Des Moines Register Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate - Part 1

SHOW: CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL 15:00
January 4, 2004 Sunday

HEADLINE: Democratic Presidential Candidate's Debate

BYLINE: Judy Woodruff, Candy Crowley, Jeff Greenfield, William Schneider

HIGHLIGHT:
The first big political test of 2004, the Iowa caucuses are just two weeks from tomorrow. Seven of the nine Democratic candidates are at this debate, sponsored by the "Des Moines Register" newspaper.

BODY:
ANNOUNCER: They have trekked thousands of miles across the state. Their views are as diverse as their party, but they are unified in their call to take back the White House.

Today the candidates will confront the issues that are important to Iowa and to the nation.

From the studios of Iowa Public Television, this is the "Des Moines Register" Democratic presidential candidate's debate.

PAUL ANGER, EDITOR, DES MOINES REGISTER: Hello, I'm Paul Anger, editor of The Des Moines Register. We're here in the Maytag Auditorium at Iowa Public Television in Johnston, Iowa, right next to Des Moines.

Outside, temperatures are falling, snow is falling, and the wind is up, but we believe things in here should heat up nicely in the next two hours.

Let's count down some numbers in this campaign. Ten months until America elects a president. Seven months until Democrats nominate a candidate to oppose George W. Bush. And only 15 days until Iowa Democrats gather to decide who they will support.

Time is growing shorter in this election process, so let's get on with our debate.

Joining us are seven Democrats running for president. From left to right on our stage, they are: Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; former Ambassador and Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois; Senator John Edwards of North Carolina; Congressman Richard Gephardt of Missouri; and former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont.

All the questions I ask in this debate are quoted or paraphrased from those submitted to The Des Moines Register by Iowans. Each candidate will have 60 seconds to answer and 30 seconds of rebuttal time at my discretion.

Also asking their own questions will be two panelists, David Yepsen, the political columnist of the Des Moines Register and Michele Norris of the National Public Radio news program "All Things Considered."

The candidates have drawn for everything from positioning on stage to the order they will answer questions and give closing statements. And the winner of the first question is Senator Edwards.

Senator, since the last debate some dramatic developments. Saddam Hussein captured in Iraq and international flights canceled because of continuing terrorist fears. How do you reconcile Saddam's capture with continued fear of terrorism? And is the Iraq war worth it?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the truth is that Saddam's capture and the trial of Saddam Hussein, which the entire world will be able to see when it takes place, is going to reveal the atrocities that he's been engaged in and some of the incredible conduct that's occurred in Iraq during the time of his reign.

The reality of protecting the American people is, there's a still great deal of work to be done. I mean, the president claims that he's keeping people safe in this country.

Everybody across America knows that we have nuclear and chemical plants that are not adequately protected; that we have containers coming into our ports every single day, thousands of them, and we look at about 3 percent to 4 percent of them. We're extraordinarily vulnerable through our ports.

In most communities -- and I've now been in all 99 counties here in Iowa, and I've asked this question over and over and over: What would you do differently than you would have on September 11th if a terrorist attack were to occur in your state or your community? Most people have no idea, which means we don't have a comprehensive warning system in place, we don't have a comprehensive response system.

The other thing we're -- we know is that we know that terrorist cells exist all over this country -- Islamic Jihad -- they're everywhere -- Hamas. We need to do a much more effective job of putting humans inside those terrorist cells so that we can stop them before they do us harm.

ANGER: Ambassador Braun, here's one assessment of the war: It's a big success. We've removed a genocidal gangster, and we're installing a progressive government that will not be a threat to peace.

Do you agree with that view?

CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, removing the genocidal gangster was always -- that's happened, that's over, he's captured.

But I've always maintained it had nothing to do with -- or little to do with keeping the American people safe.

We should have continued to search for bin Laden. We should have continued to break up al Qaeda. We should have continued to work on breaking up the terrorist cells, some of which, operating out of northern Iraq right now, continue to threaten us.

I think that, you know, the fact is, fear is power. And what we've seen, I think, is a lack of focus on dealing with the fears of the American people, dealing with the real threats that we face, dealing with our domestic security in ways that will give us the ability to work with others around the world, with international organizations, to give us the law enforcement capacity to go after these criminals wherever they may be.

We've lost focus on that while going off on what I've called a misadventure in Iraq.

Well, it's over now, and we will have to bear it out until we get civil society replaced. But I think the primary focus has to be making the American people safe, putting in place those safeguards on all the different parts of our infrastructure, so the people who won't have to see "terror alert" on the bottom of their TV screens every day.

ANGER: Thank you.

And if I could remind the candidates, when you see the yellow light, you're running out of time. When you see the red light, you are out of time. We have a lot of ground to cover today, and I'll try to referee that.

Senator Kerry, looking ahead now, under what conditions would you support, future conditions, a pre-emptive military strike against another nation without wide international approval?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Only when the United States of America is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal.

Look, this administration, Paul, misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror.

Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and terror across the world.

And it requires presidential leadership that does more than simply flex our military muscles.

We need a foreign policy that's proactive, that reaches out to other countries, that's involved in changing the dynamics of the economy, of health care, of the delivery of services, that builds a relationship for America.

The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.

ANGER: To Congressman Kucinich, how do you insure national security if you succeed in your plan to cut the defense budget by 10 percent?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, actually, I called for the defense budget to be cut by 15 percent. Keep in mind that I'm the ranking Democrat on an investigative subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Defense and national security. I know the kind of waste that goes on there.

There's waste when you talk about building weapons in outer space; waste when you talk about building new nuclear weapons; waste when you talk about building a missile shield that even those who have studied it know that there's been fraud involved in the development of it.

So what we need to do to begin with is we need to get out of Iraq. This Iowa caucus is going to be a referendum on getting out of Iraq.

There is $155 billion that have been spent there in nine months already. And I stand alone among every candidate on this stage in calling for the United States to get out of Iraq. I've had a plan on my Web site at kucinich.us for the last two and a half months that shows how to do it.

So we must this evening, or this afternoon, talk about what are we going to do to get out of Iraq? What's the exit strategy? I have one that will bring our troops home in 90 days. It'll save a lot of money, too, and a lot of lives.

ANGER: Thank you.

Senator Lieberman, talk about another hot spot, if you will, the Middle East. What's the correct road map now for Israel and the Palestinians?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First, let me say that the capture of -- overthrow and then capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. It has not ended all of our problems or all the threats to our security, but a president has to deal with more than one threat at a time.

The Middle East is directly related, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly related. We have to stay the course in Iraq now and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there.

If we do that, we will not only have won a victory in the war on terrorism because we will have shown the Arab world what happens as a result of American intervention, that you live better, freer lives, but we will have sent the message to all the other terrorists and tin horn dictators there, like Gadhafi and even like the Iranians, who are beginning to cooperate, that we mean business.

Between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is only one good solution, it is a two-state solution. As president, I would devote time, commit my secretary of state to it, appoint a special ambassador to be there to work with both sides to move along the path to peace.

The doors are open now, in part because of our victory in Iraq.

ANGER: Thank you. We'll come back to that, if you need to later.

Governor Dean, talk about an observation by some Iowans that you give the perception, at times, that you're more angry with President Bush than you are with the enemies of America.

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The interesting thing about my campaign is it's really based on hope, not anger. People have a right to be angry with President Bush for all the things he's done to Iowa farmers, helping corporatize American agriculture. He is a president who appears sometimes to care more about the special interests that his political policies help rather than ordinary Americans.

But our campaign's really based on hope. Our campaign empowers ordinary people, many of whom have not been in politics for years, to get involved. The Constitution of this country says that power belongs to the American people, and that is really what we intend to prove next November 2004, as we bring enormous numbers of new Americans back into this process.

One-quarter of all the people who gave us money between June and September were under 30 years old. The only way we can beat George Bush is to have a campaign based on addition, not subtraction.

We want to add new people to the Democratic Party so that we can beat George Bush. It's the only way we can beat him.

ANGER: Finally, Congressman Gephardt, you helped facilitate what turned out to be a congressional OK for the president to launch the war on Iraq. Would you do that again?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will always do what I think is right to keep the people of this country safe. And I became convinced that taking that action was the best thing to keep the people of this country safe.

And I didn't listen to George Bush. I went out to the CIA. I sat down with George Tenet, alone. And I said, "George, I have to vote on this, you don't. I need to stand behind my vote. I want to know if we're worried about weapons, or the components of weapons, or the ability to quickly make components that can wind up in the hands of terrorists." He said emphatically yes.

And it was on the basis of that and talking to other people that had been in the Clinton administration in the security apparatus that this was a great worry.

Now, the president has not followed the right advice. He's not done the right things. He has not gotten the help of NATO. He's not gotten the help of the U.N. It's inexplicable to me that he has not done the things that I told him and many people told him from the beginning he should have done.

ANGER: Thank you.

GEPHARDT: I will do that.

ANGER: We're going to turn now to our panelists, as we will do throughout the debate, for their follow-up.

First, David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register.

DAVID YEPSEN, DES MOINES REGISTER: Governor Dean, you said after Saddam Hussein was captured, that the country could have captured him six months ago. Were you saying that our soldiers weren't working hard enough?

DEAN: Of course not. I think our...

YEPSEN: Well, what did you mean by that statement?

DEAN: Our military has done an absolutely terrific job in Afghanistan, which is a war I supported, and in Iraq, where I did not support the policy but I always support the troops.

I believe that, had Saddam been captured earlier, we might have been able to spend more time looking for Osama bin Laden, which is the real problem.

Note Senator Lieberman said that we were safer now that Saddam has been caught; I beg to differ. Since Saddam Hussein has been caught -- who's a dreadful person. I'm delighted to see him behind bars, and I hope he gets what he deserves.

But the fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace.

What we should have done is spent some of the $160 billion that we have in Iraq and all the effort when we went to go after Saddam, who was never an imminent threat to the United States, what we should have done is followed up and tried to get Osama bin Laden and spent that money and all those lives trying to protect America from terrorism, which is the true enemy of the United States.

ANGER: What about something that Senator Lieberman also said, and that was that, if we had followed your ideas toward Saddam Hussein, he'd still be in power?

DEAN: I actually don't believe that, because I think, given the time that's elapsed, we could have done the proper thing, which George Bush's father did, and put together a coalition to go after somebody who was a regional threat but not a threat to the United States.

Our resources belong in fighting al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has got us in a position where we're now worried because we're at level orange. We need a concentrated attack on al Qaeda and on Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein has been a distraction.

LIEBERMAN: Can I respond to the criticism?

ANGER: We're going to go to Senator Lieberman.

LIEBERMAN: Yes. I want to respond to Howard Dean's criticism of my statement that we're safer with Saddam Hussein gone. You know what? We had good faith differences on the war against Saddam. But I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people in prison instead of in power.

And to change the subject as Howard does and to say that we haven't obliterated all terrorism with Saddam in prison is a little bit like saying somehow that we weren't safer after the Second World War after we defeated Nazism and Hitler because Stalin and the communists were still in power.

We have many threats to our security, there is no question. We are a lot stronger...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

LIEBERMAN: ... with Saddam Hussein in prison.

ANGER: Thank you.

We're going to go now to Michele Norris of National Public Radio.

MICHELE NORRIS, NPR: Thank you.

Senator Edwards, a major foreign policy challenge for any administration is the Middle East peace process. Are you willing to negotiate directly with Hamas, and would Yasser Arafat have a seat at that table?

EDWARDS: No. First of all, I know from having served for years on the Senate Intelligence Committee that there are clear, overwhelming evidence of Arafat's connection to terrorism.

I think what we ought to be doing, and I agree with something that was said earlier, I think a two-state solution is ultimately the answer. But the question is whether we're going to stay engaged, whether American leadership will stay engaged over a long period of time to solve very deep-seated, deep-rooted problems, which means having somebody there -- either the secretary of state or an envoy from the secretary of state -- on a regular basis.

It means, second, finding ways to create some level of trust. For example, going to the leadership of the Palestinians and saying, "Arrest these two or three leaders of Hamas who, we both know, are involved in terrorism," and saying to the Israelis, "In exchange, we expect you to allow freer passage in the West Bank."

And to find ways to empower those within the Palestinian Authority who actually want peace and want to reform.

The single most important ingredient, though, that's been missing with this president is any kind of sustained engagement and leadership.

NORRIS: But if the Palestinian leaders come back and say, "We're not willing to arrest these two or three people, but this is what we are willing to do," how much would an Edwards administration negotiate with Hamas?

EDWARDS: Well, the most critical thing is for us to be there, to be engaged. That's what's been missing from this administration. Joe Lieberman said something about this just a few minutes ago.

But what the president does is he flies in, he has a photo-op, he leaves. We've had inconsistent policy, inconsistent presence. What we need to be doing is we need to be on the ground constantly, involved in dealing with both sides in this very, very difficult problem.

And we can't be naive about it. I mean, we have to find ways to reduce the level of violence, to create some level of trust so that we can, in fact, move toward peace.

ANGER: Thank you.

Let's bring the debate back to our shores for a while. Layoffs have clouded the holiday season for many Americans, including those living in Iowa, where the number of unemployed has grown 88 percent in the last three years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: In the November Des Moines Register Iowa poll, 40 percent of Iowans said the most important issue for the next president to address is the economy. On this point, Iowans agree with the rest of the nation, where an estimated 2.3 million jobs have been lost since 2000.

While the Iowa landscape is dominated by more silos than smokestacks, manufacturing is the largest sector of the Iowa economy. The nation's trade deficit, which has been at record levels this year, has also hit Iowa, which has seen a 4.3 percent drop in jobs related to wholesale trade.

Nearly three-quarters of Iowa caucus-goers would repeal at least some of the tax cuts signed by President Bush.

The farm economy is looking brighter this year, but the trend in Iowa and the nation has been toward low commodity prices and a high reliance on government subsidies.

The next president's policies on renewable energy, biotech crops and international trade could make a difference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGER: Ambassador Braun, you've been a senator from Illinois, which is fairly rural, once you get outside of Chicago. What would you do to improve the economy of rural America?

MOSELEY BRAUN: Well, there are a number of things. Unlike George Bush I, who said no new taxes, this Bush seems to think the answer is no new jobs.

We need to create jobs in America again, and the way that we do it is to focus in on the fundamentals.

In the first place, while the short-term numbers look good -- the stock market has gone up and the like -- at the same time, our fundamentals are really in trouble: huge current account deficits, huge budget deficits, such as we've never seen before. We have a trade deficit with China alone of $100 billion.

We are going to have to take steps to reverse those trends that are sinking our economy and sinking our ability to create jobs.

What would I do? In the first instance, I'd have health-care reform. Seeing to it that every American has health care is not only a way to solve a social problem, but also a way to take the costs of health care off of the back of our productive sector, our manufacturers, our small businesses, so that we can create jobs here at home.

Two, environmental protection. Creating whole new industries with technology transfer, giving people a chance to...

ANGER: Thank you.

MOSELEY BRAUN: I've run out of the time, but that's the direction in which I'd head.

ANGER: Thank you, Madam Ambassador.

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you.

ANGER: Senator Kerry, there are many senior citizens in distress in rural America, as well as in our cities. What have you done to protect and improve Social Security, and what more should be done?

KERRY: Well, we did protect Social Security in the United States Senate, and Social Security is safe and sound well into the next two decades or more. With very minor changes, with a strong economy, the next generation will have Social Security.

I will never privatize Social Security. I will never try to extend the retirement age for Social Security. And I will not cut any benefits for Social Security.

The most important thing we need to do to make Social Security strong in this country for the future is strengthen our economy itself and provide better jobs for our citizens, so they, in fact, can pay the checks in that pay current retirees.

That requires a better trade policy, where we have labor and environment standards that are enforced. It requires that we have a manufacturing credit in America to begin to create manufacturing.

It requires for rural communities that we begin to empower them the way Governor Vilsack's trying to do here in the state. We need to do what rural electrification did in the 1930s with the Internet and bring it to communities.

We need to fully fund the Conservation Farm Program in Iowa.

There are so many things as a whole...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

KERRY: ... that could make a difference to the economy, and I will do those.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

Candidates, each of you has said you would reverse the Bush tax cuts for the so-called rich.

Congressman Kucinich, how much money do people have to make before you consider them rich, considering the vast differences in cost of living across the country?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, when you consider that a steelworker who's making $40,000 a year has virtually the same tax burden as someone who's making $400,000 a year, you see that there are inequities.

I mean, this administration has used the tax code to accelerate wealth to the top. Most of the tax breaks have gone to people in the top bracket.

And what does that mean? That means that we have a diminishing capacity to take care of needs here at home.

Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans, for health care, for education, for all the real social needs.

So the wealth continues to be redistributed upward. We need a tax code that's fair. But we need to cancel the Bush tax cuts that go to people in the top bracket.

And we also have to recognize the destructive quality which this war in Iraq has on our budget. I mean, everyone up here must recognize this and address it. As long as we stay in Iraq, we're going to continue to have a serious drain on our nation's ability to meet our domestic agenda.

ANGER: Go to Senator Lieberman. Roger Lansky, Senator, of New Hampton, Iowa, wants to know whether you would change what he calls the, quote, "subsidy mentality" of the farm program to a market-based program.

LIEBERMAN: The 2000 -- first, let me say that agriculture is just a critical part of American economic life and American history and American life.

Secondly, the 2002 farm bill, which Senator Harkin was a lead sponsor of, and I supported, improved the previous program of Freedom of Farm with a series of countercyclical subsidies that I think are appropriate.

So right now I would say, no. I'd say it's very hypocritical as I watch some countries, particularly in Europe, criticize us for our farm subsidies when, in fact, they have larger subsidies than we do.

I want to make another point here. Several of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination have taken very protectionist positions. That would hurt Iowa agriculture and agriculture generally. I was very impressed to see that one-third of the cash receipts of Iowa agriculture are based on exports. And I want to protect -- I want to avoid the kind of trade war that will hurt those exports and hurt jobs in farm country.

ANGER: To Governor Dean.

LIEBERMAN: So yes to subsidies as they are now, and yes to trade.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

Picking up on that, to Governor Dean, several Register readers want to know about your trade policies. America's farmers need open markets for their crops around the world, but other American workers want a level playing field for wages, working conditions and the environment. How would you balance those interests?

DEAN: There's no reason we can't do both. Actually, I agree with a lot of some of the things that have been said about NAFTA and the WTO. I believe that NAFTA and the WTO only got -- only globalized the rights of multinational corporations, but they did not globalize the rights of workers. They are not going to globalize human rights, environmental rights, the right to organize. That needs to happen.

And if it doesn't happen, NAFTA and the WTO simply aren't going to work. Right now, we're exporting jobs, and that's not a good thing.

We need to have a level playing field. We need to have the same kinds of environmental protections, labor protections, human rights protections and worker protections if we're going to have open borders. That will not disadvantage exports.

The way to support American farmers is to change the American farm bill so that big corporations don't get the majority of the money that goes out of the farm bill.

We can support small family farms, and we should. But the money ought to go to the farmers, not the big corporations.

ANGER: Congressman Gephardt, you're a staunch supporter of traditional American unions. But you haven't been able to stop the loss, in Congress, of America's manufacturing and industry jobs to other countries.

Why would you do any better as president?

GEPHARDT: Well, I think I've made some real progress. I got a treaty with Jordan through the Clinton administration that really paid attention to labor and environmental rights. The Gephardt amendment is in law in the country, and it got markets open, like in Japan, where we've had to face unfair trade practices.

And the steel tariffs, which have helped save a steel industry in this country came in part from my advocacy.

Now, everybody up here, except Dennis, voted for NAFTA and voted for the China agreement. They did the wrong thing. I don't think we can win this race against George Bush with a trade policy that's exactly like George Bush's. I'm the only one who has led on this issue for over 20 years.

And let me tell you what I think we need to do. We need to get a trade policy that brings up conditions in these other countries so that we work toward a global marketplace that works for everybody. You can't do that if you give in to bad trade deals, like most of these candidates did.

ANGER: Senator Edwards, Senator, considering...

EDWARDS: Can I respond first to what was just said?

ANGER: OK. All right.

EDWARDS: Because it was very skillfully done; he lumped everybody together. Congressman Gephardt...

ANGER: Are you going to speak for everybody, or are you...

(LAUGHTER)

EDWARDS: I'm going to speak for me. That's who I am going to speak for.

First of all, I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. NAFTA passed before I got to the Congress, to the United States Senate.

And I might add, you could pick out any one vote of anybody on this stage -- you, for example, voted for fast-track authority for Bush I that led to the passage of NAFTA.

So the point is -- and I don't believe you're not for American workers; I do. I absolutely believe that. But I think you could take any one vote from any candidate and distort it. And we ought to tell the truth about this.

I do not have the same record as some of these other candidates. I mean, I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

And the reason is because I've seen what's happened in my state of North Carolina, with the loss of manufacturing jobs. I have been hearing in all these places I've visited here in Iowa how devastating it is.

But I think it is really important, as we go forward in this debate -- and we have a long time left -- that we be completely accurate and straightforward and honest with Iowa's caucus-goers about where we stand.

This has happened before. Congressman Gephardt has sent out mailings attacking and identifying all of us and putting us in the same category.

Iowa caucus-goers know there are differences between us. And I, for one, intend to make sure that they know between now and the caucus what those differences are.

ANGER: Before we get back to -- and we do want you to answer something else, too, Senator.

EDWARDS: Yes.

ANGER: Congressman, a short rebuttal to that?

GEPHARDT: Well, John, you weren't in Congress when NAFTA came up, so you couldn't vote. But you voted for the China...

EDWARDS: But you just said I voted for it.

GEPHARDT: I understand.

(LAUGHTER)

EDWARDS: You understand?

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Does that mean you're wrong? You'll take it back now?

GEPHARDT: I'm quite willing to say that you weren't there and you didn't vote for it.

But you voted for the China agreement, and it's had a bad impact here in Iowa, and it's had a bad impact in your state of North Carolina.

One of the biggest textile-makers has closed all of their plants across the country; 60,000 jobs lost.

And it happened -- and we had this debate during the China agreement. I tried to get it fixed so that it had real protections, so that China would get their labor and environmental requirements...

ANGER: Congressmen, we have hit the mother lode here so far.

(LAUGHTER)

I see many hands being raised. Since we have a lot of ground -- and you were the first, Congressman. We have a lot of ground to cover, if you can keep your remarks on this to 30 seconds.

EDWARDS: And, remember, you had a question for me.

ANGER: And I still remember the question for you.

(LAUGHTER)