PART I - Introduction and Opening Statements
PART II - Six General Questions Posed by Selected AFSCME Members
PART III - Questions from the Floor
PART IV - Closing Statements
 

We'll now move to the next part of the program.
MCENTEE: We're now going to take questions from the floor.  We kind of call this freedom hall.
We have six microphones, and you should get in line at one of them if you'd like to ask a question.  Please keep your questions brief, and if your question has already been asked by somebody else, either sit down, or come up with another question.
Candidates, I'm going to direct the questions to you up here in the front, and follow-ups with them to ensure some equal time.
I'd like to ask that you keep your answers brief.
I'll start over here, microphone three.  Hello.
DAVID WARRICK (ph): Hello, my name is David Warrick (ph).  I'm from AFSCME Council 62 representing our members in Indiana and Kentucky.  I'm also a member of Local 795 from my small home-town city of Richmond, Indiana.
In my home town, I'm seeing many of our manufacturing jobs going away.  This is caused both by the economy and also by NAFTA.  I see many of them being moved to Mexico.  Many of our members in Indiana and Kentucky live in small rural home towns like mine.  We're seeing poverty in these rural areas.
So my question is, what are you doing, or what programs are you going to create, to help with rural poverty and rural economic development?
Thank you.
MCENTEE: Ambassador Braun, do you want to take a shot at that?
 MOSELEY BRAUN: Certainly.  You know, small-business development is an integral part of rural development because that's where the jobs happen and innovation happens.
I propose a technology transfer to help us develop and build new technologies that will give us the ability to create manufacturing jobs, specifically in this country again.
Manufacturing jobs really have a double effect, because they not only allow people to work in good-paying jobs to create something that we can sell abroad, but they also then create spin-off service industries around them.
And so I think that investment in technology transfer will go a long way to helping to create jobs, and then I come back to an old- fashioned idea, frankly, for the hard-core unemployed, which is to have public- service employment.
I mean, it worked in the last depression that we had, I don't see any reason why we don't back to giving people work that's paid for by the federal government.  Every American should have the right to work to a job that they can support their family on, and I think that the federal government and the national administration has a major role to play in bolstering job creation in small communities, rural communities.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Senator Edwards, do you have something to say on that?
EDWARDS: Yes, just very briefly, Jerry.
One of the things we as Democrats are going to have to do in order to take back the White House is stop treating rural America as a place you fly over between New York and Los Angeles.  We need...
(APPLAUSE)
... to reach out to rural Americans.  We need ideas about how to make their lives better.  I grew up in rural North Carolina.  I have seen what's happened to the economy in rural North Carolina.  The same thing is happening with the economy here in rural Iowa.
Among the things we need to do is establish economic revitalization zones not only in urban areas, where they've helped and worked, but also in rural areas in America, in cities and towns, where communities have lost jobs, where plants have closed, where low commodity prices are making -- are putting farmers on the brink of bankruptcy.
We need to provide as a national policy financial incentives to get manufacturers, businesses to come to these communities where jobs are so desperately needed so that we can replace the jobs we've lost.
And second, we need a national trade policy in America that's fair and allows our American workers to compete with those overseas.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Microphone number four?
BRENDA CARPENTER: Good morning.
MCENTEE: Good morning.
BRENDA CARPENTER: My name is Brenda Carpenter.  I am the president of Local 2218 in New Jersey.  I am the chair of the Women's Committee for Council I.  I am also a staff rep for Council 71.
My question has to do with Medicaid.  Despite great accomplishments in expanding Medicaid coverage for low-income children in recent years, the Medicaid program is coming under increasing pressure because states attempt to close large budget gaps.
The Bush administration has prepared -- has proposed converting Medicaid to capped block grants, which also could have a devastating effect on long-term care for seniors.
Now that I'm thinking about retiring, I need to know how would you propose to solve the Medicaid financing crisis?
MCENTEE: Thank you.  Thank you, sister.
Senator Graham, you're most certainly familiar and familiar with the FMAP (ph).  Do you want to take a shot at that?
GRAHAM: Yes, Jerry, and I'll start by saying what we shouldn't do, which is to convert Medicaid from a program which provides direct entitlements to those Americans who are eligible, into a block grant to the states.  That is just a subterfuge.
(APPLAUSE)
And the result of that subterfuge will be to have the federal government shift more and more and more of the responsibility to the states and the benefits to the Americans who are eligible will become less and less and less.
In the plan that I submitted to the Senate earlier this week, I provided that the $40 billion that would go to the states this year, would be distributed based on the Medicaid formula in recognition of the fact that Medicaid was such a critical issue for the American people.
Also, Medicaid will be a central part of the plan that I will submit to provide coverage for health insurance for all Americans, particularly to allow the working poor to be able to participate in Medicaid and therefore, provide health insurance for their families.
MCENTEE: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
Representative Gephardt?
GEPHARDT: I think we all need to stop and reflect on the fact that the Republican Party has fought every initiative that we have passed in the last 50 years, for health care for the American people.
They fought and voted against Medicare.  They fought and voted against Medicaid.
Newt Gingrich, the Contract With America, tried to make and did make huge cuts in Medicare that have destroyed about half of the nursing homes in this country, and yes, they want to cap Medicaid because that's just another way to try to get rid of it over time, which is their ultimate goal.
I'm sorry, the Republican Party is never going to do the right things for the American people with regard to health care.
My health-care plan gets everybody covered.  It takes care of state and local employees.  It guarantees that your costs won't go up, your benefits won't be cut, and it puts money into COBRA for unemployed workers.  It puts money in Medicare for people who lose their jobs after age 55, and yes, it puts money in Medicaid for kids and families that still fall through the cracks.
If we're going to fix this health care system, and this is the moral issue of our time, we have to get to take back the White House and take back the Congress, and that's what we're going to do in November 2004.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
A delegate at mike five.
JOYCE KING: Joyce King from Peoria, Illinois. I'm a retiree and a member of Chapter 31, Retirees of AFSCME.
While seniors have the greatest need for prescription drugs, millions lack coverage and can't afford to buy these expensive prescriptions.  Even those that are lucky enough to have been covered by their employer are finding their benefits are eroding, and this is a direct result of rising costs.
Could you explain some of the differences among competing proposals for prescription drug coverage for seniors?
Which ones will ensure affordable and comprehensive coverage, contain drug prices and help employers continue providing good health- care benefits to their retirees?
MCENTEE: Thank you.  Governor Dean?
DEAN: The best way to do this is -- the best plan we could possibly have to ensure what you just asked for is to change presidents.
(APPLAUSE)
Because -- it's true.  We are just not going to get anywhere. This president, I predict, will pass a health-care plan this year for prescription drugs, and it will be just like No child Left Behind.  It will be all sizzle and no steak.
There will not be anything in there that works, and it will probably be the same plan they passed in Nevada, which didn't help anybody at all.
Here's what we need to do.  There was a bill -- or amendment -- which Bob Graham sponsored with Gordon Smith last time, which every- single member of the Senate who is running for president voted for. That's the bottom line.  We could at least do that.  That would at least get everybody covered for about $400 billion over a 10-year period.
We can do a little better than that.  In fact, we can put together a prescription drug benefit for seniors so that every -- no senior in America will have to choose between paying the rent, paying their food and buying drugs.
And I have seen seniors split their doses in half in my practice, or come in hoping that I had some extra drugs in my cabinet so I could help them through their health-care crises.  We can do this.  It is very doable.  It will not be done by a Republican by any circumstances.
Any one of us up here would do better than George Bush in getting you a prescription benefit.
(APPLAUSE)
MCINTEE: Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Representative Kucinich?
 KUCINICH: I've held many meetings in my district with seniors to talk about this exact matter, Joyce, and I hear the stories of people foregoing purchase of things that they need at their house or apartment because they have the money to pay for their prescription.
People are paying $300, $400, $500 a month.  I sometimes wonder how do people survive.  How do seniors survive paying that kind of money?
My proposal for universal health care contains a provision which will have the federal government purchase in bulk these medications so that we can get the best price possible and include that as a benefit under national health care.
I further want to say that when you consider from my district and others go to Canada, take buses to Canada in order to get lower prescription costs.  Canada has a national health-care system.  Other places in the world that have lower cost of prescription drugs, also have national health-care systems, fully paid, universal health care.
Let's get the profit out of health care and let's get these pharmaceutical companies out of the business of gouging the American consumers.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me ask a question, if I could, and anybody take a shot at it.
When Representative Kucinich talks about Canada, and it's the same kind of question in reference to Mexico and people that live in western states in terms of going to those countries and getting a less expensive drug.
I guess it was about -- maybe you could help me up here -- I guess it's about five or six years ago where a piece of legislation was passed by the Congress, I believe signed by Clinton, that was in favor of the re-importation of drugs from Canada and Mexico to the United States, because as you said, they are cheaper.
They would -- there would have to be at least according to the legislation, proposed regulations by the secretary of HHS, and it didn't say "may" or "if you want to try it." It said, "you shall do that."
Now it's been on the books for like seven years.  Donna Shalala didn't write those regulations.  Tommy Thompson hasn't written those regulations, and so here is at least a piece of legislation that is sitting there waiting for the secretary of HHS to sign off on regulations that would at least give -- not totally it won't answer the question -- but at least give relief, some relief to people that are in that category.
And any of you.  You know, the pharmaceutical industries are so powerful and they have been the vehicle that has prevented this from happening.  Anybody take a shot at it.  What would you do?
Go ahead.
GRAHAM: Well, I'd start out by enforcing the law which is on the books.  It is a reasonable proposal to allow the people of America to have access to the same prescription drugs, made by the same company, packaged in the same bottles as they can buy in the United States but in many cases for two or three times greater price.
I would also make it easier for generic drugs to be made available to the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
Today, there are all kinds of subterfuges which are used to keep generic drugs from coming to market and being available to the American people.
An earlier question was what are the differences between the various plans for prescription drugs?  Let me tell you the fundamental difference between the Bush plan and almost every other plan.  He says that for the 85 percent plus of Americans who get their health care through the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, they will only get prescription drugs if either they've very poor or if they have extraordinarily high expenses.
For the 15 percent who are in HMOs, they will get an adequate prescription drug benefit.  What is the goal?  It's to privatize Medicare by driving, herding American seniors into what they want -- what they don't want to do which is to join an HMO.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
In this segment, we've covered everybody at least once except Reverend Sharpton. So let's turn to the Reverend on this question.
SHARPTON: I think that the first thing is -- the problem is a question of having a president that will enforce existing laws, and then instruct people that are in the administration, particularly the HHS secretary, to sign the legislation you're talking about.
But I think there's a more fundamental problem.  I said at the beginning, we need to in 2004 to talk about adding a move to support the amendments that are now pending -- H.R. 28, H.R. 29, and H.R. 30 in the House -- to add amendments to the Constitution.  One of the amendments is the right for Americans to have health care.
If the right wing can energize their electorate with constitutional fights, the right to bear arms, the right for other things, we need to talk about the real rights in America.
Americans need to start with the premise we have the right to health care, and then have government use that as the goal toward that.  Then to enforce that, we would regulate big business.  We would go after the pharmaceutical companies.  We would put a ceiling on medical costs.
I think that we must first set the premise so we get to the right conclusion.  The problem is that we don't think we have a right to health care in this country, but we do think that Charleton Heston has a right to a rifle.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with that, and we need to challenge that in 2004.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
We now go to mike number two.
JACKIE DEHILL (ph): Good afternoon and hello.  My name is Jackie De Hill (ph).  I'm from the state of New Mexico.  I'm a state employee.  We have a great governor, Bill Richardson.
(APPLAUSE)
My question today is regarding the Supreme Court appointments. In the light of ongoing battles in the Senate of judicial appointments and with the likelihood that multiple slots in the Supreme Court will be opened over the next few years, these battles are sure to get more intense.
What will be your standards for selecting judicial nominees who would protect, rather than erode, our constitutional, civil and labor rights?
Thank you.
MCINTEE: Thank you.  Why don't we go to some of the senators, because they have been deeply involved in this process of selection? And start off with Senator Edwards.
EDWARDS: Thank you, Jerry.  I think actually I may be the only one on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and so I deal with this issue every day.
These judges that are coming from the Bush White House, if I can just put this in simple terms, they will take your rights away.  It is no more complicated than that.
And we have to have judges who we know will enforce our civil- rights laws, will enforce our equal rights laws, will protect our civil liberties, will protect our constitutional rights, and this battle for these judges, including the Supreme Court nominee when it comes, is a battle about the fabric of America and what America really is.
Having grown up the way I did in the South, have grown up with the civil-rights movement, having watched people suffer and struggle in the cause for civil rights, we cannot go backwards.  We must have judges that we know will enforce our civil-rights laws.
(APPLAUSE)
By the way, the president is also dead wrong about the affirmative action program at the University of Michigan.
(APPLAUSE)
And we need judges who we know will protect a woman's right to choose, will not allow Roe v. Wade to be eroded.
(APPLAUSE)
And they are the last protection against people like John Ashcroft, taking away your privacy, your civil liberties and your constitutional rights.  This fight for judges, not just at the Supreme Court level, but at the circuit-court level and at even sometimes at the district-court level, is a fight that goes to the very fabric of what makes America great.
And if we as Democrats aren't willing to stand up on this issue, we don't stand for anything.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.  Thank you, Senator.
Governor Dean asked to take a shot at this. Governor Dean?
DEAN: This is going to be a real quick one.  First of all, I want to thank Senator Edwards and all of the senators and also Tom Daschle for filibustering Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owens.  They are not qualified to serve.
(APPLAUSE)
Second of all, Bob Graham and I are the only people that have actually ever appointed judges, and I never thought I'd ever say anything that I agreed with Dick Nixon, but what we need is a strict constructionist. What we really need is a somebody who is going to uphold the Constitution, and what the president is doing is appointing members of the far-right federalist society who don't see the Constitution the way most Americans do.
I happen to think there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution, and we need to appoint judges who will support our civil liberties, who will declare parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.  It is not OK...
(APPLAUSE)
... it is not OK to hold American citizens without the right to see a lawyer indefinitely.  It is not OK to snoop through our video files to see what we rented last Saturday night.
I'm going to appoint judges, as I have in the past, who will uphold the Constitution, work hard and will not come with an ideological agenda.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Ambassador Braun asked for a few moments.
We know how extreme this political -- the political agenda is of this current administration when the notion that Rehnquist's retiring frightens us.  The fact of the matter is that they have so driven this court to the far, far, right wing that most of Americans would be hard pressed to identify any of our fundamental liberties in the decisions coming out of this crowd.
Our civil liberties are at issue.  Not only did this administration give us Patriot One and Now Patio Two, the Domestic Security Enforcement Act, they're looking to go into your e-mails and your tap your phones.  They're permitting secret detention of people. They're arresting people without charging them.
It is -- there is an atmosphere of fear in this country, coming out of that far right wing, that these judicial appointments can only -- can either stop or advance. And I think it is absolutely critical. Probably the most important thing that a president will do is find with a good head and a good heart who understand that our fundamental political compact, our Constitution is what binds us together and makes this country great.
And if we don't protect that Constitution and protect our individual liberties, we will turn over to the next generation an America very different than the one we inherited and very different than what I think we want to be seen as having crafted in our time.
So I think this is a critical issue.
Thank you.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
We don't want to let Senator Graham off the hook here.  By being governor of the state of Florida, I assume he appointed some judges while he was down there and also in the middle of many of these judicial battles and the filibustering in the Senate.
So could you give us your feeling on this?
GRAHAM: The independence of the judiciary is an essential element of the preservation of our democracy.  That was what John Adams said over 230 years ago.  It is truer today than it was when he spoke those words.
And the independence of the judiciary is now at risk.  One of the key elements of the maintenance of independence is that the president will nominate but the United States will confirm.  They were intended to be equal partners.
GRAHAM: This president wants the United States Senate to leave, to go home, to get out of his business and his objecting of stacking the federal judiciary.
I have appointed many judges as governor and participated during the selection of federal district judges as a senator.
The qualities that I will look for as president of the United States are those that I have looked for in the past -- intelligence, fairness, temperament and the ability to grow in the job.
If you tell me today what a person is going to do 10 years from now, I say that person is so ideologically cemented that they are not qualified to be a federal judge.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Reverend Sharpton, this has stirred some debate up here. Reverend Sharpton, and then Representative Gephardt, then Representative Kucinich.
SHARPTON: I think that one of the first things we must have is we must have the ability to nominate and appoint judges that show that their real commitment is to uphold the law and protect the law and protect citizens equally.
And I think that the cynical game that has been played by the Bush administration is not only to nominate right-wing ideologues, extreme right- wing idealogues, but also to play the game of coloring them as Latino or black in the name of diversity.
And I think that we've got to hit that on the head.  His father did it with Clarence Thomas.  He has attempted to do it with Estrada. The object has never been in slavery, when we fought for freedom and fought for the emancipation proclamation, the object was never to get more diversified slave masters.  The idea was to get free.
(LAUGHTER)
And what he had tried...
(APPLAUSE)
... what he is trying to sell is that we should enjoy having minorities do us in more than having others do us in.  We need to stop getting done in and have judges that stand up for justice no matter what color the judge may be.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Representative Kucinich?
KUCINICH: One of the questions that I think any one running for president is going to have to answer is what we do about a Supreme Court where Roe v. Wade hangs by a single vote?
Can we leave that question to chance?  Can we make it possible for someone to get appointed who will just do the right thing and then may decide the right thing is to vote to repeal Roe v. Wade.
I think it's going to be important for the next president of the United States to tell the American people that he or she will cause any appointee to have to answer on the question of Roe v. Wade, that there must be a litmus test on this question and that no one should be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States unless they are ready to keep Roe v. Wade in place and protect a woman's right to chose.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Representative Gephardt?
GEPHARDT: I just want every one to really think about what this power means to you and our families going forward over the next six years.
If George Bush wins reelection, he's going to appoint judges for six more years, not just 18 more months.
The senators will tell you that when he sent these names over recently for these high judgeships, the nominees that were sent would not even give information to the Senate about their writings, about their beliefs, about some of their past decisions.
Bob Graham is right.  They just told the Senate to get lost. They don't need them.  They don't want them to be involved in this decision.  This is an autocracy that's being demonstrated in front of your eyes.
You've got an attorney general that's interpreting every day a Patriot Act, which we probably needed because we got to rebalance freedom and security after 9/11. But look at what's happening before our eyes.
This is a huge deal, and what I ask you all to do is to go out and talk to your friends and neighbors and relatives, the voters in this election, and tell them the consequences of not paying attention to just this issue, but all of the other issues aside, this issue and what it will mean to have George Bush making these judgeships over the next six years.
We cannot have it happen.  We've got to win this election.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Delegate at mike six, and let me say this, we have promised any number of the candidates that we would wrap up close to 11:30 or thereabouts, because they also have other places and other activities to do.
So we're going to do mike six and then mike one, and then we'll have summation statements by our guests.
Delegate at mike six?
FRANK SMITH: Thank you President McEntee.
My name is Frank Smith.  I'm an AFSCME Alaska retiree, and I'm also a member of the Kansas Silver Haired Legislature. I come from an economically depressed rural county.  My county and others like it across America do not consider subsidies to private prisons so that we can give fast-food workers low wages and a set of keys and a badge and have them imprison the urban working class and poor -- economic development, this is not economic development.
But my question, I would like to address in particular to Governor --former Governor and Senator Edwards, and that's about standards. We have the standards that Bill Bennett wants to give to us.
We have a standard -- we have the stars and stripes, which is the flag of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Thomas Paine, and we have Jerry Falwell and George Bush and Pat Robertson waving it when they're not the rightful heirs of this flag.
The second standard of course is the stars and bars, the flag of Trent Lott, the flag of what's left of Strom Thurmond, the flag of John Ashcroft, of course.
And the third standard is the double standard, and that's the Bush- family standard.  The standard that they have is that they pardoned terrorists in Florida in particular.  Orlando Bosch was pardoned in 19 -- or first paroled and then quickly pardoned by George Bush, King George I.
And there are many coconspirators...
MCENTEE: Could you ask your question?
FRANK SMITH: Yes, I will.  I will.  Thank you, President McEntee.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: This is freedom hall, but sometimes it goes...
FRANK SMITH: OK.  My question is that there are terrorists, that we've been harboring in this country, that we've been supporting and condoning like Bosch's (ph) associates and the pardoned Bosch's (ph) associates.
My question is since Cuban justice is not much worse than ours and they're both terrible, would you consider sending some of those terrorists to get their just desserts in front of the world court that George Bush and his confederates disdain?
Thank you very much for you patience.
MCENTEE: Thank you.  He, I believe, mentioned Senator Edwards and Senator Graham.  If you would take shot at that.
EDWARDS: Do you want to go first?
(LAUGHTER)
MCENTEE: We'll have a summary of his remarks available for all delegates after we recess.
(LAUGHTER)
EDWARDS: Well, thank you, Frank.  I followed that as best I could.  The fundamental difference -- you talked about standards and I use the term values.  I think the fundamental difference that we have with this president and this administration is that this president comes from a completely different place than almost everybody in this room.
He comes from a place where the reason people have money, is they inherit it.  The reason they're going to keep it is because they're going to horde it and make sure that opportunity is not available to anybody else.
We have a different set of values.  We represent the values of the American people.  The American people believe -- and I'm talking about mainstream America -- believes in a set of values that include fairness, responsibility, hard work where working people are treated exactly the same way that the wealthy and the CEOs are treated.
That's the America we believe in.  When we talk about a values debate with this president, that's the values debate we're going to have, because when I am on a stage with George W. Bush in 2004, as I intend to be, we have a question for the American people: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
EDWARDS: We have a powerful case to make against this president, and we ought to take this values fight right at him in the toughest possible way.
MCENTEE: Thank you, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
Senator Graham?
GRAHAM: John, I have answer to your question.  No, we are not better off than we were four years ago.
The question that was asked goes to the heart of our society, and that is the politicalization of government for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many.
The elimination of basic American rights such as privacy, the right to be left alone, the right to be confident that every one is going to be treated the same way you were treated.
The question started with the issue of whether we would set standards, particularly within correction systems.  That's precisely what the federal courts have been doing for the last 50 years.  We wouldn't have things like the Miranda Decision.  We wouldn't have things like standards for treatment and health services in a correction system but for the federal courts.
And those are the judges that are not being appointed by the current administration.  Those are the kind of judges that I will appoint as president, and I would submit every member of this panel will appoint should they, unlikely though it be, be elected president.
(LAUGHTER)
MCENTEE: Thank you very much.  Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll go to mike one, and then Secretary Treasurer Lucy (ph) will have the last chance at this.
Delegate at mike one?
JENNY MITCHELL (ph): Thank you, President McEntee.  I'm Jenny Mitchell (ph).  I'm a member of Council 61, Local 2991 out of Glenwood, Iowa.
And as a health-care worker at an ICF in our facility, I am really concerned that our hospitals, our nursing homes and other health-care institutions are suffering serious under staffing issues which in turn has an impact on our patient care and safety.
I would like to know if you would support a federal standard for staffing ratios and protect the workers who are being worked to work over time on a regular basis?
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Representative Kucinich?
KUCINICH: I've been long active on health care issues, and I've worked with nurses in the Cleveland area on just those issues.  Under staffing is a serious matter.
In some cases, nurses are being asked to give up a chance for overtime and just work longer hours.  We need to make sure people are paid time-and-a-half for overtime, no matter where they work.
(APPLAUSE)
We need to make sure -- and I think that the idea of federal statutes that ensure staffing ratios is a good one, but another thing we need to do in making health care a priority in this country is to provide opportunities for young people to go into nursing so that we don't have a nursing shortage.
We need to provide funds for people to go to nursing school so that we can be able to care for this patient population.
As a congressman, I worked with people in my community to save two community hospitals that were going to be closed in a bankruptcy. We need to make sure that we protect our community-health network.  We need to save our public hospitals.  We need to make sure that we have a national health- care plan which would open our health facilities so that all Americans can receive the kind of health care to which they're entitled and for which they're already paying.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Representative Gephardt and then Reverend Sharpton.
GEPHARDT: I'm for federal standards to see that we get proper health care, but I'm also for passing a bill in Congress that will solve this problem.  A plan that we can't pass is worse than no plan at all.
We've got to get this done.  The reason that we got not enough nurses, the reason we don't pay overtime, the reasons that we have all of these shortages and difficulties is we've got 41 million people in this country that do not have health insurance.
It's a travesty.  It's immoral.  It is immoral, and when I'm president, we will pass a health-care plan.  I can get business for my plan. I can get labor for it.  I can get the health-care people for it, and then we will put proper resources into this system, and it will stimulate the economy.
And I want to say one more time, my plan is the only plan that treats everybody alike, whether you're a private employee or you're a public employees.  My plan picks up 60 percent of the cost of your health care if you're a part-time employee or a full-time employee.
And when that amount of money is going into this system, we will be able to pay the nurses and pay the people who cook the meals for the people in the hospitals and pay the people who working the skilled-nursing facilities.
My mother was in a skilled-nursing facility the last six months. I want to tell you something folks, the people that work in those facilities are the best people in the world because they take care of tough, tough problems, and I admire what they do, and they need to be paid properly.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
Reverend?
SHARPTON: As I've been stating all morning, we must start not with just new programs and plans, but we must start with the fundamental right that this nation guarantees health care to all of its citizens as a constitutional right.
We must then build from there, saying that we will stand up to those that have dehumanized the workers that we are talking about here, that have acted as if we are the problem rather that we are the solution.
Can you imagine in 2003 arguing whether someone should get paid for the time they work like this is a legitimate discussion.  This is insane that it even should be questionable, if you work overtime whether you're going to get paid overtime.
(APPLAUSE)
No one questions CEO getting multi-millions of dollars and all kinds of perks.  We are the ones that get up before the sun in the morning and go to work.  We're the ones that have to work late-night shifts at night.  Yet we're called lazy.  They're called smart.
We are smart enough to organize, to take them out of power, and return America back to the American workers who built America in the first place.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Reverend Sharpton.
Mike number two?
AFSCME MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mine is not so much as a question as it a request.  The seven of you who are there and the two we'll hear from later on, just by sharing your ideas and you've seen the reflection, you really embody the hopes and dreams and aspirations, of not just our union, but the overwhelming majority of the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to request that as we go forward with this debate that you take it to the enemy and not kill off each other in the process.
(APPLAUSE)
The American people...
(APPLAUSE)
... we would like to have some legitimate choices that we can support and breaking each other's legs in the process will not give us a candidate or candidates that we can carry into our communities.  So fight the enemy not each other.
(APPLAUSE)
MCENTEE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Bill is right.  That wasn't a question.  That was a request.  OK.
We'll now -- we're going to thank you for your patience, too. We're now going to move to closing comments.
Each candidate will have two minutes, and I'd like you to answer the following questions.  PART IV >>