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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with that view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you.

GEPHARDT: I will do that.

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

First, David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIEBERMAN: Can I respond to the criticism?

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

LIEBERMAN: ... with Saddam Hussein in prison.

ANGER: Thank you.

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

MICHELE NORRIS, NPR: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you.

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Thank you.

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

ANGER: Thank you, Madam Ambassador.

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are so many things as a whole...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

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

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGER: To Governor Dean.

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

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you do any better as president?

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

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

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

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

ANGER: Senator Edwards, Senator, considering...

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

ANGER: OK. All right.

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDWARDS: Yes.

ANGER: Congressman, a short rebuttal to that?

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

EDWARDS: But you just said I voted for it.

GEPHARDT: I understand.

(LAUGHTER)

EDWARDS: You understand?

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

ANGER: And I still remember the question for you.

(LAUGHTER)

So, Congressman Kucinich, I think was first here.

KUCINICH: Well, I think that every working person in America is going to be interested in the answers that have been given here about NAFTA and the WTO, because not a one of these candidates has been willing to take the position that I've taken in saying that my first act in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO. We've lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. The president has that authority.

I heard Governor Dean talking about NAFTA there a moment ago as if he's a spectator and not a participant. The president has the power to cancel NAFTA and the WTO. Will you, Governor Dean?

(APPLAUSE)

ANGER: OK, we're going -- we're going to go to Senator Lieberman and work our way back.

Thirty seconds.

LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Paul.

Look, the point on trade is, I think we've got to reject the extremism of George Bush and the extremism of Democrats who would put back walls of protectionism. And what's the extremism of George Bush? He just sits back and lets foreign countries break the rules of trade, rip off patents, copyrights, take American jobs, play with the currency.

That's wrong. As president, I'm going to fight tough against that.

But we can't create jobs by building up walls of protectionism. I looked at the stats in Iowa. One-fifth of the manufacturing jobs in this state. By the number I saw, more than 100,000 are dependent on trade.

The top two and three markets for goods from Iowa, both agricultural-grown goods and manufactured -- Canada and Mexico, the countries we're in NAFTA with. You break NAFTA, you're going to cut out tens of thousands of jobs here in Iowa.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

Who else? Who else wants in on this? Senator Kerry? I guess everybody will.

KERRY: Well, it's interesting, because Dick Gephardt actually has said several times, quote, "I'm for free trade." And then he stands up and he suggests that all of us are culpable because we didn't vote for one or voted for another.

Look, for five years, I and others have been fighting to have labor and environment standards in trade agreements. I worked with President Clinton also to make sure we had it in the Jordan agreement. We also had it in the Vietnam side agreement.

The reason that you didn't need it in Chile is because they have high standards and they enforce them.

The important thing is, I would not support the Free Trade of the Americas Act, I would not support the Central American Free Trade Act until they have stronger standards in them. If they sent them to my desk...

ANGER: We need to keep moving.

KERRY: ... I'd veto them.

ANGER: Madam Ambassador?

MOSELEY BRAUN: Isn't the issue really one of balance? We can't afford to go the route of just protectionism that will jump-start a depression in this country nor can we afford to just give away the store, as has happened under this administration's leadership with our trade agreements.

You have to have environmental and labor standards and human rights standards in order to level the playing field for American companies so that we aren't hemorrhaging jobs as a result of our engagements with the rest of the world.

But to stand and tell the American people that protectionism will somehow or another keep jobs in this country is just not true.

ANGER: Thank you. Thank you, Madam.

Governor Dean?

DEAN: First of all, I doubt anybody on this stage is against trade. And I also doubt anybody on this stage is talking about protectionism.

I too, Dick, did not vote for NAFTA or the WTO, because I have never served in Congress.

(LAUGHTER)

But I did support the WTO -- China's entry into the WTO in 1999 because I believed it was an issue for national security. I believe in constructive engagement.

That doesn't mean these agreements don't need to be changed. We have stood up for multinational corporations in these agreements, but we have not stood up for workers' rights, environmental rights and human rights.

ANGER: Thank you.

DEAN: And until we do, trade doesn't work.

ANGER: Thank you. We're going to...

GEPHARDT: Can I respond to this? He mentioned my name, and I'd like to...

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: Everybody is going to mention somebody's name.

(LAUGHTER)

Fifteen seconds.

GEPHARDT: This is an important point.

Look, Howard, you were for NAFTA. You came to the signing ceremony. You were for the China agreement.

This is really what we're talking about here. It's one thing to talk the talk, it's another thing to walk the walk.

ANGER: And with that, we're going to go...

GEPHARDT: We've got to get labor and environment in these treaties. And we've got to do it when the treaties are before the Congress. That's when it counts.

ANGER: Folks, I don't want to interrupt news being made, but we do need to keep moving, or we'll never be able to cover all our ground. But I thank you for those exchanges.

Senator Edwards, back to you. Considering the growing federal deficit, what is the earliest that Americans can expect a balanced budget under your administration, and how would you do it?

EDWARDS: That's a question -- if somebody gives you a straight answer to that question, you can't trust it...

(LAUGHTER)

... because here is the reality. The reality is, everybody on this stage is talking about spending money. They're talking about spending money on education. They're talking, in varying degrees, about spending money on health care. In my case, I'm talking about helping middle-class families be able to buy a house, be able to invest, be able to save. All that costs money.

There is a tension between spending money and reducing the federal deficit. We should be straight with people about that.

So every time you're talking about investing in things that will move America forward, get the economy going again, keep the economy going, you're also increasing the federal deficit. There are judgment calls that have to be made. So I've made those calls.

Here is what I believe I can do. I can pay for everything that I have proposed by stopping Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year; doing something I don't think anyone else up here does, raise the capital gains rate for those who make over $300,000 a year; close four corporate loopholes. Pays for everything that I want to do, plus reduces the federal deficit.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

EDWARDS: Does not eliminate the federal deficit over the next three to four years.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

Any follow-up from our panel?

YEPSEN: They're doing pretty good without me.

(LAUGHTER)

NORRIS: I have a follow-up for Governor Dean.

A hallmark of your campaign has been the pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts across the board. Does this include tax cuts that are intended to provide some measure of relief for the middle class, the child tax credit or the lifting of the marriage penalty?

And specifically, what kind of tax relief are you proposing for middle class and working-class families?

DEAN: Well, we've got to look at the big picture. If you make over $1 million, you've got a $112,000 tax cut. Sixty percent of us got a $304 tax cut.

And the question I have for Americans is, did your college tuition go up more than $304 because the president cut Pell Grants in order to finance his tax cuts for his millionaire friends? How about your property taxes, did they go up more than $304 because the president wouldn't fund special ed, wouldn't fund No Child Left Behind, wouldn't fund COPS and -- how about your health care payments? Did they go up more than $304 because the president cut thousands of people all over America off health care because he wouldn't fund the states' share that they needed to continue to insure people, and that was shifted to insurance and the health care premiums?

Middle-class people did not see a tax cut. There was no middle- class tax cut. There was a Bush tax increase with tuitions, with property taxes, with health care premiums, and most middle-class people in this country are worse off because of President Bush's so- called tax cut than they are better off.

NORRIS: And tax reliefs that you might propose?

DEAN: Pardon?

NORRIS: And what kind of tax relief are you proposing for middle- and working-class families?

DEAN: We -- ultimately, we will have a program for tax fairness. But right now, I agree with John Edwards. You cannot balance the budget and tell people you're going to keep all these tax cuts. I am going to balance the budget, and I'm going to do it in the sixth or seventh year of my administration. We're also going to have health care...

(LAUGHTER)

What?

ANGER: Do you have anything else?

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: We are going to move on...

(LAUGHTER)

... or we are never going to finish.

(CROSSTALK)

We're going to turn -- we are going to turn now to health care, and we're going to do a segment on health care. And if there's something to clean up, you have closing statements coming, I promise you, unless we get too far behind.

But thank you.

And turning now to health care, more than 43 million Americans lack health insurance, including about 8 percent of Iowans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: The health care issues associated to the grain of America's baby boom generation are already paramount in Iowa. The state leads the nation in the percentage of population over 75, but brings up the rear in the percentage of federal health care dollars for the elderly.

Spending for prescription drugs in Iowa topped $267 million last year, up 18 percent from the year before. According to the Iowa poll, nearly six out of 10 Iowa caucus-goers want to see a major change in the health care system, including the way health insurance is paid for and the way medical care is delivered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Senator Kerry, what do you consider the main culprit behind the skyrocketing cost of health care, and how would you address it?

KERRY: I address it in my plan, and I am the only presidential candidate who has offered a plan that actually reduces health care costs for the 163 million Americans in the workplace who get their health care through work, and I do it by creating a federal fund.

I roll back the tax cut for the wealthy Americans, not the one for the middle-class Americans that Howard's not aware they got.

And I roll back a tax fund that will then pay for all the catastrophic cases in our country. That means there is a cap of $50,000 on any health-care premium that anybody's paying. The result will be premiums drop for every single person by $1,000 or more.

I will lower costs of prescription drugs by allowing bulk purchasing of Medicare. It's a disgrace what happened in Washington the last months. This is one of the biggest giveaways to the drug companies in history.

And we're going to allow importation of drugs. We're going to have accountability on the pharmacy benefit managers. I'll have an attorney general who cracks down on patent abuse.

ANGER: Thank you.

KERRY: And finally, if I can just say, we're going to allow every single American to buy into the same health-care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves.

ANGER: Congressman Kucinich, Tim Eric of Corydon, Iowa, Congressman, wants to know how you would ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare. Would you raise taxes or decrease payments to individuals?

KUCINICH: Well, actually, I intend to have Medicare for all. And that's how we're going to have a universal health-care system.

You know, right now we are already paying for a universal standard of care, but we're not getting it. This country spends about $1.4 trillion a year, 14 percent of our gross domestic product, for health care.

But where do hundreds of billions of dollars of that money go to? Corporate profits, advertising, marketing, lobbying, the cost of paperwork, 15 to 30 percent, the cost of executive salary, sometimes they're making tens of millions of dollars.

I want to take all that money and put it into a not-for-profit system where everyone would be covered, where all medically necessary procedures would be covered, including dental care, vision care, mental health care, long-term care, which is really important in Iowa, and a prescription drug benefit.

But we have to break the hold that the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have on our health care system.

You know, hundreds of years ago, they used to treat patients by bleeding them with leeches. Well, you know, the insurance companies do that very well today.

(APPLAUSE)

ANGER: Senator Lieberman, many health-care workers are paid so little that they cannot afford insurance for their own families. How can you address this problem without adding to the already-steep cost of health care?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, I'll tell you one way we could do it -- and I want to respond to Howard Dean's outrageous statement on middle-class tax cuts -- that is to protect the middle-class tax cuts that he wants to repeal and that a lot of us Democrats fought for in Congress over the last three years.

I don't know which is worse, that he wants to repeal the tax cuts, or that he won't admit that they ever existed.

You ask the average middle-class person -- here in Iowa, average family of four saved $1,800 a year under those tax cuts.

They need that money to help pay for their insurance.

My program of health insurance would make it affordable and accessible to more than 30 million of those that don't have it today, including health-care workers, particularly those who are not unionized, who cannot afford it.

That's what strong leadership is about. I'm the only candidate up here who goes beyond the existing tax cuts and would give 98 percent of the taxpayers a new income tax cut.

That's Bill Clinton Democratic policies. That's the way we got our economy going in the '90s. And that's the way, with my leadership, we'll get it going in 2005.

ANGER: We'll go to Governor Dean.

And, Governor Dean, the next question is for you anyway, but Butch Kroger of Toledo, Iowa, wants to know why his tax dollars should go to pay for the health care of, quote, "people who make poor decisions, such as smoking, overeating, and drug use."

Should there be any limits on the care the government provides?

DEAN: I think there already are limits on the care which government provides. In my health-care plan, individuals are obligated to pay a portion of that. It's not free.

Let me just bring up one thing. All these folks are talking about they're going to do health care and they're going to balance the budget. I'm the only one that's actually ever balanced a budget here. I'm a governor. I had to submit balanced budgets and make very, very tough choices when I submit those balanced; jawbone the legislature into getting them to pass a balanced budget. We did 11 of them in a row. And we provided health insurance for nearly every child under 18 in my state.

We're talking about health care. We've delivered health care. A third of my seniors and disabled people have a prescription benefit. We still haven't seen anything like that from Congress.

So the advantage of being a governor in a race like this is, when folks are saying, "Well, we're never going to be able to balance the budget," we can balance the budget, I did balance the budget. And we also provided health care while we were doing it. And that's the kind of president I'm going to be, as well.

ANGER: Congressman Gephardt, what about all that? Can the current employer-based system of health insurance survive, long term?

GEPHARDT: Well, first, let me say where I disagree with Howard and then where I agree with Howard.

First of all, yes, some of us have balanced budgets. I led the fight for the Clinton economic program in 1993 that brought about the first federal balanced budget. It wasn't just Vermont, it was the federal budget. It came into balance and even produced a surplus.

And I'm proud of what I did, and many on this stage helped do that, as well. And we're proud of what we did. It was a good piece of work.

But let me talk about health care. I agree with Howard on this: I think we've got to offer a real choice if we're going to beat George Bush. I am ready to say to the people of the country, "If you like the Bush tax cuts, vote for Bush. But if you want health care that can never be taken away from you, vote for me."

And my plan does it. It helps everybody. It doesn't just help some; it helps everybody in the country. And we're never going to solve the economic problems of this country until we solve the health- care problem.

Finally, I give more money to the average family than the Bush tax cuts, $3,000 as opposed to $600 a year.

ANGER: Senator Edwards, despite recent increases in federal Medicare spending, Iowa remains among the last in the nation in reimbursement for care to the elderly. Would you be willing to reduce funding for higher-population states in order to address this inequity?

EDWARDS: I'd be willing to do, as I have been in the Senate, everything that needs to be done to deal with this unfairness and this inequality. So the answer is yes to your question.

Let me go, though, to what everyone's been talking about over the last few minutes...

MOSELEY BRAUN: Except me.

EDWARDS: ... if I could -- you're going to get to talk.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, wait a minute, this is my time I'm losing.

First of all, if I can get the truth-o-meter out here again for just a minute.

John Kerry, you are not the only one who has a plan to bring down the cost of health care. I have a very clear plan about how to do that.

The answer to your question to Howard Dean is, he has no proposal to reduce the tax burden on middle-class families, which they desperately need help with.

And the reason all of this matters in context is health care is a crisis in this country. There's no doubt about that. The loss of jobs, which we talked about earlier is a crisis. The shifting of the tax burden from wealth to middle-class working families is a problem.

But all of it's part of a bigger issue which is, what's happening to most families, middle-class families in this country? They've gone from being able to save money and being financially secure 20 years ago to now having all kinds of financial problems. They're spending every dime they make. They're going into debt. As your newspaper pointed out very recently, we've got record bankruptcies here in the state of Iowa.

ANGER: Thank you.

EDWARDS: My point is simply, if I could just say this last thing, my point is simply, all of these things, health care, jobs, the cost of college tuition, they're part of the struggle of the middle...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

EDWARDS: ... class, which we have to address.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

And we're going to go to Senator Kerry.

KERRY: Thank you.

Let's keep the truth meter measuring. What I said was I'm the only presidential candidate who has a plan that directly addresses lowering the costs of 163 million Americans who get their health care in the workplace, and that is true. And it lowers their costs by $1,000 per person minimum.

Time magazine said it was one of the first big new ideas of the whole campaign. And what it does is provide a guarantee that workers will be able to get the savings, employers will have less cost, companies will be more competitive.

I also bring all children into the system. I provide the ability for people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare. We'll get to 97 percent of all Americans covered by three years.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

KERRY: And then we'll cover the rest.

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

And now to Ambassador Braun. Ambassador Braun, you can talk about anything you want in the next minute, but we do have a question for you.

(LAUGHTER)

MOSELEY BRAUN: Thank you very much.

ANGER: Local governments could save millions by importing prescription drugs from Canada, but the Food and Drug Administration says that's not safe. How would you solve that dilemma?

MOSELEY BRAUN: We need a single-payer system that is not tied to employment, that covers every American for every health issue from wellness and prevention to prescription drugs to long-term care. We can do this within the confines of the money that we're currently spending.

Right now at almost 15 percent of GDP we spend more as Americans for health care than in any industrialized nation in the world. We are no sicker than the Japanese, the Germans, the French, the English, the New Zealanders. But the fact is, we pay more because the attempts to reconcile our public and private systems haven't worked.

If we go to a single-payer system modeled much on what the federal employees right now have, the FEHBP, we can have that kind of coverage without price controls, people can choose their providers and we can bring the costs down in line with what other countries are paying, close to 8 and 9 percent. Nobody is in double digits but us.

And so, I believe that to protect the quality of care that we have and restore the doctor or the physician, provider-patient relationship, to deal with the low wages that health care workers are currently receiving, we need to get this system resolved. Recognize...

ANGER: Thank you.

MOSELEY: ... that it's been broken for a long time. The only way to fix it is through a single-payer system.

ANGER: Thank you, Ambassador.

We're going to go now for any follow-ups.

David Yepsen?

YEPSEN: Congressman Kucinich, a lot of people in Iowa work for the health insurance industry. If we do your plan, if Congress enacted your plan, wouldn't those people all be put out of a job?

KUCINICH: No. As a matter of fact, what would happen is that the people in Iowa who have that expertise would be able to help process the paperwork for all Americans who would be covered.

YEPSEN: So they'd get a job in the federal system, you believe?

KUCINICH: Absolutely. I mean, where else -- where better to find the expertise than here in Des Moines.

And I would also say that, you know, what I'm speaking to -- listen to these figures: the head of Universal Health Systems made $20 million; WellPoint Health Networks, $19 million; Apria Healthcare, $16 million; Anthem, $15.8 million.

I mean, what's going on in America? All these health care executives are milking the system. You have people who can't get the health care they need, and these executives are walking away with the bank.

And that's why we have to go for -- to a not-for-profit system where everyone is covered, where people don't have to worry if they're working or not, where they don't have to worry about if they're rich or poor -- all people are covered.

It's time to take health care as a number-one domestic priority. And as president of the United States, I'll lead this country to create a system where we have universal single-payer health care for all.

NORRIS: Thank you, Congressman.

To Congressman Gephardt, a slightly different health question -- drug use in America. While the war on drugs often brings to mind the effort to bring the drug trade and cocaine abuse and the cocaine trade under control, particularly in urban settings, here in Iowa and in other cities across the country the biggest drug challenge is actually crystal methamphetamine.

Does current drug policy adequately address this, and how would you propose dealing with this home-grown problem, crystal meth?

GEPHARDT: Well, it's a problem not only in Iowa; it's a big problem in my state of Missouri and in a lot of other states. And it's a big problem in rural communities.

So we need to have a better policy to deal with it.

But I'll tell you what, I believe in trying to find the drug dealers, and trying to bring them in, and trying to go after the drugs that are coming in the United States. But in this case we're talking about a homemade drug here in communities all across the Midwest and in other parts of the country.

I think the ultimate answer to the drug problem lies in some other things that we are not doing well enough in this country. We've got to get people good jobs. Part of the reason people get involved in drugs is they lose hope. And my plans for building jobs I think are the best, the boldest plans out there.

We need better education of our young people. We need more mental health benefits in health insurance policies so that people will not turn to drugs when they can't get the right mental help that they need from their insurance policies. These are the things we need to do to solve the problem.

YEPSEN: Senator Kerry, since your last debate the nation has gone through the mad cow scare -- something that has real economic repercussions here in rural America. What would you do to improve the nation's food safety and food inspection system?

KERRY: I would combine -- it's a great question, Dave, and I appreciate it, because we really have a serious issue in America about what people are eating, the kinds of foods people eat. The obesity problem is growing among our children.

Frankly, the lack of knowledge among a lot of American families about what people are eating, the soda pop in our schools -- we have an enormous nutrition problem beyond just the quality of testing that's represented in the mad cow problem.

Mad cow is pretty straightforward. Everybody I've met in Iowa scratches their heads and says, "Why is it that a carcass, a downed cow, that has been tested gets processed and goes into the system?" Now we're going to change that. It shouldn't, it never should have. If you're going to test, you want the results of the test before it goes in. But we also need to create a tracking system.

But the most important thing that we need to do is begin to join the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration, and begin to get them talking about what Americans are exposed to.

And Dennis is correct. The corporatization of our agriculture, the pressures that fight backward against common-sense moves is really what this fight is about, taking on special interests and restoring power to people so that...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

KERRY: ... common sense is put in place about food, about tracking, about chemicals...

ANGER: Thank you, Senator.

KERRY: ... and all of those things.

ANGER: Let's look at schools.

And just as an aside, you've been doing a lot of these debates. We know that you can keep your answers to about a minute.

(LAUGHTER)

We're going to look at schools now. The budget difficulties faced by schools and by states around the nation are taking a toll. That includes Iowa, where school districts are laying off teachers and eliminating programs because of a recent state funding cut.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Adding the burden, educators say, is the cost of implementing new federal standards known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which Congress did not fully fund.

Iowa educators and parents also are concerned about the future of federal funding and oversight for education of at-risk preschoolers. The Head Start program, which serves over 1 million children nationwide and about 8,800 in Iowa, has faced criticism and budget cuts.

State universities around the country, including Iowa, also are facing the prospect of increasing tuition in response to a lack of state aid. This year, tuition for state residents rose by more than 20 percent at Iowa universities after several years of hefty increases, at a time when federal aid for college students has declined.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGER: Congressman Kucinich, Beth Walling of Polk City, Iowa, points out that Iowa leads the country in the percentage of working parents with children under 5; yet most child-care providers earn low wages, and many teachers in the federal Head Start program are not certified.

What would you do to improve early child-care education for all students?

KUCINICH: I've introduced legislation to create a universal pre- kindergarten program. And that legislation would make it possible for every young person, ages 3, 4 and 5, to have access to full child care, five days a week. And that would create the conditions which would enable children to receive reading skills, educational skills in nutrition.

Also, we have to keep in mind that this program would cost about $60 billion. I would fund that with a 15 percent cut in the Pentagon, cutting out the wasteful spending that I spoke about.

Now furthermore, we have to understand our responsibility to fully fund education at all levels. And I want to go back to something I said at the beginning of this debate. The Bush budget is now cutting funds across the board, and education is going to get cut again.

As long as we're spending $155 billion in Iraq in the last nine months, as long as the Pentagon budget keeps expanding beyond $400 billion, all of our domestic needs are going to be wiped out. And that's why I insist that we have to get out of Iraq. We have to bring the U.N. in and get the U.S. out. I have the only plan that...

ANGER: Thank you.

KUCINICH: ... will enable us to rescue our domestic priorities.

ANGER: Thank you.

Candidates, many of you have criticized the new federal accountability standards for schools -- the No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Lieberman, what alternatives would you propose to penalizing schools whose students fail to meet national standards?

LIEBERMAN: Let me say first that in this area George Bush has broken a series of promises. The first was to end unfunded mandates. He hasn't done that with special education. In fact, he added a new unfunded mandate when he refused to fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Result? Local property taxpayers are either paying more money in property taxes or our children are not getting the education that they should.

Let me say a word on behalf of the No Child Left Behind Act, because I know it's easy in a political context to attack it. It didn't start with George Bush. It started with Teddy Kennedy and George Miller and Evan Bayh and me.

And it was all about having the federal government do a better job at helping lower-income kids, who are so often overlooked in our schools today, get a better education. That's why we set the standards.

Bush didn't give the money to help meet the standards. I will fully fund No Child Left Behind, and I'll listen to the teachers and the principals about changing some of the requirements.

But anybody who says they're going to pull back and repeal No Child Left Behind is turning their back on the students, and particularly the low-income students of America. I won't do that.

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Howard, Joe raised the question about things you say versus things that you do, and things you sometimes say and then change.

For instance, you said that if George Bush released his records, you would release your records. Then when you found out George Bush had released his records, you changed.

Another example of that: When you were asked by the Concord Monitor about Osama bin Laden, you said we couldn't prejudge his guilt for September 11th. What in the world were you thinking?

DEAN: I'll tell you exactly what I was thinking, Senator. I understand that Osama bin Laden has essentially claimed responsibility for these unbelievable terrorist acts. And as an American, I want to see Osama bin Laden get what he deserves, which is the death penalty.

But I was asked that question as a candidate for president of the United States, and a candidate for president of the United States is obligated to stand for the rule of law.

I was asked yesterday by Newsweek what would I do if I was the president and the troops had Osama in their sights -- we would shoot to kill. But the fact is, if we captured him alive, we have to stand for the rule of law.

I have no doubt that if we capture Osama bin Laden, he will end up with the death penalty. But as president of the United States, I'm obligated to stand for the rule of law.

(APPLAUSE)

KERRY: Well, actually, Governor, what you've just said is even different from the release that your office put out clarifying the comment you made to the Concord Monitor. And this is the pattern: You've said on one occasion that we shouldn't go to war without the permission of the U.N. You've said that we have to prepare for the day when America isn't the strongest military. You've said that -- you yourself have said you sometimes shoot from the hip. You've said that the president of the United States had prior warning about September 11th, you got it off the Internet, you passed it on to national television.

I think these changes, even the difference of what you've just said now which is different from your own clarification, raises a serious question about your ability to be able to stand up to George Bush and make Americans feel safe and secure.

ANGER: One last comment.

DEAN: Two quick comments.

First of all, in general, there's been a lot of talk about this from the Washington politicians. And a gaff in Washington is when you tell the truth and the Washington establishment thinks you shouldn't have.

Secondly, Senator, you better go back and look at the quote, because you are doing exactly what so many of you all have done over the past year with my record. You better go look what I said about Saudi Arabians tipping off the president -- I said I didn't believe it and I said it right on that show.

KERRY: Can I just come back to say...

ANGER: OK, we're going to...

KERRY: Could I say...

ANGER: We're going to have to move on, Senator.

KERRY: The question...

ANGER: Senator, we're going to have to move on.

We have a round of questions now to be asked by our panelists. And as an indication of the time remaining, candidates, you're going to have 30 seconds to answer. We will not have time for rebuttals, so play nice.

(LAUGHTER)

Michele Norris and David Yepsen will alternate, and David is first.

YEPSEN: Senator Lieberman, you've not campaigned in Iowa. A year ago at this time, the polls showed you were at the top of the pack of candidates; now you're in single digits. Why should Democrats think you are competent to run a good general election campaign?

LIEBERMAN: The decision not to campaign in Iowa had everything to do with the fact that the calendar has changed this year and there are going to be nine primaries and/or caucuses in the first two weeks.

I have loved my time in Iowa. I am grateful for the -- to the people who supported me in 2000 and again so many who came to my side this year. I left my office open here. I have Kevin McCarthy still working with me. Why? I intend to come back as the Democratic nominee. And as Governor Vilsack was kind enough to say, if I come back as the nominee, Iowa will be Lieberman country because I'm a Bill Clinton Democrat: center out, strong on jobs, socially progressive and strong on security.

ANGER: Thank you.

LIEBERMAN: That's the way we're going to defeat George Bush.

NORRIS: Governor Dean, you said this week that you plan to begin including more references to God and Jesus in your campaign swings to the South.

Some of your critics and columnists immediately seized upon this and said it smacked of political opportunism, which goes to something I hear from Democratic voters time and time again this year, a frustration that the Democratic Party seems to have a difficult time talking about religion and matters of faith.

DEAN: You know, I have grown up in the Northeast my entire life. And in the Northeast, we do not talk openly about religion. I've spent a lot of time in the South. I have a lot of friends from the South. In the South, people do integrate religion openly, easily into their lives, both black Southerners and white Southerners.

I understand that if I'm going to campaign for the presidency of the United States, I have to be comfortable in the milieu that other Americans are comfortable, not just for my own region, for everywhere else.

I think any columnist who questions my belief is over the line. But I do believe that it is important for the president of the United States to be comfortable everywhere, and I plan to learn how to do that.

YEPSEN: Congressman Gephardt, Iowans know you well. You've been here a lot of times. But yet I hear a lot of Democrats say, "Dick Gephardt's had his chance. We need a fresh face." How do you respond to those people?

GEPHARDT: I say this: If you're looking for the fresh face or the flavor of the month, I'm probably not your candidate.

But if you're looking for the candidate who has the most experience with all the foreign and domestic issues this country's had to face, then I may be your candidate.

I've also taken that experience and translated it into the boldest and best, the most realistic ideas to solve the biggest problems this country faces.

NORRIS: Senator Edwards, with the U.S. military at war and America under constant threat of terror, foreign policy and experience in foreign policy seems to be very important in these times.

With less than one full Senate term under your belt, how do you convince American voters that you can go head to head with the Bush foreign policy team?

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I have more foreign policy experience than Governor Dean, than President Clinton had when he came to office, than Governor-then Reagan had before he came to office, than others who have led this country.

Secondly, I've laid out -- and more importantly, I've laid out the most specific, comprehensive vision about how we address the problems we have around the world. I've been to these parts of the world. I've met with the leaders in these parts of the world. I've met with our own security operation in these parts of the world.

And if I can just close with this, there's been a lot of rhetoric used in this campaign about working with our allies. I know that I have specifically proposed, for example, a global nuclear compact where America doesn't just work with its allies, but we show some leadership working with our allies to address one of the most serious problems that we face on this planet.

YEPSEN: Ambassador Braun, you've not campaigned here in Iowa very much, nor in many other early primary states. Why should voters honor you with their votes, when you won't honor them with your presence?

MOSELEY BRAUN: Well, you know, when you start off being different, you have to campaign differently. And we've done the best we can within the resources that we have to get around to the states that are involved in this process.

I have done more with less money. One of our people said we squeezed the dollars until the eagles grinned.

And we've been here in Iowa -- certainly I've never missed a single occasion that's been hosted here. And I have campaigned here to the best of my financial resources.

YEPSEN: Thank you.

NORRIS: Senator Kerry, if I have my history right, no Democratic president has carried a majority of white voters since the 1960s. I believe the last to do so was Lyndon Johnson.

Senator, how do you plan to broaden the base and reach out to those voters, particularly Southern white voters who no longer even consider Democratic candidates?

And what can you point to in your political experience to suggest that you will have success in this task?

KERRY: I can point to what is happening in South Carolina right now and in other parts of the South, where people are supporting me because I represent leadership, tested experience that has the ability to make America safer in a very dangerous time.

I am a veteran. I've fought in a war. They particularly respect service to country in the South.

I also have fought as a law enforcement officer. I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America.

I'm going to talk mainstream American common sense to our country.

And there are incredible numbers of people in the South who are losing education, losing health care, losing their jobs, because they are being drawn away by slogans, rather than real choices.

And in the end, if I'm the nominee, I could always pick a running mate from the South, and we'll do just fine.

YEPSEN: Congressman Kucinich, I talked to a lot of Democrats who say they really like what you have to say, but they don't think you're electable. What do you say to those Democrats?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I'm electable if you vote for me.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

YEPSEN: Then why...

KUCINICH: You know, frankly, you know, I've won a lot of...

YEPSEN: Then why are your poll ratings in single...

KUCINICH: Pardon? I can't hear you.

YEPSEN: Then why are your poll ratings in low single digits?

KUCINICH: Oh, well, they're just about to come up. I mean, the people watching this show will know that I'm the only Democrat here that's going to get us out of Iraq. When people hear that, they're going to say, "I want to go to the Iowa caucuses for Kucinich."

So you have a choice now. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

ANGER: For our next round, candidates, we're going to ask you all the same question.

Several Iowans point out that there is a lot of denial and finger-pointing in politics these days. We'd like each of you to take 30 seconds, own up quickly to a mistake you've made in the past, and tell us what you learned from it.

(LAUGHTER)

Congressman Gephardt, I'm sorry, you're first.

(LAUGHTER)

GEPHARDT: I voted for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981. I tried to pass an alternative that I thought was much better, much fairer. We didn't get it done. And then I had to face a vote of, "Are you for a tax cut at all or not?" I voted for it. I thought we needed a tax cut to get the economy moving.

In retrospect, that wasn't a good vote. And if I had it back, I would have voted the other way. But you learn from experience. I've got a lot of experience.

ANGER: To Senator Edwards.

EDWARDS: I voted for No Child Left Behind, because I believe in accountability, I believe in standards, I believe that every child is entitled to a quality education.

But the truth is that we put too much faith in a Bush administration administering that policy.

And I've seen what's happened on the ground. It's been devastating, not just here in Iowa, but all over this country.

And it's clear that there are changes that need to be made, changes in the standards. We need to make whatever system we have for public education work for people who are actually dealing with it every day on the ground.

ANGER: Ambassador Braun.

MOSELEY BRAUN: I went to the funeral of a friend who had been assassinated, and the right wing was able to convert that into dancing with dictators and overturned a 25-year record of fighting for human rights.

Having worked on every human rights issue from the time I got into public life, to see that one funeral visit, memorial service visit, turned into the kind of political issue that it was for me was really devastating.

What did I learn? I learned: have press conferences before you go on any kind of trip outside of Illinois.

(LAUGHTER)

ANGER: Thank you.

Senator Kerry.

KERRY: In the first race I ever ran, I came under withering attack. And it was the first time that some negative advertising had taken place, and even negative attacks from the newspaper.

I made the great mistake of thinking you didn't have to defend yourself. I have learned now, and I will never, ever make that mistake again.

And we saw Max Cleland suffer from the same thing. He regrets he didn't defend himself.

I will not stand for Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, President Bush or others challenging the patriotism or the ability of Democrats to question the direction of our country.

And I'll use everything in my power to stand up to them to present what I think is the real definition of patriotism in our country.

ANGER: Congressman?

(APPLAUSE)

KUCINICH: I was mayor of Cleveland over 25 years ago, and one of the things I'm proud of is I saved the municipal electric system.

And one of the things that I'm not so proud of is that -- and the biggest mistake I think I made was I fired the chief of police live on the 6 o'clock news...

(LAUGHTER)

... on Good Friday.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, if any of you can top that, I'll yield to you.

(LAUGHTER)

But let's say that, in the years since, I have learned a certain amount of diplomacy...

(LAUGHTER)

... and actually have reconciled with that gentleman.

ANGER: To Senator Lieberman.

LIEBERMAN: Paul, your question about mistakes, I cannot resist telling a quick story about my mother in 2000, when I was on the ticket. Larry King interviewed her and said, "Mrs. Lieberman, what do you say to you son when he makes a mistake?"

And my mom said, "Mistake?"

(LAUGHTER)

LIEBERMAN: But I do make mistakes, believe me, many of them. I would say the one that comes quickest to mind is that early in my career in the state senate in Connecticut I was more focused on the rights of criminals than the rights of victims of crime. I think in our system of justice, we have to be focused on both, and I have been since then.

ANGER: And to Governor Dean.

DEAN: Well, as you know, I have a reputation for saying exactly what I think. And while the words may not be precise, the meaning is not hard to figure out.

But one of the mistakes I've made was in this campaign when I accused John Edwards of having said one thing to the California state convention and something else to his position. I was wrong about that. I wrote him a letter of apology, and I apologize again today.

EDWARDS: Thank you, Howard.

ANGER: Thank you.

For our next round, another quick round this time, candidates. You'll have 30 seconds to answer. There is no rebuttals in this round either. I will ask the questions.

To Governor Dean, would you propose amnesty for undocumented workers, and why or why not?

DEAN: I would propose earned legalization. I think if you've lived here for some time, you've worked hard, you paid your taxes, you have a job, you know, a good job, you've raised your family, you haven't had any criminal record, then I think you ought to be able -- you've already demonstrated that you can be a good citizen of the United States, and we ought to have an earned legalization program.

ANGER: Very good.

Congressman Gephardt, more National Guard and Reserve troops have been called up for overseas duty than at any time since the Korean war. Would you change the size of the regular military, and also how we use the Guard and Reserves?

GEPHARDT: I would not. I was in the Air National Guard in Missouri, and I know what a disruption it is to these folks that are called up. But I don't think we need to add more soldiers, and I'll tell you why.

The biggest failure of this administration in this whole period has been the president's inability to get the help that we need in Iraq and other places around the world.

We had the whole world sympathizing with us after 9/11. He had a moment to bring the whole world in to fight this international problem, and he hasn't done it. And it's why I've said many times that his foreign policy is a miserable failure.

ANGER: To Senator Edwards, would you disqualify candidates from the Supreme Court based on their positions on specific issues? And if so, which issues?

EDWARDS: No, the answer is no. I think it's a mistake to apply any specific litmus test to someone who's going to serve on the federal bench, including the Supreme Court, for life.

I do, however, believe that we have to have justices on the Supreme Court who have a clear and established history of being willing to enforce civil liberties, constitutional rights, our civil rights laws, our equal rights laws, even when there's tremendous public pressure to do otherwise.

Because I've seen myself the importance of having judges in the South -- I'm not having to learn about the South, by the way.

Howard, you could tell by the way I talk.

(LAUGHTER)

But we've seen in the South the critical nature of having federal judges who are willing to have the backbone and courage to desegregate our public schools.

ANGER: To Ambassador Braun. Ambassador, one of our readers wrote to us, quote, "I'm a lifelong, straight-ticket-voting Democrat, but I'm not crazy about any of you candidates."

(LAUGHTER)

What would you say to her?

MOSELEY BRAUN: What would I say to her? I'd say, take a look at George Bush, and let's go down the list.

(APPLAUSE)

The worst environmental president we've ever had. The worst president on the economy, in terms of jobs, 6 million jobs lost. They haven't been recreated. The worst on issues of bringing us together as a community.

We have found the American people are in fear now and are being manipulated by it. They use words to mean just the opposite of what it is they're doing.

I think this administration is such a failed administration that any one of us would do a much better job and put this country on the right track.

And I say to that person, if you want pay equity, if you want good jobs, if you want health care reform, then you've got a choice of any of these individuals. We'll deliver for you; George Bush won't.

(APPLAUSE)

ANGER: Next is Senator Kerry.

Senator, you've decided to forgo federal matching funds and loan your campaign $6 million of your own money. Given your means, how do you relate to the man or woman in the street who is struggling to make ends meet?

KERRY: Because all my life my parents taught me that it's not where you come from, it's not the money you have or what you do -- it's what you do with your life. It's what your value system is. It's what you believe and what you fight for.

Sitting in this audience is a young man from -- I'd still call him young -- from Ames, Iowa. He was a gunner in the back of my boat. He's an electrician today, a union member. But he's one of my best friends, as are all the members of my crew from Vietnam.

And I have been judged by a lifetime of fighting to open up the doors of opportunity for all Americans, for everybody, without regard to where you came from or what your bank account is.

And I will do that as president of the United States.

If that were the disqualifier, we'd have never had Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy or others be president of the United States.

ANGER: Thank you.

KERRY: It's what you believe and what you fight for that makes a difference in America.

ANGER: To Congressman Kucinich. Congressman, the meat industry is in a precarious position due to mad cow disease, particularly with our international trading partners.

Given your personal decision not to consume animal products, how can you assure livestock producers you will be an advocate for them as president?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, the farmers I've met in Iowa, you know what they've told me? They've told me they want a president who can make sure that a farmer can get parity, that he can get his price for his product, that he can get his goods to market. They're not so interested in what any of us eat as where we stand with the farmers.

And so, I told them that I'll work to break up the monopolies in agriculture. I'll make sure that the farmers have a way to count on the Food and Drug Administration as well as the USDA to have a tracking system that will help them with the challenges like mad cow.

Farmers want someone who is going to stand for them. They are less concerned about what a president eats than whether or not he is going to have policies that will enable the farmer to be able to feed his family.

ANGER: Senator Lieberman, a Register reader remarks that environmental issues often take a back seat to economic factors like jobs and development. Under what, if any, circumstances do you think it's appropriate for jobs to come first and the environment second?

LIEBERMAN: You know, I regret that we haven't talked more in this debate and other debates about environmental protection. The fact is that George W. Bush has been the worst environmental president in our history.

Environmental protection has been a passion of my public service. The fact is that it is a false choice to pose between environmental protection and economic growth. If you're smart you can have both.

In fact, when it comes to investing and the battle for energy independence, if we do it right, we'll not only have cleaner air, we'll create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

So public health is on the line; jobs can be protected. We, with the right leadership, can have both for the American people.

ANGER: Thank you.

Candidates, we're now on the home stretch. It's time for closing statements. Each of you will have 45 seconds, and the order was established by what else, a drawing.

We apologize for the short time, but we're about done here.

Congressman Gephardt, you are first.

GEPHARDT: I'd like to end with my philosophy of life, because I think it will give you a good sense of how I'll look at every issue when I'm president.

I think we're all tied together. Martin Luther King, I think, said it the best. He said, "I can't be what I ought to be until you can be what you ought to be." And that's what I really believe.

My own life is a good example. I grew up in a poor household. My dad was a truck driver. It was the best job he ever had. We didn't have a lot of money, but I got a great education in the public schools in the city of St. Louis. I had church loans, government loans, scholarships, whatever my parents could save.

I had three jobs. I got a great education. And now I'm running for president of the United States, from that background. When I'm president, on every issue, I'll be trying to figure out how every person in this country can fulfill their God-given potential.

ANGER: Thank you.

And to Ambassador Braun.

MOSELEY BRAUN: When the Constitution was written, I wasn't included. Blacks couldn't vote; women couldn't vote; poor people couldn't vote. But our country has made progress in the direction of