Complete Transcript: Democrats Participate in Calif. Debate
Senator, would you take them in?
EDWARDS: Those who were fleeing for political asylum, yes.
KING: You would take them in.
EDWARDS: Those who were fleeing for political asylum, yes.
KING: Would you take them in?
KERRY: I think you'd have to for temporary reason. But you
have to immediately move to get an international force in there to restore
order.
KING: All right, let's go to the...
BROWNSTEIN: Let's move to domestic issues, in particular health
care.
KING: That's right.
BROWNSTEIN: About one in five Californians lack health insurance,
one of the highest ratios in the country.
BROWNSTEIN: In the last few weeks, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards
has been saying your health care plan is too expensive, it's unaffordable,
it's unrealistic.
Does his plan cover enough people? Is it ambitious enough?
KERRY: No.
BROWNSTEIN: Go on.
(LAUGHTER)
Don't let me stop you.
SHARPTON: But that was a yes or no, John, that time.
(LAUGHTER)
EDWARDS: Yes, but what time is it now?
(LAUGHTER)
KING: We've got a little while.
KERRY: Let me just say that I think John has an interesting
approach, and parts of it could be parts of a larger approach.
But here's what I would do. I want to give the middle class in
America a tax break, and I want to make companies more
competitive.
So my program is more ambitious, because what I do is I roll back
George Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, and I take part of
that money and I create a federal fund that takes all the catastrophic
cases in America out of the private system, which means, effectively,
every individual in every business in America will be capped at $50,000 of
risk.
That will provide each American who has health care today with a $1,000
minimum reduction in their premium. That's cash in the pocket. That's
a tax break. And it'll make American companies more competitive.
BROWNSTEIN: Senator Edwards, that is one of the major differences
between your plan. Is that idea affordable? Do you think the
federal government can take on the obligation of paying out three-
quarters of the cost of all catastrophic health care claims?
EDWARDS: Well, I think the issue becomes this: Whether you
believe health care is an isolated problem -- it's a very serious problem
for the American people -- or whether you think it's part of a bigger
frame that it needs to fit in.
I, myself, believe that there are two major problems in the economy in
America today. One is 35 million Americans who live in
poverty. When we lift Americans out of poverty, which I believe is a
moral responsibility -- and I've laid out new ideas about how we deal with
that problem -- we actually strengthen the economy because we put them in
the middle class, which is the engine of this economy.
We also have a struggling middle class, an extraordinarily struggling
middle class. Over the last 20 years, we've had a sea
change. Twenty years ago, most of our families were saving money,
they had financial security, it's all changed. Now they're saving
nothing. In fact, they're going into debt.
And that means if one thing goes wrong -- if they have a health care
problem, which is what we're discussing now, if they have a financial
problem or a layoff -- they go right off the cliff.
My view is that health care is a very important component of this
problem. But it's not the only component. You know, it's why I
mandate health care for all kids and cover the most vulnerable adults and
take on health care costs in a very serious way.
But we also have to find ways to not only lift these families out of
poverty who are living in poverty, but in addition to that, help families
save. Match what they are able to save, dollar-for-dollar. Help
people to invest. Help the millions of families who want to buy a
home, for example, by giving them a credit that allows them to make the
down payment...
BROWNSTEIN: Senator Kerry, you're both starting with the same
revenue stream, because you basically want to repeal the same elements of
the tax cut by and large.
KERRY: Right.
BROWNSTEIN: Why do you make the choice that you make to shift more
toward health care? Is he wrong in basically covering about 5 million
fewer people by the estimates than you are, and shifting that money toward
helping the middle class accumulate assets?
KERRY: Well, I also shift money towards the middle class, and I do
it by closing the egregious loopholes that reward companies for taking
jobs overseas. I mean, you mentioned earlier the people who have
contributed to me were those companies that go overseas. They're in
for a big surprise. I'm shutting those loopholes.
KERRY: We're going to end the notion that the American taxpayer is
going to actually subsidize somebody to take jobs overseas.
(APPLAUSE)
There are about $40 billion worth of benefits, and there are about $150
billion of overall noneconomic (inaudible).
We have a tax code today that's gone form 14 pages to 17,000
pages. And most Americans don't have one of those pages.
What I'm going to do is shut those loopholes. And we're going to
invest in education, health care, job creation, raising people out of
poverty.
KING: Janet has a question. But Dennis wants to make one
response, and then Janet. Dennis, then Janet.
KUCINICH: I agree with my friend John Edwards about we need to do
something about poverty. And that's why I'd like you to join me in
this proposal to have a universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care
system, because that would lift tens of millions of Americans out of
poverty. And, Larry...
KING: By the way, Harry Truman proposed that in 1948.
KUCINICH: Well, and you know what? John Conyers and I
introduced the bill in this Congress. And that would provide all
coverage for everyone, all medically necessary procedures, plus vision
care, dental care, mental health care...
KING: In other words, socialism?
KUCINICH: ... long-term care.
(APPLAUSE)
Wait a minute. You know what? What we have now, Larry, what
we have now, what we have now, Larry, is predatory capitalism which makes
of the American people a cash crop for the insurance companies and the
pharmaceutical companies.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Well, said.
KUCINICH: And so I'm talking about a change.
KUCINICH: And I'd like them to join me.
CLAYTON: I want to talk in a broader way back to the economy and
outsourcing, this idea of taking U.S. jobs overseas because they can be
done more cheaply there.
Now, Senator Kerry, you supported free trade. Isn't the loss of
good paying jobs to those who can do it faster and cheaper an unavoidable
consequence of open international markets that you support?
And as a follow to that, how do you square your support, and I think
this would be true of most of you, how do you square your support for
affordable clothes and food and all of the things that you can kind of
find at the Wal-Marts, cheap goods done overseas, with the fact that you
also support unions who fight for higher wages, better working conditions
and make consumer goods more expensive? It seems to me you're having
it both ways here.
KERRY: No, not at all. I don't know you wanted to ask first.
CLAYTON: You first and...
KERRY: The answer is not at all. And, yes, some of those jobs
are going to go overseas and I have been very honest with workers about
it. I mean, I stood in a UAW hall in Dayton the other day and a
fellow asked me -- the shop steward said, "Can you promise me you're going
to stop all the jobs from being outsourced?" I said, "No, I can't
promise that."
What I can promise you is, first of all, there is a differential
between the different kinds of jobs.
KERRY: Some jobs we can't compete with. I understand
that. But most jobs we can.
And if we provide a lower cost of health care in America, a lot of
companies will not feel compelled to leave, number one.
Number two, if we take away these loopholes in the tax code that
actually encourage people to go overseas, we change that differential.
Number three, if we start enforcing trade law -- look, I voted for some
trade agreements. Yes, I did. I believe in trade, and I'm not
going to run for president suggesting that America ought to bring a wall
down on it.
But I believe in smart trade, fair trade, not this open-ended
exploitation.
In NAFTA, we have signed agreements, three of which in labor are
enforceable. They have not been enforced. We have signed
agreements on environment; they haven't been enforced.
In the China trade agreement, we have anti-surge provisions. We
have anti-dumping provisions. Notwithstanding the dumping and the
surge, the administration did nothing.
I will fight for the American worker and guarantee that we enforce
that.
And finally, I'd just say to you, China has been violating intellectual
property laws, access to market, currency manipulation. Airbus undercut
Boeing, hurt the workers there.
This administration does nothing.
I will fight for labor and environment standards in our trade
agreements, and we'll enforce them. And it's that simple.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: And let's go around the horn, with an answer to Janet's
question.
Go ahead, Senator.
EDWARDS: OK. If I could just say a word about this, you asked
at the beginning of this debate about differences. This is a place
where this difference really matters. This is not some academic trade
policy Washington issue for me.
EDWARDS: I have seen up close what happens when mills and
factories close. I saw what happened in my own hometown when the mill
that my father worked in closed. I saw the faces of the men and women
who had worked there -- and I'd worked there myself when I was young --
had worked in that mill for decades, done the right thing, been
responsible, and all of a sudden, they had nowhere left to go, nowhere
left to go.
I take this very, very personally.
There is a difference here. There is a difference between Senator
Kerry and myself. In fairness, we both voted for permanent normal
trade relations for China.
But if you look at the remainder of our record, I voted against final
fast track authority for this president. Senator Kerry voted for
it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he voted for it. I
voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he voted for it. I voted
against the African trade agreement; he voted for it. I voted against
the Caribbean trade agreement; he voted for it.
I wasn't in the Congress when NAFTA was passed; he voted for it. But
when I campaigned for the Senate, I campaigned against it.
And the reason is because these trade agreements do not have...
(LAUGHTER)
... do not have -- what do -- he's got response, I guess.
KING: No, he looks shocked.
(LAUGHTER)
Let...
EDWARDS: But the reason -- if I can just finish this, I'm sorry,
I'm almost finished.
The reason I make this point is that these agreements did not have the
kind of labor and environmental protections that needed to be in the text
of the agreement and be enforced.
BROWNSTEIN: So you're saying his commitment -- the commitment he's
making in this campaign is suspect because he hasn't lived in it the
past? Is that what you're saying?
EDWARDS: I'm saying what he is saying now is different than some
of the votes he's cast in the past. And, if I might finish, is
different, more importantly, our records are different on this issue.
In fairness to him, I think what he's saying going forward is similar
to what I'm saying going forward. But we have very different...
KING: All right. Al and Dennis want to comment...
SHARPTON: What I think...
KING: Senator Kerry wants to respond because he seems shocked.
SHARPTON: Fine.
KERRY: Well, I am surprised, because in his major speech on the
economy in Georgetown this past June, John never even mentioned
trade.
And the fact is that, just the other day in New York, in The New York
Times, he is quoted as saying to The New York Times that he thought NAFTA
was important for our prosperity. Now he's claiming that he was
against it and these other agreements.
The fact is that the Chile trade agreement and the Singapore agreement
have very strong enforcement mechanisms, because those countries actually
have stronger enforcement, in some cases, than we do here in our country.
So I have said clearly for a number of years now, we have to have labor
and environment standards in all of our trade agreements. That is
exactly the same position as John Edwards.
BROWNSTEIN: Can I just clarify one point, Senator? Can I just
clarify one point?
You said you were critical of NAFTA. Obviously, you were not here
to cast a vote on it. If you became president, what would you do
about it? Would you seek to change it? And how would you seek to
change it?
EDWARDS: I would use, for example, the Free Trade of the Americas
agreement as a vehicle for renegotiating NAFTA.
EDWARDS: I don't -- Dennis and I don't agree about this. He
wants to cancel NAFTA, and I can't remember...
SHARPTON: I want to cancel it.
EDWARDS: They want to cancel it. I'm not for that. I
don't think Senator Kerry is for that either. But I think we do need
to renegotiate it.
And the problem with NAFTA is these side agreements don't work. You
have to put these labor/environmental protections in the text of the
agreement in order for it -- in order for the...
BROWNSTEIN: Will that be enough?
SHARPTON: No, I don't think so. But see, I think that's why
we have to have a convention and delegates have to be able -- we have to
keep these guys honest. You can't say that, "I had to vote on Iraq
despite some of the clause, but you shouldn't have voted on NAFTA with the
clause." We've got to be straight and come with a platform that makes
sense.
KING: It sounds like there's going to be a wild convention...
SHARPTON: This cost jobs for Americans. And it is unequivocal
evidence that it costs Americans jobs. People were
unemployed.
It also went below labor and human rights standards abroad.
We need to cancel NAFTA unequivocally. We need to have standards
that we would not deal with nations that would put laborers in those kinds
of situations.
We cannot protect American corporations and call that patriotic and not
protect American workers and call that protections.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Dennis?
KUCINICH: Larry, throughout this campaign I have visited city
after city where I've seen grass growing in parking lots where they used
to make steel, they used to make cars, they used to make ships.
KUCINICH: And let me tell you something: NAFTA and the WTO
must be canceled. Let me tell you why. The WTO, for example, it
doesn't permit any alterations.
When we, as members of Congress, sought from the administration a
Section 201 procedure to stop the dumping of steel into our markets so we
could stop our American steel jobs from being crushed, the World Trade
Organization ruled against the United States and said we had no right to
do that.
Now, the World Trade Organization, as long as we belong to it, will not
let us protect the jobs. This is the reason why we have outsourcing
going on right now. We can't tax it. We can't put tariffs on
it.
And that's why I say, in order to protect jobs in this country and to
be able to create a enforceable structure for trade, we need to get out of
NAFTA, get out of the WTO, stop the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas,
stop the Central American Free Trade...
KING: And you can do that by edict?
(APPLAUSE)
KUCINICH: Well, the president has the power to withdraw from both
NAFTA and the WTO upon a six-months notice. And I would exercise that
authority to help save American jobs.
KING: Janet has a question on immigration.
CLAYTON: Yes, gentlemen, you are here in California, where one of
every eight people living in the United States live. The biggest
growth in California in the last decade has been because of
immigration. California has to pay for the education, health and
environmental costs of both illegal and legal immigration.
Since immigration is considered a net plus for the country, why
shouldn't the federal government share in the cost of immigration for
California and for New York and for the other states that bear those
costs?
KING: Senator Kerry first.
KERRY: Well, we do share, in some cases, for obviously Medicaid,
and we share with respect to some of the health reimbursements that take
place in the system. But not enough, and I understand that.
This is why my health care plan -- and I think all of the Democrats
have a health care plan. George Bush has no -- let's stay focused
here. George Bush has no health care plan at all for most Americans,
other than those who can save money. And that's not most Americans
today.
So that's the beginning.
Secondly, we need immigration reform in this country. I think
everybody understands that. But we ought to be paying for a health
care plan that helps to cover -- if we funded education, the president
kept the promise of No Child Left Behind, if we fully funded Title I, if
we funded Head Start, if we did the things that the federal government has
promised to do, a mandate on special needs education, and we're not
funding it.
When I'm president, we are going to fully fund special needs education,
and that will come out of the closing of those loopholes and the rollback
of the tax cuts.
CLAYTON: But that does not address the question of the states
bearing the cost for illegal -- particularly illegal immigration.
KERRY: Look, one of the things we need to do is obviously have a
level of immigration reform that's not a patchwork, not a Band-Aid.
KERRY: The president's plan is really a plan to exploit workers in
America. It's not a real immigration reform plan.
What I want to do is have a full immigration reform plan that involves
earned legalization, involves the technology and support we need on the
border, work with President Fox in order to have a legitimate guest worker
program. And finally, we need to crack down on those people in
America who hire people illegally and exploit workers in the United
States.
BROWNSTEIN: Senator Kerry, can I follow on that...
KERRY: If we did all of those together, we can begin to cope with
the problem...
(CROSSTALK)
BROWNSTEIN: You talk about earned legalization, and that is
basically a process by which people who came here illegally could work
toward legal status.
KERRY: Sure. Absolutely.
BROWNSTEIN: Why would that be fair to all of the people who came
legally and are waiting in line to become citizens? How would you
create equity for those who play by the rules?
CLAYTON: And further, why is that fair to native-born Americans
who are competing for those same jobs?
KERRY: Because so many of those people have children in America
and because of our constitution, those people were born in America, they
are American citizens. And I don't think it is a good thing if they
are working, if they've paid their taxes, if they've stayed out of trouble
to start separating families and destroy the good work they've done
through those years to be part of our country.
KING: Senator Edwards?
KERRY: I think it makes more sense to bring them out of the
shadows and start working them toward citizenship.
(CROSSTALK)
EDWARDS: Excuse me, I'm sorry.
KERRY: Go ahead.
EDWARDS: No, no, I was just going to say, it's interesting you
talk about the experience here in California. I grew up in a small,
rural community in North Carolina that's now half Latino.
And the families who came to my hometown came there for the same reason
my family came there, because they wanted to build a better life for their
kids and their families. They are making an enormous contribution to
that small town and that community.
And the right thing to do for these families who are working hard,
being responsible, raising their kids -- it's really a pretty basic thing
-- the right thing to do is to let them become American citizens, to have
the right to earn citizenship. It's just that simple.
(APPLAUSE)
It is the difference between what is right and what is wrong.
BROWNSTEIN: And do you worry that will encourage more people to
cross illegally...
EDWARDS: No, I think...
BROWNSTEIN: ... knowing that, later down the line, there may be an
opportunity to become citizens?
EDWARDS: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
All I was going to say is, no, I think this needs to be combined not
only with better security on our border, which Senator Kerry talked about,
but I think we also should expand legal immigration to release some of the
pressure that exists for folks coming across our borders.
KING: I see. Should foreign-born -- be a change of
Constitution and become president?
(LAUGHTER)
KERRY: Do you have a California interest?
(LAUGHTER)
KING: Just asking. I have no particular...
SHARPTON: As long as they don't have a record of being
terminators.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
KING: What you favor that?
KERRY: I've never really thought about it that much.
KING: Never thought about it?
KERRY: I haven't thought about it, no, I don't...
© 2004 FDCH E-Media
|
