctor, like (this one ?) over here, but I sure understand how to bring the cost of health care down and how to also make sure that we have a system that works for the American people. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. : Didn't do it.

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

MR. : You didn't do it.

MR. ROMNEY: (We ?) did.

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you've also been very critical of Mitt Romney's plan, not only on "Obamacare" but his plan to lower the capital gains tax only on those earning under $200,000.

MR. GINGRICH: I want to stay on health for a minute, OK? I mean, let's just focus. (Laughter.)

The Boston  --  the Boston Herald today reported that the state of Massachusetts is fining a local small business $3,000 because their $750 a month insurance plan is inadequate, according to the bureaucrats in Boston. Now, there's a fundamental difference between trying to solve the problems of this country from the top down and trying to create environments in which doctors and patients and families solve the problem from the bottom up.

And candidly, Mitt, your plan ultimately, philosophically  --  it's not "Obamacare." That's not a fair charge. But your plan essentially is one more big-government, bureaucratic, high-cost system which, candidly, could not have been done by any other state, because no other state had a Medicaid program as lavish as yours and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment.

So there's a lot of big government behind "Romneycare," not as much as "Obamacare," but a heck of a lot more than  --  than your campaign is admitting. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. ROMNEY: (OK ?)  -- 

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

MR. GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, it was something  --  yeah, we got it from you and the  --  you  --  got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

MR. GINGRICH: No, but  --  well, you  --  well, you  --  (inaudible)  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: But let me  --  but let me just  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I thought  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: You did not get that from me.

MR. ROMNEY: I think you  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

MR. ROMNEY: And  --  and you've never  --  never supported  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: I was  --  I agree with them, but I'm just saying what you've said to this audience just now plain wasn't true. That's not where you got it from.

MR. ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask  --  have you  --  have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

MR. GINGRICH: I absolutely did, with the Heritage Foundation, against "Hillarycare."

MR. ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

MR. GINGRICH: Yes, sir.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

MR. GINGRICH: OK. Little broader. (Laughter.)

MR. ROMNEY: OK.

MR. GINGRICH: Keep on. I  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: All right.

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: Number  --  all right  --  number  --  all right  -- 

MR. COOPER: He still has time. I'm sorry. He still has time. He still has time

MR. ROMNEY: Number two  --  number two  --  let me finish  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson  -- 

MR. COOPER: He still has time. Let him finish.

MR. ROMNEY: I get a little time here. Number  --  number two, we don't have a government insurance plan. What we do is rely on private insurers, and people  --  93 percent of our people who are already insured  --  nothing changed. For the people who didn't have insurance, they get private insurance, not government insurance. And the best way to make markets work is for people to be able to buy their own products from private enterprises. What we did was right for our state, according to the people in our state. And the great thing about a state solution to a state issue is, if people don't like it, they can change it.

Now there are a lot of things that  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson  -- 

MR. COOPER: Yeah, Congresswoman Bachmann.

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson, I think it has to be stated that "Obamacare" is so flat-out unpopular that even the Obama administration chose to reject part of "Obamacare" last Friday  --  (applause)  --  when they tried to throw out the CLASS Act, which is the long-term care function. The  --  Secretary Sebelius, who's the head of Health and Human Services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out.

And now the administration is arguing with itself. When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing. We're going to repeal it! And I will! (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. We will continue this discussion on the other side. We have a long way to go. We'll be right back. (Cheers, applause.)

(Announcements.)

MR. COOPER: And welcome back to the continuing debate.

We've got a Twitter question. We ended talking about medicine, "Obamacare." We actually have a Twitter question about it, too. It was a question left at cnndebate. If Obama's health plan is bad for the U.S., what is the alternative, and how will you implement it?

Congressman Paul, is there any aspect of "Obamacare" that you would like to keep, whether it's keeping kids to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26, or no pre-existing conditions?

REP. PAUL: Really not, because he's just adding on more government. There's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. But our problem is we have too much. We've had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare; we have prescription drug programs; we have Medicaid.

And what we need  --  I mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of "Obamacare," because it's a Democratic proposal and we want to opt out; I think we'd all agree on this. But if you want better competition and better health care, you're not  --  you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine. And  --  (cheers, applause)  --  and the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship.

 There is inflation worked into it. When the government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with, and we need more competition in medicine. But most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. As soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, the insurance companies line up. And even with "Obamacare," the industries, the corporations, get behind it and expect the outcome  -- 

MR. COOPER: All right.

REP. PAUL:   --  and already insurance premiums are going up. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Herman Cain, same question: Is there any aspect of so-called "Obamacare" that you would keep?

MR. CAIN: No. I think we all agree that "Obamacare" must be repealed because it is a disaster, and the more we learn about it and the more time goes along, the more we see. We're all in agreement with that.

But here's where I would start in answering that question. It's called H.R. 3400. This was introduced back in 2009, but you didn't hear a lot of talk about it.

Instead of government being imposed on  --  on our system, it  --  it basically passes market  --  market-driven, patient-centered sort of reforms to allow association health plans, to allow "loser pay" laws, to allow insurance products to be sold across state lines and a whole list of other things.

So that's a great place to start. It allows the patient and the doctors to make the decisions, not a bureaucrat. I'd start with H.R. 3400. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, in the last debate, Governor Romney pointed out that Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country, over 1 million kids. You were  --  you did not get an opportunity to respond to that. What do you say to  --  how do you explain that?

GOV. PERRY: Well, we've got one of the finest health care systems in the  --  in the world in  --  in  --  in Texas. As a matter of fact, the Houston  --  the Texas Medical Center, there's more doctors, nurses go to work there every morning than anyplace else in America, for the idea that you can have access to health care, some of the finest health care in the world.

But we have a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. And the fact is we have a huge number of illegals that are coming into this country. And they're coming into this country because the federal government has failed to secure that border. But they're coming here because there is a magnet. And the magnet is called jobs. And those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized.

And Mitt, you lose all of your standing from my perspective because you hired illegals in your home, and you knew for  --  about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is, on its face, the height of hypocrisy. (Boos, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney.

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.) Rick, I don't think that I've ever hired an illegal in my life. And so I'm  --  I'm looking forward to finding your facts on that because that just doesn't  --  just  -- 

GOV. PERRY: I'll tell you what the facts are. You had the  --  you  --  your newspaper  --  the newspaper  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: Rick, again  --  Rick, I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm speaking.

GOV. PERRY: And it's time for you to tell the truth.

MR. ROMNEY: You get  --  you get 30 seconds  -- 

GOV. PERRY: It's time for you to tell the  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: The way  --  the way the rules work here is that I get 60 seconds.

MR. PERRY: But no, but the American people want the truth.

MR. ROMNEY: And you get  --  and then you get 30 seconds to respond, right? Anderson  -- 

GOV. PERRY: And they want to hear you say that you knew you had illlegals working at your  --  (boos).

MR. ROMNEY: Will you please  --  would you please wait? Are you just going to keep talking, or are you going to let me finish with my  --  what I have to say?

Look, Rick  -- 

Cross talk.)

 MR. ROMNEY: This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick, and I understand that, and so you're going to get  --  (cheers, applause)  --  you're going to get testy. But let's let  --  I'll tell you what: Let me take my time, and then you can take your time.

GOV. PERRY: Great, have at it.

MR. ROMNEY: All right, my time is this, which is I have in my state, when I was governor, I took the action of empowering our state police to enforce immigration laws. When you were governor, you said: I don't want to build a fence. You put in place a magnet  --  you talk about magnets  --  you put in place a magnet to draw illlegals into the state, which is giving a hundred thousand dollars of tuition credit to illlegals that come into this country. (Cheers, applause.)

And then you have states  --  you have states  --  the big states of illegal immigrants are California and Florida. Over the last 10 years they've had no increase in illegal immigration. Texas has had 60 percent increase in illegal immigrants, in Texas. If there's someone who has a record as governor with regards to illegal immigration that doesn't stand up to muster, it's you, not me.

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds. (Cheers, applause.)

GOV. PERRY: You stood here in front of the American people and did not tell the truth, that you had illlegals working on your property. And the newspaper came to you and brought it to your attention, and you still, a year later, had those individuals working for you. The idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having an immigration issue is beyond me. I've got a strong policy  --  I've always been against amnesty. You, on the other hand, were for amnesty.

MR. COOPER: Thirty seconds, then we've got to move on to another  --  (inaudible).

MR. ROMNEY: OK. You had an op-ed in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty. That's number one.

Number two, we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants who were working there. And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go. And we went to them and said  -- 

GOV. PERRY: A year later?

MR. ROMNEY: You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. (Laughter.) And I suggest that if you want to become president of the United States, you got to let both people speak. So first, let me speak. (Cheers, applause.)

So we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. That's  --  I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals.

It turns out that once again they hired someone who had falsified their documents, had  --  documents, and therefore we fired them.

And let me tell you, it is hard in this country, as an individual homeowner, to know if people who are contractors working at your home  --  if they've hired people that are illegal. If I'm president, we will put in place an eVerify (sp) system  -- 

MR. COOPER: (Out of time ?).

MR. ROMNEY:   --  which you've opposed  --  to make sure that we can find out who's here legally and not  --  (cheers, applause)  --  and crack down on people who come here illegally. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right, we're going to stay on the topic of immigration. (Cheers and applause continuing.)

We're going to stay on the topic of immigration. Everyone's going to get a chance to weigh in. This is a question that was left at CNNpolitics.com. As president, will you order completion of the physical border fence along the entire border between the U.S. and Mexico? That's from Marilyn L.

Herman Cain, let me start with you. Obviously, over the weekend you got a lot of headlines by saying you would have an electrified fence. You then later said it was  --  (laughter)  --  you then later said it was a joke. And then last night you said it might be electrified; I'm not walking away from that, I just don't want to offend anyone. (Laughter, applause.)

So would you build an entire fence along the entire border, and would you have it be electrified? (Laughter.)

MR. CAIN: Allow me to give the serious answer. Yes, I believe we should secure the border for real. And it would be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas.

I don't apologize at all for wanting to protect the American citizens and to protect our agents on the border. (Cheers, applause.) No.

Secondly, the second thing that I would do  --  see, I believe in let's solve the whole problem. We must shut the back door, so people can come in the front door. Secondly, promote the existing path to citizenship by cleaning up the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

Thirdly, enforce the laws, the immigration laws, that are already on the books. (Applause.) And here's another one of these bold ideas by the nonpolitician up here: Empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing in terms of enforcing those laws. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, you have  --  you have the  --  your state has the longest border with Mexico. Is it possible  --  to the question, is it possible to build a fence an entire  --  across the entire border?

GOV. PERRY: Sure. You can  --  you can build a fence, but it takes anywhere between 10 and 15 years and $30 billion. There's a better way, and that's to build a virtual defense zone, if you will, along that border, which  --  not unlike what Herman's talking about. And you can do it with strategic fencing in the obvious places where it matters.

But the way you really stop the activities along that border that are illegal  --  whether it's the drug cartels or whether it's bringing in illegal weapons or whether it's illegal immigrants that are coming in  --  is to put boots on the ground.

I  --  I will tell you, Herman, you put a lot of boots on the ground. You use Predator drones, that are being trained right up here at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, to use that real-time information to give those boots on the ground that information, and they can instantly move to those areas. And that is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border and really make America safe from individuals like those Iranians that are using the drug cartels to penetrate this country. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you agree with Governor Perry?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who've been allowed to stay in this country despite the fact that they're illegal. (Cheers, applause.)

This last Saturday I was the very first candidate that signed a pledge that said that by a date certain I will build a double-walled fence with a  --  with a area of security neutrality in between. I will build that because this is what we know. This is an economics issue and a jobs issue. Every year  -- 

MR. COOPER: You're saying you would build a fence along the entire border?

REP. BACHMANN: I will build it on the entire border, and I'll tell you why. Every year it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government, of that amount, 82 billion (dollars). For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can't afford that.

I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. (Cheers, applause.) And every  --  every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen.

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. BACHMANN: Thank you.

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, does that  --  can you actually  --  does that make sense? She says she can build the fence along the entire border.

GOV. PERRY: As I said, you can build that fence. But by the time that fence gets built  -- 

MR. COOPER: She was also talking about your taxpayer-subsidized benefits.

GOV. PERRY: But my  --  my point is that by the time that fence gets built, there is a lot better way than to stand here and to  --  to play to some group of people somewhere and say we're going to build a fence and then wipe our hands of it. I've been dealing with this border for 10 years as the governor. And the reason that we have this issue is because the federal government has failed miserably to defend and secure that border.

REP. BACHMANN: Which is why you build the  --  (applause).

GOV. PERRY: You know, for someone that's been in the United States Congress to  --  to lecture me on the issues that are going on on that border is not right.

Let me tell you, we've had to deal with that issue in the state of Texas. We've had to deal with the impact on our state. And I put $400 million on that border of Texas taxpayers' money, Texas ranger recon teams there. We know how to secure the border. I shared with you earlier how to do it. You put the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air, and you secure that border.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, can I respond? Can I respond?

MR. COOPER: He wasn't  --  he wasn't talking about you directly.

REP. BACHMANN: No, (he did respond ?).

MR. ROMNEY: Let's step back. I think it's important for us, as Republicans on this stage, to say something which hasn't been said, and that is I think every single person here loves legal immigration. We respect people who come here legally. (Cheers, applause.)

And the reason we're so animated about stopping illegal immigration is there are 4 1/2 million people who want to come here, who are in line legally. We want that to happen in an orderly and legal process.

And in terms of how to secure the border, it's really not that hard. You have a fence, you have enough Border Patrol agents to oversee the fence, and you turn off the magnets  --  and that's employers that hire people who they know are here illegally. That's why you have an e-verify system, so they can know that. And number two, you turn off the magnets, like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally. It's not that hard. We have to get the political will to get the job done.

And Governor Perry, you say you've got the experience. It's a bit like saying, you know, the college coach that's lost 40 games in a row has the experience to go to the NFL. But the truth is, California  --  I'll say it again  --  California and  --  and Florida have both had no increase in illegal immigration, and yours is up 60 percent over the last 10 years.

MR. COOPER: Time.

Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond?

GOV. PERRY: Well, the bottom line is, is that we have a federal government that has failed. There is a clear problem here.

And he hit the nail on the head awhile ago. He said there was a magnet of people that will hire illlegals, and you are number one on that list, sir.

(Boos.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ooh!

GOV. PERRY: And people need to understand that.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Ooh!

GOV. PERRY: You're one of the problems, Mitt. (Boos.)

MR. COOPER: I think we've been down that road.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I think we've been down that road sufficiently. Sounds like the audience agrees with me.

MR. COOPER: We've got to  --  we've  --  we're continuing on immigration. We have a question in the audience. (Cheers, applause.)

Q: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. We have 50 million Latinos and not all of us are illegal. What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich  -- 

(Scattered applause.)

MR. GINGRICH: Well, look  -- 

MR. COOPER:   --  President Obama got, I think, 67 percent of the Latino vote the last time around.

MR. GINGRICH: Look, I think that there's a very clear message to Americans of all backgrounds. Latinos, Korean-Americans, Vietnamese- Americans, there are hundreds of different groups who have come to America. As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration.

The truth is, most Latinos in the United States aren't immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is, they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants. They want an economy that's growing. They want a job that has take-home pay. They want to access to health insurance that they can afford. They want a chance to get educated that actually is useful and worthwhile. They want to be able to know that their family's going to grow up in safety, and they want to have a chance that their country's going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future.

I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background that we want to make America work again. And you'll know it's working because you will have a job and you'll have a chance to take care of your family.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, there  --  (cheers, applause)  --  Congressman Paul, there are some Latino voters who believe that some of these strong anti-immigration laws  --  anti-illegal immigration laws are actually anti-Latino laws.

What do you say to them?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that, and I can understand why somebody might look at that. But when we approach this immigration problem, we should look at the incentives, and that are the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate and must give them free education. You have to remove these incentives. But I don't think the answer is a fence, whatsoever.

But in order to attract Latino votes, I think  --  you know, too long, this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they're in groups, and then they reward people because they're in groups.

But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy. We wouldn't be talking about this. We need to see everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they are treated that way and they're never penalized that way. So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away.

As long as there's no abuse  --  one place where there's still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems, and I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. Herman Cain, the 14th Amendment allows that anybody born in the United States is an American citizen. Should that change?

MR. CAIN: I want to go back and answer this question first, OK? And that is, my message to Latinos, blacks, whites and all Americans is that we must first start with significantly boosting this economy, which is on life support. This is why I have put forth a very bold plan, and I'm not afraid to try and sell it to the American people. I'm not afraid to fight for it when I become president of the United States of America.

So that's my message: If we have this economy growing, people will be able to take care of their families and go after their American dream. And until we boost this economy, all of us are going to suffer for a long time.

MR. COOPER: Then let me ask the question of Governor Perry. Governor Perry, the 14th Amendment allows any  --  anybody  --  a child of illegal immigrants who's born here is automatically an American citizen.

Should that change?

GOV. PERRY: Well, let me address Herman's issue that he just talked about.

MR. COOPER: Actually, I'd rather you  --  rather you  --  I'd rather you ask the question  --  answer that question.

GOV. PERRY: All right, I understand that. You get to ask the questions, and I get to answer like I want to. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Ooh!

GOV. PERRY: And Herman  --  Herman talked about  -- 

MR. COOPER: That's actually a response. That's not an answer. But go ahead.

GOV. PERRY:   --  talked about the  --  the issue of how we get this country back working. And truly, the plan that I laid out last week, where we talk about the energy industry and this treasure trove that we have under this country.

And we need to recognize that the administration that we have today is blocking mining that could be going on in the state of Nevada. I talked to Brian Sandoval before I came in here today. You have an  --  an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy. You have a secretary of energy who has basically said he wants to see gas prices up close to the European model, that we want to  --  the president himself said electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket.

That's what we've got to stop. That's the reason we've got to have a president of the United States that understands that you get Americans working, and it addresses these issues that we have in this country. And the fastest way to do it is to open up these federal lands  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

GOV. PERRY:   --  to pull back those regulations  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

GOV. PERRY:   --  and get America working again. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: You implicated  --  to the question on the 14th Amendment, do you support repealing the 14th Amendment?

GOV. PERRY: No.

MR. COOPER: No, you do not.

GOV. PERRY: I do not.

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you support it?

REP. BACHMANN: I think there's a very real issue with magnets in this country. And I think the issue that you're referring to is the issue of "anchor babies." And that's an issue that  --  that  --  I was just in Arizona this last weekend, and the state is very concerned because when someone comes illegally across the border specifically for the purpose of utilizing American resources to have a baby here, then all of the welfare benefits then attach to that baby.

This is an issue that we don't have to deal with with the Constitution. This is an issue that we can deal with legislatively. And there are a lot of Americans that would like us to deal with this issue of anchor babies legislatively. (Applause)

MR. COOPER: Senator Santorum?

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I  --  I'd like to address the issue that the gentleman brought up, which is, what are we going to say to the Latino community, and not one person here mentioned the issue of family, faith, marriage. This is a community that is a faith-filled community; that family is at the center of that community.

I disagree in some respects with Congressman Paul, who says, you know, the country's founded on the individual. The basic building block of the society is not the individual, it's the family. It's the basic unit of society. (Cheers, applause.) And  --  and the Latino community understands that. They understand the importance of faith and marriage. They understand that bond that builds that solid foundation, and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom.

And I think the Latino community knows that's at stake in this country. There's a lot going on right now that's eroding our religious freedom, that's eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. And there's one candidate up here who consistently sounds that theme.

Look, I'm for jobs, too. I've got an economic plan. I agree with everything that's been said. But we keep running roughshod over the fact that this  --  the family in America and faith in America is being crushed  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. SANTORUM:   --  by the courts and by our government, and someone has to stand up and fight for those (institutions ?). (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you were referenced directly. Thirty seconds.REP. PAUL: Well, I would like to explain that rights don't come in bunches. Rights come as individuals. (Applause.) They come from a God. And they come as  --  each individual has a right to life and liberty.

But I might add about the border control and the  --  and the Latino vote, is we lack resources there. I think we should have more border guards on and a more orderly transition and run it much better. But where are our resources? You know, we worry more about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to bring the Guard units home  --  (cheers, applause)  --  and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border.

(Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: We have a question in the audience.

Q: My question for you is, do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, let's start with you. I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. GINGRICH: But look, we worked on this when I was speaker. I think that it has to be looked at scientifically. But I think at some point we have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste. And today, because this has been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous to the United States than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 years of geological safety.

MR. COOPER: Is Yucca Mountain that place?

MR. GINGRICH: I'm not a scientist. I mean, Yucca Mountain certainly was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the United States. It has always had very deep opposition here in Nevada. And frankly  -- 

MR. COOPER: You were for opening it in Congress, right? When you were in Congress  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: When I was in Congress, frankly, I worked with the  --  with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place. And most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you opposed this.

REP. PAUL: Yes, yes. I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was a time when I voted with two other individuals: the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach it from a states' rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, we're going to put our garbage in your state? (Cheers, applause.) I think that's wrong.

So I think it's very serious  --  I think it's very serious and that, quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies, then they assume this responsibility, then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this and then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. So I would say the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.

(Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, where do you stand on this?

MR. ROMNEY: Congressman Paul is right on that. (Cheers, applause.) I don't always agree with him, but I do on that. The idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste" doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that. And my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat. (Applause.)

And by the way, if Nevada says, look, we don't want it, then let other states make bids and say: Hey, look, we'll take it. Here's a geological site that we're evaluated. Here's the compensation we want for taking it. We want your electric companies around the country that are using nuclear fuel to compensate us, a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount per ton of this stuff that comes.

Let the free market work and, on that basis, the places that are geologically safe according to science and where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff. That's the right course for America. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry?

GOV. PERRY: You know, from time to time, Mitt and I don't agree. But on this one, he hit it  --  the nail right on the head. (Applause.)

And I'll just add that when you think about France, who gets over 70 percent of their energy from nuclear power, the idea that they deal with this issue, that their (classification ?) and that the innovation  --  and Congressman Paul, you're correct when it comes to allowing the states to compete with each other. That is the answer to this. We need to have a  --  a discussion in  --  in this country about our 10th Amendment and the appropriateness of it as it's been eroded by Washington, D.C., for all these many years  --  whether it's health care, whether it's education, or whether it's dealing with energy.

We don't need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion.

Allow the states to make the decision, and some state out there will see the economic issue, and they will have it in their state.

MR. COOPER: We're going to move on to an issue very important here in the state of Nevada and throughout the West. We have a question from the hall.

Q: Yeah, my question is those of us who own property here in Nevada have been devastated by the real estate bubble. What would you do as president to help fix the overall problem of real estate and foreclosures in America?

MR. COOPER: Senator Santorum, Nevada has the highest rate of foreclosure.

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I mean, it's  --  it's a situation right now where, obviously, the market is in  --  has been decimated. And so now you're looking at how do you repair. The problem is, in the first place, is that several people up here, the, quote, "businesspeople," supported the TARP, supported the bailout. Governor  --  Governors Perry, Romney  -- 

GOV. PERRY: Wrong. (Laughter.)

MR. SANTORUM: No, you wrote a letter on the day of the vote  -- 

GOV. PERRY: No. (Chuckles.)

MR. SANTORUM: You wrote a letter on the day of the vote, Governor, saying to vote for the plan. That's what  --  I mean, that  --  the letter sent  -- 

GOV. PERRY: No, I didn't.

MR. SANTORUM: Yes, you did, Governor. You  -- 

MR. COOPER: You'll have a chance to respond. Let him finish.

MR. SANTORUM: Your whole mansion signed it with you. So you supported it. Governor Romney and Herman Cain all supported the TARP program, which started this ball  -- 

MR. CAIN: Not all of it. (Laughter.)

MR. SANTORUM: I mean  --  I mean, you guys complain about Governor Romney flip-flopping. I mean, look at what's going on here. I mean, the  --  the bottom line is you all supported it. You all started this ball rolling where the government injected itself in trying to make  --  try to  --  try to fix the market with the government top-down trying to do it and manage decline. And what happened was people who  --  who did things that were wrong, that invested in things, took risks were bailed out. And the folks who  --  who acted responsibly are now getting hurt because their houses have gone down in value.

MR. COOPER: I've got to allow  -- 

MR. SANTORUM: We need to let the market work. And that's what hasn't been happening so far.

MR. COOPER: I've got to allow each  --  three of you to respond, so Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds.

GOV. PERRY: The  --  the  --  the fact is Rick just has that wrong. We wrote a letter to Congress asking them to act. What we meant by acting was cut the regulations, cut the taxation burden, not passing TARP. There is clearly a letter out of our office that says that, Rick.

I'll get you a copy of it, so you'll understand it.

MR. COOPER: Governor, Governor  -- 

MR. SANTORUM: OK, I  --  hold on, hold on. I need to respond to that. He sent a letter the day of the vote on the floor of the House saying pass the economic plan. There was only one plan, and that was the plan that was voted on the floor. It was TARP. You sent a letter on that day saying vote for that plan.

Now you can send a letter later saying I didn't mean it, but when you said it, it was the only plan that was in play, and that  --  that was the TARP plan.

MR. ROMNEY: (Inaudible)  --  was this  --  oh, I'm sorry.

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, do you want  --  do you want to respond, Governor Perry?

GOV. PERRY: I'm  --  I'm just telling you, I know what we sent. I know what the intention was. You can read it any way you want, but the fact of the matter  --  I wasn't for TARP, and have talked about it for years since then afterwards.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: There's an effort on the part of people in Washington to think somehow they know better than markets how to  --  how to rebalance America's economy. And the idea of the federal government running around and saying, hey, we're going to  --  we're going to give you some money for trading in your old car, or we're going to give you a few thousand bucks for buying a new house, or we're going to keep banks from foreclosing if you can't make your payments, these  --  these kinds of actions on the part of government haven't worked.

The right course is to let markets work. And in order to get markets to work and to help people, the best thing we can do is to get the economy going. And that's why the fundamental restructuring I've described is so essential to help homeowners and people across this country.

MR. COOPER: Mr. Cain, I want you to be able to respond. Thirty seconds. (Applause.)

MR. CAIN: I have said before that we were in a crisis at the end of 2008 with this potential financial meltdown. I supported the concept of TARP, but then when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the American people didn't like, I was then against it. So yes  --  and I'm honing (sic) up to that.

Now, getting back to the gentleman's question, in terms of what we need to do, we need to get government out of the way. It starts with making sure that we can boost this economy and then reform Dodd- Frank and reform a lot of these other regulations that have gotten in the way  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. CAIN:   --  and let the market do it, just like Mitt has talked about.

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from foreclosure in the state of Nevada?

REP. BACHMANN: That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this: Every day I'm out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I am talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you're talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they're losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through not fault of their own, are losing their job and they can't keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house.

I'm a mom. I talk to these moms. I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue; it's got to be solved. President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around. We will turn the economy around. We will create jobs. That's how you hold on to your house. Hold on, moms out there. It's not too late.

MR. COOPER: We have another question. This one is a Twitter question. How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country, and how does it relate with your message?

Herman Cain, I got to ask you. You said, quote: Don't blame  --  a couple  --  two weeks ago you said, don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job, you're not rich, blame yourself.

That was two weeks ago. The movement has grown. Do you still say that? (Applause.)

MR. CAIN: Yes, I do still say that. And here's why. (Cheers, applause.) I still stand by my statement, and here's why. They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good.

Wall Street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration. (Cheers, applause.) So I do stand by that.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you've been  --  Congressman Paul, you've been critical of Governor Romney for holding fundraisers with Wall Streeters. Do you think he understands what the protest is about? Do you understand?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain had blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle, and we can't blame the victims. But we also have to point  --  I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve. (Cheers, applause.) They  --  they create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that; you can solve these problems if you don't know where these bubbles come from.

But then when the bailout came and  --  supported by both parties. You have to realize, oh, wait, the Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? The big corporations, the people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world's going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved.

But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to the people who were losing it in their mortgages, not to the banks. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Mr. Cain, do you want to respond? He referenced you, so if you want to respond, you have 30 seconds.

MR. CAIN: All I want to say is that Representative Paul is partly right, but he's mixing problems here, that it's more than one problem. Look, the people  --  the bank  --  yes, the banks and the businesses on Wall Street, yes; the way that was administered was not right.

But my point is this: What are the people who are protesting want from bankers on Wall Street? To come downstairs and write them a check? This is what we don't understand.

Take  --  go and get to the source of the problem, is all I'm saying. And that's the White House.

MR. COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds, Senator (sic), then we'll go to Governor Romney  --  Congressman.

REP. PAUL: Yes. The argument is  --  it's said the program was OK, but it was mismanaged. But I work on the assumption that government's not very capable of managing almost anything  --  (applause)  --  so you shouldn't put that much trust in the government.

You have to  --  you have to trust the marketplace. And when the government gets involved, they have to deal with fraud. And how many people have gone to jail either in the government's Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that participated in this? And nobody suffers the consequences. All these investigations, and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses  --  it's their fault, according  --  that's why they're on Wall Street. And we can't blame them. We have to blame the business cycles  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL:   --  and the economic policies that led to this disaster. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, you originally called the protests dangerous. You said it was class warfare. You recently sounded more sympathetic. Where do you stand now? What is your message to those people protesting?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, we can spend our time talking about what happened three years ago and what the cause was of our collapse, but let's talk about what's happened over the last three years. We've had a president responsible for this economy for the last three years, and he's failed us. He's failed us in part because he has no idea how the private sector works or how to create jobs. On every single issue, he's made it harder for our economy to reboot. And as a result, we have 25 million Americans out of work  --  or stopped looking for work, or part-time work and can't get full-time employed. Home values going down. You have median income in America that in the last three years has dropped by 10 percent.

Americans are hurting across this country, and the president's out there campaigning. Why isn't he governing? He doesn't understand  --  he doesn't have a jobs plan, even now. (Applause.) This is  --  this is a critical time for America, and I  --  and  --  and I can tell you that this is time to have someone who understands how the economy works, who can get America working again. Instead of dividing and blaming, as this president is, let's grow America again and have jobs that are the envy of the world. And I know how to do it.

(Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. We've got to take a quick break. We're going to continue right on the other side. We'll be right back.

(Announcements.)

MR. COOPER: And welcome back to the CNN GOP debate, live from the Venetian in Las Vegas. Let's continue.

We've got an email question that was left at CNNPolitics.com. This is from a Mike Richards, who says: With the controversy surrounding Robert Jeffress, is it acceptable to let the issue of a candidate's faith shape the debate?

Senator Santorum, this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of  --  said that Mitt Romney is not a Christian and that Mormonism is a cult. Those were his words. (Boos.)

Should  --  should voters  --  should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion?

MR. SANTORUM: I think they should pay attention to the candidate's values, what the candidate stands for. (Cheers, applause.) That's  --  that's what's at play, and the person's faith. And  --  and you look at that faith and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person's belief structure.

So that's  --  those are important things. I  --  I  --  I'm a Catholic. Catholic has a  --  has social teachings. Catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong. And those are legitimate things for voters to look at, to say if you're a faithful Catholic, which I try to be  --  fall short all the time  --  (chuckles)  --  but I try to be  --  and  --  and it's a legitimate thing to look at as to what the tenets and teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and  --  and how you would govern this country.

With respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story. That's not applicable to what  --  what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, do you agree with that?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, I  --  I think if the question is does faith matter, absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truth, which begins, "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights"  --  how  --  how can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters? That's the order: religion, morality and knowledge.

Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here, I believe, would agree. (Cheers, applause.) But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment  --  how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray? (Applause.)

Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, Mitt Romney asked you to repudiate the comments of that pastor who introduced you on that stage. He didn't make the comments on the stage. He made them afterward in an interview. Will you repudiate those comments?

GOV. PERRY: Well, our faith  --  I can no more remove my faith than I can that I'm the son of a tenant farmer. I mean, the issue is, are we going to be individuals who stand by our faith? And I have said I didn't agree with that individual's statement. And our Founding Fathers truly understood and had an understanding of freedom of religion. And this country is based on, as Newt talked about, these values that are so important as we go forward, and the idea that we should not have our freedom of religion, to be taken away by any means.

But we also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn't agree with it, Mitt, and I said so.

But the fact is, Americans understand faith, and what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the White House. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, is that  --  is that acceptable to you?

MR. ROMNEY: You know, with  --  with regards to the disparaging comments about my faith, I've heard worse, so I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

What I actually found that was most troubling in what the reverend said in the introduction was he said, in choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion. And someone who's a good moral person is not someone who we should select; instead, we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious belief.

That  --  that idea that we should choose people, based upon their religion, for public office is what I find to be most troubling, because the founders of this country went to great length to make sure, and even put it in the Constitution, that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion; that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there's a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance for other people and faiths. That's bedrock principle.

And it was that principle, Governor, that I wanted you to be able to say, no, no, that's wrong, Reverend Jeffress. Instead of saying, as you did, that introduction knocked the ball out of the park, I'd have said: Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong, we should select people not based upon their faith  --  even though  --  and I don't suggest you distance yourself from your faith, any more than I would, but the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think is a very dangerous and enormous departure from the principles of our Constitution. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Would you still like him to say that?

MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry?

MR. COOPER: Would you still like the governor to say that, or was that something you wanted  -- 

MR. ROMNEY: I'll  --  I'll let him  --  it's  --  as his choice.

MR. COOPER: Do you want to respond to that, Governor Perry?

GOV. PERRY: I have. I said I did not agree with the  --  Pastor Jeffress' remarks. I don't agree with them. I can't apologize any more than that.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, that's fine.

MR. COOPER: We've got a question from the audience.

Q: Currently there's a deficit reduction measure to cut defense spending by $500 billion. Would you support such a reduction in defense spending? And if elected president, how will you provide a strong national defense?

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, should defense be cut?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, $500 billion is the amount that the questioner had mentioned. And don't forget, this was a historic week when it came to American foreign policy. We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much that they would attempt some sort of a heinous act like that.

Then we saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.

Then on Sunday we heard the reports that now that in Iraq that the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it's because of President Obama's failed policies. He's taken his eyes off the number-one issue in the world. That's an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us much danger  --  (applause)  --  and the president of Iran is  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. BACHMANN:   --  is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: And as president of the United States, I will. We will be respected again in the world.

MR. COOPER: The question, though, was about budget cuts, and is everything on the table in terms of cutting the budget?

REP. BACHMANN: Every  --  absolutely everything in the  -- 

MR. COOPER: So defense spending would be on the table  --  should be.

REP. BACHMANN: Defense spending is on the table, but again, Anderson, now with the president  --  he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our special operations forces in Africa.

MR. COOPER: I just want to make sure  --  OK, just  --  it's on the table.

REP. BACHMANN: It's on the table, but we cannot cut it by $500 billion. We can't do that to our brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

MR. GINGRICH: Look, I mean, if you want to understand how totally broken Washington is, look at this entire model of a supercommittee, which has now got a magic number to achieve, and if it doesn't achieve the magic number, then we'll all have to shoot ourselves in the head, so when they come back with a really dumb idea to merely cut off our right leg, we'll all be grateful that they are only semi-stupid instead of being totally stupid. (Cheers, applause.)

Now the idea that you'll  --  the idea that you'll have a bunch historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country  --  in both parties.

The fact is, we ought to first figure out what threatens us. We ought to figure out what strategies will respond to that. We should figure out what structures we need for those strategies. We should then cost them.

I found  --  helped found the Military Reform Caucus. I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. But the fact is  --  (laughter)  --  the fact is, to say I'm going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you proposed  --  (cheers, applause).

MR. GINGRICH: I should have done  --  (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, you just proposed eliminating the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Housing and Urban Development. (Laughter.) You say it'll save a trillion dollars  --  (whistles, cheers)  --  in one year. You're proposing a 15-percent cut to the Defense Department. Can you guarantee national security will not be hurt by that?

REP. PAUL: I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. And you have to get it straight. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense. What  --  how does  --  how does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We're broke. We have to borrow this money. Why are we in Japan? Why do we subsidize Germany, and they subsidize their socialized system over there because we pay for it. We're broke.

And this whole thing that this can't be on the table, I'll tell you what. This debt bubble is the thing you'd better really worry about, because it's imploding on us right now; it's worldwide. We are no more removed from this than the man in the moon. It's going to get much worse.

And to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren't in so many places. We have an empire; we can't afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We've spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what's happened throughout history.

And we're doing it to ourselves. The most recent empire to fail was a(n) empire that went into, of all places, Afghanistan.

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL: Then went broke. So where are we in Afghanistan? I say it's time to come home. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Time.

We do have a Twitter question. Given that Israel has just negotiated with Palestine for a soldier, would any of you negotiate for a hostage? Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al-Qaida had an American soldier in captivity and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote, "I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer." Can you explain?

MR. CAIN: The rest of the statement was quite simply you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first: I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first. (Applause.)

Now, then you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I'm sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that. So on the surface, I don't think we can say he did the right thing or not. A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.

MR. COOPER: But you're saying you could  --  I mean, in your words, you said that, "I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer." Isn't that negotiating with, in this case, al-Qaida?

MR. CAIN: I don't recall him ever saying that it was al-Qaida- related.

MR. COOPER: Yeah, he did. He said  -- 

MR. CAIN: Well, I don't  --  I  --  my policy would be we cannot negotiate with terrorists. That's where we have to start as a fundamental principle.

MR. COOPER: Senator Santorum.

MR. SANTORUM: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, you can't negotiate with terrorists, period. To address Congressman Paul's answer and the other answer on  --  on military spending, I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. They  --  the first order of the federal government  --  the only thing the federal government can do that nobody  --  no other level of government can do is protect us.

It is the first duty of the president of the United States, is to protect us. (Applause.) And we should  --  we should have the resources and we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that we  --  we  --  when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed. That's been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success, and that's why we haven't succeeded.

And as Michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is Iran  --  the disrespect, yes, but it's more than that. They sent a message. The two countries that they went after was the leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia, and the leader of the, quote, "secular world," the United States. This was a call by Iran to say: We are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the Islamic world.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. SANTORUM: We are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. And that's why they attacked here. And by the way, they did it in coordination with Central and South Americans, which I had been talking about and writing about for 10 years.

MR. COOPER: Time.

Congressman Paul, you were referenced in that answer. Thirty seconds.

REP. PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 150 bases  --  900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20, 25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together, essentially. And we want to spend more and more and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I mean, this  --  I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something, something real. (Cheers, applause.)

This budget is in bad shape, and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever, you know, invading this country. Which country? Are they going to invade this country?

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL: They can't even shoot a missile  --  (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: We have a question in the hall that gets  --  gets to your  --  gets to your question. The question in the hall on foreign aid  --  yes, ma'am.

Q: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?

(Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Perry, what about that? I mean  -- 

GOV. PERRY: Absolutely. I think it's time for this country to have a very real debate about foreign aid. Clearly, there are places  --  as a matter of fact, I think it's time for us to have a very serious discussion about defunding the United Nations. (Cheers, applause.) When you think about  --  when you think about the Palestinian Authority circumventing those Oslo accords and going to New York to try to create the conflict and to have themselves approved as a state without going through the proper channels, it is a travesty. And I think it's time not only to have that entire debate about all of our foreign aid, but in particular, the U.N. Why are we funding that organization? (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, should foreign aid be eliminated?

MR. ROMNEY: Foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.

Part of it is humanitarian aid around the world. I happen to think it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give it to another country for humanitarian aid. We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are  --  that are  --  and think of that borrowed money (today ?). (Applause.)

And finally, there's a portion of our foreign aid that allows us to carry out our  --  our activities in the world, such as what's happening in Pakistan, where we're taking  --  we're supplying our troops in Afghanistan through Pakistan.

But let me tell you, we're spending more on foreign aid than we ought to be spending. And  --  and Congressman Paul asked, is there a place we can cut the budget. Let me tell you where we cut the budget. Discretionary accounts you bring back to 2008 level. We get rid of "Obamacare." Number three, we take Medicaid, turn it back to the states, grow it at only 1 (percent) to 2 percent per year.

Number three, we cut  --  number four, rather, we cut federal employment by at least 10 percent through attrition. And finally, we say to federal employees: You're not going to make more money than the people in the private sector who are paying for you. We link their compensation. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Time. Congressman Paul?

REP. PAUL: On foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. It's not authorized in the Constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. (Applause.)

To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries, and it becomes weapons of war, essentially, no well  --  no matter how well motivated it is. So while  -- 

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?

REP. PAUL: I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don't think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. We're on a bankruptcy court  --  course  --  and we  --  and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave Egypt. I mean, their  --  their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars, and now there's a more hostile regime in Egypt. And that's what's happening all around Israel. That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us. It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back  -- 

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL:   --  they should be able to deal with their neighbors at their own will. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, should we cut foreign aid to Israel?

REP. BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact that the president  --  (applause)  --  the biggest problem with this administration and foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That's heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.

Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.

(Cheers, applause.)

Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive. We cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: we don't negotiate.

MR. COOPER: Herman Cain, I've got to give you 30 seconds because she was referring to  --  basically saying you're naive or  --  if that's what you were suggesting.

MR. CAIN: No. I said that I believe in the philosophy of we don't negotiate with terrorists. I think  --  I've been saying  --  I would never agree to letting hostages in Guantanamo Bay go. No, that wasn't the intent at all.

But let me go back to this, if I could, very quickly, in the time that I have left, the question they asked about foreign aid. My approach is an extension of the Reagan approach: peace through strength, which is peace through strength and clarity. If we clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are, and stop giving money to our enemies, then we ought to continue to give money to our friends, like Israel. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Congressman Paul, then I got to go.

REP. PAUL: As a matter of fact, I don't want to make a statement, I want to ask a question. Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.

MR. SANTORUM: Well, that's not  --  Iran was a sovereign country, it was not a terrorist organization, number one. That's  -- 

REP. PAUL (?): Well, they were our good friends  -- 

(Cross talk.)

MR. : They're a sovereign country  --  just like the Palestinian Authority is not good friends of Israel.

REP. PAUL: He negotiated for hostages.

MR. SANTORUM: There's a role  --  we negotiated with hostages  --  (inaudible)  --  the Soviet Union. We've negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale. But there's a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to terrorist demands than  -- 

REP. PAUL: But they're all suspects, they're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.

MR. SANTORUM:   --  than negotiating with other countries where we may have an interest.

And that is certainly a proper role for the United States  --  (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. I do want to give Speaker Gingrich thirty seconds and then  -- 

MR. GINGRICH: Just very straightforward. (Inaudible)  --  did a film on Ronald Reagan, there's a very painful moment in the film when he looks in the camera and says: I didn't think we did this; I'm against doing it. I went back and looked. The truth is, we did. It was an enormous mistake. And he thought the Iranian deal was a terrible mistake.

MR. COOPER: We're going to take a short break. Our debate, though, continues on the other side of the break, so stay tuned. (Cheers, applause.) When we return, which candidate has the best chance to beat Barack Obama? It's going to matter in your vote. Stay with us.

(Announcements.)

(Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: And welcome back. The GOP debate is under way.

Let's talk about probably the most important issue to everybody on this stage and probably just about everybody on (sic) this room, which is, who can beat President Barack Obama in this next election? (Cheers, applause.)

In today's new CNN/ORC poll, 41 percent of Republican voters think that Governor Romney has the best chance of beating the president. (Cheers, applause.)

To Senator Santorum, you got 1 percent. Why shouldn't Republican voters go with the candidate they feel they can best beat  --  that can best beat President Obama?

MR. SANTORUM: Well, the Pew poll last week asked how many people in this country can name any of us, and less than 50 percent could come up with even one. So the idea that this has any relevance to people who aren't paying close attention to this debate is  --  is  --  is in fact irrelevant.

What's relevant is to look at the track record. No one in this field has won a swing state. Pennsylvania's a swing state. We win Pennsylvania, we win the election. The Republican is nominated.

I've won it twice. I defeated a Democratic incumbent winning it the first time, and I won the state of Pennsylvania  --  the only senator to win a state who is a conservative that George Bush lost. Bush lost it by 5. I won it by 6.

So you have someone who's defeated and  --  and been matched up against three Democratic incumbents. I'm 3 and 0. Nobody in this field has won a major race against a Democratic incumbent  --  except me. No one has won a swing state  --  except me, as a conservative. I didn't run as a Democrat in Texas when it was popular, one, and win there. I didn't run as a liberal in 1994. I ran in 1994, the same year Mitt did in  --  in  --  in Massachusetts. He ran as a liberal, to the left of Kennedy, and lost. I ran as a conservative against James Carville and Paul Begala, and I won.

In  --  in  --  in 2002 he ran as a moderate. He ran as a moderate in  --  in  --  in Massachusetts.

I ran for re-election having sponsored and passed welfare reform, having authored the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. SANTORUM: I was for  --  a moral conservative. I was a foreign policy conservative.

MR. COOPER: Time, sir.

MR. SANTORUM: I was a fiscal conservative, and I got elected in a state that hasn't an elected a president since 1988 as a Republican.

MR. COOPER: Thank you. (Applause.)

Governor Romney, I've got to give you 30 seconds since he referenced you.

MR. ROMNEY: I think the people of America are looking for someone who can beat President Obama and can get the country on the right track. And I believe that they recognize that if we elect someone who's spent their life in politics, that they're not going to be able to post up well against President Obama and convince the American people of the truth of the principles that we believe in. I believe that having spent my life in the private sector, having actually created jobs is what allows me to have the kind of support that's going to allow me to replace President Obama and get the country on the right track again. That for me is the distinguishing feature that's going to get me elected as the president of the United States.

MR. COOPER: Governor  --  (cheers, applause)  --  Governor Perry, was he was referring to you?

GOV. PERRY: If you want to know how someone's going to act in the future, look how they act in the past. I mean, so, Mitt, while you were the governor of Massachusetts in that period of time, you were 47th in the nation in job creation. During that same period of time we created 20 times more jobs. As a matter of fact, you've created 40,000 jobs total in your four years. Last two months we created more jobs than that in Texas.

What we need is someone who will draw a bright contrast between themselves and President Obama. And let me tell you one thing: I will draw that bright contrast.

MR. COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds. Governor Romney?

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, with regards to track record in the past, Governor, you were the chairman of Al Gore's campaign. All right? (Laughter.) And there was a fellow  --  there was a fellow Texan named George Bush running. So if we're looking at the past, I think we know where you were.

Secondly, our unemployment rate I got down to 4.7 percent. Pretty darn good. I think a lot of people would be happy to have 4.7 percent. And with regards  --  (cheers, applause)  --  with regards to the  --  to the record  --  to the record in Texas, you probably also ought to tell people that if you look over the last several years, 40 percent, almost half the jobs created in Texas were created for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.

GOV. PERRY: That is an absolutely falsehood on is face, Mitt.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, it's  --  it's actually  --  it's actually  -- 

MR. COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Governor Perry.

GOV. PERRY: That is absolutely incorrect, sir.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, take a look at the study.

GOV. PERRY: There's a third  --  there's been a third party take a look at that study, and it is absolutely incorrect. The fact is Texas has led the nation in job creation. EBay and Facebook and Caterpillar didn't come there because there weren't jobs and there wasn't an environment to  --  to be created. That's what Americans are looking for. They're looking for somebody that they trust, that knows  --  has the executive governing experience. I've got it. You failed as the governor of Massachusetts.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Ooh!

MR. COOPER: I've got to give Governor Romney 30 seconds when you said he failed.

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.) I'm very proud of the fact  --  actually, during the  --  the four years we were both governors, my unemployment rate in Massachusetts was lower than your unemployment rate in Texas. That's number one. Number two, getting it down to 4.7 (percent) I'm pretty happy with. We worked very hard to balance our budget, did every year, put in place a rainy-day fund of $2 billion by the time I was finished.

And I'll tell you this: The American people would be happy for an individual who can lead the country who's actually created jobs, not just watching them get created by others, but someone who knows how the economy works because he's been in it. I have. I've created jobs. I'll use that skill to get America working again. That's what we want. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Herman Cain, you're  --  Herman Cain, you're tied with Governor Romney in some of the polls for the top leadership position right now. Is a  --  are they the ones  --  are either Governor Perry or Governor Romney  --  are they the ones who should be president?

MR. CAIN: (Chuckles.) No, I should be president. (Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Well, obviously.

MR. CAIN: Governor Romney has a very distinguished career, and I would agree with much of what he has said. And there's one difference between the two of us in terms of our experience. With all due respect, his business-executive experience has been more Wall Street- oriented. Mine has been more Main Street.

I have managed small companies. I've actually had to clean the parking lot. I've worked with groups of businesses, et cetera.

And as far as contrasting me with President Obama, if I am fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, it's going to be the problem solver who fixes stuff, versus a president who hasn't fixed anything in this country. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, you've got 30 seconds.

MR. ROMNEY: I appreciate that. And probably, the fact that we're doing as well as we are is we both have a private-sector background. That probably helps. But I just want to set the record state of my record  --  record straight on my record.

I've been chief executive officer four times: once for a startup and three times for turnarounds. One was the financial services company, that was the startup; a consulting company, that's a mainstream business; the Olympics, that's certainly mainstream; and of course, the state of Massachusetts. In all those settings, I learned how to create jobs.

 MR. COOPER: We  --  your campaigns are telling us we have to end  --  it's time  --  I'm sorry  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: Oh, no, no, no!

EP. PAUL: Oh, wait  --  wait a second.

 REP. BACHMANN: Anderson  --  Anderson, that is  -- 

MR. COOPER: It's your campaigns. I'm just  -- 

REP. PAUL: No, just  --  (inaudible)  -- 

REP. BACHMANN: Anderson, this is  --  Anderson? Anderson  --  Anderson  -- 

MR. COOPER: If you want to defy your campaigns, go ahead. Go ahead. Congresswoman Bachmann, 30 seconds.

REP. BACHMANN: The good news is the cake is baked. Barack Obama will be a one-term president. There's no question about this. (Cheers, applause.)

Now the question is, we need to listen to Ronald Reagan who said: No pastels; bold colors. I am the most different candidate from Barack Obama than anyone on this stage.

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?

REP. BACHMANN: We can't settle in this race.

MR. COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, why don't you get in this?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me just  --  let me just point out a second that maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House. (Applause.) And the technique you've used maximizes going back and forth, over and over again.

I just want to say two things. I think that I would be the strongest candidate because of sheer substance, if you go to newt.org and look at the 21st century Contract with America. As the nominee, I will challenge Obama to meet the Lincoln-Douglas standard of seven three-hour debates, no timekeep  --  no moderator, only a timekeeper.

I believe we can defeat him decisively to a point where we re- establish a conservative America on our values. And I think that is a key part of thinking about next year. (Cheers, applause.)

 MR. COOPER: We'd love to host those on CNN.

I want to thank all the candidates, the GOP candidates tonight. (Cheers, applause.)

Want to thank all the candidates for a spirited debate on the stage. We also want to thank our co-sponsor, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, our host the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian. 

====
The following is a transcript of the Republican presidential debate in Orlando, Fla., as provided by Federal News Service.

Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Sponsored by Fox News, Google and the Florida Republican Party Republican

Candidates: Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Businessman and Columnist Herman Cain
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R)
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R)
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
Governor Rick Perry (R-TX)
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R)
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Moderators: Bret Baier, Anchor, "Special Report"
Megyn Kelly, Anchor, "America Live"
Chris Wallace, Host of "Fox News Sunday"

Location: Orange County Convention Center, Orlando, Florida
Time: 9:00 p.m. EDT
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011

BRET BAIER: And after an outpouring of emails from dog owners who said the last bell sounded like their doorbell -- (laughter) -- wehave a new sound for the candidates if they run too long. (Tone sounds.) Thank you to Google for that sound. (Laughter.)

We hope, after a string of debates, we don't have to use that toomuch. Now we received thousands and thousands of questions from around the world on different topics. Each one of these pins on the map is another question -- from health care and immigration to foreign policy and social issues.

But the highest percentage of questions dealt with the jobs, the economy, debt and government spending. And that was even before today's major market slide. What makes this debate unique is that not only did you submit the questions, you voted on them, letting everyone know which questions you think the candidates should be asked tonight. We received questions from all 50 states, but our first question comes from Dave Maldeaux (sp) right here in Orlando, Florida. Q: As a small-business owner, one of the obstacles I have ingrowing my business in today's economy is having the confidence and incentive to go out and hire new employees. I'm wondering what each one of our candidates would propose to do, as president, to help incent small businesses like mine to hire new employees and to confidently grow our business in this troublesome economic environment. MR. BAIER: Governor Perry, I'll put that question to you.

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY (R-TX): Yes, sir. Well, Rick Scott's sitting right over there, and he and I compete every day with trying to get jobs into our states. And what we've done in the state of Texas over the course of the last decade is to lower that tax burden on the small businessmen and -women, have a regulatory climate that isfair and predictable, and sweeping tort reform that we passed in 2003that told the personal injury trial lawyers: Don't come to Texas,because you're not going to be suing our doctors frivolously. That's the way you get -- (applause) -- the government off of the back of small-business men and women.And that's the way you free up those small-business entrepreneurs, where they know that if they can risk their capital and have a chance to have a return on investment. If it'll work in the state of Texas, it'll work in Washington, D.C. And that's exactly what I'm going to bring to Washington when I go there in November -- or, excuse me, in -- in January of 2013.

MR. BAIER: Governor Perry, the thing we heard from most people who submitted questions is they wanted specifics. They wanted details. Most of the people on the stage, opponents, have a specific jobs plan on paper that people can read. Where is your jobs plan?

GOV. PERRY: Well, you'll see a more extensive jobs plan. But the fact of the matter is, you look at the state of Texas and see what we've done there from the standpoint of lowering that tax burden, the regulatory climate in the state of Texas. We've taken those types of regulations off of the throat of small-business operators.

People understand that the state of Texas during the last decade, something special happened there. It was the number-one state for relocation for five years in a row -- and we plan on keeping it that way, Rick. (Laughter.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney -- Governor Romney, you have a specific plan. In recent days, actually, the top rising search of your name on Google actually dealt with people searching for specifics of that plan. But a Wall Street Journal editorial recently called your 59-point economic plan, quote, "surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament." Specifically, the editorial board had a problem with you picking the $200,000 income threshold for eliminating interest dividends and capital gains taxes, writing that you are afraid of President Obama's, quote, "class warfare rhetoric." How do you respond to that criticism?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's go back -- let's go back and talk -- microphone on? Let's go get the mic on. There we go.

Let's go back and talk about the question that Dave asked, which is how to get small business a break. And President Obama has done everything wrong.I happen to believe that to create jobs, it helps to have had a job, and I have.

And having had a job in small business and in big business, I know what you have to do is make America the most attractive place in the world for business, and that means our corporate tax rates, our employer tax rates have to be competitive. Small business pays at the highest rate. We need to get those rates down to globally competitive levels.

Number two, government and regulators have to be allies of business, not foes. Number three, we've got to become energy secure in this country. Number four, we have to have trade policies that work for us, not just for the other guys, and crack down on cheaters like China. And my list goes on in my 59 points. (Cheers, applause.)

But finally, let me tell you this. I know there are some that say, look, we should lower taxes for the very highest-income people. Other folks have different plans. My view is very simple. The people that have been hurt the most by the president's economy, the Obama economy, has been the middle class. (Bell rings.) That's why I cut taxes for the middle class. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: So, sir, what -- what do you consider rich? Is half a million dollars rich, a million dollars rich? At what income does someone reach your definition of rich?

MR. ROMNEY: I don't try to define who's rich and who's not rich. I want everybody in America to be rich. I want people in this country to have opportunity. (Cheers, applause.) And I want everybody to have the kind of opportunities that we on this stage have had. I want people in America to recognize that the future will be brighter for their kids than it was for them.

I know that the -- that the president's party wants to try and take from some people and give to the others. That isn't the way to lift America. The way to lift America is to give people opportunity and to let them enjoy the freedoms that have made us the envy of the world. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor, thank you very much.

Occasionally through the debate, we'll ask the same questions we asked the candidates to you at home. The first one, what is your

definition of rich. You can vote on that answer at Youtube.com/Foxnews. We'll bring some of those results throughout the show with Shannon Bream.

Now to my colleague Megyn Kelly.

MEGYN KELLY: Thanks, Bret.

Congresswoman Bachmann, after the last debate a young member of the California Tea Party said he didn't feel that he had had his question fully answered.And it's the question that received the most votes on Google and YouTube on the list as well. The answer to his question is a number. And the question was, quote, "Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): And after the debate I talked to that young man. And I said I wish I could have answered that question because I want to tell you what my answer is. I think you earned every dollar. You should get to keep every dollar that you earn. (Cheers, applause.) That's your money. That's not the government's money. That's the whole point. Barack Obama seems to think that when we earn money, it belongs to him, and we're lucky just to keep a little bit of it. I don't think that at all. I think when people make money, it's their money.

Obviously we have to give money back to the government so that we can run the government. But we have to have a completely different mindset, and that mindset is the American people are the genius of this economy. It certainly isn't government that's the genius. And that's the two views. President Obama has embraced a view of government-directed temporary fixes and gimmicks. They don't work. He's destroyed the economy. What does work is private solutions that are permanent in the private sector. That gives certainty. That will grow our economy. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Senator Santorum, next question is for you. As this map from Google depicts, 22 states in the U.S. are right-to-work states. In the other 28, if a business is a union shop, you have to join the union if you want to work there. Now, this next question is one of the top-voted questions online, and it comes to us via YouTube from Yates Wilburn (sp) of Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Q: With unemployment numbers remaining above 9 percent, union issues such as the National Labor Relations Board lawsuit against Boeing and several union battles in state legislatures across the country have become incredibly relevant to the national discussion.For all the candidates: Would you support some form of a federal right to work law allowing all workers to choose whether or not to join a union? (Applause.)

MS. KELLY: That's for you, Senator Santorum.

RICK SANTORUM: I -- I -- I think the most important area that we have to focus in on when it comes to unions is public employee unions. That's the area of unionization that's growing the fastest, and it's costing us the most money. We've seen these battles on the state level, where unions have -- have really bankrupted states from pension plans to -- here in the federal level for example, 30 (percent) to 40 percent union employees make above their private sector equivalents. I do not believe that state, federal or local workers -- unions -- should be involved in unions. And I would actually support a bill that says that we should not have public employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Speaker Gingrich, the second one's for you. You criticized extending unemployment benefits, saying that you were, quote, "opposed to giving people money for doing nothing." Benefits have already been extended to 99 weeks, and they are set to expire soon. If you were president today, would extend unemployment benefits? And if not, how do you justify that to the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking in earnest and whose families are depending on those checks?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, what I've said is that I think unemployment compensation should be tied directly to a training program. And if you have to -- if you don't have a job and you need help, then in order for us to give you the help, you should sign up for a business- led training program so that that 99 weeks becomes an investment in human capital, giving us the best-trained workforce in the world so you can get a job. But I believe it is fundamentally wrong to give people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing.That's why we had welfare reform. (Cheers, applause.)

And frankly, the easiest thing for Congress to do if the president sends up a proposed extension is to allow all 50 states to experiment at the state level with developing a mandatory training component of unemployment compensation so you'd have 50 parallel experiments and not pretend that Washington knows best or that Washington can solve the problem by itself. But I believe deeply people should not get money for doing nothing. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Now I turn to my colleague Chris Wallace. Chris?

CHRIS WALLACE: Bret, thank you. Good evening, candidates.

Governor Huntsman, in Utah you offered millions of dollars in tax credits to promote clean energy. In June you said that, as president, you would subsidize natural gas companies. How is that different from the Obama administration, which gave the solar panel company Solyndra a half a billion dollars in federal loan guarantees? And as we all know, that company ended up bankrupt and we taxpayers ended up on the hook.

MR. HUNTSMAN: Chris, first of all, it's an honor to be here in Orlando, home of my wife, the greatest human being I've known in 28 years.

We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have some hard decisions to make. And we're not going to fix the problem -- we're not going to be able to bring our people together in America until we fix the economy. I'm convinced that part of the divide that we're experiencing in the United States, which is unprecedented, it's unnatural and it's un-American, is because we've divided economically -- too few jobs, too few opportunities.

We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind. And I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work.

We need something like natural gas. I put forward an energy independence program, along with tax reform and regulatory reform.Just by drawing from natural gas, for example, you're looking at 500,000 to a million jobs over the next five years. It is ours. It's affordable. It has important national security implications. And we should begin the conversion process.

MR. WALLACE: But just a 30-second follow-up, sir, in June you told the New Hampshire Union Leader, as president, you would subsidize the natural gas industry.

MR. HUNTSMAN: I would be willing to begin an effort, so long as there was a rapid phaseout. I do not like subsidies. I do not like long-term subsidies. But if there was some sort of way to get the ball rolling with a -- with a -- with a quick phaseout, I would be in favor of that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Cain, I want to follow up on your 9-9-9 plan for economic growth. That's a 9 percent -- (cheers, applause) -- well, they seem to already know what it is, but for the few who don't, it's a 9 percent flat corporate tax, a 9 percent flat income tax and a new 9 percent national sales tax. Now conservatives usually say repeal the income tax before you impose a new tax. Isn't there a danger with your 9-9-9 plan, with these three taxes, that some government down the road after President Cain is going to increase three forms of taxation on Americans?

HERMAN CAIN: No, there is no danger in that.

And first, let me answer Dave's question with the 9-9-9 plan. Unfortunately, nobody up here answered his question. He wants to know, as a small-business man, what are we going to do in order to help him as a small-business person?

I have walked in Dave's shoes. This economy is on life support. That's why my 9-9-9 plan is a bold solution. It starts with throw out the current tax code and pass the 9 percent -- (applause) -- 9 percent business flat tax, the 9 personal -- personal income and the 9 percent national sales tax. This is the most important part. It eliminates or replaces corporate income tax, personal income tax, capital gains tax, as well as the -- as well as the estate tax.Then it treats all businesses the same. And the people who are paying only payroll tax, 15.3 (percent), that 15.3 (percent) they don't have to pay. Now they only have to pay that 9 percent. And unlike Governor Romney's plan, my plan throws out the old one. He's still hooked to the current tax code. That dog won't hunt. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: The rule here, as we all know, is if your name is mentioned in an answer, you get 30 seconds to respond.

Governor Romney.

MR. ROMNEY: That's fine. I put my plan out. I want to make it very clear that my intent is to help the people who've been most hurt by the President Obama's economy. And the people who've been most hurt are the middle-income families of America. And that's why my plan says that if middle-income families want to save their money -- anybody earning under $200,000 -- and not pay any taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains -- zero tax on their savings -- that's the plan I'm for. And I'll get that done in my first year.

Thank you. (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, I want to show you the video that got the most votes of all the video questions submitted to YouTube. And this one comes, as you can see, from Brandy (sp) and Michael (sp) in Spencer, Indiana.

Q: There's growing concern among Americans about the size and the scope of the federal government and its infringement upon state and individual rights.

Q: If you're elected president, how do you plan to restore the 10th Amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves? (Cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Congressman, what's your answer for Brandy (sp) and Michael (sp)?

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Well, obviously it would take more than one individual. But the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th Amendment. That would be the solution. (Cheers, applause.)MR. WALLACE: Anything else there? I think we got a little time left. (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: Well, I tell you what, that is the subject that is crucial because government is too big in Washington, D.C. It's runaway. We have no controls of the spending, taxes, regulations, no control on the Federal Reserve printing money. So if we want government, whether it's medical care or whatever, it's proper to do it at the local level, as well as our schools. But there is no authority in the Constitution to do so much of what we're doing. There's no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no -- no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with our personal lives. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: OK. We got to the full answer there at the end.

Governor Johnson, same question to you about the 10th Amendment, with this added: You are an outspoken libertarian. What makes you a better choice for libertarian Republicans that Congressman Paul?

MR. JOHNSON: I'm not going to presume to make that assumption. But I would like to say that I do bring a unique perspective to this stage.

I started a one-man handyman business in Albuquerque in 1974 and grew it to over a thousand employees. I have run for two political offices in my life, governor of New Mexico and reelection. I promise to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013. (Applause.) I promise to veto legislation where expenditures exceed revenue. And if anybody doubts my willingness to veto bills, I think I vetoed more bills than any governor in the history of the United States. I think I vetoed more bills than all the other governors in the country combined. (Applause.) Add to that throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax, the fair tax -- (cheers, applause) -- which would absolutely reboot the American economy because it does away with the corporate tax to create tens of millions of jobs in this country.MR. BAIER: Governor Johnson, thank you.

We'll be coming back to the issue of the economy throughout this debate tonight. As I mentioned at the top of the show, we'll also be checking in with our own Shannon Bream throughout the night to get real-time updates from people watching.

Shannon.

SHANNON BREAM: Hi, Brett. Well, this is the most interactive debate ever, and it's thanks to our partner Google. You can go to youtube.com/foxnews. What happens there is, folks can see the debate streaming live, but also to the right of the screen, all night long we are sending out questions so we can get your answers at home. You can participate and weigh in.

Brett a little bit earlier asked Governor Romney how he defined "rich." It's a question we put to folks out on the Internet as well, and we've got the results.

Here's a question: I define rich as someone having an annual income higher than 100,000 (dollars), 13 percent of you weighed in there; 250,000 (dollars), 22 percent; 500,000 (dollars), 22 percent; and the majority went with $1 million annual income, that defines you as rich, 44 percent of those who voted. We'll be going through all kinds of polls and data on the commercials. Join us at youtube.com/foxnews.

Brett, back to you.

MR. BAIER: Thanks, Shannon.

After the break, we will be tackling foreign policy, government spending -- Shannon will have more on that too -- and also the issue of immigration. And here for a preview of what's to come, let's take a look at what's called a "word cloud." It shows the words that were used most often in all the questions you asked about immigration. The bigger the word, the more often it was used. The biggest word in this cloud, as you can see, is "illegal." Back after a short break. (Cheers, applause.)

(Announcements.)MR. BAIER: Thank you, Governor Scott. And welcome back to Orlando, Florida, and the Republican presidential debate.

My colleague Megyn Kelly will take us through the next round of questions on government spending and debt.MS. KELLY: Thanks, Bret.

Governor Perry, Governor Romney has been hammering you on your idea of turning Social Security back to the states, repeatedly. Can you explain specifically how 50 separate Social Security systems are supposed to work?

GOV. PERRY: Well, let me just say first, for those people that are on Social Security today, for those people that are approaching Social Security, they don't have anything in the world to worry about. We have made a solemn oath to the people of this country that that Social Security program in place today will be there for them.

Now, it's not the first time that Mitt's been wrong on some issues before. And the bottom line is, is we never said that we were going to move this back to the states. What we said was we ought to have as one of the options -- the state employees and the state retirees, they being able to go off of the current system onto one that the states would operate themselves. As a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, his home state, almost 96 percent of the people who are on that program, retirees and state people, are off of the Social Security program. So having that option out there to have the states -- Louisiana does it -- almost every state has their state employees and the retirees -- that are options to go off of Social Security. That makes sense. It's an option that we should have.

MS. KELLY: Governor Romney, are you satisfied with that?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, it's different than what the governor put in his book just -- what, six months ago and what you said on your interviews following the book. So I don't know -- there's a Rick Perry out there that's saying that it -- almost to quote, it says that -- that -- that the federal government shouldn't be in the pension business, that it's unconstitutional -- unconstitutional, and it should be returned to the states. So you'd better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that. (Laughter, cheers, applause) Now, my own -- my own view is -- my own view is that we have to make it very, very clear that Social Security is a responsibility of the federal government, not the state governments, that we're going to have one plan, and we're going to make sure that it's fiscally sound and stable.(Bell rings.)

And I'm absolutely committed to keeping Social Security working. I've put in my book that I wrote a couple of years ago a plan for how we can do that to make sure Social Security is stable not just for the next 25 years but for the next 75.

Thank you. (Applause.)

GOV. PERRY: And I would like to respond to that.

MS. KELLY: Go ahead, Governor Perry.

GOV. PERRY: Speaking of books and talking about being able to have things in your books and back and forth, your economic adviser talked about "Romneycare" and how that was an absolute bust, and it was exactly what "Obamacare" was all about. As a matter of fact, between books, your hard copy book, you said that it was exactly what the American people needed to have -- that's "Romneycare" -- given to them as you had in Massachusetts. Then in your paperback, you took that line out. (Cheers, applause.) So, speaking of not getting it straight in your book, sir -- (inaudible). (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Governor Romney?

GOV. PERRY: (You've/he's ?) got a bad memory.

MR. ROMNEY: Governor Perry? Governor Perry, we were -- we were talking about Social Security, but if you want to talk about health care, I'm happy to do that.

MR. BAIER: We are going to have a round on --

MR. ROMNEY: I actually -- I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing. What I said -- actually, when I put my health care plan together -- and I met with Dan Balz, for instance, of The Washington Post. He said, is this a plan that if you were president you would put on the nation, have the whole nation adopt it? I said, absolutely not. I said, this is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan.

And it's fine for you to retreat from your own words in your own book, but please don't try and make me retreat from the words that I wrote in my book. I stand by what I wrote. I believe in what I did.

And I believe that the people -- (bell rings) -- of this country can read my book and see exactly what it is.

Thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: We've got plenty of questions for all the other candidates here tonight, but I want to stick with you on this one, Governor Romney. Congresswoman Bachmann has said that President Obama has, quote, "ushered in socialism during his first term."Governor Perry says that this administration is, quote, "hell-bent toward taking America toward a socialist country." When Speaker Gingrich was asked if he believes President Obama is a socialist, he responded, quote, "Sure, of course he is." (Laughter, cheers, applause.) Do you, Governor Romney -- (cheers, applause) -- do you, Governor Romney, believe that President Obama is a socialist?

MR. ROMNEY: Let me tell you the title that I want to hear said about President Obama, and that is "former President Barack Obama." (Cheers, applause.)

Let me tell you this, what -- what President -- President Obama is, is a big-spending liberal. And he takes his political inspiration from Europe and from the socialist democrats in Europe. Guess what? Europe isn't working in Europe. It's not going to work here.

I believe in America. I believe in the opportunity and in the freedom that is American opportunity and freedom. (Applause.) I believe in free enterprise and capitalism. I believe government is too big. It's gone from 27 percent of our economy in the years of JFK to 37 percent of our economy. We have to reign in the scale of government or we're not going to be -- continue to be a free economy.

I love this country. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I only spent four years as a governor. I didn't inhale. (Laughter.) I'm a business guy. I'm going to get America working again because I believe in the principles that make America the hope of the Earth. Thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Governor Huntsman, this next one's for you. This week, President Obama proposed a tax hike on millionaires, saying that they need to pay their, quote, "fair share." According to an August Gallup poll, 66 percent of American adults actually believe that a tax hike on the wealthy is a good idea to help tackle our mounting debt. Is there any scenario under which you could side with the 66 percent of people who believe that it is a good idea to raise taxes on millionaires?MR. HUNTSMAN: We're not going to raise taxes. This is the worst time to be raising taxes, and everybody knows that. (Applause.)

We need to grow. We need to be reminded of what Ronald Reagan told us so beautifully, that which is great about America -- freedom. We need to re-establish freedom in the marketplace.

We need to address our underlying structural problems that we have, but in order to do that we're going to have to fix our taxes. And we've put forward a program endorsed by The Wall Street Journal that phases out for individual all the loopholes, all the deductions and creates three rates: 8, 14, 23 (percent).

On the corporate side, it phases out all of the corporate welfare, all of the subsidies, and it gets it from 35 to 25 percent.

This is exactly where we need to be. We need to grow. We need to create jobs. This is not a point in time where we should be raising taxes. We need to fix the underlying structural problems in this economy, and until such time as we do, we're not going to provide the confidence to businesses who are looking to deploy capital in the marketplace and hire people. And that would be serious tax reform, like I proposed and like I did in the state of Utah. And that would be -- and that would be structural reform as well, dealing with Dodd- Frank and repealing "Obamacare," because they are presenting tremendous uncertainty in the marketplace right now.

MS. KELLY: Thank you, Governor.

Mr. Cain, this question -- (applause) -- was one of the top 10 video questions voted on by people online, and it comes to us from Lee Doren (sp) of Arlington, Virginia, via YouTube.

Q: My question is, if you were forced to eliminate one department from the federal government, which one would you eliminate and why? Thank you.

MS. KELLY: (Chuckles.) (Laughter.)

MR. CAIN: The first -- the first department, if I were forced to eliminate a department, I would start with the EPA and start all over. (Cheers applause.) It's out of control.Now I know that makes some people nervous, but the EPA has gone wild. The fact that they have a regulation that goes into effect January 1st, 2012 to regulate dust says that they've gone too far. (Laughter.) So rather than try to fix it, eliminate all of the things that they have right now and then start rebuilding a responsible EPA.

Now with the rest of my time, may I offer a solution for Social Security -- (laughter, cheers, applause) -- rather than continuing to talk about what you call it? I have proposed the Chilean model. It's been around 30 years, and it works. It's a personal retirement account. And in the last 30 years, not only has Chile succeeded with that model, but 30 other countries have done so. I don't think we're doing a service to the American people to keep bantering about what you call it and what you don't call it. The solution is: Fix it. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Speaker Gingrich?

Every day, the federal government takes in about $6 billion, but spends about 10 (billion dollars). So we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Now I understand that you believe that if we modernize the federal government that it will help a lot; it will saves billions. But given the resistance that we've seen in Washington, the seeming intractable resistance we've seen in Washington to spending cuts, how can you possibly slash spending by 40 percent? How can you do it?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, the way you described the question, you can't. (Laughter.)

MS. KELLY: Well, that's it. (Inaudible.)

MR. GINGRICH: I mean, if you assume Washington remains the way Washington is right now, it's all hopeless, we might as well buy Greek bonds and go down together. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: (Inaudible.)

MR. GINGRICH: Next Thursday in Des Moines, I'm going to outline a 21st-century Contract with America. And it's going to be far bolder, far deeper, far more profound than what we did in 1994 or what I helped Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan do in 1980. It's important to remember this month in the Reagan Administration, September 1983, we created a 1,100,000 new jobs. Obama's socialist policies, class warfare and bureaucratic socialism -- we created zero in August.

I believe with leadership, we can balance the budget. I did it for four consecutive years. We went from $2.2 trillion projected deficit over a decade to $2.7 trillion projected surplus when I left. I think it is doable, but it takes real leadership. (Bell rings.) (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Thank you, Megyn.

The next question is for all of the candidates. It comes to us from Atlanta, Georgia, on the topic of education.

Q: Hi, I'm Stella Lohmann (sp) from Atlanta, Georgia. I've taught in both public and private schools and now as a substitute teacher. I see administrators more focused on satisfying federal mandates, retaining funding, trying not to get sued, while the teachers are jumping through hoops trying to serve up a one-size-fits- all education for their students. What, as president, would you seriously do about what I consider a massive overreach of big government into the classroom? Thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: That topic is for all candidates -- (inaudible) -- get everyone to weigh in. Thirty seconds each, please.

Governor Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: I'm promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013. That's a 43 percent reduction in federal spending. I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education. (Cheers, applause.) The federal Department of Education gives each state 11 cents out of every dollar that every state spends, but it comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached. So what America does not understand is that it's a negative to take federal money.Give it to 50 laboratories of innovation, the states, to improve on, and that's what we'll see: dramatic improvement. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum.

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah. Twenty years ago, the federal contribution to education was 3 percent. It's now at 11 percent and our schools are doing worse. And it's exactly what Gary Johnson just said, it's because the federal government's the bad link.

The bottom-line problem with education is that the education system doesn't serve the customer of the education system. And who's the customer? The parents, because it's the parents' responsibility to education the children. (Applause, cheers.) It's been that responsibility -- from the moment they were born, they began the education of their children. At some point, we have -- the government has convinced parents that at some point, it's no longer their responsibility. And in fact, they force them in many respects to turn their children over to the public education system and wrest control from them and block them out of participation of that. That has to change or education will not improve in this country. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Speaker Gingrich.

MR. GINGRICH: I think you need very profound reform in education at the state level. You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations. And the truth is, I believe we'd be far better off if most states adopted a program of the equivalent of Pell Grants for K through 12 so that parents could choose where their child went to school, whether it was public or private or home schooling. (Applause.) And parents could be involved. Florida has a virtual school program that it's worth the entire country studying as an example. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Congressman Paul.

REP. PAUL: If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids. (Cheers, applause.)

In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated and we fed on to it. Then we, as Republicans, added No Child Left Behind.

So the first thing a president should do is that the goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind.It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it, and there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it and the students don't like it.

But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Perry.

GOV. PERRY: There are a lot of good ideas here on the side, and whether it's cutting back on the Department of Education, making those types of reductions. I happen to believe we ought to be promoting school choice all across this country. (Applause.) I think school -- the voucher system, a -- and charter schools all across this country.

But there is one person on this stage that is for Obama's Race to the Top, and that is Governor Romney. He said so just this last week. And I think that is an important difference between the rest of the people on this stage and one person that wants to run for the presidency. Being in favor of the Obama Race to the Top, that is not conservative. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney.

MR. ROMNEY: Nice try. (Laughter.) Let me tell you what I think I'd do. One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need to get the federal government out of education. (Applause.)

And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size. Look: That's promoted by the teacher's unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state. What we found is the best thing for education is great teachers. Hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they're meeting the standards that need to be met and make sure that you put the parents in charge. And as president, I'll stand up to the national teacher's unions.

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney, I want to give you more time. (Cheers, applause.) Did Governor Perry say something that wasn't true?

MR. ROMNEY: I -- I'm not sure exactly what he's saying. I don't support any particular program that he's describing. I think that the president -- (laughter) -- I think -- I think that the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, is -- is doing a good thing by saying, you know what? We should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers are succeeding and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom. Those ideas by Secretary Duncan, that's a lot better than what the president did, which is cutting off school choice in the Washington, D.C., schools. (Bell rings.) So let's give us a full chance to talk about it.

MR. BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann.

REP. BACHMANN: We need to do in education what's always worked historically, and that's local control with parents. What doesn't work is what we see happen right now. I'm a mom of five biological kids. We've raised 23 foster children in our home. The reason why I got involved in politics was because of the concern I had about our foster children, the education they were getting.

What I would do as president of the United States is pass a mother-of-all repeal bills on education. I would take the entire federal education law, repeal it. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn out the lights, I'd lock the door, and I'd send all the money back to the states and localities. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Mr. Cain.

MR. CAIN: A lot of good ideas. I won't repeat them. (All of the ?) programs at the federal level, where there are strings attached, cut all the strings. We've got to encourage parents to take advantage of choices, provide those choices, and we must find ways to empower the students. This is how we're going to improve education. But primarily, get the federal government out of trying to educate our kids at the local level. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Huntsman.

MR. HUNTSMAN: This is a key question because it has so much to do with our nation's competitiveness. I feel like I've run my own clinical trial in my home, raising seven kids. We've seen every option. We've experienced everything out there.

But as governor, I learned some important things. I signed the first -- the second voucher bill in the United States, Carson Smith. I've actually done something about this. We actually worked on early

childhood literacy. If you can lock in the pillars of cognitive development around reading and math before age 6, you're giving those kids the best gift possible as they then proceed through education. (Applause.) Finally, you've got to say no to unfunded mandates coming out of Washington. (Bell rings.) They're totally unacceptable. No one loves their schools more than parents and local school boards and local elected officials. Localize, localize, localize. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Huntsman, thank you. And by the way, everyone likes the new sound? (Laughter.) Far more pleasing instead of the bell? OK, I guess they do. (Laughter.)

Chris Wallace with a round of questions on immigration.

MR. WALLACE: Congresswoman Bachmann, as you well know, a number of states are trying to crack down on illegal immigration. We got a bunch of questions on immigration like this one from Tim Emerson (sp) -- this is a text question, so you don't need to look up there -- Tim Emerson (sp) of California. He wrote this: "Would you support each state enforcing the immigration laws, since the federal government is not?" Congresswoman, could you answer Tim's (sp) question? And if your answer is yes, how do you square that with the Constitution, which says that Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, the reason why he's asking this question is because the federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that President Obama has sued the state of Arizona and the governor of Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. (Cheers, applause.) That's wrong. As president of the United States, I would do what my job would -- would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America.

To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border, on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do: not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security. And here's the other thing I would do: I would not allow taxpayer- funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. (Cheers, applause.)That's a magnet. End the magnets for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America.

MR. WALLACE: Congresswoman, thank you, and we're going to get back to that issue in a -- in a moment.

But first, Speaker Gingrich, as you well know, there's a debate going on in Congress right now about whether or not to make all employers, all businesses, use E-Verify, a government database, to check whether or not new hires are legal. Now, some tea partyers object to that idea because they say it would turn small-businessmen into immigration agents.

But Kristen Williamson of the Federation for American Immigration Reform sent this question. Please look at it.

Q: Kristen Williamson, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Struggling U.S. workers continue to compete with millions of illegal aliens. Do you support legislation to require all employers to use E-Verify in order to ensure that the people that they hire are actually legally authorized to work in the U.S.? And will you impose penalties against employers who continue to hire illegal workers?

MR. WALLACE: The question, Mr. Speaker, is, should employers be required to use E-Verify?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me say first of all I think that the -- we'd be far better off to outsource E-Verify to American Express, MasterCard or Visa because they actually know how to run a program like that without massive fraud. (Applause.)

Second, the program should be as easy as swiping your credit card when you buy gasoline. And so I would ask of employers, what is it you would object to in helping the United States of America in dealing with a problem involving illegal immigration?

But in addition, I want to reinforce what Congresswoman Bachmann said. I strongly favor 100 percent control of the border and I strongly favor English as the official language of government. (Cheers, applause.)And I favor modernizing the legal visa system to make it far more convenient, far easier and far more practical here in Orlando, where we have a huge interest in people being able to visit easily for tourism. We have a terribly antiquated legal system while our border is too open for people who are illegal. (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate. In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry of course signed the Texas Dream Act to do exactly that.

But what about Governor Perry's argument that it's better you get these kids an education and to get them jobs than to consign them just to being a burden on the state?

MR. ROMNEY: It's an argument I just can't follow. I got to be honest with you. I -- I -- I don't see how it is that a state like Texas --- to go to the University of Texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? It's $22,000 a year. Four years of college, you're -- almost a $100,000 discount, if you're an illegal alien, to go to University of Texas.

If you're a United -- United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of -- that kind of magnet -- (applause) -- that -- that kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.

We have to have a -- this is -- as Speaker Gingrich said, and as -- as Michele Bachmann said as well, Congresswoman Bachmann, and that is we have to have a fence. We have to have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the fence. We have to have a system like E-Verify that -- that employers can use to identify who's here legally and illegally. We have to crack down on employers that hire people that are here illegally. And we have to turn off the magnet of extraordinary government benefits like a $100,000 tax credit or -- excuse me -- discount for going to University of Texas.That shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense at all. (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Governor Perry, I'm going to ask you a question, so you don't need to respond to him because you're going to get a full minute to answer your question, which is on directly this point. You're the candidate whose name by a wide margin came up most often in the questions being submitted to all of you candidates about immigration.

Dave Hollenback of Arizona sent this: "To date, it appears that you have not tried to stop the illegals from coming. We have high unemployment and a considerable amount of jobs going to illegals. Are you going to exert an effort to stop the abuse of U.S. citizens by illegals?"

Now, last year more than 16,000 children of illegals, young people in Texas, took advantage of your in-state tuition rate. Speak to that issue. And just generally, how do you feel being criticized by a number of these other candidates on the stage for being too soft on immigration, sir?

GOV. PERRY: Well, I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks. But the fact of the matter is this, there is nobody on this stage who has spent more time working on border security than I have. For a decade I've been the governor of a state with a 1,200- mile border with Mexico. We put $400 million of our taxpayer money into securing that border. We've got our Texas Ranger recon teams there now. I supported Arizona's immigration law by joining in that lawsuit to defend it. Every day I have Texans on that border that are doing their job.

But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society.

I think that's what Texans wanted to do.Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. (Bell rings.) Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly. (Cheers, boos, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Senator Santorum -- wait, Senator --

MR. SANTORUM: Chris, no -- no one here is suggesting --

MR. WALLACE: Senator Santorum, you don't need to butt in because I'm about to ask you a question -- (inaudible) -- on this exact issue. (Laughter.) You say that Governor Perry's opposition to building a border along the entire fence (sic) shows that he is, quote, "a big- government moderate." Question: Is he soft on illegal immigration?

MR. SANTORUM: Governor Perry, no one is suggesting up here that -- that you're -- the students that are illegal in this country shouldn't be able to go to a college and university. I -- I think you're sort of making this leap that unless we subsidize this -- the taxpayers subsidize it, they won't be able to go. Well, most folks who want to go to the state of Texas or any other state out of state have to pay the full boat. (Cheers, applause.) The point is why are we -- not that -- not that they can't go. They can go. They just have to borrow money -- find other sources to be able to go. And -- and -- and why should they be given preferential treatment as -- as an illegal in this country? (Cheers, applause.) That's what we're saying.

And so yes, I would say -- I would say that -- I would say that he is soft on illegal immigration. I think the fact that he doesn't want to build a fence -- he gave in a speech in 2001 where he talked about binational health insurance between Mexico and Texas. I mean, I don't even think Barack Obama would be for binational health insurance. (Laughter.) So I think he's very weak on this issue of American sovereignty and protecting our borders and not being a magnet for illegal immigration, yes. (Bell rings.) (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond to that.

GOV. PERRY: I've got -- I -- I've got one question for him: Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico?MR. SANTORUM: Yes.

GOV. PERRY: I'm surprised if you have, but you weren't paying attention, because the idea --

MR. SANTORUM: Well, the answer is yes -- (inaudible).

GOV. PERRY: -- that you are going to build a wall, a fence for 1,200 miles and then go 800 miles more to Tijuana does not make sense. You put the boots on the ground. We know how to make this work. You put the boots on the ground.

MR. SANTORUM: But it's not working --

GOV. PERRY: You put the aviation assets on the ground.

MR. SANTORUM: It's not working.

GOV. PERRY: No, it's not working, because the federal government is not --

MR. SANTORUM: You're saying we know how it works. Is it working in Texas?

GOV. PERRY: The federal government is not engaged in this at all. When I'm the president of the United States, I'll promise one you one thing.

MR. SANTORUM: But you're saying you put the assets there. Has it worked in Texas?

GOV. PERRY: We will put the assets on the ground --

MR. SANTORUM: You said -- (inaudible).

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum, let him finish, please.

GOV. PERRY: -- the boots on the ground, the aviation assets on the ground. And we will stop illegal immigration, we will stop the drug cartels and we will make America secure. (Applause.)

MR. SANTORUM: Can you -- can you answer the question? Is it working?

MR. WALLACE: Well, you know, you asked your question, he gave his answer, sir.

MR./GOV. : OK.

MR. WALLACE: Sometimes we're frustrated with all of you answering questions. (Laughter, applause.)

Congressman Paul, I want to ask you a question about a comment you made a couple of weeks ago about a border fence with Mexico. Here's what you said, sir. I want to quote it: "There's capital controls and there's people control. So every time you think of a fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us keeping us in."

Question, Congressman: Do you know a lot of Americans who want to take their money and flee the United States of America? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: There are -- there are some. All the candidates up here talk about repatriation of dollars. They've already taken them overseas. We're talking about trying to bring in a trillion and a half dollars because they leave our country because we make it uncomfortable -- too many regulations, too much taxation; they can't start a business; they've lost confidence. Yes, when countries destroy a currency, they do lead to capital controls and they lead to people control. (Cheers, applause.) So I think it is a real concern.

And also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody's going to be in the data bank. You say, oh, no, the data bank's there for the illegals. But everybody's in the data bank. That's a national ID card. If you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. What you need to do is attack their benefits. No free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birthright citizenship. (Cheers, applause.) That will get to the bottom of -- (inaudible) -- a lot sooner. But economically, you should not ignore the fact that -- (bell rings) -- in tough economic times, money and people want to leave the country. That's unfortunate.

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, thank you very much, sir.

MR. BAIER: Chris, thank you.

Let's check in now with Shannon Bream. Shannon.

MS. BREAM: Well, Bret, one of the really interesting and valuable pieces of information we get from our partner Google is looking at search trends. We want to take you through some of those.

They've looked online for people within the U.S. who have been searching for coupons. We've talked about the economy a lot. If you look at the trend, it has been going up, up, up very steadily since 2004 to right now.

Another search compared home loan searches, foreclosure searches. It also flipped over time, and now more people searching for information about foreclosures than home loans.

And another look: This compares searching for the best SUV miles per gallon and also gas prices, and those go together. When people are worried about their pocketbooks, worried about finding a bargain, they're also looking at how they can save on gas and how they can conserve.

We've also been tracking questions that you've been putting to the candidates. We've put them to the folks at home as well, and we've got some results.

This question, the same one we asked the candidates: If you had to cut a government department, what would you cut? This is what the folks at home told us. The Labor Department, 8 percent. The EPA, 12 percent. Housing and Urban Development, 12 percent. Education, 47

percent, easily the majority there. (Applause.) And none, 20 percent.

Check it all out, Youtube.com/Foxnews.

Bret, back to you.

MR. BAIER: Thanks, Shannon. We'll check back with you a little later.

Up next, foreign policy, social issues and health care, after the break.

(Announcements.) MR. BAIER: Welcome back to Orlando and the Republican presidential debate.We are pardoning -- partner -- partnering -- easy for me to say -- with Google and the Florida Republican Party.

Now to the topic of foreign policy. And all night we've been showing you these word clouds. Take a look at this one. All the searches on foreign policy, Israel is the biggest word. (Cheers, applause.) These are actually the words used in questions. And that brings us to our first question.

This week, with the Palestinian efforts at the United Nations, the issue of the future of Israel is a big concern to questioners. In fact, Governor Romney, the next question was a top question voted in the foreign policy question from Yigal Marcus in Teaneck, New Jersey.

Q: As president, how would you approach the new reality in the Middle East, specifically with regards to our ally Israel and the existential threat it faces from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Palestinian Authority?

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney?

MR. ROMNEY: Very simply, you start off by saying that you don't allow an inch of space to exist between you and your friends and your allies. (Applause.)

The president went about this all wrong. He went around the world and apologized for America. He -- he addressed the United Nations in his inaugural address and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements, and said nothing about Hamas launching thousands of rockets into Israel. (Applause.) Just before Bibi Netanyahu came to the United States, he threw Israel under the bus, trying to negotiate for Israel.

The right course -- if you disagree with an ally, you talk about it privately, but in public you stand shoulder to shoulder with you allies. The right course for us -- (cheers, applause) -- the right course for us is not to try to negotiate for Israel. The right course is to stand behind our friends, to listen to them, and to let the entire world know that we will stay with them, and that we will support them and defend them.And with regards to Iran, which perhaps represents the greatest existential threat to Israel, we have to make it abundantly clear it is unacceptable -- and I take those -- that word carefully -- it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear nation. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Thank you, Governor Romney.

Mr. Cain, this week the Palestinian Authority brought their bid for statehood to the United Nations. How would you respond to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?

MR. CAIN: It starts with an extension of the Reagan philosophy of peace through strength. My philosophy would extend that to peace through strength and clarity. This administration has not made it clear how it stands with Israel. When I was in Israel last month, I met with the deputy prime minister, and he made it shockingly, chillingly clear that given everything that's going on, number one, Israel will defend itself, with all the tensions going on in the Middle East. And he also made it real clear that he wasn't sure how this administration stood when it came to Israel. I made it clear, which -- I would also make it clear to all of the -- I will -- the other people in the world that if you mess with Israel, you're messing with the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.) We will stand solidly behind Israel.

If in -- if in fact it was clear to the Palestinians where the United States stood, they might have had second thoughts about trying to pull such a move without negotiating with Israel.

MR. BAIER: Mr. Cain, thank you.

Here's a comparison of searches on Google for Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past few years. You can see the lines here. Israel dominates the searches, except for a few critical moments in time for Pakistan.

Which brings us to this. Governor Perry, if you were president and you got a call at 3 a.m., telling you that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move? GOV. PERRY: Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And that's one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with -- and that's the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country -- so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F- 16s, we chose not to do that. We did the same thing with Taiwan. The point is our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends; we will be standing by there with them. Today we don't have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum, if the security situation were to fall apart in Iraq in 2012, would you support sending U.S. troops back to the region to stabilize the gains made?

MR. SANTORUM: I'm not for taking them out of the region. I believe that we need to listen to our generals. And our generals have made very, very clear -- (applause) -- that we need to -- we need to -- we need to continue to stabilize the -- Iraq. The Iraqi government wants and needs our intelligence in particular. It needs force protection. We need to have anywhere -- I'm, you know, hearing numbers of, you know, 20(,000), 30,000 troops potentially to remain in Iraq, not indefinitely, but to continue to make sure that this is a stable transition. This is the difference between, you know, Congressman Paul, Governor Huntsman, Governor Perry and myself when it comes to this issue. I stand up and say that when we engage in Iraq and Afghanistan, we engage because we want to be successful.

We want victory. We want to have accomplished a national security objective for this country, to make sure that we are safer; we're not on a political agenda to withdraw troops. So the first thing is to make sure that we secure success.

To answer the question on Pakistan, which I'm not too sure was answered, the bottom line is that we should be establishing relationships in Pakistan with -- with -- with allies of ours, folks like, you know, relationships with President Musharraf, who we had in the past, with others in that country, so if in fact something like that would occur we could work in concert to make sure that that -- that that coup could be overturned and make sure that that doesn't -- those -- those nuclear weapons do not fall into those hands. But working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure that the problem is diffused.

MR. BAIER: Speaker Gingrich, many of the foreign policy questions we received had directly to do with the U.S. economy as well. When it came to the topic of foreign aid, Butch Russell had the top-voted video question in the question of foreign policy.

Q: When are we going to get someone in the White House that can stand up to these other countries and say, you're not getting any more of our money? (Cheers, applause.) This is stupid. We send billions of dollars overseas to countries that hate us.

MR. BAIER: Speaker Gingrich. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. GINGRICH: I think -- I actually think there's a lot to that, and I've been a strong supporter of international assistance. But I think there are a couple of good reasons to review the whole program.

First of all, I'd replace virtually all government-to-government aid with some kind of investment approach that encouraged American companies to create jobs that made both the United States and the other country wealthier. Our bureaucrats giving their bureaucrats money is a guaranteed step towards corruption.

Second, I think when you have countries that vote against you in the United Nations consistently, you really have to ask yourself, why are you giving them anything? I mean, if they're not your ally, why are -- you know, you have a -- (cheers, applause.)MR. BAIER: Thank you, Congresswoman.

Now to my colleague Megyn Kelly on the topic of social issues.

MS. KELLY: Governor Huntsman.

MR. HUNTSMAN: Just one issue. I just want to respond to my friend Rick Santorum here. Is the microphone working?

MR. BAIER: It is.

MR. HUNTSMAN: Thank you.

We do have a difference of opinion here in terms of overall foreign policy. And I think, you know, as the only one onstage with any hands-on foreign policy experience, having served -- having lived overseas four different times, we're at a critical juncture in our country. We don't have a foreign policy and we don't project the goodness of this country in terms of liberty, democracy, open markets and human rights with a weak core. And right now in this country, our core, our economy, is broken. And we don't since that light today. We're 25 percent of the world's GDP. And the world is a better place when the United States is strong. So guiding anything that we talk about from a foreign policy standpoint -- (bell rings) -- needs to be fixing our core.

But second of all, I believe that, you know, after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Rick. They're ready to bring our troops home. (Cheers, applause.) This country -- this country has given its all.

MS. KELLY: Governor Huntsman.

MR. HUNTSMAN: What remains behind, some element to collect intelligence, special forces capability. And we're going to have to do that in every corner of the world. But we need to fix this core and get serious about what the rest of the 21st century holds for this country.

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum, very quickly.

MR. SANTORUM: Just because our economy is sick does not mean our country is sick and doesn't mean our values are sick. (Cheers, applause.) And we're going to stand up for those values every

opportunity to do so to make sure that our country is safe. The bottom line is, that you just mentioned, is we should be fighting wars to win, not fighting wars for politics. (Cheers, applause.)

And this president is fighting a war in Afghanistan -- in Afghanistan with one hand tied behind our generals, not giving the troops what they need, not giving the authority, the rules of engagement, to allow us to be successful. (Bell rings.) And unless we change those rules of engagement and make sure that our folks can win, then we are going to play politics with our military.

MR. JOHNSON: This -- this -- this may -- this may not come as a huge revelation. We've been talking about Pakistan here. But at the end of the day, folks, only Pakistan can save Pakistan. Only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan. (Applause.)

Yeah. All that I want right now, at this point in history, is for America to save America. We've got to fix our core and (get over it?). (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Thank you very much.

Now, as I originally said, Megyn Kelly on social issues. (Laughter.)

MS. KELLY: And now I'm moving on from you, Governor Huntsman, to you, Congresswoman Bachmann.

REP. BACHMANN: (Laughs.)

MS. KELLY: In 2006, you said that public schools are, quote, "teaching children that there is separation of church and state" and said, quote, "I am here to tell you that's a myth." Do you believe that there is a limit -- (cheers) -- on government's ability to inject religion into the public square? And if so, what is that limit?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I think that Thomas Jefferson stated it best. He was the author of the religious liberty that he valued so much, and that's that the United States government should not be a state church. That's really what the fundamental was of separation of church and state. And when Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Danbury Baptists wanted to know, will you have a national church in the United States? He said no because we believe in freedom of conscience. We believe in freedom of religious liberty and expression and speech. That's a foundational principle in the United States.

But that doesn't mean that we aren't people of faith and that people of faith shouldn't be allowed to exercise religious liberty in the public square. Of course we should be able to -- (cheers, applause) -- to exercise our faith. (Cheers, applause.) And -- and whether that expression occurs in a public school or occurs in a public building, we should be able to allow -- to have freedom for all people to express our belief in God. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. KELLY: Senator Santorum, this question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online.It comes from Stephen Hill (sp), who is a soldier serving in Iraq.

Q: In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job. My question is under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military. (Boos.)

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- in -- in removing "don't ask, don't tell," I think, tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. (Applause.) We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform. (Cheers, applause.) And I believe this undermines that ability.

MS. KELLY: So what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill (sp)? I mean, he's -- now he's out. He's -- you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?

MR. SANTORUM: I think it's -- it's -- it's -- look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with -- with our military right now. And I -- that's tragic. I would -- I would just say that going forward we would -- we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president, period. That policy would be reinstituted. (Cheers.) And as far as people who are in -- in it, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in -- in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was sex is not an issue. It is a -- it should not be an issue. (Bell rings.) (Cheers, applause.) Leave it alone. Keep it -- keep it to yourself, whether you're heterosexual or homosexual.

MS. KELLY: Congressman Paul, you have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life.If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans? And how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is state issue.

And there are circumstances -- (applause) -- there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant. You don't even know if there's a disease. But if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know where -- how you're going to police that. So I don't think you should we create -- we have too many laws already. Now how are you going to police the day-after pill? It doesn't make any sense to me in a practical matter.

So I would say that nobody can outdo me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem -- (cheers, applause) -- not the law.

MS. KELLY: Governor Perry, you and our former president, George W. Bush, have a lot in common. You're both Republicans from Texas. You both ran on the same ticket for the statehouse. You both share a deep religious faith.

And you've made a point of saying, well, we went to different colleges, Texas A&M and Yale, and point out that you have a different approach from President Bush when it comes to government spending.

But what are the other differences that you can cite between you and President Bush? And what say you about these reports that there is some bad blood between the two of you?

GOV. PERRY: Well, let me address the first -- or the last issue first. And we got a great rapport. I talk to the president from time to time, call him on his birthday, wish him happy birthday, talk to him on a relatively regular basis. I highly respect the president and his public service.What we have in difference is probably as much as -- in style as in substance on various issues. For instance, you know, I was very vocal in my disagreement with him on Medicaid Part B, that the federal government should be involved in that very expensive program. And I was also vocal against No Child Left Behind. It gets back to the federal government has no business telling the states how to educate our children. (Applause.)

MR. BAIER: Thank you, Megyn.

We've been showing you these word clouds throughout the night. Take a look at this one: all of the questions on health care. (Laughter.) You can see the big word there: "Obamacare." Chris has the questions on health care.

MR. WALLACE: And we'll get right to that question of "Obamacare." Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage four colon and liver cancer. And you say if "Obamacare" had been -- (cheers, applause) --

MR. CAIN: Thank you. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: And we all share in the happiness about your situation, but you say if "Obamacare" had been in effect when you were first being treated, you'd be dead now. Why?

MR. CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead on "Obamacare" is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. And from March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go to the -- go to get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If I -- we had been on the "Obamacare" and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment. My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able to get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government's timetable, that's what saved my life because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. (Cheers, applause.) And now I'm here five years cancer free because I could do it on my timetable and not on a bureaucrat's timetable.

This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to "Obamacare," because we need to get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.

MR. WALLACE: Time, sir. (Cheers, applause.)

Governor Huntsman, you say that President Obama's health care plan is "a trillion-dollar bomb dropped on taxpayers and job creation." But I want to show you the top-voted question on YouTube that was submitted on health care, and it comes from Ian McDonald of Michigan, who says he has a health problem. Watch it, sir.

Q: Hi. I'm a student and I have a chronic heart condition. So for me and those like me, the Democrat health care reform, allowing us to stay on our parents' insurance longer, was a godsend. If you were elected, would you work, as is the stated position of your party, to repeal this reform? And if so, are we supposed to sign up for 12 credit hours and pray really hard that our ailments don't prevent us from going to class?

MR. WALLACE: Governor, what about provisions that Ian talks about, for instance the one that allows kids to stay on their parents' policies until they're 26, or not limiting coverage for pre-existing conditions? President Obama says the only way that insurance companies can afford to provide those kinds of reforms is with the individual mandate, where they get a lot of new customers. MR. HUNTSMAN: When I hear this discussion, I think of my daughter Elizabeth, who's sitting on the front row, who suffers from juvenile diabetes. And I also am reminded that we're fundamentally approaching health care reform the wrong way. This $1 trillion bomb that "Obamacare" means to this country over 10 years is creating such uncertainty in the marketplace that businesses aren't willing to hire. They're not willing to deploy capital into the marketplace. It has gummed up our system.

So you say what do we do? I say we go out to the states and let the states experiment and find breakthroughs in how we address health care reform. Health care reform -- it's a $3 trillion industry. It's the size of the GDP of France. It's large. It's complicated. All I want to do is do the kind of thing we did in the state of Utah in direct response. We need affordable insurance policies. We don't have affordable insurance policy today. We got one in the state of Utah, a stripped-down, bare-bones catastrophic coverage policy that young people could finally afford. And then you can start whittling down the high percentage of the people who are uninsured in this country because they have an affordable policy. That's number one.

Number two -- (bell rings) -- we have to deal with cost containment measures like harmonizing medical records. We were the first state to do that. So let's forget about federal fixes and solutions and turn to the states, where we're going to find real breakthroughs and real answers to this terribly difficult and complicated problem.

MR. BAIER: Thank you. Thank you, Governor.

Congresswoman Bachmann, in the last debate, you criticized Governor Perry for his executive order mandating that sixth graders get the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Then afterwards you suggested that the vaccine was linked to mental retardation, and you said that it could, quote, "potentially be a very dangerous drug." But the American Academy of Pediatrics has looked at it and says that the HPV vaccine has an excellent safety record.So my question to you is, do you stand by your statement that the HPV vaccine is potentially dangerous, and if not, should you be more careful when you're talking about a public health issue?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, first, I didn't make that claim, nor did I make that statement. Immediately after the debate, a mother came up to me, and she was visibly shaken and heartbroken because of what her daughter had gone through, and so I only related what her story was.

But here's the real issue. Governor Perry mandated a health care decision on all 12-year-old little girls in the state of Texas. And by that mandate, those girls had to have a shot for a sexually transmitted disease. That is not appropriate to be a decision that a governor makes. It's appropriate that parents make that decision in consultation with their doctor. (Applause.)

But here's the even more important point, because Governor Perry made a decision where he gave parental rights to a big drug company. That big drug company gave him campaign contributions, and hired his former chief of staff to lobby him to benefit the big drug company. That's what was wrong with that picture. (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Governor Perry, obviously 30 seconds to respond, sir.

GOV. PERRY: Thank you.

I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage four cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office. She talked to me about this program. I've readily admitted that we should have had an opt-in in this program, but I don't know what part of opt-out most parents don't get. And the fact is, I erred on the side of life, and I will always err on the side of life, as a governor and as the president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.) MR. WALLACE: Governor Perry, I now have a question for you. Texas has the most uninsured residents of any state in the country, 25 percent. In the last debate, you blamed it on restrictions imposed by the federal government, but we checked about that, sir. In fact, the feds treat Texas like they do all the other big states. On its own -- on its own, Texas has imposed some of the toughest eligibility rules for Medicaid of any state in the country. In fact, you rank 49th in Medicaid coverage of low-income residents. So the question is, isn't Texas' uninsured problem because of decisions made by Texas?

GOV. PERRY: Well, I disagree with your analysis there because we've had a request in for the federal government so that we could have a Medicaid waiver for years and the federal government has stopped us from having that Medicaid waiver. Allowing the state of Texas, or for that matter the other states that we're making reference to here, to have waivers give them more options to be able to give the options. There's a menu of options that we could have, just like Jon Huntsman talked about. That is how we go forward with our health care, each state deciding how they're going to deliver that health care, not one size fits all.

And I think this whole concept of not allowing the states to come up with the best ideas about how to deliver health care in their state -- and the fact is, people continue to move to the state of Texas, some of the highest rates in the country, because we have created a state where opportunity is very much the -- the -- the -- the word of the day there, if you will, for finding work and what have you. And our health care is part of that, our education is part of that. And we're proud of what we've put together in the state of Texas.

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, the other day Governor Perry called "Romneycare" "socialized medicine." He said it has failed in Western Europe and in Massachusetts, and he warns that Republicans should not nominate -- his words -- "Obama lite."How do you respond to Governor Perry?

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.) I don't think he knows what he's talking about in that -- in that regard.

Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts. Ninety- two percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing's changed for them. The system is the same. They have private, market-based insurance.

We had 8 percent of our people that weren't insured. And so what we did is, we said let's find a way to get them insurance -- again, market-based, private insurance. We didn't come up with some new government insurance plan. Our plan in Massachusetts has some good parts, some bad parts, some things I'd change, some things I like about it. It's different than "Obamacare." And what you -- what you heard from Herman Cain is one absolutely key point, which is "Obamacare" intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed. And if I'm president of the United States, on my first day in office, I will issue an executive order which directs the secretary of health and human services to provide a waiver from "Obamacare" to all 50 states. That law is bad. It's unconstitutional. It shall not stand. (Applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond.

GOV. PERRY: I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of -- against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it -- was before -- he was before the social programs from the standpoint of -- he was for standing up for Roe versus Wade before he was against first -- Roe versus Wade? Him -- he was for Race to the Top. He's for "Obamacare" and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and -- and -- and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight.(Bell rings.) (Cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney.

MR. ROMNEY: I'll use the same term again: nice try. Governor, I wrote a book two years ago and I laid out in that a book what my views are on a wide range of issues. I'm a conservative businessman. I haven't spent my life in politics, I spent my life in business. I know how jobs come, how jobs go. My positions are laid out in that book. I stand by them.

Governor Perry, you wrote a book six months ago. You're already retreating from the positions that were in that book.

GOV. PERRY: Not a -- not a -- not an inch, sir.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, well, in that book it says that Social Security was forced upon the American people. it says that by any measure, Social Security is a failure. Not to 75 million people. And you also said that -- (bell rings) -- should be returned to the states. Now, those are the positions in your book.

And simply, in my view, I'm going to stand by my positions. I'm proud of them. There are a lot of reasons not to elect me, a lot of reasons not to elect other people on the stage; but one reason to elect me is that I know what I stand for, I've written it down, words have meaning, and I have the experience to get this country going again. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: Gentlemen, thank you both.

Bret.

MR. BAIER: Coming up, we return to issue number one -- jobs. Stay tuned.

(Announcements.)in Orlando, Florida, and the Republican presidential debate.

Now a question for all of the candidates. Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently fretted over the possibility of the unemployed rioting in the streets. Ohio's Republican governor, John Kasich, recently said, quote, "For the first time in my life, I'm worried about this country." And recently a liberal columnist wrote this, quote: "We've lost our mojo." You know, President Obama promised hope and change. And according to many polls, fewer and fewer Americans believe he's delivered. Now, I'm not asking for your jobs plan here. What I'm asking for is how are you going to turn this country around?

Well go down the row. 30 seconds each.

Governor Huntsman.

MR. HUNTSMAN: First of all, let me say that this is a human tragedy playing out with 15 million unemployed, so many million beyond who are so dispirited they've absolutely given up.Sheriff Hardy, who is a great sheriff in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, talks about foreclosures that his folks are now handing out, first time ever to the middle class.

I would drop three things on the doorstep of Congress to change and turn this situation around. One, my tax reform package, endorsed by The Wall Street Journal. Two, serious regulatory reform -- Dodd- Frank, "Obamacare" repealed. Three, energy independence. Boone Pickens had some great ideas in terms of converting to natural gas. It's a 500,000 job creator over five years. It would get the engines of growth going like nothing else I can think of.

MR. BAIER: Mr. Cain. (Applause.)

MR. CAIN: Obviously starts with economic growth. And yes, I've already laid out how I would do that with my 9-9-9 plan.

But what Americans are looking for in order to build their confidence is leadership. There is a severe deficiency of leadership in Washington, D.C. (Applause.) And once we fill that void, I believe American people will begin to develop some confidence again.

In terms of believing in this nation, Ronald Reagan was one who said that we are a shining city on a hill. We've slid down the side of that hill. (Laughter.) Americans want somebody who's going to lead them back up to the top of that hill. That's how we turn this country around. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann.

REP. BACHMANN: I agree. It's time to reach for the brass ring of liberty once again, and we can.

The signature issue of Barack Obama and his presidency has been the passage of "Obamacare." This week a study came out from UBS that said the number-one reason why employers aren't hiring is because of "Obamacare." That's why I introduced the bill to repeal "Obamacare." And as president of the United States, that's the very first thing I would do, is repeal "Obamacare." (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney.MR. ROMNEY: All across America, you've got families sitting across from their -- sitting in their living rooms and their kitchens, sitting at the kitchen table with a calculator and a checkbook, seeing if they have enough money to make ends meet for the month or the week. You've got people who are sitting at that same table filling out job application forms, knowing that there are hundreds of other people that are doing the same thing for the same job. These are tough times for a lot of people in this country, but we are a patriotic people. We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that. And if we're led by a leader who draws on that patriotism, who tells the truth, who lives with integrity and who knows how to lead, America will remain the hope of the Earth and the strongest nation in the world. I'll do it. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Perry.

GOV. PERRY: Americans -- Americans want a leader who's got a proven record of job creation. Number one, we get rid of "Obamacare." Secondly, we pull back all of those regulations that are job-killing today, whether it's Dodd-Frank or whether it's the EPA. And then we sit with the Congress, and we lower those corporate tax rates, we lower those personal tax rates. And then we put our plan to make America energy-independent, and that is the way you get America working again. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Congressman Paul.

REP. PAUL: Government destroys jobs, the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs. They have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression/recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from. I've been arguing this case for 20 years, and warning about bubbles and the housing bubbles and Nasdaq bubbles, and a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing. And until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system, you have to deal with free markets -- (cheers, applause) -- and you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system -- then you can get your jobs because the people will create the jobs, not the government. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Waiting for the applause. Speaker Gingrich.

MR. GINGRICH: Thirty-two years ago we were in the same place. We had a failing president. He gave a speech on malaise. People wrote about the presidency being too big; nobody could do it. The Soviet Union was on offense. And a leader came along. He said when your brother-in-law is unemployed, it's a recession. When you're unemployed, it's a depression. When Jimmy Carter is unemployed, it's a recovery. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

Nothing -- nothing will turn America around more -- (bell rings) -- than election night when Barack Obama loses decisively. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum.

MR. SANTORUM: The last words Ronald Reagan said as president of the United States, in his farewell address, he was concerned about the future of our country because we were forgetting who we were, didn't remember what Americans was really all about. I think that's what's the problem right now is we have a president who doesn't understand what America is all about.

America is a great country because we are a country that believes in God-given rights to every single man, woman and child in America -- (cheers, applause) -- and that we build this country from the bottom up, believing in free people, to have that responsibility, to live their lives in service to themselves, their family, their community and their God. And in so doing, we transformed the world. (Bell rings.) We had a leader in Reagan who believed in you. President Obama is the new King George III who believes in things being dictated from on high. We need to replace him with someone who believes in the American people again. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration. (Laughter, cheers, applause) Balance the federal budget now. Not 15 years from now, not 20 years from now, but now. And throw out the entire federal tax system, replace it with the fair tax, a consumption tax that by all measurements is just that; it's fair. (Bell rings.) It does away with corporate income tax. If that doesn't create tens of millions of jobs in this country, I don't know what does. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: You just made your neighbor's dog very famous.

When we come back in just one minute, one minute, the final round, we'll be talking about the Republican ticket. We're back, from Orlando, Florida. (Applause.)

(Announcements.)(Music.)

MR. BAIER: Welcome back to Orlando for our final round, our final questions from YouTube. Our wild card question come from Darrell Owens in Richmond, Virginia.

Q: If you had to choose one of your opponents on the stage tonight to be your running mate in the 2012 election, who would you choose and why? And why would this person help you make the country better?

MR. BAIER: Again, if you had to choose a running mate, one of the people on the stage with you, who would you choose and why? Thirty seconds, down the row. (Laughter.) Governor Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, that would be the guy three down, Congressman Paul. (Cheers, applause.) And that would be the -- that would be the notion that this country is about liberty and freedom, and that right now we are facing an extraordinary crisis that, if we do not address it now, we're going to find ourselves in a monetary crisis that is going to leave us all with nothing. And if we want to look at an example of that, that would be Russia, that experienced a monetary collapse that in our lifetimes may never (reacquire ?). We need to avoid that now.

MR. BAIER: Senator Santorum, who would you choose?

MR. SANTORUM: I would pick someone who would do what I have articulated I would do as president of the United States. That's what you -- that's what a vice president should be, someone who would follow through on what you promise the American public to do.

MR. BAIER: You have eight to choose.

MR. SANTORUM: And -- and I -- and I would say that, you know, right now, that -- you know, the guy that I'm agreeing with most up on stage is probably the guy to my left. So I would say that Newt Gingrich would be the guy that I would -- (cheers, applause) -- I would pick as someone who -- who would follow through with what I'm saying.MR. BAIER: Speaker Gingrich?

MR. GINGRICH: Yeah, I'm going disappoint those in the audience who want this to be a Hollywood game. I don't have any idea who I would pick as the vice presidential nominee. What I do know is it would have to be a person capable of president of the United States, and that would be the first criteria. These are all good friends of mine. I couldn't imagine hurting any of their feelings by choosing one tonight. (Laughter.)

MR. BAIER: Congressman Paul, hurt away!

REP. PAUL: I -- I don't plan to make a choice at the moment because I am on national polls. It seems like I'm in third place now. I think it would be inappropriate.

As soon as -- (applause) -- as soon as I'm one of the two top tier, then I will start thinking along that line. But right now I'm going to defer and just work very hard and make sure that I stay in the top tier and then eventually be one of the top two contenders. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Perry, how do you answer Darrell Jones (sic)?

GOV. PERRY: Well, staying with the game show idea here, I don't know how you would do this but if you could take Herman Cain and mate him up with Newt Gingrich, I think you would have a couple of really interesting (guys ?) to work with. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. : I don't know how you do it.

MR. BAIER: (Chuckles.) Governor Romney, Darrell Owens would like an answer.

MR. ROMNEY: There are a couple of images I'm going to have a hard time getting out of my mind. (Laughter.) That's one, and Gary Johnson's dogs are the other, I'll tell you. (Laughter.)

I'm going to go with Newt on this, meaning I'm going to subscribe to his same view. I know I'm going to disappoint. I'm -- but my view is, if you pick a vice president, if you're lucky enough to become the nominee of this party, picking a vice president is going to be something you give a lot of thought to and a lot of evaluation to.

And you want someone who without question could become the president of the United States. These people could all fill that -- that position. Any one of them would be a better president than what we have now. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Governor Romney, I hate to follow up here, but you called Governor Perry unelectable based on his Social Security --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Oooh!

MR. ROMNEY: Actually, I -- actually, I didn't use that term, but the newspaper did. That -- that happens now and then. But the point is still, I think, that there are some problems that exist in each of our backgrounds that make it harder for us to get elected. I hope we get elected. I hope one of us gets that White House. I think we will because I think this president has failed miserably.

But I'll tell you one thing. I -- I -- look, I -- Governor Perry and I disagree on some issues. I think I probably disagree with -- we all have differing views on different issues. But one thing is for sure: We all agree that President Obama needs to be former President Obama. And we're going to make that happen. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann, back to the original question.

REP. BACHMANN: Obviously we need to have a strong constitutional conservative. And that's what I would look for in a vice president. But I want to say this as well: Every four years conservatives are told that we have to settle. And it's anybody but Obama -- that's what we're hearing this year. I don't think that's true. I think if there's any year -- President Obama has the lowest public approval ratings of any president in modern time. He hasn't gone to the basement yet. It'll be a lot lower than what it is now. That's why we need to choose a candidate who represents conservatives -- (bell rings) -- and constitutional conservative positions. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Mr. Cain.

MR. CAIN: This is a game, and it is hypothetical. I'll play the game. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) If -- if Governor Romney would throw out his jobs growth plan and replace it with "999," he has a shot. If he does not, I would probably go with Speaker Gingrich, who I have the greatest admiration for, in all seriousness, because of his history and then because of his depth of knowledge.(Applause.)

I could go on, because I have respect for everybody up here. (Bell rings.) But it's a game. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. BAIER: It is a Youtube question. Governor Huntsman.

MR. HUNTSMAN: You know, I'm tempted to say that when all is said and done, the two guys standing in the middle here, Romney and Perry, aren't going to be around because they're going to bludgeon each other to death. (Laughter.)

But I'm also reminded of about four years ago, we had two front- runners in similar situations, one by the name of Rudy Giuliani, I think, and the other by the name of Fred Thompson. They seemed to disappear altogether. I can't remember where they went.

But I would have -- I would have to say since Chris Wallace doesn't qualify as somebody on the stage, so I can't -- I can't pick one of you, that Herman Cain, because of his selection of ties, the fact that we both apparently agree with the gold standard; we're, you know, wearing yellow ties here tonight -- (applause); and because the good neighbor policy, 999, mixed with my tax policy, would be the most competitive thing this nation could ever achieve, I'd have to say Herman's my man. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BAIER: Candidates, thank you very much.

That is it for our debate tonight. Our thanks to the candidates and their staffs. A big thank you to our debate partner Google and the Florida Republican Party; to all the great people here in the Orange County Convention Center; and, of course, the state of Florida. They could not have been more hospitable.

Stay with Fox News Channel, America's election headquarters, all the way to the general election and the inauguration. (Applause.)