I. Introduction by Marian Wright Edelman and video.
II. One-minute opening statements.
III. "Lightening" round--responses of "30 seconds or less than a minute" to question on the war.
IV. First round of questions and follow ups from the panelists.
V. Second round of questions and follow ups from the panelists.
VI. "Lightening" round--question on affirmative action.
VII. One-minute closing statements.

Transcript (V)
FROM THE CDF TRANSCRIPT

 JUDY WOODRUFF: We're going to begin the second round of questions now, Michelle, with a question for Senator Braun.

MICHELLE MARTIN: Ambassador Braun, since you've been so good about the time limits, do you want to answer the same question, or do you want a new one?

FORMER AMBASSADOR CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN: I think Reverend Sharpton did a great job with that.
You did, you did a good job.

MICHELLE MARTIN: The question I have for you, then, is about the rate of incarceration, and some new figures came out this week that show the United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, if not the highest. We also know that African Americans and Hispanics continue to be incarcerated at a rate far higher than Whites, often when they're accused of the same crimes. Is this inherently a problem, and if so, what is your proposal for addressing it?

FORMER AMBASSADOR CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN: Let's face it, the issue, the underlying issue to all of this conversation has to do with poverty, and income inequality, and the lack of hope and opportunity in communities. When young girls don't think that they have much of a future, they have babies instead, and they don't get married, and they don't set up stable families, and communities begin to fall apart. When young men can't envision having a good paying, nine-to-five job, or even a job working overtime, they go out and they sell crack, and they do horrible things, and they tear up the social fabric. And so I think that, to echo Reverend Sharpton, what presidents do is help to create an environment in which change can happen in a country that desperately wants it. The American people-we are a great people, this is a great country-and all we have to do is tap the resources we have to make certain that no American is left behind, that every community has good jobs in it, that people have hope that they can contribute to the whole community to the maximum extent of their ability, whether they're Black, White, Hispanic, male, or female. And I think, I want to congratulate, this is my first time on such a panel, but I am really proud to be a Democrat. We are at least touching upon the issues that the people care about.

(Applause)

MICHELLE MARTIN: Ambassador, the applause is coming out of your time, I'm sorry to say. But given that a majority of those incarcerated are non-violent offenders, you don't believe that government policy has anything to do with the high incarceration rate? You think it's all a matter of culture, hopelessness?

FORMER AMBASSADOR CAROL MOSELEY BRAUN: It is hopelessness. Government has a lot- government, particularly at the state level. Remember, most of the criminal laws are state laws, and so the response to poverty is often to just lock them up and throwaway the key. And then you send them back out on the street again, and they can't get a job, because then they're offenders and repeat offenders.

We can work with these young people; we can salvage these young people who in many instances, as you point out, are in prison for non-violent crimes; give them the education, give them the training. Let's reconstruct our communities by salvaging and saving the people who live there, and I think that that is an approach that the American people would endorse, because it's logical, it's sensible, and it does reflect the higher values that we share as a country.
(Applause)
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Mark Shields has a question for Governor Dean.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. Governor Dean, you have been reported saying if Al Gore had your position on gun control, you would not be running, because he would be president today. But it is safer today in the United States to be an on-duty law enforcement officer than it is to be a child or a teen, one of whom is killed by gunfire every two hours and 40 minutes. The House has voted to give gun makers and dealers unprecedented protection from liability from local or state governments and victims of violence. The manufacturers of teddy bears and toaster ovens are more regulated than American-made guns are, and when toys would be liable for more negligence in design, production and distribution, what would you do if this legislation came before your desk or if you were in the Congress today? And this has, obviously, nothing to do with sportsmen and hunters.

FORMER GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I would vote no, and I'd veto the bill as president. Let me tell you why my position on gun control is what it is, and why it is what it is. We have no gun control in Vermont, essentially, of any kind. It's a rural state. We actually do have one bill, you're not allowed to have a loaded gun in your car because drive-by shootings in Vermont are against deer, not people. We don't think that's nice. We also have the lowest homicide rate in the country. One year in my 11-1/2 years, we had five homicides. We don't need a lot of gun control in Vermont. On the other hand, people need lots of gun control in New York and California, and probably Washington, D.C.

So, let me tell you what my position is. I support the assault weapons ban, I support reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. I support the Brady Bill. I would like to use the Brady Bill to close the gun show loophole. And after that, I would like to let each state make their own laws because what you need in D.C. and California and New York is a lot different than what you need in Wyoming and Montana and New Jersey. But I do not believe we ought to exempt gun dealers, who may be breaking the law, from liability. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

(Applause)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Dean, I have a somewhat related follow-up. It really picks up on something you said earlier. You were quoted back in 1996, after President Clinton signed the welfare reform bill into law, you said: "Liberals like Marian Wright Edelman are wrong. The bill is strong on work, on time limits assistance, and it provides adequate protection for children." Do you stand by what you said?

FORMER GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN: Are you kidding? I would never stand by that in front of Marian Wright Edelman. I wouldn't dare. This is like being on Tim Russert's show, how many years ago, seven years ago. We were the first state in the country to do welfare reform, even before Wisconsin. What we do is, we support folks for private jobs, we give them childcare, we give them daycare, we give them health care for a year after they go to work. And the folks that we put into work, work in the private sector, many of them are now supervising people, and they have not returned to the unemployment rolls. So we were the pioneers of welfare reform. In fact, we did it before Bill Clinton. It was a little different. But I think welfare reform has been an incredibly positive force.

I do not, however, support the ridiculous proposal of the Bush Administration to require women to work 40-hour weeks and leave every child at home with no childcare money. That is not sensible welfare reform.

(Applause)
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Mark has a question for Senator Edwards.

MARK SHIELDS: Senator Edwards, you're barely two years into your public life. Critics would say you're inexperienced. You would say you're undefeated.

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: It's not two years, it's four, by the way.

MARK SHIELDS: It's just flown by. I'm sorry. How could you, with no personal military experience, and no apparent expertise in that area, persuade the electorate that you would be a credible, dependable Commander in Chief in the war against terrorism?

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: Because I have a set of ideas about what needs to be done here in this country to protect the American people, including taking away from the FBI the responsibility for fighting terrorism within our borders. They've been an absolute abomination in doing that job. That job should be taken away from them and given to a separate and different agency, while we protect our civil rights and civil liberties at the same time. We should do a much better job of protecting our borders and doing inspections at our ports to keep dangerous things and dangerous terrorists out of this country. We should do a much better job of making sure our most vulnerable targets are protected-our nuclear plants, our chemical plants, our stadiums-and we should get the American people more involved in protecting themselves. They've not been asked to sacrifice. We have not tapped into their patriotism. Every parent in America wants to be involved in not only protecting their own family, but protecting their community. We should ask for their help. Most families have no idea what they're supposed to do different today than they would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in their neighborhood or in their community. That is a failure of leadership. All those things are proposals that I have laid out for the American people.

And second, I have a clear idea about what America's role in the world is. America should lead in a way that brings others to us, not that drives others away. Because every single family in America-this is no longer one of those abstract discussions that used to go on in Washington about foreign policy-I would say to every family in America, everyone watching this broadcast, your family is safer and more secure in a world where America is looked up to and respected.

(Applause)

MARK SHIELDS: How then do you explain what every poll shows, Senator, which is an overwhelming preference and confidence on the part of the American voters on the issue of national security in the Republicans instead of the Democrats?

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: Because they haven't heard our case. They are about to hear our case. During this presidential campaign, for the first time since George Bush was elected president, during this presidential campaign, after I am the nominee of this party, they will hear the case about what George W. Bush has failed to do. What he has failed to do here in this country, what he has failed to do abroad. It is a powerful case. I've been a lawyer for 20 years before I was elected to the United States Senate. This is the easiest case I've ever had to argue.

(Applause)
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Juan has a question for Representative Gephardt.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Representative Gephardt, children and adults involved in the foster care and adoption system in this country are almost universally critical of it as a system in disrepair, a system that does not serve children. Realizing that we're talking about you as president of the United States, not as a governor, what could you do to try to help children caught up in a nightmare situation of foster care that oftentimes loses them or allows them to be abused?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD GEPHARDT: It is a system that needs great repair. We have tried in the Congress in the 25 years that I've been there to repair it. Some things that were done were good. Some things that were done were not. We need to go back at it. It is a system that is broken. I had a case in my own district where someone who was providing foster care for 13 or 14 children was found to be abusing the children that they were being paid to take care of. It cannot go on. We have to treat every child's welfare in this country like we would treat the welfare of our own child. And we have to have leadership in this country to make sure that that happens. No longer slogans, idle slogans. This president and this administration has made a fraud of Leave No Child Behind. It is a fraud. It is a shoddy gimmick. It is cynical. They never meant it. They're never going to reform these programs. We need new leadership in this country to really leave no child behind. And when I'm president, that's what will happen.

(Applause)

JUAN WILLIAMS: Does that mean you would entertain the idea of somehow federalizing foster care, or mandating change? What specific change in terms of adoption policy in the country?

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD GEPHARDT: I think this has always been something that states have had jurisdiction over. I don't know that you can easily federalize it. But I do think that we can put federal effort behind helping states reform this program, so that adoption is easier, so that we encourage people to adopt children, especially older children that have sometimes trouble being adopted.

In short, we've got to have a sea change in the way the leadership of this country deals with children. I talked a minute ago about getting every child covered with health insurance. We've been talking about this for 50 years. I helped try to lead the fight for the Clinton health care plan. We failed. I learned. I've got a plan that I think I can pass. I can get labor for it, I can get business for it, I can get the health care community for it. We can get this done. We can reform foster care. We can reform adoption. We can actually see that we have early childhood education and after-school programs in every school in this country. It is an abomination that we've got two million people in prison in this country, but it's no wonder, because we haven't taken care of the children at the earliest stage. That's what we have to do.
(Applause)
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Okay, Juan, you have a question for Senator Graham.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Senator Graham, you come from a state with a large immigrant population, and you have proposed an amendment to end caps on enrollment for the children of legal immigrants who are seeking to participate in the children's health insurance program, the CHIP program. Is that something that could be extended nationwide, ending that cap, so that children of immigrants could get health insurance?

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Yes, Juan. In fact, my proposal would be a nationwide proposal. 1996 was one of the low points in the United States Congress. A very vicious, mean-spirited set of legislation was enacted, including this, which eliminated access to basic services for legal immigrants in the United States. Who suffered the most? The children of those legal immigrants. I think it is imperative as part of a comprehensive program to provide care for children that we take action now to reverse that mistake, the horrendous mistake that we made in 1996.

JUAN WILLIAMS: And when people come to you and say, "you know that we can't afford it," what will you say?

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: The answer is, we can afford it. These legal immigrants are paying taxes, they are working families. They contribute much more to our economy than those who fall into a status that makes them eligible for welfare. We should be building on these families, not excluding these families.
(Applause)
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michelle has a question for Senator Kerry.

MICHELLE MARTIN: Hello, Senator Kerry. I have a couple of follow-ups, if that's okay. So far, we've heard that you're in favor of razing the Bush tax cuts. So is everybody else. You're in favor of more for childcare. So is everybody else. You supported the war resolution. So did half of your colleagues. So what's the difference between you and everybody else?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: I think there are great distinctions between us, but the most important thing that everybody here in the country is looking for is confidence that someone will offer real leadership, and has passed the test of character with respect to leadership, so that they know that that person will stand up and take this country where we want to go. I believe that beginning with my service in Vietnam, and then my fight to end the war that I came to see as wrong. My efforts as a district attorney, first assistant district attorney, and leading the district attorney's office, where I showed by hiring, when women were only 11 percent of the bar, I hired almost 50 percent women. I created the first rape counseling efforts there. We delivered justice on time. I made groundbreaking efforts as lieutenant governor to make acid rain a national issue, and to make it part of the plank, ultimately, that we passed in the Clean Air Act.

And as a Senator, I've walked a different path. I am the only person that has nm for the Senate four times, been elected without ever taking a dime of soft money, PAC money, or independent expenditures. I have shown leadership by standing up to Ronald Reagan and holding him accountable for an illegal war in Central America. I blew the whistle on Oliver North and his illegal aid network, on the BCCI Bank, and I believe what the country wants is the capacity to make America safer, stronger, and more secure and whose priorities for children, for health care, for the environment, and education are in sync with most Americans. And I believe I offer that.

MICHELLE MARTIN: Senator Kerry, I wanted to also clarify something that you said to Mark earlier. Doesn't your logic on federal supreme court cases mean the Dred Scott case could never have been overturned?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: Certainly you can challenge a case. But I, as a president, I mean, obviously some jurist may come along, and the court may be appointed at some point in time, and they'd have the ability to say, we are reinterpreting the law at some later date. That is precisely why, as I said, I believe it is settled law. I believe there is a right of privacy. And one of the things that is at stake in this race in a way that it hasn't been in a long time, is the Supreme Court of the United States. Just because the Supreme Court made a mistake in the appointment or the selection they made in the Year 2000 for the presidency doesn't mean that we have to live with that mistake for the next six years. And I believe that we may have retirements of three or four justices over the course of the next four years. Therefore, I think that right of privacy is at stake, and I certainly, as president, and every voter in America has a right to make a decision whether they want a president who will pick somebody who will respect that right, and I think it is vital.
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Michelle with a question for Representative Kucinich.

MICHELLE MARTIN: Good evening, Congressman. Is there anything in your public life you've been wrong about?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH: I- think that with a public life that began in 1967, as a candidate for city council, and served a number of terms in council and clerk of courts and Mayor of Cleveland, I'd say as Mayor of Cleveland, I probably had a few opportunities to do better. I mean, you know, Babe Ruth, who was at one time "home run king" in this country, at one time, I think he struck out about 712 times. It's possible to make mistakes. And I try to dwell on what the possible is, and learn from my mistakes. And over my career, I'm sure I've made more than my share.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'll follow-up on something else. We notice that you were the only serving member of Congress here on the panel who has actually signed onto the bill that Marian Wright Edelman mentioned earlier, the Dodd-Miller Act to Leave No Child Behind. Why do you think you're the only one?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH: Let me say, that was not a mistake. I try to look for opportunities to lead the way on issues of social welfare. That's why I sponsored the universal pre-kindergarten act. That's why I worked to create a Department of Peace, to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society. I try to set the pace in everything that I do. That's why I was proud to sign onto the Children's Defense Fund effort with Dodd-Miller.
 

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Mark has a question for Reverend Sharpton. MARK SHIELDS: Senator Lieberman, you came of age when the--- JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, Senator Lieberman.

MARK SHIELDS: You came of age when the nation had a military draft, and when three out of four college graduates served in the military, as well as three out of four high school graduates. Could you tell us why you did not serve in the military, and do you regret it?

SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: I did not serve in the military, because I had two different kinds of : deferments, or exemptions. One was because I was a student, and the second was because I was a parent. And do I ! regret it? I do. I wish that I had been part of that service. I have been part of public- part of it is because I spent a significant part of my work in the Senate of the United States on the Armed Services Committee. I have the highest regard for what our military does. I've tried hard to support them. I'm extremely proud of how brilliantly and bravely they've just performed in Iraq. I've worked with John McCain and Evan Bayh and others to try to create inducements for more people to both get into military service and be part of other forms of national service. So you can't do it all, but as I look back, I wish I'd had the opportunity to serve in the military. In some sense, I hope that my service in public office and particularly my backing of the military has helped in some way to make up for that.

MARK SHIELDS: Just a follow-up on what else has been said. There seems to be a consensus emerging from your colleagues that we can't legislate morality, yet in 1964 in this country, there were, frankly, immoral, segregationist policies of prohibiting African Americans from eating in restaurants, going to theaters, staying in hotels, having jobs. Wasn't that an example of government actually legislating morality?

SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: It absolutely was, and I do not take the position that we cannot legislate on the basis of morality. There are some areas where we tread lightly, because they are matters of privacy and civil liberties in our society. But, the reality is that almost everything we do as public servants, at our best, is a reflection of our values. So I don't toss that aside. Look, we have a President of the United States who says that passing a tax cut is a moral issue. But he somehow doesn't think it's a moral issue when as a result of that tax cut you can't afford to support better education for our kids, more childcare for our kids, and health care for every American. That's not good values, and I think it's wrong.

(Applause)
 

MARK SHIELDS: Reverend Sharpton, Fidel Castro of Cuba, whom you praise in your book as "absolutely awesome," and "a great leader," has just this week sentenced to 25-year jail terms more than 80-in secret trials- more than 80 Cuban dissidents who are doing nothing more than advocating democracy. Is this the absolutely awesome act of a great leader?

REVEREND AL SHARPTON: No, certainly it is not. What I said in my book-I did a chapter on leadership, and I praised Ronald Reagan, who I disagree with just about everything he did. I praised Winston Churchill, who I consider an imperialist. I talked about the qualities of leadership, and I described a meeting with Castro. I don't agree with a lot of Castro's policies. I did not say what he did was awesome. I think that there are some people that show leadership qualities that I may disagree with, but my discussion in the book, Al On America--by the way, it's still in the stores-my discussion in the book was on leadership qualities. I also later in the book talked about leaders that I think led in the direction I agree with, like Dr. King, like Reverend Jackson. I think a great leader is not only married, but a husband, like Peter Edelman who had the moral courage to stand up against welfare reform when it counted. But, we were not talking about direction. I was talking about qualities of leaders. I think there are some good reporters, who I absolutely disagree with what they write.

(Applause)

MARK SHIELDS: Reverend Sharpton, could you name one domestic initiative of President Bush's, one idea of his, with which you agree?

REVEREND AL SHARPTON: I only have a minute now. I think I agree with the president saying that we must have a reform of education, I just don't agree with how he reforms it. I agree with the president being more inclusive in his hiring practices. He's put people of color in high office, the Secretary of State, Ms. Rice, he's even nominated some judges. He just has to realize because of their color doesn't make them appropriate. Everybody that is my color is not my kind. All my skin folk ain't my kinfolk.

(Applause)