page contents

January 14, 2016

Note: Official YouTube Videos Linked Through Subheadings in Transcript

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Senator Rick Santorum to come up. Let's give him a round of applause. Well, Senator, we're going to start off. We're going to make this very casual. Pretend we're sitting in a booth at a restaurant talking casually about the Constitution.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: This goes for everybody.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: That's what you all talk when you're sitting at IHOP, right? Senator, I would like to go ahead and have you introduce yourself real quick to the audience and tell them a little bit about your background, because when you've talked to me into the past, I was fascinated about you got into politics and the odds that you overcome, rather, to get to where you were and how you would get to the U.S. Senate. You've got to give folks a little background.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Can everybody hear me okay?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Cameras gave me a thumbs up, so they can hear me.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Cameras giving me a thumbs up, so they can. Well, first, thank you for the opportunity, Alan. It's great to be with you. It's an honor to be here with a great leader of the state and great family. You and your dad have been serving the people of South Carolina for quite some time. It's an honor to be here. First thing I always did talking about family is talking about my family. Karen and I have been married for 25 years. We have 7 children that we are raising and 2 of them I pay a lot of money to go to the Citadel, because we were out of state. I'm honored to be here with one of my 2 sons, my son Daniel is here. He's a junior here at the Citadel. My other son John is at lunch. That gives you an idea. That really sums up both of them actually pretty well. Daniel's here with the policy and John was at the lunch. It's really great to have that connection here to Charleston and we are great fans of this great institutions and very, very proud of the work that they've done in helping to shape my 2 sons. I'm very grateful for that. By way of background, my political career started very much like my Presidential races, someone who was considered a non-factor, someone who had no chance of winning, who went out and stood for what I believed in and worked harder than everybody else. When I ran against an incumbent Congressman, someone who had all the money in a 60% Democratic district, had 14 year incumbency, and had never been seriously challenged. I went out and knocked on close to 20,000 doors along with my wife. My family's always been involved in our campaigns and we pulled off such a big upset that on the night that we won, the Associated Press, when they released the statement, when they released the results, just put the name of the person who lost, didn't put my name in the release. It just said this incumbent lost, but it didn't say who won. I suspect the reason was the Wall Street Journal wrote a little article about this the next day. They got this release from the AP saying this Congressmen lost, so they wanted to write about who won. They called the Republican National Congressional Committee, which as you is the campaign committee for the House Republicans and they said, "We have this thing in the 18th District, who was your candidate?" They didn't have my name. That's how much of a long-shot I was in this race. We've been blessed by that, because every race I ran I was a long-shot, and so I went in there with the understanding that I was probably going to be there 2 years. I didn't worry about doing anything except the right thing. I went to Washington and simply told the truth, fought for what I believed in and didn't worry about democrat, republican, worked about doing what was right for the Country. It worked out pretty well in some respects. I got re-elected, but in a new district. We had lost 2 seats, probably to South Carolina and Pennsylvania, because South Carolina was growing and we were not, and what happened is they put my district into 3 different districts, and eliminated my seat. They put me in with a 28 year democratic incumbent in a district that was 70% democratic in registration. I went out and did the same thing. I had now a reputation of being a fighter, someone who is out there standing for reform and for really changing things in Washington. In 1992 when I ran for re-election, George Bush, Sr. got 29% in my district, and I got 61. Then, I turned around and ran for the United States Senate against another incumbent democratic Senate. I share this with you because there aren't very many people in this race, I can't think of any who have defeated 1 incumbent much less knocked out, knocked 3 out of office and done so in heavily democratic districts and states. If you're looking for someone that actually has run against the Clinton machine, I ran against the Clinton machine in 1994. I ran against the author, a democratic incumbent who was the author of Hilary Care. I had James Carville and Paul Begala run the race against us in 1994, the Clinton operatives, two years after Bill Clinton got elected. I share that with you that if you're looking for someone who's actually got toe to toe with the operation that whoever wins this nomination has gone toe to toe, and [inaudible 00:05:51] Pennsylvania, which we haven't won as a republican nominee for President, we haven't won since 1988. I think we bring a little something different to the table. I went in with this. We went to Washington and had a strong, principal, conservative voted record representing the state that, frankly is a very hard thing to do. I don't represent South Carolina. I represent a state with a million and a half more Democrats than Republicans, and they're real democrats. Yet, we were able to win, to win re-election and accomplish a lot and get things done on national security, on pro-life, on healthcare, on welfare reform, all of those things we have really signature accomplishments, were accomplishments for the republican party. We led the tribe with a charge of a lot of those things. That's what I started to bring to the table here in this race. Someone who's been a fighter, has won in tough races against the best that they have to offer, and someone who can go to Washington D.C. and actually win. It's one thing to say you're going to fight. It's another thing to win. I'm not interested in fighting to lose. I'm interested in fighting to win.

On Judicial Philosophy

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Thank you, Senator Santorum. I always found your story compelling. I've heard you say it a couple times and I wanted you to share with folks that hadn't had that opportunity to hear very powerful story. Now, jumping into the meat of the moment. The first one I want to talk about is the Supreme Court. As you heard about opening remarks that 4 Supreme Court Justices who were born in 1930s will be in their 80s when the next President assumes office. You could, if elected President, could appoint up to 4 Supreme Court Justices. What types of individuals would you appoint to Court and what are the questions you would want the answers to from them before nominating them for the U.S. Senate?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Well, obviously you talk to them about their judicial philosophy. I believe in originalists. I believe that that's how you should interpret the Constitution. It constrains the federal government and maximizes our liberties. I think that, and it doesn't infuse the court into the areas of where the founders anticipated the people to be the ones who decide through their elected officers. I believe in a very limited role of the court. I'm a lawyer. Sorry. I am. Two of them up here. What I was taught in law school was the courts, the Supreme Court was supposed to decide the issue before it in as narrow a way possible to resolve a dispute. That was how the court was supposed to act. It wasn't supposed to reach out beyond what is necessary to resolve the dispute. That's changed and it's wrong. It's not the role of the court to do that. I will be looking at people who understand that philosophy, that that's not enough. I'm sure you know, maybe you don't, but I'm sure you've had some people come and talk to you who were running for office, tell you they're going to do certain things and then they go and do something completely different. As you know, that happens with Supreme Court nominees too, all too frequently. I believe one of the reasons it happens is because of the culture in which they live. I had an interesting conversation with one of the Supreme Court Justices, oh, about 10 years ago when I was in the Senate. We were having lunch together and talking about things and I was complaining about this, how Justices, so many of them come and they say they're going to do one thing and you think they're going to be really good and then they come into there and move away. His response was, "Well, it's the town." A lot of it is the city in which we're in. He said, "Because you're surrounded by government. You're surrounded by power." Number one and number two, all of the social circles are people in and used to attach the power of government. Most of them, because of that, do not see the limits on the Constitution that the American public does. If you want to be invited, he said this, "If you want to be invited to the parties, if you want to be accepted in the social circles, if you want to be approved by the media that you're a parent, your kids read, and your family reads, then there's a lot of pressure to conform. He said to me, "That's why after World War II, the Germans when setting up their high court didn't set it up in Berlin. They set it up some place outside the halls of government, out where the people are, out in the hinterlands, the equivalent of Sioux City, if you will, to make sure that the people were surrounded by the ordinary German, not the person who's in the halls of power. Why do I give that very long explanation? I'm going to be looking for someone who has roots, someone that has real roots in their life that I know when the winds come a-puffing, the roots going to hold them solid. That's not necessarily legal roots, it's personal roots. It's family roots, it's faith roots, it's all these other types of roots, which I think are much more important. Second and finally, and this is the last point I'll make, I'm going to look for someone with humility. If the person is the most popular person, has been acclaimed and lauded and seen as this brilliant Jurist, this brilliant lawyer, I'm not going to touch him with a 10 foot pole, because too many of those guys believe their press clippings and they like to read those press clippings and when they get into the court they're going to want my press clippings and I don't want to judge who is concerned about nice press releases.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: As the states Chief Legal Officer, I share this and I'll admit this with my colleagues who are AGs in other states, that we have struggled with President Obama's frequency to defy the Constitution, circumvent the will of Congress, the peoples elected representatives, to ignore them, and to govern by Executive fit, either through his executive orders or through administration officials. There have been a number of executive actions. One several years ago was Yucca Mountain. Thirty years Congress, in a bipartisan fashion designated Yucca Mountain, a nuclear repository for the waste of the states. They spent billions with B, almost like a lottery.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: You, you were taxed.

On Executive Action

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: You spent billions of dollars to do impact studies and it was agreed upon by both sides and then the President through his Secretary of Department of Energy basically unilaterally said ... Oh, by the way before I tell you, South Carolina was the third highest state paying into that nuclear waste fund, I think to over 2 billion dollars. These are fees that are collected every time you pay a utility bill. It's tacked on top of the tax. It's tacked on top of the actual bill. You pay that. The administration said, "You can keep your waste. We'll keep the money." We obviously sued. The courts ruled in our favor, although there's no money to continue Yucca Mountain because it was shuttered, the whole project was shuttered and we all know why. It was there. Immigration was what the President did last year, talk about how he was going to unilaterally re-write immigration laws. My question to you is which of the President's executive actions do you disagree with most and why? I may have identified one of them already.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Yeah. Both of those I disagree with and I could go through with a whole bunch of others that he has put forward on environmental executive actions and regulations. You can't really leave ... Executive actions, people think of it as executive orders, but that's only a piece of the executive actions that the President, in my opinion, has abused his authority. You have executive orders which are directly from the President and out of the Oval Office. Then, you have a lot of regulations that are pursuant to statute that are done at the department level. Then, you have other executive actions that aren't even that formal, which are administrative interpretations or administrative actions, which are interpretations of regulations that are changed at the grassroots level of that agency. In all 3 of those situations what I've seen is a huge abuse of authority and a President who's willing to contravene the direct, both Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory language that is in place to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. The question is when a President abuses his authority like that, what is your remedy. Right now the Congress has attempted to do some remedy by going to court in some of these cases. They have on the issue of immigration, for example. They have on the issue of Obamacare, for example. They've gone to court and they've tried to stop the President from doing it. I think that's appropriate to do it. That's not really enough, number one. Number two, the President ... And this is a good thing. The President's actions, all of them, can be overturned. All the executive orders can be repealed, and replaced or just repealed. All of the regulations can be suspended. I can go ahead and suspend a regulation immediately on the first day of office, as well as you can change the executive administrative rulings. The problem with that is that 4 years, 8 years later and somebody else comes back and the other party and then we're back at it the same way again. I really am starting to look, "Is there anything we can do that's going to curb the ability for the President to abuse his power," and there really isn't. I've thought about this and I can't think of anything that can do so with executive orders, because that's certainly clearly within the purview of the President, but there is a way to do it with respect to regulations. There's something called the Congressional Review Act, which is an Act that says if a regulation has impacted over a certain amount of money on the economy, that the Congress has the right to review the regulation and disapprove it. That process is used on occasion. Here's the problem. The House will go ahead and disapprove it if it's republican control. We'll go to disapprove it, but it goes to the Senate, it needs 60 votes to disapprove, so it never happens. The President because he's had either control of the Congress or because he had sufficient control to get 60 votes, to stop 60 votes in the Senate, none of these regulations have ever been disapproved. I think what I'm going to do is come in, change all the things I said I would change, and then I'm going to make an offer to the Congress to begin to take back some of the power that they should have. That is to change the Congressional Review Act, instead of a resolution of disapproval, it has to be a resolution of approval. Another-words for a regulation to go into effect, a regulation is written pursuant to a statute. I would think that the people who actually wrote the statute did all the legwork in putting the statute together, should have more say in the regulations pursuant to that statute. When it comes to any major regulation that has that kind of economic impact on the Country, I'm going to propose that Congress has to approve it by a majority vote in the House and a 60% vote in the Senate. If it doesn't get approved, it doesn't go into effect.

On Immigration

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Earlier I referenced the immigration lawsuit that I joined Texas. I say I, the State of South Carolina joined the State of Texas and 25 other states in challenging the President's executive authority last year. That begs a larger question about the immigration law. What do you feel needs to be done, solve or address the illegal immigration problem in the United States?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Now, when you hear the word immigration reform or the problem of immigration, what immediately pops into your head? If you can visualize an individual or a group of individuals, who do you visualize?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Mexicans.

Speaker 3: Folks who are Latin America.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Yeah. Mexicans or Latin Americans who are here illegally. Now, when I say healthcare reform, who do you visualize? Do you visual Americans who are in need of healthcare? When I say tax reform, who do you think about? Well, you think about yourself, but you think about other Americans who want ... For some, when you think of immigration, you don't think about how it affects you, how it effects Americans. Every policy we put forward, the way we should look at it is: What is the best policy for America? Not what's the best policy, particularly in the case of immigration. We think of what's the best …when you think of immigration, you think of people who are here illegally. It's like thinking of tax reform and say, "Well, how does it treat people who cheat on their taxes." Nobody ever asks that question, but we've been convinced that that is who is of most concern to us when it comes to the issue of immigration. That's why people are ticked off. You've got a lot of people who are impacted by immigration and no one seems to care about them. The bottom line is over the last 20 years 35 million people have come into this country both legal and illegally. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. The reality is, it's had an impact and the impact is a lot of different ways. I'll look at it from the standpoint of American workers who are struggling in America today, the last 20 years, that same 20 year period, we've seen wages go up by the lowest percentage of any 20 year period in American history. If you go back to the year 2000 and look through 2014, there were 5.7 billion net new jobs created. You know what percentage of those net new job created are held by people who were not born in this country? All of them. There are fewer native born Americans working at the end of 2014 then there was in 2000, yet there's 17 million more in the workforce. You see, supply and demand does work. People who are coming here, particularly illegally, and even those legally, were willing to work for less then maybe some Americans would be willing to work for. There's lots of complicated factors here, like government programs and the like. I get that. The reality is that we have an issue with the immigration on American workers and wage earners, not salaries, but wage earners. I take in the position that when you look at immigration from the standpoint of the American worker and we have to do 2 things: Number one, we have to change the way we structure our legal immigration system and we have to take the people who are in this country, some 12 million, and ask them politely to go home. I will lay out how we will get them to go home. Then, finally, but really first, we need to secure the Southern border. Those are the steps that we need to take: Secure the border and then first we have to take this, roughly half of the people who are here illegally are here on Visa overstays. That means they came here on a student Visa, they came on a visitor Visa, they came on a work Visa, and they didn't go home. We know their names. We probably know how to get ahold of them and we probably know where they live. We have bio-identifiers so we can track where they are if we need to, and what we need to say to them, "Here's the deal, you've got 3 months. Get your affairs together and you go home." This is not your poor, huddle masses yearning to be free. These are folks working for Google. These are people who have gone to colleges. These are people who are here on vacation and decided to stick around. We're saying, "No, it's time to go home." If you go home during that 3 month period of time, no harm, no foul. You can get back in line and get another Visa. If you want to immigrate into this country, go through the immigration process. We're not going to put any penalties or fines, but you've got to leave within 3 months. If you don't and then we find you, we will deport you and you will never come back again. We will bar you permanently from entering the United States. I suspect that a large, large, large percentage of the 6 million people will not stick. They will go home. Now you cut your problem in half. Then you hear, "Well, what are we going to do?" I was in Storm Lake, Iowa. There's a Tyson's food plant. You know Tyson's, the chicken folks. There's a Tyson's food plant there. You can imagine what they do there. Ninety-one percent of the kids in Storm Lake Elementary School are minority kids, 91%. It's the middle I was at a town hall meeting there. I had a teacher say to me, "How my kids live ... None, they don't know how to speak English. They were raised here. They were brought here by their parents. Their parents have assimilated here, they're members of the community, they speak English, they're all the same. You can't send them home." I said, "Well, you're looking at it the wrong way. Look at it this way. Why do people come here from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador? Because their economy is not nearly as robust as ours, not creating good paying jobs. Their democracy, such as it is, is not functioning at a particularly high level, freedom is not particularly high. All those things that would cause you to come and seek better place here." One of the reasons the tide of immigrants keeps coming is because nothing is changing down there. Now, think about this idea. There are roughly 6 million people from those countries here in America. We send them all home. They all speak English, they all know what the rule of law is, they understand what freedom is, they understand what capitalism is. You know what gift we've given the state of Mexico, the state of Guatemala, the state of Honduras, and El Salvador? We have now done something to actually help stem the tide of immigrants by implanting people. People come over here for the immersion of what it's like to be an American. We have now given this gift to all of these people and we're going to say, "Go home and change your country. Go home and bring what you learned here and make Mexico a better place, make El Salvador a better place." Some people say, "Well, they don't want to go." Well, you know what, there are consequences sometimes, but take the gifts you've been given and do something good for this country by helping your country. No one seems to talk in those terms, because again, we're not thinking through it. We're thinking emotionally, "Oh, what about these poor people?" We're not sending them back to a prison camp. We're sending them to Mexico. People go to Mexico all the time. We're giving them an opportunity to do something great for both countries. That's the way I think we should start to look at this and see that this is a positive thing, both for America and for Central and South America.

On the Role of Federal Agencies

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: The next area I want to talk about is federalism. That sounds like an extremely boring, college word to a bunch of people. It sounds like that to me. When people think of separation of powers, we think of the 3 branches of government and we think of a 3 lane highway Executive, you're in this lane. Judicial, you're in this lane. Then, you have the judicial, legislative, and executive, 3 different lanes, and they don't cross. Federalism is basically separation of powers turned vertically. It's a lane for the federal government and a lane for the states. If you look at our Constitution, which is an owners’ manual for our republic. It is a how-to manual, how to govern yourselves, and in that manual it says, the Constitution says Congress can have all these powers and it lays them out. It says judiciary. You have all these powers and it lays them out. Then, it says executive, you have all these powers and it lays them out. Everything not laid out or mentioned, if you go back to tab 10, that's the last of the Bill of Rights, that's the 10th Amendment, anything not listed in the Constitution is reserved to the states. As an Attorney General, we deal with a lot of these executive actions and orders that you talked about, Senator. A lot of these actions don't come directly from the President. They come from people that he puts in certain places of power and authority. The next question goes to: If these people understand the role of the federal government relations to the role of the states, what questions would you ask the appointees to, say, agencies like the EPA, NLRB, DOJ, or any of the other multitude of ABC, alphabet agencies in the federal government. What would you want to know from those people and those agencies?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Well, I would put people in those agencies that understand that you have powers that are enumerated into the Constitution that we have laws passed pursuant to them. When we don't have laws passed pursuant to those and we have over-reach, again, that's a place, number one we have to go through a lot of the law that we passed in Washington D.C. and determine where we've ... I always think of education being the first one of those. Education is really not within the purview of the federal government. That's something that was really historically, and constitutionally left to the states. I would first try to get laws changed. You can talk about what are you going to do with appointments, but appointments usually are trying ... If you're doing what I said earlier about sticking to the law, then you're going to have appointments, if they follow the law, the law may be the problem, not the appointments is what I'm saying. I look at education as the perfect example of this. I came into the Congress, as I mentioned, back in 1991. If you look at all education spending in the federal government comprise 2% of all education spending, primary, secondary, it's now 11. The principal reason is we passed more and more federal laws to go and try to tell the states how to run their education system and we did it by giving them money to get them to follow the strings that we put in place. I think the first order of business is to look at the laws that are in place and see what we can do to reform those laws. Secondly, look to see within what laws that are there, is there some way we can change some of the regulations to limit the federal oversight and control where it's inappropriate. There's certainly a lot of areas where that is the case, but it really is more than just appointments. It's trying to change the law. Then, you've got some other issues with respect to the 10th Amendment. This is a hot issue, if you will, in the race right now. That is, what can the states do and what can't they do. Obviously, I'll lay it straight out here. There are 3 or 4 candidates in this race that have said the issue of marriage is a 10th Amendment issue, that the states can do whatever they want to do, and in fact their position is the states should be able to decide this marriage issue and if the states want to do same-sex marriage, that's fine. I have taken the position the states do not have the right to do that. The reason I do is because I don't believe the states have unlimited rights to do whatever they want to do, any more than the federal government has the right to do whatever they want to do. I'll use as an example. Now, if you say that the state has the right to define marriage between a man and a women, does that mean they can define it between a man and 3 women? Is that okay? Could they define it between family members? Is that okay? Could they ... At what point do you say it's not okay? At what point do you say the state can't do that? Why? Well, Abraham Lincoln said it best, "The state don't have the right to do wrong." There's a higher law that we're accountable to. That's the natural law. Martin Luther King wrote a letter from a Birmingham jail that said, "There are just laws and unjust laws. Unjust laws are laws that do not comport with God's law or the natural law." I would say if you are a state trying to do things that does not comport with the natural law, you do not have the right to do that. We should say that there is a limit. If you don't have that opinion, if you don't have that opinion, then I think you are much more of a big government person than you thought you were, because then the state has absolute right to do whatever the heck they want to do to you. In my mind, they don't. In my mind there are limits on what any government can do to you. That limit is the natural law. That limit is the moral law that we are all held accountable to. We have people in this race who don't believe that. I would say that they're more big government than any of them, even though they argue for limited government. They are actually for a more powerful government than anything I would contemplate. I use this example, and the left goes crazy, so I always use it, because I love driving them crazy. I said, "Can the state re-define water as H3O? Does the state have the right to do that?" The answer is no, because it's against the natural law. That's not what water is. The state doesn't have the right to define something inconsistent with what it is and we know it to be. That's where I come down. Again, some have suggested states have the right to have marijuana laws and all these other things. I don't believe that is the case and that is the big difference. Before you answer, my son came in and so he was kind enough to come, so I'm going to introduce him. My son, John, is here. John, let everybody know you're here.

On the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Awesome. We're going to go quick and we're going to do this as quickly as possible, because I want to get through as many of these questions and topics as we can. Energy and the EPA. There's been a number of rules coming out of the EPA, some of you think that's the Environmental Protection Agency. I call it the Eliminate Prosperity Agency. A lot of these rules are made without any consideration of the economic impact. While we certainly want a livable environment, the environment should be about those priorities sometimes it seems to be completely devoid of even thought over there. There was a recent ruling coming out on WOTUS. Waters of the U.S. Let's simplify it, and clean power plants is another one that came out.  WOTUS, Waters of the U.S. basically would be the Mississippi River or a major lake that borders 2 states, or a stream or tributary. Imagine if you own a piece of property, with a ditch in the back, and 2 months out of the year that ditch is filled with water because of the rainy season. Because you have to be adjacent to the Waters of the U.S. maybe 5 miles away, you may have to get a federal permit for the EPA to build or use your property in the way you want. I jokingly refer to WOTUS as LOTUS Lance in the U.S., because it's a land graph, ultimately, taking your land through administrative fiat. This begs the question, Senator. As President, how would you balance the need to protect a livable environment with the reality of the cost of regulations on businesses and communities?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: I think this is the area the President has gone completely over the deep end. Ozone, mercury, in coal initiative, Waters of the U.S., carbon monoxide regulation, in excessive and he's done ... This goes back to the early part of us talking, done it all without changing one law. All of this is without changing one law, because of the abuse of the regulatory authority, re-writing regulations that are either inconsistent in some cases, not even considered by the Congress. I assure you, when the Congress was passing the Clean Air act decades ago, they were not thinking of carbon dioxide. I guarantee you, they were not thinking of carbon dioxide as a gluten, yet the Obama Administration's figured out some way to do so. This is where I talk about the ability of the press to go in there, and look, every one of these regulations, every single one of them is excessive and is destructive of our ability to, I would argue, help the environment and help the environment overall in all the world. I use this example that the President's policies, all these policies that I have listed, all of them are, will kill the coal industry in this country, but more profoundly as far as more jobs, kill our manufacturing. We've lost 2 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. A lot of it is because of the regulations that have been put in place by this administration or the threat of that going forward. Where have those jobs gone? Those jobs have gone to Mexico. They've gone to India. They've got to Vietnam, and of course they've gone to China. Well, I looked at China as an example of this. China, for every dollar of GDP that they have, they produce 5 times the amount of pollution as we do. For every dollar of production, they've reduced 5 times the amount of CO2 and other noxious gases. I don't think CO2 is a noxious gas. CO2 is no more a noxious because you're all breathing it right now and you're exhaling more of it. If you really are concerned about the environment, what would you be doing? Would you be passing all these regulations that drive jobs to countries that have very weak to no environmental regulations, would pollute much more profoundly the earth and drive up CO2 emissions or do you have the idea that what we should be aggressively doing is trying to take all of those jobs that we sent over and then some, bring them to the country where you can produce them within an environmentally sensitive way? Before all of these regulations were put in place, the United States had some of the toughest, maybe even the toughest environmental regulations in place. The 5 to 1 ratio is before any of the Obama regulations had even been put in place. We're talking about profound reductions in emissions if we can relocate things here. I heard nobody on the other side can refute that. They can't refute it. They're not about global warming, they're not about helping the environment. They're about controlling you. They're about well redistribution, particularly the United Nations and this President, redistributing your wealth to the rest of the world. That's what this is about. We have a President who has a very clear agenda who will not tell you. He'll say he's all about the environment, he's all about reducing global warming. If you want to reduce global warming, you would make sure that every job that went to China would come back here, every single one of them. That's what I'm going to do.

On Obamacare

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: I have about 6 other areas that I want to touch on. I'm going to do what I said I wasn't going to do. Let's go through them as quickly as possible. If you want to do a follow-up at the end, I'm going to give you the last couple of minutes. Obamacare. That's the question. I'm keeping it short and simple.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Yeah. Look. You should be encouraged. There's not much encouraging coming out of Washington, but you should be encouraged by this. The House and Senate passed an appeal of Obamacare. They de-funded all of Obamacare and they sent it to the President’s desk. Now, we have folks running for President that say there is a surrender caucus and that nobody wanted to repeal Obamacare, but him. Well, that turned out not to be the case, because without him they repealed Obamacare. They did it in a way that the rules of the House and Senate allowed you to do it. I know some people go out and talk about we have an abusive government and we have all these abuses and people don't follow the rules and people don't follow the rule law, and then they go out and try to advocate for things that don't follow the rules. Well, the rules are there. Frankly, the rules in the Senate are there to keep the government small. They haven't done a very good job of it, but that's what they're there for. I'm for those rules. I think it should be harder to pass something in Washington. In this case they were able to get Obamacare repealed and all the money gone. Why I say you should be encouraged is if RS is elected President, then when they pass that the next time, I'll sign it instead of vetoing it.

On the National Labor Relations Board

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: One quick question is relevant to this community, because several years ago Boeing chose this as another one of its homes. The unions came in and were upset, because they were leaving Washington State and National Labor Relations Board threatened to prosecute that to the business decisions. I'll cut straight to the chase. I know you come from Pennsylvania. I know that you had to get elected into that environment. I'd be very interested to hear your answer: What are your views on the roles of the unions and how they operate in the free market, states like South Carolina?

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Well, as you know there's been a dramatically decline in private sector unions. The only increase in organizing has been through the government. I'm of the opinion that the federal government does it right when it comes to unions, believe it or not, because in the federal government, federal government employees don't have the right to negotiate wages and benefits. I don't know if you knew that or not. The federal government doesn't give that right to union employees because they thought it was an unequal bargaining power, that they didn't want the union to use their resources to get members of Congress elected or not elected based upon whether they were going to give concessions to the union. If it was good enough for Washington, it would be good enough for every other level of government. I think from the standpoint of private sector unions, public sector unions, that we should track on how the federal government unions operate. With respect to private sector unions, they're becoming almost, I hate to say, irrelevant, but they're a very, very small percentage and now you've seen some, even some Northern states, like Wisconsin, like Michigan. Imagine Michigan passing a Right to Work statute. That would have been inconceivable 20 years ago, but now they've looked here and they've looked at your success in attracting workers and they've seen that those statutes are no longer viable to be able to let you compete for jobs, that it can go anywhere, not just in the Country, but anywhere in the world. I think we'd be doing a favor to a lot of state legislators. I know I have a lot of friends in the Pennsylvania State Legislature and they'd love to get rid of Right to Work. They're really concerned. One of them is here. They'd love to get rid of Right to Work. Some come from areas where that would be a really, really tough vote for them to do. I think we might be doing them a big favor. I didn't feel this is in the past, but it think we should be doing them a big favor and maybe removing the provisions that actually trigger the right to work laws in the states at the federal level.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: I read this on the internet, so it must be true, but I read that in the last census 9 union states lost Congressional districts to 9 Right to Work states. I didn't fact check that, but it feels right.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: That's absolutely true.

On Guantanamo Bay

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: Real quick, one other issue. This is a quick answer. South Carolina's one of 3 states listed as a possible, Charleston specifically was listed as a possible repository for the terrorists being detained at Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay. I sent a letter with the other 2 AGs to the President, obviously asking him not to do this.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: I think Gitmo has served a tremendous purpose. I would not be release- Anyone that's in Gitmo now probably needs to be in Gitmo for a long, long time. What we've seen is that everybody released from Gitmo, not all, but a lot of them have turned up back on the battlefield. This is essential to have it and it's essential to have it in a place where they can never be a threat to the mainland, to the people here in this Country. Therefore, having them on a military base that is not proximate to any civilian population is the perfect place for them.

On Law Enforcement, the Second Amendment and Mental Health

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: I'm down to my last 2 questions. I know we're getting close to the end. I'm conscious of your time. Because we are in Charleston and all the center of these questions are indirectly related. Obviously last summer, Charleston, South Carolina was dealt a horrible blow when a young man walked into a church and 9 people worshiping were massacred. It fed into a national debate. We've all followed from Ferguson to Baltimore to New York. Throughout the Country, there have been a number of instances where you've had something like that, whether it's law enforcement officer shooting or whether it was a massacre of a mentally ill deranged person, it has started a debate. This is part law enforcement, part 2nd Amendment, part mental health question. As President, you obviously are limited to what you can do for all the state level, but you can set the tone. That's what this question is geared toward. Obviously we want to promote law enforcement, men and women laying their lives on the line every single day. We want to know what kind of President we're going to have. We want to know who, the President we're going to have, what they would do to lift up law enforcement and instill public confidence in law enforcement, at the same time while putting the brakes on knee jerk reactions to go straight to gun grabs or go to gun regulation when we already have laws on the books that are not being enforced and when we have mental health issues that really need to be addressed. What are your views on that, generally? I have one question after that.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: That's multi-faceted.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: It's is.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: That's a multi-faceted question. Let me ... Obviously guns, when we talk about the Second Amendment, I want to remind everybody that the founders put the second amendment second for a reason. They could have put it eighth or ninth, but they didn't. They put it second, because it was important. They thought it was important, very important, right under the 1st Amendment which was enumerating the protections of the right to speak, the right to your faith, the right to assembly, all of those foundational rights. They saw the 2nd Amendment as a way to protect those rights. Second Amendment is not for hunters. Second Amendment is for the ability to protect yourself and to protect, clearly at that time, to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. Remember, they overthrew one and they had guns to do so. That's what the Second Amendment's there to do. In today's world, obviously we're not going to out-gun the federal government, so I'm not sure that that's necessarily relevant protection, but certainly the first one is, to be able to protect yourself, particularly in today's world. Today's world we have a President who's not going to keep us safe. He pursues all these ridiculous ideas that somehow if we pass some laws it's going to create difficulty for law abiding people to access guns, we're going to do something about it. You know what he's done? He's been the best salesman for guns in the history of the United States of America. Barack Obama has done more to proliferate guns than any other person in the history of our Country. That tells you how upside down this President is with about everything he proposes. Fact is that people in America today are afraid for their security, because we have a President who's not keeping us safe from radical terrorists and who's not talking about it. This is your point about law enforcement. He's not talking about the cause of the shooters who are not terrorists. The ultimate foundational problem is the foundational problem when it comes to our criminal justice system and violence that we see or our schools or our healthcare system, or the economy. It's the breakdown of the family and the lack of fathers in the lives of a lot of our children in this Country. That is the foundational principal focal-point that this President, that had a unique opportunity to do so, had a unique opportunity to speak into a community. He was a community organizer. He came from the poor communities of Chicago and had an opportunity to speak to those poor communities and he chose not to. He chose to ignore what every sociologist on the left and right are now coming forward and saying, "Look, yes, the economy is difficult and it's harder for people economically in some ways and our education system needs to be reformed and all those things, but they're all saying the same thing. Unless we start dealing with the fact the majority of the children in America today are being raised without a father in the home, we are kidding ourselves that we're going to have any real impact on any of these problem areas in our society. As a President you will have my commitment that I'm not going to use my bully pulpit to call out police officers or to call out global warming, which is what this President has spent most the time when he talks to the American public about. I'm going to talk about the importance of families. I'm going to talk about the importance of building a culture that can be supportive of children, with a stronger nuclear family, a stronger extended family, and a stronger role for churches and educators and businesses and yes, even the popular culture to re-enforce the values that we know will keep children healthy, safe, and give them an opportunity for prosperity.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON: I want to apologize for that disjointed, multi-faceted question to both you and the audience. It was three questions panned into one for time’s sake. I wanted to try to find a way to shoot all of them in, because Charleston has been the epicenter of a lot of these.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM: By the way, to that point, I was here during that time to have the honor, it was an honor to attend Sunday services at Mother Emmanuel, the Sunday after that, the spirit that I saw.