Des Moines Register Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate - Part 3

ANGER: To Governor Dean.

Governor, Iowa has a strong tradition of local control in its schools, which are rated among the best in the nation. But even in Iowa, schools struggle with the lack of funding. What is the proper role of the federal government in education?

DEAN: The proper role of the federal government in education is not to pass bills like No Child Left Behind. I have two big policy differences with almost everybody up here. I opposed the Iraq war; with the exception of Dennis and Carol, everybody else supported it.

I opposed No Child Left Behind; I don't know how Carol would have voted, but I -- everybody else supported it.

The reason I oppose No Child Left Behind -- Joe Lieberman's right. There are some good things in this bill. One is something called disaggregation of scores, which helps low-income kids. But this is an unbelievable, intrusive mandate.

I talked to a woman who's a teacher the other day -- she was told by the federal government she wasn't a highly qualified teacher after she had taught math and physics and gotten the best scores for her students for 23 years.

This is a bill that ought never to have been passed. And what has happened -- this is why I am running for president. What has happened to so many Democrats in Congress is that they've been co- opted by the agenda of George Bush, who came into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. And what we need is a Democrat who's going to stand up to George Bush.

ANGER: Congressman Gephardt, should the government help parents pay for private education if their public schools are failing according to the government standards?

GEPHARDT: Well, let me just respond to something Howard just said. He kind of runs against all of us in Washington and says that we haven't done anything. I guess I've got a question for him. Is he saying that Tom Harkin has never done anything good, or Ted Kennedy, or Bill Clinton?

I'm proud of what we've done to fight back against the Bush administration. They tried to put more arsenic in the water. We stopped them from doing it.

They tried to privatize Social Security. We have stopped them from doing it.

They tried to get vouchers for public schools. And so far we've been able to stop them from doing it.

And they didn't want to give more unemployment benefits to workers. And we stopped him from doing that, and we got that done.

So, yes, we're going to try to do what's right for public education. I voted for the bill because I thought it was the only way to get money into public education under a Bush presidency.

And there's only one way to fix Leave No Child Behind, that's to leave George Bush behind. And that's what we're going to do in November of 2004.

ANGER: Thank you, Congressman.

To Senator Edwards, this question comes from Bob Batai (ph) of Ames, Iowa. As a retired university professor, he's alarmed by the increasing cost of public education. What steps would you take to make our public universities more affordable?

EDWARDS: Well, the starting place is we, as a nation, should be providing more help to states with their budgets, so that they, in fact, don't have to raise tuitions the way that we've seen over the last couple of years.

But the second thing is we ought to be helping these hundreds of thousands of kids who want to go to college and are qualified to be there but aren't going because they can't pay for it.

Now, I have proposed a very specific idea, which I call "college for everyone." This says to every young person in America, if you're qualified to be in college and you're willing to work for it, at least 10 hours a week the first year you're in school, you can go tuition- free to a state university or community college.

And I was the first person in my family to go to college. I worked my way through college. It didn't hurt me a bit. I know that getting young people in college and getting them engaged matters.

I want to say one last thing with my time remaining.

The truth of the matter is, America needs to be changed. But that change doesn't mean just getting rid George Bush. We have to get rid of him to change America.

But there's a fundamental question for Iowa caucus-goers, because if you believe people who've been in politics for 20 years or who've been in Washington for decades are going to change this country, you've got plenty of choices.

I present a different alternative...

ANGER: Senator, we're out of time.

Ambassador Braun, what would you do to cut down on violence in schools?

MOSELEY BRAUN: OK, can I answer three more questions, because I had won points of personal privilege along the way when my name was used, and I didn't get a chance to answer those.

ANGER: You have a minute of personal privilege.

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you very much.

First, to Dennis and the war. I opposed the war also, Dennis. But Americans can't -- we can't just cut and run. We blew the place up; we have a responsibility to at least fix it back.

And the United Nations...

(APPLAUSE)

... can't come in until we do more there.

So while, you know, the fact of getting U.N. in and U.S. out, it sounds wonderful. At the same time, we still have a responsibility there, that we cannot just drop the ball.

To John, we don't have to have deficits as a matter of course. They're not a fact of life.

EDWARDS: Oh, I agree with that.

MOSELEY BRAUN: And any administration that comes in without an objective of saying, "We're going to get rid of these budget deficits," as Bill Clinton did -- he got rid of the deficits. This president, George Bush, has gone from surplus to deficit almost overnight. And we've got to hold him to account for it.

And frankly, that bill, Dennis, for all the money we're spending on that, we ought to lay it at George Bush's feet, because it's his bill. It's a bill that he's put on the American people without due cause.

And finally, Howard, to you, I've supported unfunded mandates as my first legislative action in the United States Senate. I agree with you. We have no right to make decisions that either send the bill to our children, our grandchildren on the one hand, or to states and local governments on the other.

ANGER: We'll go back to Congressman Kucinich.

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you.

KUCINICH: I think it's important...

(APPLAUSE)

That doesn't come out of my time, right?

(LAUGHTER)

I think it's important for Iowa caucus-goers to follow carefully the implications of a debate which says we should stay in Iraq for a couple years.

Look, it was wrong to go, and it's wrong to stay in.

Right now, if we stay there, we're going to be spending hundreds of -- probably over a half trillion dollars. We've already lost over 470 of our dedicated men and women.

I have a plan that's been on my Web site now for three months, to bring the U.N. in and get the U.S. out. It involves the U.S. giving up ambitions to control the oil, the contracts, privatization or the government of Iraq by remote control. We can get out of Iraq.

All these other candidates should be taking a position. I'm glad that Carol will acknowledge that she wants to stay there. I want to see what the other candidates will do, including Governor Dean. It's time to get out of Iraq.

ANGER: We'll go to Senator Kerry now.

In Iowa and other states, Senator, local property-taxpayers are primarily responsible for the upkeep of school buildings. This can result in inequities in the quality of those buildings.

Should there be a federal program called No School Buildings Left Behind?

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Absolutely, positively. And I have not only voted for that in the past, but I have a major proposal to provide for school construction.

But let me just comment about overall education. Iowa caucus- goers are the most serious people I've met in the political process. They are thinking about this. It's easy to bash Washington; it's easy to bash somebody who voted for something you don't like. But there's nothing in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires it to be implemented the way this administration is doing it.

My colleague Ted Kennedy is the greatest champion of education in America. He didn't put this in place, to have it implemented this way.

Every parent in America wants their kid to have a highly qualified teacher. Every parent in America wants their kid tested and have accountability. Every parent in America wants their school to be accountable.

And what's happened is, this administration is doing to the school system of America what it did to school systems of Houston and in Texas. They're faking it. And they're punitive to teachers. They're disrespectful to teachers.

What we need is a full funding of special-needs education. We need to change the No Child Left Behind standard, so no teacher who is certified, like Howard mentioned, with 15 years of service, is not recognized for it.

We need to change, so no school is forced into failure...

ANGER: We're out of time. We're out of time, Senator.

KERRY: ... and we can do that.

ANGER: We're going to go to Michele Norris.

NORRIS: Thank you.

Democrats have been charged with a certain degree of hypocrisy over the years for pledging strong support for public education and then turning around and sending their own children to private schools. In the last administration, both the president and the vice president had their children in private schools.

This is for Senator Edwards. If you moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, will you send your two children to public schools?

And if you could give us your view, if you could, of the symbolism or the potential opportunities that this represents to cast a vote of confidence in America's schools, by having a First Family that fully participates in public education in America?

EDWARDS: Yes. Yes is the answer to your question.

I myself am a product of public schools. I would have no chance of being where I am today without a great public school education. My children, my two older children who have now finished school both went through public schools. They got a great education in the public school system.

And there is so much work that needs to be done. So far the conversation has been about No Child Left Behind, what's wrong with No Child Left Behind. We as Democrats need to offer a bigger vision for what should happen with public education in America because in most of America, including Washington, D.C., there are still two public school systems. There is one for those who live in affluent areas and there is one for those who live in other places.

What are we going to do about that as Democrats? Forget No Child Left Behind. No question that it is doing damage. But the question is, what will we do? What's our bigger, broader vision for America?

Here's what I want to do. First, lead a national initiative as president to improve teacher pay across the board.

Second, give bonus pay to teachers that are willing to teach in schools in less affluent areas.

Third, give scholarships and financial aid to young people who will commit to teach in those same schools. And strengthen and expand early childhood programs, which is a place where we can have a real impact.

YEPSEN: Congressman Gephardt, you have -- you enjoy a lot of support from the labor movement in this campaign and yet many people say that teachers' unions are part of the problem in public education. What's your view of that question?

GEPHARDT: Well, first, David, I think we've got to change the whole atmosphere in the country. When I'm president, I'm not going to every time I talk about education disparage public education. This president and the Republican Party, every time they talk about education, talks about that it's failing, that the schools are all bad, the teachers are all selfish, they won't bend and bring in new ways of doing things.

We need to say that public education is largely good. It's good here in Iowa. It's good in my district in St. Louis and in Missouri.

And so, we need to start from that. But then as was said, we need a larger vision of what we can do to improve the schools that aren't getting it done. And we can do that -- more pre-school, more after-school, smaller classroom size, help with the buildings.

And I've got a new idea I call teacher corps. I'd say to young students, "If you'll train to be a teacher, teach wherever we need you for five years, I'd have the federal government pay your college loans."

ANGER: Governor...

GEPHARDT: I got educated in the public schools in St. Louis City, and I got a great education, and I'm grateful for it.

ANGER: Governor Dean, twice now Congressman Kucinich has brought up your position on Iraq. Why don't you take a moment here and respond to his criticism of your position?

DEAN: My position is it's not responsible to pull our troops out. I was against going in, but now -- what happened was the president let us believe that al Qaeda was in Iraq. It turned out there was no evidence for that. But there is pretty good evidence that they are there now.

If we pull out our troops precipitously and al Qaeda gets the kind of foothold in Iraq that it did in Afghanistan, we have a major national security problem on our hands.

So my idea is to have elections to form a governing council in Iraq so we have somebody writing a constitution there that has some respect of the Iraqi people, and then to begin to replace our troops, as George Bush's father did, with foreign troops, preferably from Muslim and Arabic-speaking nations so we can bring our Guard and Reserve home as soon as possible and one of the two divisions home.

But I do not agree with Dennis that we ought to just pull our troops out. I don't actually think that's what he is saying, he wants the U.N. to go in. I do, too, but it's going to be a gradual process, and it is not responsible to simply withdraw our troops from Iraq because the president has created a national security danger in Iraq when none existed before.

NORRIS: If I could, just another question on America's young people. And this will be for Senator Lieberman.

LIEBERMAN: Yes?

NORRIS: By a ratio of 10:1, the U.S. spends more on government- sponsored aid for older Americans than it does for children. You've been in Congress a long time. Why does the nation spend 10 times as much on people of your generation than on your grandchildren? And older people vote; children don't. Is this just raw political influence?

LIEBERMAN: Right. First, I want to make clear that I'm young.

(LAUGHTER)

NORRIS: It's all a state of mind.

LIEBERMAN: Sorry. Will you certify to that? Right.

Look, you know, Hubert Humphrey once said in a magnificent speech that you judge a society by the way it treats people at the dawn of life and at the twilight of life -- children and seniors.

So the answer to this is not to cut back on aid for seniors. The answer to this, in the current context, is to cut back on the Bush tax cuts for the high income and for corporations, which can garner $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and invest that money in our children, among other things -- our veterans, our homeland security, our health care, but fully fund education.

Yes, let's have federal funds to leverage the universal pre- kindergarten child care program. Let's help working people having such a tough time affording child care. We can balance this.

Being president is all about priorities. This president has had the wrong priorities. He wants to comfort those who are comforted, and as a result, we haven't done enough for those who are genuinely in need who are our future -- our children.

YEPSEN: Ambassador Braun, one quick follow-up question to you: How do you propose narrowing the achievement gap in America between minority students and non-minority students?

MOSELEY BRAUN: I think the most important thing the national government can do is to help communities relieve the burden on the local property tax by sending more money from the national level.

We are now funding education nationally at only 6 percent. All of the costs fall on the local property tax and on local taxes.

What that means is that poor communities struggle to maintain the capacity to educate children. And in fact, when I was in the Senate, I had a study done that showed that the poorest communities make the greatest tax effort to support their schools.

And so if we can provide poor communities with the support they need to lower class size, to give teachers the kind of support they need so that they're not left alone to deal with all kinds of social issues and problems without having the funding adequate to do the job, if we make that contribution and let locals control content curriculum, I believe we will provide the service that will help deal with achievement scores.

When I was in the Senate also, the approach that we took was the question that was put to John Kerry, which was to build school buildings. Let us help fund infrastructure, so these children are not in classrooms with broken windows and leaky roofs. Let us do this, and then devote local dollars to content, curriculum and support for teachers.

ANGER: Thank you.

And, candidates, we will now move to the next round, which will be you asking a question of any other candidate, which you've been doing anyway.

(LAUGHTER)

Your question is limited, please, to 30 seconds. Please start with the name of the candidate you are addressing. That candidate's answer will be one minute, and there will be rebuttal back as needed.

Governor Dean, you're first.

DEAN: Sure, this is to all the candidates. I have repeatedly said, because we've got to beat George Bush, that I will vigorously support the nominee of the Democratic Party. And I will vigorously encourage all my supporters to do the same. I will campaign for the Democratic nominee of this party, should it not be me.

And I'd like to find out who on this stage agrees that they will pledge to vigorously support the Democratic nominee.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Now, I'll cede the balance of my time to Carol, because you really got short-changed in the first round.

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: Well, you're a consensus builder, Governor Dean.

DEAN: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

I told you I could bring those inside-the-Beltway and those outside-the-Beltway Democrats together.

ANGER: Next is Ambassador Braun.

MOSELEY BRAUN: I have a question for Senator Edwards.

Senator, companies such as Smithfield enjoy monopoly positions by owning both production and packing operations. Iowans have told me that they are against such vertical integration because it hurts or kills family farms. Yet, you did not support Senator Harkin's amendment to prohibit such practices.

What would you say to an Iowa farmer who opposes the mega hog farms?

EDWARDS: Well, first, the vote that was in the United States Senate was a vote that would have put hundreds of North Carolina farmers out of business.

As president of the United States, I will sign a packer ban. Not only that, I'll go further than I believe any one on this stage is willing to go as president, which is to actually impose a moratorium on the building and expansions of these corporate hog lots.

I have also introduced legislation in the Senate to put the toughest clean air and clean water regulations that could possibly be there in order to stop the very things that you're talking about.

And I have pledged, as president of the United States, to provide the most vigorous enforcement of our anti-trust laws, to stop the very vertical integration that you're talking about, that are putting family farmers here in Iowa out of business on behalf of these big corporate farming operations.

We've got to stop it. I've stood up for little people all my life, and I will stand up for family farmers as president.

(APPLAUSE)

ANGER: Madam Ambassador, any rebuttal to that?

MOSELEY BRAUN: Well, no. Just the record.

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: OK. We go, then, to...

(APPLAUSE)

We go, then, to Senator Lieberman.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Paul. My question, not surprisingly, is to Howard Dean.

One of the most troubling decisions that Howard has made in this campaign -- made before -- is to close and seal his records, or most of them, when he was governor of Vermont.

And this troubles me because the people of Vermont have a right to know. The people of America, who are judging your candidacy for president now, have a right to know what you did as governor to determine whether you're suitable and capable of being president of the United States.

I have in my hand the memorandum of understanding between you and the secretary of state, which makes very clear that all it takes to open up your records, Mr. Governor...

ANGER: Get your question out, please.

LIEBERMAN: Yes, I will -- is one stroke of a pen.

Howard Dean, every day you tell people across America they have the power, and you're right.

You have the power, with one stroke of the pen, to open up your records to public view. You have the power; I'm prepared to give you the pen. Why don't you sign this agreement and open your gubernatorial records to full public view?

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: I am told that Governor Bob Ray, who was one of the most distinguished governors of this state, had his records sealed for his entire lifetime.

Joe, the reason that -- first of all, more than half of my records are open. And I know that because you all have been poring through them for many months to bring up all kinds of details.

(LAUGHTER)

But governors seal records for particular amounts of time -- in my case, some of the records -- to protect people's privacy, to protect the privacy that was given to advisers.

For example, there are apparently in these -- among these records is a group of letters from people who wrote me during the civil unions crisis, or the civil unions bill-passing, which was a crisis in Vermont because it was the most contentious bill that we had for many, many years.

What we have done is we have stepped aside. We have turned everything over to the attorney general of the state of Vermont. And the attorney general of the state of Vermont will go to court, and a judge will look over every document in our records. And they are free to release whatever they'd like, and that's fine with me.

ANGER: Back to Senator Lieberman.

(APPLAUSE)

LIEBERMAN: That is an unsatisfactory and disappointing answer. Why should you have to force a judge to force you to do what you know is right?

Your records ought to be public. Look, there are always exceptions for private matters and for security matters. The Boston Herald reports today that, notwithstanding the fact that you kept your records closed, you have revealed some security matters and, in fact, some personal medical histories.

My question is, as we go into this campaign, how can you and we take on George Bush and Dick Cheney, who have run the most secretive administration in our history, if you refuse to open up the records of your time as governor?

I want to say this: As president, records will be open to the public view. My records when I was in a comparable state position as attorney general are open to public view.

We Democrats are better than Bush and Cheney. And your position on your records has undercut the high ground that we should be on.

ANGER: A quick comment from the governor.

DEAN: I think if somebody is gay and they write me that, and they don't care to have that information disclosed to the public, that's their right.

(APPLAUSE)

LIEBERMAN: That's not the answer you're...

(APPLAUSE)

Excuse me. You are ducking the question. Of course you've got a right to hold back private disclosures like that.

DEAN: Joe, a judge should decide that, because if we decide it, nobody is going to believe us, and they're going to say there's more stuff in the record. Why can't a judge look at every single piece of paper and make that decision?

LIEBERMAN: You are ducking the question. You should not force a judge to force you to do what you know is right, and which will assure public confidence.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm sorry...

ANGER: We'll ask you to take it outside if you need to.

(LAUGHTER)

LIEBERMAN: I'm ready.

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: To Congressman Kucinich, your question please.

KUCINICH: A question to Dr. Dean.

You're aware you and I have a difference of opinion on the health care issue, where I favor universal single-payer, and you favor keeping the health care system within the context of the present system, but you want to make sure more people are insured.

When you told the New York Times that if someone wants fundamental change in the system, they're not your man, or you're not their man, did you mean by that to suggest that you aren't prepared to challenge the health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies, which are holding health care in this country captive?

DEAN: Dennis, if somebody's issue out there -- and their biggest issue and most important issue is that they want a single-payer health care plan, they ought to vote for you or Carol.

KUCINICH: Thank you. I...

DEAN: Get some applause from your friends...

KUCINICH: I'll accept that.

DEAN: The reason that I have taken the position that I have, I have tried twice to have huge health care reforms in Vermont. We didn't get it. We did get health insurance for all children. We did get prescription benefits for a third of our seniors and disabled people. We do have health insurance for everybody under 150 percent of poverty, whether they're eligible for Medicaid or not.

But we didn't get it. And I do not want another reform effort where we fail, for whatever reason, and leave 43 million people uninsured.

I wrote my health care plan so that it would pass Congress, and we could get everybody insured.

KUCINICH: Is there a follow-up?

ANGER: Yes.

KUCINICH: The question is, you know, you're hoping to be the president of the United States. Now, wouldn't you anticipate that you could have the kind of power, even as a nominee of the party, to rally the American people in the cause of health care?

I mean, why won't you say that you will do that? Why won't you at least try? Then you could have a fall-back position, if necessary. Why won't you at least try to do that?

DEAN: Jimmy Carter tried to reform the health care system. Bill Clinton tried to reform the health care system. Every time, we couldn't get that stuff through Congress. And I was involved in the second one and very, very peripherally in the first one.

This is the third time. This time we're going to do it.

I'm not interested in reforming the system first. I want everybody in the system first. I'm tired of people being uncovered. I'm tired of people paying almost as much for their health care payments every month as they do for their home mortgage.

I want everybody in the system. Then we can have a big fight about how to reform the system. But let's get everybody in it first.

ANGER: We go now to Congressman Gephardt for your question.

GEPHARDT: Howard, first, thanks for getting everybody to coalesce behind my candidacy after I win the nomination.

(LAUGHTER)

GEPHARDT: My question has to do with 1995 and the fight we had in the budget over Medicare funding. The Republicans tried to cut Medicare by $270 billion. And Bill Clinton and the Democrats fought them off. They even shut the government down.

At that time, you were head of the governors' association, and you agreed with their proposal. How do you explain that position?

DEAN: Well, I didn't agree with their proposal.

What I believe in is that we need to save Medicare; we need to make it work.

I'm the person up here who started to run on health insurance for everybody. We have health insurance for an awful lot of people in Vermont, virtually every child.

To think that I, as a physician and a governor, am going to try to get rid of Medicare is silly. What we need to do is make Medicare work.

Iowa is 50th in terms of Medicare reimbursement. Vermont's 49th. We need more reimbursement. We need to make Medicare work. I'm not going to change any benefit structure in Medicare. And Medicare is a critical part of the universal health care plan that I want to have for every Iowan and for every American.

GEPHARDT: Well, I believe you were for that proposal. You gave a speech the night before we voted in the House. And you said you were for the Roth proposal, which was the proposal in the Senate. It was exactly like the proposal the House Republicans had that would cut it by $270 billion.

Let me make one other point on this.

ANGER: Please, quickly.

GEPHARDT: A state like Iowa is already undercompensated for Medicare.

I have a bill with Leonard Boswell, who is here today, to try to correct that problem. If the $270 billion cut had gone through, it would have put -- it would have devastated Iowa seniors because of what it would have meant. It would have cost them $1,000 more a year as a result of that cut.

ANGER: Last words from Governor Dean.

DEAN: I don't have much to rebut. I want health insurance for every single American. I have a record of achieving that. And I'd like your support so we can do that for the federal -- at the federal level, as we did in Vermont.

ANGER: Over to Senator Edwards.

EDWARDS: Thank you. This is for Congressman Gephardt.

As I have traveled around Iowa, there is no doubt that Iowa caucus-goers, as everyone on this stage, wants us to get rid of George Bush. But I think they see the problem as much bigger than that. They want to see Washington change. They want to see America change.

You've been there a long time. There are, to me, obvious changes that need to be put in place to give the power and democracy back to the people.

So I have proposed banning lobbyist contributions, shining bright light on lobbyist activity so we know what they're doing, stopping the revolving door between lobbyists and the government and back and forth.

I'd just like for you to tell us what you intend to do to change the culture that exists in Washington today, besides beating George Bush, which we are all for?

GEPHARDT: Absolutely. John, I have worked my entire career in politics to lessen the power of special interests in this country. I passed -- and I think anybody in the House would tell you, I got campaign reform passed in the House.

I called John McCain. I asked him to come to my office, and I sat on the phone with him and we called Republican and Democratic members to get them to vote for campaign reform. We got it done. He produced about 15 Republicans. We produced about 205 Democrats. That's kind of a good way of knowing who is really for campaign reform and who is not. And I will continue to do that as president.

We need much more campaign reform. The lobbyist things you're talking about, absolutely. And we need campaign reform that will really lessen the interest of these special interests.

Let me tell you, that prescription drug bill that passed was written by the drug companies. And if this is the way it's going to work, you don't need a Congress, just let the special interests write the bills.

ANGER: Back to Senator Edwards...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: Written by the drug companies for the drug companies, as a matter of fact.

GEPHARDT: Absolutely.

EDWARDS: Let me just have one follow-up, because I want to make sure -- so you would agree with my proposal to ban contributions from lobbyists? Were you saying yes to that? You're for that?

GEPHARDT: Yes.

EDWARDS: OK.

Second, would you agree to go further than the campaign finance that has already passed and really get money out of politics by having public financing of political campaigns plus free air time?

GEPHARDT: Absolutely.

John, let me tell you, it was hard to get done what we got done. We...

ANGER: Now that we have that settled...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: But we have more to do. If we want to do...

ANGER: Now that we...

EDWARDS: If we want to take away the power...

GEPHARDT: I'm with you.

EDWARDS: ... of these people, then we need...

(CROSSTALK)