2007

PRESIDENTIAL FORUM

Panel of Questioners for 2007 Presidential Forum

Left to Right

 Larry Cohen, President, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIo

Jan Laue, Executive Vice President, Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

Rich Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO

Mark smith, President, Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

SENATOR

CHRISTOPHER DODD

Rich Trumka: Thank you, Mark.  Welcome to Iowa, Senator.  [Dodd: “Thank you.”]  Today the American economy is simply not working for the majority of American workers.  Family incomes for 90% of Americans today are below their 2001 level, when the current economic recovery began.  Since 1980, only the wealthiest 10% of Americans have seen their incomes rise at the same rate as productivity.  American workers and the American labor movement are focused on one central question that we’d like to hear from you: Why is it so difficult for so many to make a decent living in the richest country on the face of the earth at its most rich point in history?

Christopher Dodd: Well, first of all, look this begins—I’ve served for 26 years, by choice, on the Labor Committee, sit next to Tom Harkin, and Senator Ted Kennedy is the senior member of that committee.  So now I’ll tell you today what I think ought to happen, but over the years have been proud to stand with organized labor, stand with unions.  One of the major reasons in my view why we’ve seen a decline is directly related to the decline in union households in our country.  As the number of union households have declined, the standard of living for middle-income families have also declined.  And as President of the United States, the first order of business is to see to it that the right to organize, the right to collectively bargain, is going to be strongly supported by the President of the United States.  And you have my commitment.  I will stand and fight every single day to see to it that working men and women have the right to organize, to collectively bargain, and to fight for their rights.  That’s one way to get this back on track again in the country.  [applause] 

Well obviously there are other matters as well here.  The cost of health care has gone up 87%, Rich, since January of 2001.  The cost of higher education is stripping inflation by two times the number.  And obviously the cost as well of energy has stripped out people’s ability to make ends meet.  We need an administration—the President is going to push back and fight—so that we have a universal health care program in this country, to bring down those costs.  We gotta have an administration that will fight for energy independence and allow for technologies and ideas to develop to put people back to work.  And clearly we need to have a President that’s going to stand up and see to it that higher education costs don’t outstrip middle-income families’ abilities to pay. 

I’ve offered ideas on all of these, Rich, to make a difference in our country.  Earned income tax credits, expanding family and medical leave, and child care legislation—all of these ideas are designed to underpin and support the middle class for having a chance to grow and prosper and become independent. 

There are a lot of other issues that are important as well—and pension security—that are critically important for people’s retirement years.  But most of all we need someone who’s going to stand up and has the proven record, the successful record over the years, of standing up and fighting on behalf of working people.  I’m proud to stand here before you in Iowa today and invite you to examine a record, over a quarter of a century, day in and day out has stood for working men and women, has stood for organized labor, has stood for people to have the right to organize and collectively bargain.  I’ll not only continue to do that in the next 18 months, but as your President I’ll fight and do it every single day in the White House.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: Thank you.  In the past, Senator, working people, labor unions, have worked very, very hard to get various candidates elected.  At the end of that election we were rewarded by being consulted on who would be the Secretary of Labor.  I have two things to say about the Secretary of Labor right now.  We’ve proven that we can live without one, we’ve done it for six years.  [laughter; applause]  Second of all, the Secretary of Labor deals with the effects of policies.  Working people would like to go up to the front of the parade and have working-friendly people in an administration so that when policy is being considered that we’re at the front of that parade.  What would you do in your administration to assure that working-friendly people were in every place that policy was being made that affects working families?

Christopher Dodd: Well, you mentioned the Secretary of Labor, Rich, but I’d expand that to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Commerce, and the National Labor Relations Board as well.  Watching the NLRB, for instance, rule as they did a few months ago on the Kentucky River cases here, where someone who’s a supervisor for half an hour all of a sudden is excluded from being part of a bargaining unit.  In fact, many of you many know that I’ve already written the legislation to overturn the NLRB decision when it comes to depriving particularly nurses and others from having the right to collectively bargain.  [applause]  That’s the kind of job I think you want in your President as well on these issues. 

And of course Larry may be able to tell you already that I included the Secretary of Labor, to answer your question directly here, when I wrote the CFIUS legislation dealing with these outsiders who are coming in and want to acquire properties and ports in the United States.  I wrote the legislation on that bill this year.  It’s already passed the United States Senate.  And one of the provisions I insisted upon in that is not only that the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor be included, but that the Secretary of Labor be included, directly.  And we had the case with Alcatel and Lucent here, where the CWA knows here I went to bat to say in that case here, because that company was depriving people of their labor rights.  That is as much a challenge to our security as someone who buys a port that doesn’t have the interest of the United States at heart.  So again, a proven record of standing up and fighting [applause] on your behalf see to it that these people be included as well.  And I’ll continue to do that as President.

Rich Trumka: Senator, you’ve taken a leadership role in the fight against foreign currency manipulation, and we appreciate your efforts and your leadership.  I know there were some jurisdictional problems with respect to several recent bills in the Senate.  Can we count on your support in ensuring that the final Senate currency bill will include countervailing duty remedies?

Christopher Dodd. I hope so very much and I appreciate your understanding of the difficulty.  I don’t want to get down to weeds with you on this one here, but we passed out of the banking committee legislation to deal with what the Chinese are engaging in.  And that is of course currency manipulation.  Which is a huge advantage.  It provides them with a subsidy when it comes to fair competition in the trade areas.  Let me say to you, by the way, since you’ve raised this issue here regarding that particular question.  I called on today for the United States President, the President of the United States, to invoke his authority under the World Trade Organization to suspend all imports—all imports—of food and toys coming out of China until I’m satisfied and you’re satisfied that these are safe products coming into our country.  [applause]  They shouldn’t be allowed to send them in here.  We’re calling on that today to be done in our nation. 

That’s the same authority, by the way, that other countries have invoked when there have been challenges to food products coming into their nations.  And clearly here, look, I know the other night in front of the AFL-CIO so-called debate, as we have these one-minute responses to questions—thank you for giving me two, by the way, here today, two minutes [laughter] to answer some of these questions—but the question was asked of all of us whether or not we thought China was a competitor or an adversary.  I believe I was the only one on that stage that evening that said they’re getting much closer to being an adversary.  A competitor indicates the ground rules are fair for everyone, and you’re out there competing equally.  It’s not exactly an equal playing field any longer, when you take my jobs because you subsidize your currency, when you send contaminated food and toys to my country, when you engage in practices that deprive us of goods ending up on your shelves and your counters because there’s not parity in terms of trade, you’re no longer a competitor in my view. 

When you steal my jobs, you’re becoming an adversary.  [applause]  And I want the Chinese to know it, and as President I’ll stand up and fight back on it.  So we need to be smart about this in our future as well.  So, again, we get to the floor of the Senate dealing with the countervailing duties, my intention here is to include that kind of language if we can.  We’re in the midst of negotiating this right now between the Finance Committee and the Labor Committee—or the Banking Committee rather—over a jurisdictional matter.  But my hope is as I said on the Banking Committee hearing in the mark up, I’m for the countervailing duty issue.  I want to make sure it’s done in the right way.  We’re going to try and get that done when we get back in September.

Rich Trumka: One quick question: Would you also consider across-the-board emergency import surcharges to bring down our bludgeoning trade deficit?

Christopher Dodd: Well I see that, and I’m an advocate of that as well here.  That’s necessary.  This is one of the great threats we have.  Look, when I’m President of the United States—and I want all of you to know this here, and again, it’s all in the record and I’m proud of the record here—there’ll be no trading agreement that’ll earn my signature that I’ll—now my trade representative will have firm instructions: no trading agreement will be finalized in a Dodd administration that doesn’t include labor standards, health standards, environmental standards here.  I will not allow a trading agreement to go to the United States Senate for ratification that does not guarantee the protection of workers in any country that wants to do business with us.  And lastly, if you want to be on our shelves, we’re going to be on your shelves.  If we don’t get parity, you don’t get the trading agreement.  [applause]  Not very complicated.  Good for it in the past, stand for it today.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: As President would you seek renewal of fast track trade negotiating authority?

Christopher Dodd: Well, I’m leery of it obviously.  We’ve had cases when it started out with the Clinton administration when we had some of it here.  I thought we could be trustworthy of an administration.  I thought it would bring the right issues to the table.  In a Dodd administration I’ll be willing to consider it because I have a lot more confidence in myself than I do the present crowd dealing with this.  But obviously when you get to the Congress here you want to be careful as to not limit the ability of the co-equal branch of government to have some say about what’s going to be included in these matters.  So I’d be cautious about demanding that it’s a winner-take-all, a yes-or-no proposition when it comes to trading matters. 

It makes it more complicated, as you know, Rich, in dealing with these matters.  But I think the American people have to be on board supporting what you’re doing if you’re going to sustain these efforts in the coming years.  So I’ll be very reluctant to have a process here that denies us the opportunity, denies others, to have some say in how this is going to work.

Rich Trumka: First of all, I think my time’s up, but I just want to thank you for your forthrightness and your willingness to answer questions directly.  Thank you.

Christopher Dodd: Not at all, that’s why we’re here.  You deserve to know, in my view, very specific answers.  If we seek your support and seek your backing, you have a right to know exactly where we stand.  No half answers, no platitudes, but direct answers to your questions.  That’s why I’m here, and I appreciate the opportunity.  [applause]

Mark Smith: Thank you, Rich.  The next 15 seconds we’re not going to count against you.  Somebody just slipped me a note.  Somebody’s got a purple Dodge with Illinois plates 8969161 and they’re going to tow it in the next 5 minutes. 

Dodd: Well at least it’s an American produced automobile.  Union, union.  [laughter]  I thought you were going to announce it was something else there, Mark.

Smith: Have you got a purple Dodge?

Dodd: No one was going to admit they owned that car.  I was anxious to see who was going to stand up here. 

Smith: They’re not joking.  They told Sagar if he left his van there they were just going to blow it up.  [laughter]  Next questioner, Senator, Executive Vice President Jan Laue of the Iowa Federation of Labor on health care.

Jan Laue: Thank you, Senator, for being here.  The AFL-CIO has adopted a set of principles for health care reform that includes universal coverage.  One of the ways to achieve these principles would be to build on an improved Medicare program, our most successful program of universal coverage.  You haven’t been a supporter of a single payer system, so what approach would you take to guarantee affordable quality health care for all Americans and why?

Christopher Dodd: Well good, Jan.  First of all, because the times are limited here and I know others will do this as well, I invite you to go to our Website chrisdodd.com to go into great details on all of this, on education, on health care, and energy policy and the like.  Two minutes are not going to allow me to cover all of it.  So let me first of all describe what I’m trying to do here with the universal plan we’ve advocated here.  It’s an attainable plan.  What I’d like to do—if we were going to elect a king or a queen or a dictator on November is one thing.  What you do as an American president, what I’ve done for 26 years in the Senate and 32 in the Congress of the United States is to bring people together, elements that don’t always agree on matters.  When I wrote the Family and Medical Leave Act, Jan, I did so because I had to reach out to others.  It took me seven years, three presidents, and two vetoes to get it done.  But 50 million Americans today have the right to be with their families without losing their jobs, because the AFL-CIO stood with me to fight for that legislation.  [applause]

So on health care I’m talking about an attainable plan.  It is not one that I might write if I could write it alone.  It’s universal, it covers every single person.  I’ll accomplish it in four years, that is to phase it in over four years.  It’s totally portable.  It follows you, not your job.  I ban discrimination against anyone with a preexisting condition in the country.  So you’re not discriminated on that basis at all.  Everyone pays in.  Everyone would benefit.  Those who would have difficulty paying in we would subsidize so they have the opportunity to do it.  And the structure I use is the one that every federal employee has.  The Federal Employees Health Benefits package.  It’s a very good program.  It serves us all very well.  Believe me, when your congressman tells you you can’t have health care, tell him you’d just like to have his health care plan of the United States.  If it’s good enough for your congressman, it ought to be good for everybody else in this country to stand up and get it here.  [applause]

As well, I believe in rewarding physicians that keep you out of the surgeon’s office, as well as rewarding the surgeon for operating on you.  We need to do a better job of preventing the problems that arise, so that we don’t have the kind of chronic illnesses that are costing us so much.  I think it’s 93% of a Medicare dollar is doing that.  By spreading out the risks, by including the entire country as part of your bargaining unit, will drive down costs, make that insurance available—or health care available—under a variety of plans. 

I don’t want to tell each and every one of you here it’s a one-size fits all.  I was a single guy for many, many years.  Ten years ago I married.  I’ve got a five-year-old and a two-year-old today.  By the way, I’m the only candidate that gets mail from AARP and diaper services.  [laughter]  I want you to know that as a candidate for the presidency here.  And I so my health care needs today are very different than they were ten years ago.  And I don’t want someone telling me it’s one-size that I’ve got to buy into.  I want the opportunity of shopping for different plans that serve me and my family’s interest.  But it is universal, it is portable, we’ll get it done in four years.  And again, I invite you to look at the details.  It’s also attainable.  It takes the provisions that work well today, gets rid of the ones that don’t, it tries to come up with a program that we can move forward on. 

Lastly, I’d say this to you here.  It’s about the ability to bring people together.  That is, to get the job done.  On every single major issue I’ve been involved in for a quarter of a century I’ve brought Democrats and Republicans, taking a Democratic principle and making it a national policy.  My father was part of a group in 1948 at the Democratic Convention that crafted the National Health Care Plan.  It’s been 60 years.  We’re still talking about it.  We rank 45^th in infant mortality, 42^nd in life expectancy, 50 million Americans without health care.  That is shameful in the United States of America!  And a Dodd administration will change it.  You have my word.  I promise to get universal health care.  [applause]

Jan Laue: Senator, as a quick 30-second follow-up to that, how would you overcome the obstacles that have stopped us from getting this done before?

Christopher Dodd: Well it’s just what I said, Jan, here in a way.  Look, we’ve got to sit down.  No one party is going to write all of this.  It just doesn’t work that way.  You understand that, I do as well.  It’s going to take leadership that knows how to bring the stakeholders to the table, and sit down and move this forward.  As I said, if I could write it all myself I might write something very different.  But I know I’m not going to get to do that.  That’s not what I’ve been able to do, particularly when we have thin margins we’re dealing with here in the Congress.  So rather than stand before you today and promise you something that I don’t think is achievable, I stand before you with an idea that I think can get us universality, bring down costs, cover people across the board, but it takes political skills and ability to know how to do that.  I’ve done it for 26 years, I’ll do it as your president.  [sound of cheering outside in the hallway]  Some supports out here I think that is.  [Laue laughs]

Jan Laue: Employers are finding it harder to compete globally or even locally with firms that provide their workers little or no health care.  How do we support good employers so they aren’t tempted to drop coverage or shift costs to their employees?  What do we do about employers that don’t offer insurance?  In other words, how would you level the playing field so there is fair competition?

Christopher Dodd: Well, I’ve said to you Jan, we require that everyone be included here.  I know there’s an argument for universality, but you ought to ask the question: How do you achieve universality?  I do so by requiring that when you file a tax return, even if you’re not paying taxes, or you take out a W2, a W4 Form, or you show it to a provider, you’re brought into it here.  So we don’t end up with a situation like we do with automobile insurance in many states, where it’s mandated you have it, but we discovered many don’t, because they’re not brought into it.  So my universality draws everyone in. 

And then by establishing a federally run what I call “Universal Health Mart” in a sense, then employers or employees could decide whether or not what sort of health care program they want—and obviously the bargaining unit is 300 million people—so we can bring down those costs.  If you want to keep the plan you’ve got with your employer today, I don’t stop you from doing that.  If you’re satisfied with that, then you ought to be able to continue with that.  I don’t scrap every health care plan in the country if in fact people are satisfied with it.  But many smaller employers, as you point out, don’t have the ability to do it and so they’re going to prefer having their employees go in and, with a negotiated process, can pick a plan that they think would serve their interests best.  That’s what the Universal Health Mart does for them.

Jan Laue: Okay, you know in Massachusetts that was the first state to adopt an individual mandate, requiring every resident to buy health insurance.  What happens is they’ve struggled to balance affordability and benefits.  Sometimes premiums are lowered by increasing deductibles and co-pays or cutting benefits.  How can we protect against working families being forced to buy insurance that is not adequate?

Christopher Dodd: Well again, by eliminating some of the barriers that the insurance companies oppose, such as preexisting conditions, for instance.  That goes out under my proposal here.  You can’t use that as a way of setting your premiums rates at all here.  And so you have that standard plan that everyone would be able to pay for at the same price.  And by the way, it’s not inexpensive to do this, and that is the transitional cost for those who would require help in a subsidy in order to pay into the program and the plan.  The idea being, that after four years you’d have universality.  It would pay for itself.  And we’d do that at a cost of around $70 billion.  Again, it’s not cheap.  But I believe if we stop the funding of the war in Iraq at $13 billion a month, and stop the tax cuts the Bush administration wants to give to the 1% income earners, I can enforce or enact this plan without a new tax proposal.  We believe we could pick up that $70 billion by cutting out these other costs that we see being wasted in our government.  [applause]

Mark Smith: Next questioner, CWA President Larry Cohen.  Larry.

Larry Cohen: Okay, great.  Appreciate being here with you.  My call-up questions are on the Employee Free Choice Act.  And I appreciate even more, I’m sure we all do, that you led off with that even when that wasn’t asked.  I mean, that is huge to all of us.  I’d like to first ask you, though, what if we were down the street at the Waterloo Elks Club, and how would you talk there?  Would you discuss the Employee Free Choice Act at the Waterloo Elks Club and what would that sound like?

Christopher Dodd: Well, it’s what I’ve done over the years.  I’m proud that in your midst here today are labor leaders from my state of Connecticut are out here.  They’re the ones who’ve known me best over the last 30 years, and I’m grateful that they’ve come out today to let people in Iowa know and elsewhere the record I’ve had with them over three decades.  I don’t just talk about these issues.  Last night I spoke in Fort Dodge to an open house gathering and was asked the same question that Rich Trumka asked me at the outset here.  How would you make a difference in people’s jobs?  My first answer there was: by allowing more union households to be established in this country.  That’s one way I know to pick up wages. 

So Larry, I’m not a guy that just talks labor talk to you.  I talk these issues everywhere I go.  And that’s the reason for 30 years I’ve had the commitment, the 100% commitment, of my organized labor, of unions in my state, at every single election.  I’ve been through eight of them.  And I’ve never had to look over my shoulder to determine in my state whether or not labor was with me.  And you’re never going to have to look over your shoulder to determine whether or not I’m with you.  That’s a record I’m proud of.  I don’t believe in bait and switch.  [applause]  I’m here, I stand firmly on these issues over the years.  And my best evidence, my best evidence, is the people who are here.  There’s something called the “Dodd Prize” in Connecticut.  It’s given out every year to someone who strongly supports labor in the state of Connecticut.  I didn’t have to die to have an award named after me.  [laughter]  And so I’m proud to stand with you and to be recognized in my own state.  And Peter, I thank you for being here.  He’s one of my labor leaders in Connecticut.

Larry Cohen: Okay, great.  I mean, again, that was about the general audience versus what sometimes people do in a labor audience.  I want to get back to something you said earlier at the beginning on the Employee Free Choice Act.  So you’re elected President, assume we have mid-50s in terms of Senate support for Employee Free Choice Act, similar support to what we have now, more overwhelming in the House.  What kind of specific options would you consider as President to deal with the filibuster issue?

Christopher Dodd: Well let me say here again, I was a strong advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act and other measures here that I mentioned.  If elected and swearing in on January 20^th, 2009, I will find out and exercise whatever executive rights I have on January 20^th to reverse six years of the worst administration when it comes to working people in my lifetime here.  So I may have to go out and pass some laws.  But if I don’t have to pass a law and I can do it by executive order—if I can by executive order impose an Employee Free Choice Act, then I’m going to do it as President of the United States.  I won’t wait to fight new Congress to get it done.  I believe the power of the executive branch—this administration has not been shy when it comes to depriving organized labor and unions of their rights.  I won’t be shy about restoring, as President of the United States.  [applause]  And so if I have the authority to do it, I will do it as President of the United States on that first day. 

And then obviously, look, if you get into legislation the point is here to bring people together and pushing it.  And I’d like to see people in Congress—if Larry Cohen is a senator who wants to filibuster, then I’m going to make you stand up all night and talk.  I’m not just going to let you get off the floor and not engage in what you have a right to do, but I’m going to make you do it, Larry.  You want to filibuster?  Stand up and talk all night.  And the next guy wants to stand up all night, let him do that or her do that.  But at the end of the day you’re going to have to pay for doing so.  And let the American people know why you’re depriving them of a fundamental right.  If it’s a right to organize, if it’s a right to form a union, then the federal government ought to stand behind it and make sure your rights get exercised.  And that’s what we ought to be fighting for.  [applause]

Larry Cohen: I’m going to stick on that for a minute, if it’s okay with you.  So there are even some examples in even this administration where legislation was packaged up with something that this president didn’t want.  Is that another possible option?  Take minimum wage as an example of whether to filibuster.

Christopher Dodd: On the Appropriations Bill, where they did it.  And that’s another way of approaching these issues.  That works both ways, by the way.  [Cohen: “Exactly.”]  And I know that at least one of the candidates for President is talking about having a line-item veto as President here.  I’m opposed to that.  Already we’ve given the Executive Branch too much power in my view.  It’s a co-equal branch of government.  And to give an Executive Branch, to give a president the power, to cherry pick legislation.  So if I’m able to get that through as part of something else, and then to have a president be able to pull that out of a bill and veto that part and keep the parts he wants—that’s like those signing statements.  Anybody who stands for a line-item veto doesn’t understand the power of the presidency and the danger of giving an executive that kind of authority.  So I’ll be insisting on that kind of right being in there so you actually can tuck matters in here that we are interested in seeing adopted.

Larry Cohen: So that’s a possible avenue, as far as you’d be concerned.

Christopher Dodd: Absolutely.

Larry Cohen: So as I know you’re aware, the US is at the bottom of the 40 OECD countries.  In terms of collective bargaining rights we’re back to 7%.  In the private sector we were at 8% when the original law was passed.  How would you describe, you know, I mean why is the US so exceptionally bad in this regard?

Christopher Dodd: Well, I don’t think we’ve done a good job.  We haven’t had a president in a long time that’s willing to stand up and talk about the value of this.  Interestingly enough, and I invite somebody to take a look at this, the fellow who’s the chairman of the Federal Reserve is going through a difficult time right now given the problems of the subprime lending.  Ben Bernanke gave a speech not far from here in Omaha, Nebraska back in January.  Found it interesting, I say to all of you up here on the panel and out in the audience, because one of the remarks in that speech was that he feels that the reason that our economy is in such disparity—the largest in 82 years in our country—is because of the decline in union households in America.  Rather interesting comment coming from a Republican appointee to the Federal Reserve Board.  When he came before my committee I asked him about it.  And I said, “Do you believe that American workers have the right to organize?”  He said, “Absolutely, I would defend that right.”  I think we need to have more conversations like that in a public forum. 

Too often we treat organized labor and unions as if it were somehow a sideshow, and not critical to the improvement of the quality of life.  The middle class exists in this country.  And the fact that we’ve done as well over the years has been because people have fought tooth and nail to secure wages and salaries and benefits and working conditions that were not given out as a gift.  There were those who came before all of you in this room who shed blood, and died in fact, to secure those rights.  And, Rich, you know about this in your history with your union, what the people have gone through.  And so you need to have people who understand the history, understand the background, understand how we got to where we did, and understand that if we don’t restore these rights then we’re going to see a declining middle class. 

And I worry about that more than anything else.  You lose your middle class in this country, America will lose its way in my view.  And so standing up for people’s right to organize, to bargain, to fight for better conditions, to fight for better wages is critical for American success in the 21^st Century.  And we need an American president who just hasn’t memorized a briefing book about it, but has been there day in and day out for a quarter of a century fighting with you to maintain these rights.  We haven’t won a lot of them, but I’m your President we’re going to get a lot of them back.  And I thank you for raising the question.  [applause]

Mark Smith: Thank you.  Out of the 30 minutes, Betty, how much time do we have?  [not audible]

Christopher Dodd: Well listen, thank you, I realize you’ve got other people to hear from today.  But I’m very grateful.  I thank you all that there’s a place called Iowa, to give a guy like me a chance.  I may not be as well known.  I might not be as well heeled.  But you give everybody a crack at this state, to make a case on why we ought to be your nominee, why we ought to be your President.  And if I’m your choice in January, and I’m elected President in November of 2008, then on January 20^th all of you are invited to spend the night in the White House.  Thank you all very much.  [laughter; applause]

Former Senator

JOHN EDWARDS

Mark Smith: Yeah, I’m going to start you.  You can step up there to your microphone.  Senator, welcome to the Convention.  Let me quickly review the ground rules.  Two or three questions from each of our questioners.  You have two minutes to answer.  That’s twice as much as they gave you in Chicago.  [laughter]  At the end you have 5 minutes, or less, for closing remarks.  Your “less” is if you go beyond the allotted time to answer the questions, we’re taking it off the 5 minutes.  All right, now let me introduce the questioners.  AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka, who’s going to ask about jobs, the economy, and trade.  Iowa Federation of Labor Executive Vice President Jan Laue, about health care.  And CWA President Larry Cohen talking about the EFCA.  Rich, go ahead.

Rich Trumka: Thank you.  Welcome Senator, it’s good to have you here in Iowa.  [Edwards: “Thanks, I’m glad to be here.”]  Senator, I asked this question—I’ll ask this question of all the candidates today—it’s a generalized question for us to be able to see sort of what your philosophy is on working people.  The economy—and you’ve spoken about this forcefully—isn’t working for working people.  Family incomes of 90% of Americans have dropped over the last five years.  We’re losing health care, we’re losing pensions, we’re losing good jobs across the country.  Senator, in your opinion, why is it so difficult for so many people to make a decent living in the richest country on the face of the earth at its most rich point in time?

John Edwards: Let me say first, thank you to all of you for what you do every day.  Thank you, Rich, for what you do.  And, Mark, for your great leadership of the Iowa Fed.  And I’m glad to back with all of you.  I was here a couple years ago I believe, Mark, and I’m very proud to be back with you today.  I think what’s happened is we have a country that doesn’t value work anymore.  We value wealth.  We take care of people who have wealth.  We treat their income from wealth better than we treat work income.  And we’ve taken away the basic tools for working families to be able to do well.  Now I know you’re going to ask me about this, but let me just mention what some of those things are.  Trade—instead of members of Congress and the President of the United States, when they’re about to sign a trade deal, asking what’s good for most of the profits of multi-national corporations, how about if we asked what’s good for middle-class working families in the United States of America?  [applause]

Instead of having a tax system that continues to reward the income from wealth, which means that tax cuts for rich people, more tax cuts for rich people, more tax cuts for rich people.  And we treat capital gains better than we treat work income.  What’s wrong with this picture?  That’s not right.  You know, 15% capital gains rate compared to many working people who are paying a much higher tax rate than that.  We need tax reform, we need tax reform that actually works for working middle-class families. 

So, trade, taxes—I also know you’re going to ask me about health care, so I’ll save that.  We desperately need universal health care in this country.  We need a President of the United States who sees their job as standing up for working people, standing up for the rights of working people.  And I might add—last subject I know we’re going to talk about—standing up for the right to organize, which is crucial to growing the middle class in this country.  [applause; cheering]

Rich Trumka: Since you talked about trade, I’ll follow up on that.  Our trade deficit hit $764 billion last year.  That means that we have to borrow roughly $2 billion a day from the rest of the world to fund consumption of goods and services that we don’t produce.  We’re increasingly losing capacity in key industries, sectors, including some that are crucial to our national security, things like railroad magnets, which are key ingredients in cruise missiles and smart bombs.  As President, what steps if any would you take to bring down our bludgeoning trade deficit?

John Edwards: Well, we need a different trade policy in America.  Our trade policy is not working.  Anybody who’s paying any attention knows it’s not working—starting with NAFTA, CAFTA, and a whole series of trade agreements, that have been good for the profits of big multinational corporations.  But have they been good for you?  [from the floor: “No.”]  Have they been good for working people in this country?  [more resounding “No!”]  Listen, we need a different trade policy.  The first question that the President of the United States should ask himself, when any trade agreement is under consideration, is not what it does for big multinational corporations, but what does it do for working middle-class families, what does it do for people who are trying to support their families?  Second, we need real environmental standards in these trade agreements, in the text of the agreement, not in some side agreement.  We need real labor standards that the President of the United States is willing to enforce. 

And, we need protections against manipulation of currency.  All of us know that the Chinese are engaged in manipulation of their currency right now.  You know, it’s kind of hard to be tough on your banker, isn’t it?  They hold so much American debt.  And one of the reasons they hold so much American debt is we have not been tough with them, we have not entered into trade agreements that made sense for American workers.  We need a trade policy that works for America’s workers.  And I’m telling you, as President of the United States we will have a trade policy that works for American workers.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: Would you consider imposing temporary across-the-board emergency import surcharges to bring down our trade deficit?  The World Trade Organization allows it, and, in fact, President Nixon imposed such a surcharge in 1971.

John Edwards: One of the problems that we’ve had with Bush and his gang—but not just with Bush and his gang—is that we have not been willing to use the tools that are available to us in the WTO to enforce the trade obligations of other countries.  We should use those tools.  We should enforce the rights and obligations—the rights of America and the obligations of other countries.  For goodness sakes, we got other countries who are coming to the United States and suing us under Chapter 11 of NAFTA for having to comply with environmental and labor responsibilities.  The United States of America needs to use the tools that are available to us to enforce the obligations, the trade obligations, of other countries. 

Rich Trumka: Would you seek renewal of fast track trade negotiating authority when you’re President?

John Edwards: Well first of all, the last thing the Congress should do is give this President fast track authority.  That’s the last thing we should do.  [applause]  We’ve seen what happens when this President’s given any responsibility for working middle-class families.  Now I think, actually, we don’t need fast track authority.  I would not want fast track authority as President of the United States.  But I would want to drive trade policy in America, as President of the United States, because I think our trade policy is off and it’s been reflected in trade agreement after trade agreement.  And working people and jobs in America have paid the price.  How many places have I been to here in the state of Iowa where your Brothers and Sisters have lost their jobs, where it’s been made more and more difficult for you to collectively bargain?  Because, what do they tell you?  They tell you: “Well, you either give up, you can see you give up in these negotiations or we’re just going to take those jobs and go somewhere else.”  Right?  That’s exactly what they do.  You have no authority.  You have no leverage to negotiate as a result. 

If we get health care off the table, with a universal health care plan, and if in fact we have a trade policy that works for American workers and we empower American workers in their collective bargaining process then all of a sudden workers are able to earn a decent living again, and able to support their families.  That’s what I want to do as President of the United States.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: There seems to be broad consensus on the need to rebuild America’s infrastructure in the wake of the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis.  What measures would you take to repair and maintain our aging infrastructure and how would you make sure that the materials needed for the infrastructure investment are to the largest extent possible made here in the United States?

John Edwards: Well, let me say first of all, this is on a sort of related subject, it is about time the President of the United States actually enforced country-of-origin labeling on products in the United States of America, so that we actually know where this stuff’s coming from.  What I would do about the infrastructure, to answer your question, is, the first thing I would do is I would identify the places in America that are at risk, that create risks for the lives of Americans, and we would go fix them—and fix them immediately.  We could worry about where the money comes from later.  But we cannot leave Americans at risk because of crumbling infrastructure, like what we saw in Minneapolis.  It was a tragic situation in Minneapolis.  Second, I would evaluate what the infrastructure needs in America are.  We know they’re big.  We know they’re serious.  And I would use rebuilding America’s infrastructure as a great opportunity to create jobs in America—good working-class jobs, good middle-class jobs, good union jobs, so that people could support their families.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: Specifically dealing with China and the trade deficit, what would you do to lower the bludgeoning trade deficit that we have with China? 

John Edwards: Enforce their obligations with the WTO.  The second thing I would do is we would go after China for the manipulation of their currency, which we know they’re engaged in.  The manipulation of their currency allows them to dump cheap goods on the American market, makes it very hard for American workers and American employers to be able to compete.  They need to be stopped.  This President has not enforced any of the obligations of China in the WTO, or their trade obligations.  And I can tell you I would do that as President of the United States.

Rich Trumka: Senator, I want to thank you for your forthrightness and for being with us and for your support over the years.  [Edwards: “Thanks, Rich.”]  [applause]

Mark Smith: Executive Vice President Jan Laue.

Jan Laue: Thank you, Senator, for being here today.  The next set of questions is on health care.  The AFL-CIO has adopted a set of principles for health care reform that includes universal coverage.  One of the ways to achieve this is to build on an improved Medicare program, our most successful program of universal coverage.  You have not been a supporter of a single payer system, so what approach would you take to guarantee affordable quality health care for all Americans and why?

John Edwards: First of all, I’m proud of the fact that I was the first candidate to come out with a universal health care plan, which I’m very, very proud of.  Because I believe we desperately need universal health care in America.  And basically what my plan does is it requires employers to either cover their employees or to pay into a fund, subsidizes health insurance premiums up to about $100,000 of income.  It gets rid of the cracks in the health care system, which means we outlaw preexisting conditions, mental health is treated the same as physical health, true mental health parity, chronic care, long-term care, preventive care all covered.  Dental care and vision care are covered.  What you’re allowed to do in my plan—there’s a reason it’s done this way—is you can choose what health care you want.  You can choose from a private plan or you can choose from the government plan, which is Medicare Plus. 

And the idea here is to give you and the rest of the American people an opportunity to choose what you want.  If in fact America decides that Medicare, single payer government plan, is the one that works the best, then it’s perfectly fine with me for the plan to go to that, to go to single payer.  But I want America to make that decision.  And the last thing I want to say about this is my plan, you can take your coverage with you, anywhere you go, whether you change jobs, if you move to a different part of the country.  My plan, I’m going to tell you some truths about this, I know there are people who claim: “Well, we can have universal health care and there’s no cost associated with it.”  I don’t believe that’s the truth, and I think you deserve to know the truth.  My plan costs $90 billion to $120 billion a year and it’s paid for by getting rid of Bush’s tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year.  [applause]

Jan Laue: How would you overcome the obstacles that have stopped us from getting this done before?

John Edwards: Well, the obstacles to universal health care are really not very complicated.  They are insurance companies and drug companies, and insurance company and drug company lobbyists.  I can tell you exactly what I would do.  First, I have already said I have never taken and will not take money from Washington lobbyists, whether they’re working for drug companies, insurance companies, big oil companies.  [applause]  Doesn’t make any difference.  Listen, if we’re going to restore the power in America back to you and back to working people, these people spend 8, 10, 20 times what working people are able to spend to lobby the Congress.  They know exactly what they’re doing, and they’re paid to do it. 

And by the way, just as a quick aside, having been a lawyer for 20 years, you know, I had a job of persuading juries about what they were supposed to do.  Washington lobbyists’ job is to persuade a jury—members of Congress—about what they’re supposed to do.  But if I walked into a court room and paid the jury, that was called a bribe, and they’d put me in jail.  But Washington lobbyists paying members of Congress, that’s called politics.  We need to put a stop to this.  We need to put a stop to this—“we” being the presidential candidates and the Democratic Party—we need to say: “We are not the party of Washington insiders.  We reject it.  We’re going to end their game.” 

We will never see change, never see universal health care, unless we’re willing to stand up and fight these people.  I’ve been fighting them my whole life, for 20 years in court rooms, where I beat ‘em and beat ‘em and beat ‘em.  And I will do exactly the same thing as President of the United States. 

And what I will do is walk out on the White House lawn and say to America: “We need universal health care.  We’ve got to bring costs down for health care in this country.  And we’ve got to cover everybody.”  I’d tell them what my plan was.  And then I would say: “Now let me tell you what’s coming.  You’re going to see millions of dollars spent on televisions to keep you from having universal health care.  Every time you see an ad I want you to ask yourself this question: Who’s paying for this?  Because I’ll tell you in advance who’s going to be paying for it—the insurance companies, the drug companies, the very people who were charging you so much for your health insurance.  The very people who are charging you so much when you go to the pharmacy to buy your prescription drugs.  And we will not have universal health care unless together America stands up against these people and does what’s right.” 

And I tell you, I’ve seen over and over and over, here in Iowa, people who don’t have—just in the last two days—single mothers who don’t have health care coverage.  You’ve heard me talk about this that I met a man a few weeks ago, 51 years old, couldn’t speak for 50 years of his life, because he didn’t have health care coverage.  I’m tired of being nice about this.  We have to quit being nice.  This is outrageous what these insurance companies and drug companies have done to us and have done to working people.  And we have to stand up and fight them and do what’s right for you and do what’s right for America.  [applause]  We need to have the courage and the outrage to stand up for what’s right.

Jan Laue: Employers are finding it harder to compete globally with companies who don’t provide health care in other countries, they don’t have to provide that health care because the country does it.  How would you level the playing field for companies here in America with those globally? 

John Edwards: We need universal health care.  I mean, we’re spending $1700-$1800 per car made in the United States on health care costs.  Japanese are spending $200-$250 a car.  There’s a $1500-$1600 difference—at the beginning—in the cost of the car.  It’s impossible for American companies, for American employers, to compete, unless we deal with the structural problems in the American economy.  And that includes health care.  And it will be a number one priority for me to get universal health care for America.  [applause]

Jan Laue: As you know, Massachusetts was the first state to adopt an individual mandate which requires every resident to buy health insurance or face a tax penalty.  But they’re already struggling with how to balance the affordability and the adequacy of benefits.  Sometimes premiums are lowered by increasing the deductibles and co-pays or cutting benefits.  How do we protect against working families being forced to buy coverage that’s not adequate?

John Edwards: The key to making any universal health care plan work, including mine, is adequate funding, and to make sure there’s adequate subsidizing of the health insurance premium.  I mean, one of the problems with the Massachusetts plan—we’ve also seen it to some extent in California—is they put the problems with the deficiency in cash flow on the backs of the people who need the health insurance.  We should do exactly the opposite.  Which is why I’ve been very upfront from the beginning that my plan costs money.  I mean, people who claim they can do universal health care on the cheap I don’t think are telling the truth.  I think if we want universal health care we’re going to have to actually pay for it.  You’ve got to find a way to pay for it.  And I think getting rid of tax cuts for rich people, so that working people can have health care, is what’s right for America and is what I’ll do as President of the United States.  [applause]

Larry Cohen: Okay, you’ve been a strong advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act.  You’ve even talked about it already today.  If we were down the street at the Waterloo Elks Club and you were talking to us there, we weren’t union people but we were the members there, cross section of the community, how would you talk about the Employee Free Choice Act there?

John Edwards: I want to say something about this, because Larry’s asking a really important question.  Every candidate that comes in front of you today is going to talk about how much they love the Employee Free Choice Act.  And they’re going to talk to you about how much they love unions and organized labor.  That’s no test at all.  The test is, what do they say when you’re not in front of them?  What do they say when they’re talking to the Chamber of Commerce?  What do they say when they’re just speaking to a caucus group somewhere in Iowa?  What do they say when they’re talking to primary voters in Wisconsin or Michigan or New Hampshire?  What do they say when they’re in front of the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, 5,000, almost entirely Republicans?  Every place I go—and I would do it there—every place I go I talk about the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act.  And not only—they don’t know it, so I don’t use that name—what I talk about is the importance of organized labor, and the importance of growing the organized labor movement.  I remind people that it’s the union movement that built the middle class in this country, and that if we want to restore and strengthen the middle class, we have to grow the organized labor movement. 

It is critical not just to union members—and certainly not just to union presidents—it is critical to the long-term economic security of America.  Because if you don’t want to live in a country just made up of a few rich people and everybody else, organized labor is absolutely critical.  And if we’re going to grow the organized labor movement we’re going to have to actually change the law to make it fair.  And the way I describe it to them is, if you could join the Republican or Democratic Party by signing your name to a card, any worker in America should be able to join a union by doing exactly the same thing.  [applause]  That’s democracy in the workplace.  That’s what we believe in.

Larry Cohen: Okay.  You’re President of the United States.  What would you do—and let’s assume the politics are similar as to how they are now, the make up of the House and Senate, maybe a few more Democrats, so we don’t have 60 senators supporting cloture on Employee Free Choice Act—what would you do as President of the United States, faced with that and your own support for it?

John Edwards: Well, first of all there really is a difference between, say, you’ll sign the Employee Free Choice Act as President, and you’re making it a priority and being willing to spend political capital on it.  I believe—and I don’t do this just for unions and union members—I believe that the Employee Free Choice Act and democracy in the workplace, free of threats and intimidation, which I have seen first hand—and we’ll talk about that at the end—I believe that it is crucial to the long-term strength of America.  So what I would do, to answer your question, is I would go to the Congress, I would go to members of Congress who were waffling, and if necessary I would go to their states to campaign and raise this issue. 

America—I mean, just think for a minute, just visualize for a minute, what we’ve seen in presidents over the last 25 or 30 years, and then take that in your head and compare it with a president—i.e. me [laughter, applause], that’s the picture I want you to have—who walks out on the White House lawn and first of all—here’s a radical idea—says the word “union.”  And then says how important the union movement has been in the history of America.  Mark and I have talked about this before, a lot of Americans have forgotten how important the organized labor movement was to America.  Talk about how important it’s been in the past and how important it is for the future.  And how this—this—growing the labor movement, organizing, strengthening collective bargaining, changing the law to make it fair for workers who are organizing in the workplace, is crucial not just to members of the unions, but to the strength and long-term security of America.  I believe that.  I absolutely believe it to my soul.  I believe there is a difference between wanting the support of union members coming before you when you’re running for President, and whether you truly believe that the union movement is crucial to the future of America.  I truly believe the union movement is crucial to the future of America.  [applause]

Larry Cohen: Quick follow-up then on that.  Even recently with this President there are examples of bundling legislation together.  Is that something you would consider?  Minimum wage passed that way, as you know.

John Edwards: I think this is important enough that I would use whatever legislative tool is available to get it passed.  That simple.  And I would make it a priority at the very beginning of my administration.  Universal health care, Employee Free Choice would be absolutely at the top of the list.  And this is not a little thing—it sounds like talk, but it’s not a little thing—I would be willing to spend my personal political capital as President of the United States to get Employee Free Choice passed.  And in a few minutes when I get a chance to summarize I’ll talk about how obvious that is from what I’ve been doing the last several years.  [applause]

Larry Cohen: Okay, one last question.  Any thoughts on why the U.S. is at the bottom.  There’s 40 countries in the OECD.  We have 7% collective bargaining in the private sector.  The next lowest, Japan, is about 16%-17%.  Canada is about 17% or 18%.  Any thoughts on why the U.S. has collapsed?  We were at 35% in 1950, when cities like Waterloo were coming up.

John Edwards: Yeah, I think there are a lot of reasons.  First of all, I think our political leaders have run from organized labor, as if there’s something dangerous or bad about standing for working people.  I think the second reason is we have laws that favor the employers.  They do not favor organizing campaigns.  I’ve seen first hand the threats and the intimidation that workers go through—first, when you’re engaged in an organizing campaign, when you’re trying to organize workers in the workplace.  And all of you know what happens.  You know, they bring these union busters in, they violate the law.  They know the economics are in their favor.  The law is in their favor.  If anything happens they’re going to get a slap on the wrist three or four years down the road.  When a big chunk of the workers you’ve been trying to organize are gone.  That’s the reason the law has to be changed to create real democracy in the workplace.  It’s the reason we need card check.  It is the reason we need to make the permanent replacement of strikers—banning permanent replacement of strikers—the law of the land.  No scabs should be able to walk through your picket line and take your job when you’re involved in a strike.  [long applause; cheering]  I think I’ll stop there.  [laughter]

Mark Smith: Senator, you’ve got 5 minutes.

John Edwards: Thank you.  Thank you all very much.  And I want to thank all these great leaders in organized labor for being here.  And thank all of you for being here.  I’m glad to be back with you.  I want to emphasize a couple of things.  Many of you know this already, because you’ve seen me yourself in your own community.  But just in the last few years I have 200 plus times been involved personally in organizing campaigns, in walking picket lines, in working with employers to create fairness in an organizing campaign in the workplace.  I walked two picket lines in the last seven to ten days.  Twenty-three unions I’ve worked with—23 national unions in organizing campaigns.  We have organized thousands of workers across this country.  I do it because I believe in the cause. 

And there’s something that you need to know from me, and that is not only as a candidate for President, not only as President of the United States, but when I am an ex-President of the United States I will be with you in this cause.  I will walk with you on picket lines.  I will work with you in organizing campaigns, because I think it’s important for my country.  That’s why.  I won’t do it for politics.  You know, god knows I want your support like everybody else running for President, I would not deny that in a second, but the truth is that your cause is at the heart of why I’m running for President of the United States.  It is the reason that when I wasn’t running for anything I’ve been out there with you.  When the crunch was there and nobody was looking, nobody was looking, there were no cameras, nobody was paying attention, I was there.  I was there on the picket line.  I was there in the organizing campaigns.  And I will always be there.  [applause] 

I will always be with you because I believe so deeply in your cause and what we’re trying to do for this country—together, together.  American cannot be what it’s capable of being without growing organized labor.  America cannot be what it’s capable of being without strengthening the working middle class in this country.  It’s working people that made this country what it is, not people who work on Wall Street, it’s people who worked with their hands, people who went to work every day, 8-10-12 hours a day.  I’ve seen it.  I’ve seen it in my own life.  And it is everything to me.  It is at the heart and soul of why I want to be President of the United States. 

I still remember—tell you a quick story—when I was a young boy my father worked in mills all his life.  Some of you might remember, I’m the son of a mill worker, right?  [laughter]  But I’ll tell you a quick story about that.  When I was young my father kept being replaced by college boys, as he called them, in his job.  And I remember coming downstairs one day about 5 o’clock in the morning and my father—the television was glowing in the background, still dark outside—and my father was sitting watching public television trying to learn so that he could get a better job in the mill. 

That’s what America is supposed to be about.  That’s what you’re about.  You’re about standing up for people who don’t have a voice.  You’re about giving them a decent life.  You’re about making sure they have a chance and their children get a chance for a better life.  That’s what organized labor is.  That’s what unions are.  That’s what you do every single day.  And I would say to you, I hope you’re proud of what you do.  You should be proud of what you do.  You should be proud of who you stand for and who you stand with.  I’m proud of what I stand for.  And I’m proud of who I stand with.  And I want all of you to know, as long as I’m alive and breathing I will be standing with you, as a candidate for President, as President, and when I’m an ex-President of the United States I will be with you in organizing campaigns and I will be with you on picket lines.  Think about a President of the United States walking a picket line.  You’re looking at one.  [applause]  Bless you all very much.  It’s a great privilege to be here with you.  Thank you all for what you do every day.  [applause; cheering]

Senator

JOE BIDEN

Mark Smith: Please welcome our next candidate, Senator Joe Biden from Delaware.  [applause; cheering]  Senator, welcome to the Convention.  [Biden: “It’s nice to be here.”]  Let me quickly review the ground rules: two or three questions from each of our three questioners, you have 2 minutes to answer each of the questions.  At the end, you have 5 minutes, or less, for closing remarks.  Your “or less” is if you go beyond your allotted time to answer the questions, we steal it off the 5 minutes at the end to stay on schedule.  Let me introduce the questioners: AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka, Iowa Federation of Labor Executive Vice President Jan Laue, and CWA President Larry Cohen.  First round of questions we ask by Secretary-Treasurer Trumka.

Rich Trumka: Thank you Mark.  Senator, welcome to Iowa.  [Biden: “Good to be here.”]  Thanks for being with us.  We very much appreciate it.  I’ve asked every one of the candidates today the same first question, it’s a vision question, for you to be able to tell us how you see what’s happening in the country today.  From our point of view the American economy isn’t working for the average working person.  Our wages have stagnated, people are losing health care, pensions are leaving us.  Those at the top are doing exceptionally well.  Senator, why is it so difficult for most people to make a living in the richest country on the face of the earth at its most rich point in time?

Joe Biden: Because this President’s declared two wars: he declared one in Iraq and one on labor.  And the fact of the matter is, you look at the numbers, folks, 1947 to 1973 American labor represented 1 in 4 workers.  You were growing.  And the middle class grew.  The middle class grew faster than every one of the elements, the five sectors of the economy, based on the highest 1% and the lowest 10%.  1972 on, when the NLRB decision was made about essentially how we could organize and the ability of business to intimidate your organization, you fell to 1 in 10.  1 in 10 representing the workers, the middle class dropped.  You saw the upper 1% their income in the last six years grew 6%.  Ours dropped.  You are the middle class.  If you’re going to grow the middle class in America, labor’s got to grow.  Labor falls, the middle class loses.  And I think you underestimate how critically important you are.  You are what made the middle class.  You’re under siege, its under siege, jobs are under siege.  That’s the problem.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: You’ve talked a lot about how oil dependence is threatening our national security and have laid out an ambitious plan to improve energy efficiency and to shift to more renewable energy sources.  How will you use your energy and environmental proposals to revitalize American manufacturing?

Joe Biden:  Look, there’s two things that a president can do.  A president can propose legislation through a Congress to get changes made.  And the second thing, a president can use his bully pulpit to try to change, through what he or she says, the attitudes of a country.  As President of the United States literally the first thing I would announce as an executive order that I would make it clear upon being elected that not one single solitary fleet vehicle purchased by the United States government be purchased as an automobile that got less than 40 miles to the gallon.  And not one single solitary building would be built in America without it being a green building.  Within the matter of two months you’d have 30 states in America emulating that.  That would create a pool of a half a trillion dollars—a half a trillion dollars—that would force business to want a piece of that pie.  You would see a radical change in the way in which we manufactured, you’d see a radical way in which we in this country began to build automobiles, you would see us become so much more competitive.

But beyond that, what you have to do is you have to go out and turn our energy dependence into an energy export item.  We have reduced the amount of money in the last seven years we have invested in research and development by 30%.  Here we are in a country already in trouble, and we’re reducing the investment.  I would invest considerably to build the capability of exporting technology.  And lastly, folks, and I suggested it in 1992, $20 billion a year in infrastructure.  Folks, each one of those jobs are 50,000 to 80,000 bucks.  American businesses are leaving, because we don’t have an infrastructure here.  China’s making 8% of their total GDP, they’re putting in roads, bridges, sewers and the rest.  We do less than 1%.  We could radicalize—radicalize—this country in terms of its energy efficiency as a consequence of how we rebuilt the infrastructure in this country.  There are two little things you could start off with which would be gigantic and change the attitude of the country about consumption and about our ability to be competitive in the world, where we’re now being less and less competitive because we’re investing in the wrong things.

Rich Trumka: Last year our trade deficit hit $764 billion, which means that we have to borrow roughly $2 billion a day from the rest of the world to fund consumption of goods and services that we don’t produce.  We’re increasingly losing capacity in key service and industrial sectors, including some that are critical to our national security.  As President, what steps, if any, would you take to bring down our trade deficit?

Joe Biden: Two things: I’d radically change our consumption of imported oil.  We’re spending $300 billion a year, we’re pouring into the sands of Saudi Arabia and the pockets of guys like Chavez down in Venezuela.  I’d be pouring $50 billion a year into the fields of Iowa and Nebraska and the Midwest buying and dealing with renewable energy, not just what we’re doing now with corn-based ethanol, but with cellulosics and renewable energy from wind to solar.  But in addition to that, the first thing I would do, I would change our tax policy and I would change our policy relative to this war, because guess what we’re doing, folks?  We owe China now, they’ve got a mortgage on our house.  We owe them $1 trillion almost now.  And what do we owe them that money for?  We owe them that money for the fact that we have a $1.2 trillion tax policy hemorrhaging to the wealthy in this country that don’t need it.  I would eliminate those tax cuts.  And I would eliminate and end this war.  And that would radically change the amount of money we are literally exporting.  We are having China and the foreign countries as the bankers of the United States.  And in case you haven’t noticed, they threaten—as we get tight on them with trade policy costing us jobs—they’ve threatened not to show up to buy treasury bonds.  We have to get off that, sucking off of that breast which is China, China.  China is a big problem for us.  Taxes and the war.

Rich Trumka: Would you consider imposing a temporary across-the-board emergency import surcharges to bring down our trade deficit?

Joe Biden: I would consider that for certain sectors related to imports.  I would consider that in terms of energy and I would consider that in terms of those countries that are engaging in manipulating their own currencies in order to make their goods so much cheaper, which makes it harder for us to manufacture and export our products.  And the other thing I would do, folks, is I would change the way in which we deal with what we import.  We should have country labeling.  Everybody should know in this country exactly what you’re importing, from what, what you’re buying and who you’re buying it from, in order for us to be able to get a grip on reeducating the American public on their buying habits on top of all of the rest.  So, the bottom line here is though, ladies and gentlemen, there ain’t no such thing as free trade unless it’s fair trade, and fair trade only works when you impose the same standard on the outfit you’re dealing with as they impose on you.  And we’re not doing that now.  [applause]

Rich Trumka: I have one minute, Senator, I wanted to do a follow-up question with your energy and environmental proposals.  How would you ensure that the new investments that you’re proposing in renewable energy and climate change solutions support American jobs rather than simply boosting imports?

Joe Biden: The way I would do it is I would invest in America.  In other words, look, there is no reason why we should be importing these big turbines that you see out all across the state of Iowa.  You know, they’re coming from abroad.  I would be investing in manufacturing here.  I would be giving incentives to American manufacturers to invest in and give them breaks on building those renewable sources of energy right here.  I would make sure that I kept the incentive available to encourage people to go out and move into cellulosics, to take a chance.  That’s a much better bang for the buck than corn ethanol, which will get us about four years into the deal here, but that’s not enough to carry the sleigh.  I would be investing $50 billion, which we can afford.  And don’t let them tell you we can’t afford to do this.  My dad used to say: “Don’t tell me about your values.  Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what your values are.”  They are hemorrhaging money spending in their profligate tax cuts as well as spending in areas that make no return for the American worker.  We can invest it here in the United States of America.  And I stop.  [laughter] 

Mark Smith: Thank you, Senator.  The next questioner, on health care—you’re getting better, I’ll tell you that.

Joe Biden: Hey, I’m better than any of them.  I’m the only one that keeps the time of those debates.  Next time, count.  The only one.  Don’t give me this malarkey “I’m getting better.”  I’m the only one.  [laughter]  And I timed John Edward’s 5 minutes.  You’d better keep the same for me.  Go ahead.

Jan Laue: Quickly then, Senator, thank you for being here.  [Biden: “I’m happy to be here.”]  The AFL-CIO has adopted a set of principles for health care reform that includes universal coverage.  One of the ways to achieve this is to build on an improved Medicare program, our most successful program of universal coverage.  You have not been a supporter of a single payer system, so what approach would you take to guarantee affordable quality health care for all Americans and why?

Joe Biden: Look folks, if health care plans would guarantee health care, we would’ve had it a long time ago.  Let’s start off, if I could pass one single law to get you universal health care it’d be public financing of elections.  [applause]  That would be the single most important thing to get you health care.  You and I both know it.  Don’t tell me you can raise a $100 million for a primary and not owe somebody.  Okay?  I don’t know where the hell—heck—you come from, but I can tell you where I come from.  The fact of the matter is that there’s a lot of good health care plans out there.  John Edwards has a good health care plan, Barack Obama has a good health care plan.  I think I have a good health care plan.  But it’s not about the plan.  It’s about the leadership.  It’s about how are you going to get it done.  How are you going to beat Harry and Louise this time when they spend a half a billion dollars to come after your plan?  Like they did last time with the Clinton plan. 

And there’s two things you’ve got to do.  Number one, make sure you don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.  I would immediately pass the first year, I’d pass universal health care for all children and I’d pass a catastrophic health care for every American.  That would do two things.  That’d begin to build a constituency immediately, take pressure off of your employers to get rid of your health care plan, because it would reduce their costs drastically. 

The second thing I would do, I would go out and spend the $7 billion that you need to do to modernize the health care system so you don’t have redundancy in record keeping and you streamline the means by which in fact we keep all of our records, which raises costs by estimates from 19% to 23%.  The third thing I would do, and I guess my time is running out, I would make sure that in the first two years I would underwrite the experimentation the states are undertaking in order to get universal health care in their states.  Why?  I would do it to build a bulwark so that we build a constituency in America for health care.  So when the insurance companies come after us—and they will come after us to stop this from happening—and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do it, we will have built a constituency that says: “We insist on universal health care.” 

And the last thing I would do, I would make it clear—and I’ve already said to two of the drug companies in my state—you either cooperate in helping me get national health care or you become my number one enemy.  I will make you a pariah.  We have to fight the insurance companies the same way they fight.  And as President of the United States, I mean this sincerely, I would make it blatantly clear: “You’re part of the solution or you’re the problem, and every day I will use that bully pulpit to make you the most disliked industry in the United States of America.”  [applause]

Jan Laue: Employers are finding it harder to compete globally with firms that provide their workers little or no health care.  How would you level the playing field so there’s fair competition?

Joe Biden: You know, right now—I come from an automobile state—right now you can build a Buick Skylark in my state, same UAW, same parts, same everything.  Build the same one in Ontario, Canada and you sell the one in Ontario, Canada for 14% less than the one you can in Delaware.  And you wonder why these jobs are going abroad, beyond all the other bad things that are happening.  So the first thing you’ve got to do, is you’ve got to take pressure off of the system.  One of the ways to take pressure off of the system is to take catastrophic health care out of the mix.  Catastrophic health care raises the cost significantly of the major industries providing health care.  The second thing, if you take kids out of that equation, all that in the first year, you significantly reduce the cost of American business doing business and providing for health care for their employees. 

The third thing you’ve got to do is you’ve got to make sure that when you’re dealing with this whole notion of how we deal abroad, that you go back to the stuff that you talked about, Mr. President, and that leads to the trade side of this equation.  You cannot be put in the position where we sign on to trade deals that allow us to compete with countries that don’t have environmental or employee standards, which is the second way in which they can fundamentally reduce the cost of building the product in their country, beyond the fact there are other countries who are competing at the top end have health care. 

So if you want American business to stay here, you’ve got to be able to do three things.  One, you’ve got to deal with national health care.  We have to have universal health care eventually to take the burden off.  Two, you’ve got to make sure that the trade deals are encouraging them to stay, not to go.  And three, you’ve got to build an infrastructure here to make it cheaper for them to build products and provide good paying jobs for people here.  You can’t just do one of them.  One of them won’t do it alone.

Jan Laue: The United States spends more on health care than any other country.  Yet we lag behind on most key quality indicators.  What would you do to improve quality, lower costs, and still provide access to everyone?

Joe Biden: Look folks, my family has been an incredible consumer of health care.  My wife and daughter were killed and my two sons were badly injured and hospitalized for a long time.  I wasn’t worried just about whether it was the cost, I was worried about the quality.  I had one kid they told me wasn’t likely to walk again after my daughter was killed, and another kid I was told had a severe head injury because he had a fractured skull, they didn’t know what was going to happen.  I did not only want to make sure I could play for it, I wanted to make sure I had quality care.  I wanted to make sure it was available to everybody.  And guess what?  It’s not available to everybody.  It’s not even close to being available to everybody. 

The second thing is, I spent 7 months in Walter Reed Hospital with two cranial aneurisms and a major embolism and they told me I had about a 30% chance of living.  I remember being rolled down as I went into that operating room knowing full well that after getting the last rites and being told to say goodbye to my sons because I might not see them again—one thing—honest to God—one thing I knew no matter what happened, I had insurance and my family wouldn’t be indebted the rest of their lives.  My bills exceeded over a million dollars and the fact of the matter is, there is no way even if I had a good decent job with no health insurance I could have ever done anything other than my family be in debt the rest of their lives. 

So folks, there are two things you gotta do,  number 1, you gotta force the medical profession to change the way in which they do business.  For example, out in India they have a better success rate with cataract operations than they do in the United States of America and it costs ¼ the amount.  Why?  Because they train their registered nurses to send them to school an extra year to be able to make that little cut which is a mechanical cut and they allow them because its much much cheaper without having to go through medical school to be able to do the same operation overseen by a doc.  We have to change the way in which we deliver medicine.  We have to change the way we deliver medicine in terms of where we deliver the medicine.  The fact of the matter is we should not have everyone having to go to an emergency room.  We should be underwriting the ability of people to go to first rate clinics that exist within their regional areas in their neighborhood.  We should be having a way in which you change the delivery of medicine, not just whether or not you have health care. 

And one of the ways to drive down the cost of that is a significant portion of that cost, as you know, is prescriptions, and a significant portion of that cost is the cost of the doctors having to do the procedures which are fully within the capacity of nurses to do the procedures.  And by the way, I’d note parenthetically, if there are any angels in heaven, they are all nurses.  They are all nurses.  They ain’t docs, they’re nurses. 

And so – I have 30 seconds left, but it’s a very profound question.  It relates to quality.  Quality and cost are not one and the same.  People who are not getting quality are paying a whole heck of a lot.  So the way to deal with it is to get the medical profession to change, put pressure on it in terms of the delivery of the services they give and the health care, and also you have to ultimately make this a universal system where everybody has access. Everybody has access to health care.  There will always be differences: all docs aren’t created equal, I can tell you that from experience, anymore than all lawyers or all union leaders are created equal.  Some are better than others, but the fact of the matter is, everybody should have an even shot.  (applause)

Mark Smith:  Thank you Senator.  Larry?

Larry Cohen:  In your opening with Rich, you talked about the time when the middle class grew, and that was obviously true right here in Waterloo in that period of time.  Let’s imagine now that you were right down the street here, not with a union audience, but at the Waterloo Elks Club.  How would you talk about the Employee Free Choice Act?  How would you talk about bargaining and organizing rights? 

Joe Biden:  You know, folks, where I come from, the way to measure whether someone’s with you is whether they stayed with you when things were really bad.  I come from the state of Dupont.  I come from the corporate state of America.  I challenge you to ask anyone of your counterparts in Delaware in any labor organization whether or not Joe Biden hadn’t said the same exact thing at the Chamber of Commerce meeting that Joe Biden says at a labor meeting.  Joe Biden would say the same thing, and does say the same thing, for example, about card check to the Chamber of Commerce that I recently spoke to because I believe it’s in their interest.  They don’t get it yet.  They don’t get it yet.  Their growth depends upon your health. 

But folks we all tell you what we’re doing for you now, when it’s popular.  I want to tell you what: in 1973 when we were barely a right to work state, I marched in picket lines.  In 1978 I marched in picket lines.  In 1995, I marched in my conservative state of Delaware in picket lines.  You doubt me?  Ask any labor leader in my state.  So if you wonder whether or not somebody’s with you, I can show you the scars on my back from situs picketing on down.  Voting against the overwhelming economic interests in my state.  And so ladies and gentlemen, the one thing you’re never going to have to wonder about me, and you may worry about it: I mean what I say. I do what I say, and I’ve done what I said.  And that relates to my being with you for 34 years, and not in a labor state.  (applause) 

Larry Cohen: Okay, you’re President Biden,  you’ve been sworn in and Pelosi and Miller again pass the Employee Free Choice Act by a wide margin in the House and now we’re back to your old Chamber, the Senate, and it’s clear there are 54, 55 whatever votes for cloture.  Now you’re President Biden.   How do you get that through?

Joe Biden:  I get that through because I’m the only one you can nominate that’s going to be able to win Red States.  I’m not being facetious now.  I can win Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia.  I can win Red States.  And let me tell you: if you cannot win those Red States, you’re President of the United States and you go to ask for a tough vote—let’s assume we do what others may be doing this time.  Let’s assume we were the same 20 states we won the last 2 times plus one.  Now we’ve won by one state, right?  You still have now 29 states in which if the record of last time were repeated, we only got an average of 35% of the vote.  I can tell you from experience of being one of the most senior Senators, you go to a Democratic Senator in a Red State where you only got 35% of the vote and say “Hey, John, I need your help on this one, this is a tough one.”  John’s going to look at you and say “Joe, I love you.  You’re a great President, but I tell you what, you have no credibility in my state.  I can’t be with you.”  I will win 45% or more of the vote in 15 of those Red States.  And let me tell you, if we elect a Democratic President without being able to do that, we will be able to stop bad things from happening, but let me tell you, you won’t be able to implement an agenda that we all want.  Because you gotta get to the point where you don’t have to have 60 votes to get everything passed.  And the second thing I’d have, I’d have a little altar call with some of these guys.  I would invite them down, ask if they wanted to watch the Super Bowl with me, and let them know what would happen to them if they were not able to help me on this vote.  [laughter]  It would be an important thing to do.  [applause]

Larry Cohen: Okay, just following on that for a minute.  The way in which minimum wage was bundled with appropriations, is that a possible strategy that you would use?

Joe Biden: That’s not a possible—look folks, we should’ve just taken this to the wall.  We should’ve just taken this to the wall.  One of the things that happens here—there’s certain things that even Republicans are smart enough to figure out.  I’m not being facetious.  I’m not being facetious.  Think about this: How much longer could the Republicans have sustained the battering they were taking on not raising the minimum wage?  How much longer would that have happened?  I would have rather see us continue to batter them, and end up having ourselves in the position where we picked up an extra 20 or 25 seats the next time around, than make the Faustian bargain of having to go and give a break to people who already don’t need a break—don’t need a break.  It’s kind of outrageous.  Think about it.  The only time you make those kind of deals is when you operate from a position of weakness, when you figure it’s not going to get better next time. 

We have been so dumbed down, we have been so beaten up about the head by the Karl Roves of the world.  The Democratic Party has to learn to stand up.  [applause]

One of the things I find around the country is—[loud applause]—I’m not kidding.  The one thing I hear most around the country—and I promise you this—I hear the criticism of the party, my party, I hear most often is we’re too timid.  We’re too timid.  Ladies and gentlemen, the American people are where we are, they’re where we are.  We shouldn’t be apologetic.  We should just keep punching.  Keep punching.  But these kind of deals we’re making—look at the deal we just made on eavesdropping.  Give me a break.  Seriously, think about it.  What did we just do?  We gave these guys enough votes to allow this President to continue to violate the law which I was the co-author of, FISA.  I was a kid, 1978, we wrote this bill.  This guy has been violating our rights all this time.  [applause] 

And what did we just do?  We went ahead, and with enough Democrats we gave them the votes.  Why?  Because we were afraid if in fact something God forbid happened while we were in recess, they’d blame it on us.  Don’t we get it?  The American public are smarter.  They’ve figured this guy out.  He’s creating terrorism.  He’s the reason why we’re in trouble.  He and his own—his own—intelligent community has said: “The reason why al-Qaida is stronger than before 9-11 now, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself.  We have created more terrorists than we have destroyed.  That’s not just Joe Biden saying that for the last six years.  That is the National Intelligence estimate, the 14 intelligence agencies in the United States of America.  Why are we afraid just to take this straight to them?  Because if we don’t, folks, we don’t, we’re going to play along in this routine for the next two years.  We’re going to bumble along. 

And the bottom line, folks, the reason I’m running for President of the United States—I had no intention of running for President again, I give you my word, when I’ve worked for Kerry so hard—all of a sudden I realized after it was over I’m one of the most—quote—“most important senators.”  All I can do is stop bad things from happening.  Everything I’ve ever been able to do in my record there’s been 54 or 55 Democrats and 6 to 12 moderate Republicans.  That’s not going to happen in the next two years.  The only place it’s going to change is if the President is authentic and has some brains and enough gumption to take these guys on.  That’s why I’m running.  [applause]

Mark Smith: The time keeper says you’ve got 4 minutes to close, Senator.

Joe Biden: Folks look, it’s not just a bunch of political malarkey to talk about the future of the middle class resting upon all of you.  This isn’t just about stopping the slide in labor.  I’ve been doing this for a long time, man, and we’ve been like Sisyphus.  Man, we’ve been rolling that rock up the hill and it keeps rolling back on top of us.  I’m sick of it.  But we’ve got one thing going for us now, folks.  If we have a President—and it doesn’t just have to be me—we need a President who is willing to utter the word “union,” to say the word “union,” number one. 

Number two, ladies and gentlemen, there are tens of thousands and millions of white-collar workers out there who finally figured out the deal.  The companies they’ve put so much faith in, they have screwed them and they know it.  They know that the only reason now they had any of the rights they had is because of you guys.  They’ve finally figured it out.  They really have figured it out.  They are ripe for us organizing them.  We should see the beginning of 2008 as the moment when my granddaughter, who’s here with me is 12 years old, now 13 years old, she’s going to look back and tell her kids that the time when the union movement in America began to grow again occurred beginning in the year 2008. 

We shouldn’t settle for just stopping, stopping, stopping the dripping away of our power.  You need a President who will affirmatively go out to the American public and make the case why America’s security and future rests upon the growth of the union movement.  And it really is true.  You guys don’t even believe it.  Sometimes you don’t even believe it.  But it is a natural fact.  We have a chance—we have a chance—to make 2008 the beginning of what the year 1898 was for the union movement, when we started fighting back.  And it really is basic, and you’re going to see it a whole different kind of way than we have it now.  And if we start thinking about it that way, we can make sure my granddaughter’s going to be in good shape. 

And, ladies and gentlemen, closing comment.  Don’t kid yourself.  If we don’t nominate someone as President of the United States who the American public knows has unimpeachable credentials on national security and terror, we’re not going to win.  Don’t kid yourself.  They agree with us on the social issues, but they still wonder.  They’ve closed the book on the Republicans, but they haven’t opened the book on the Democrats yet.  They’re still trying to make up their mind.  Look at the way we’re treated.  Three percent of the public support the Democratic Congress.  Ladies and gentlemen, the next President, when power is handed to him or her from Bush, is going to be left with no margin for error. 

They’re going to have to stop this war in Iraq without mortgaging our future for a generation and they’re going to have to turn to other hot spots in the world to keep them from blowing up into new wars.  And the next President of the United States had better be smarter than his or her advisors, better know more than his or her advisors, better know exactly what he or she is going to do to reassert America’s place in the world.  Because until we regain our credibility in the world, our ability to do all the things we’re talking about—all the things we’re talking about—is affected.  So when you look at it, folks, don’t make the same mistake we made the last two times, that we didn’t think—we didn’t think—we had to demonstrate to the public that the Democratic nominee was capable of making them safer. 

I can hardly wait to debate Rudy Giuliani.  I will eat him alive on national security.  [cheering, applause]  I can hardly wait.  I can hardly wait!  I can hardly wait to debate the rest of this Republican field about who can keep America safer.  These guys have stood by and signed onto a failed policy of this President that’s put us in a hole as deep as you can imagine.  Well folks, the key to economic progress is that we have a President who can reestablish our place in the world so that we once again can lead and not have to follow, and I don’t have to have China holding the mortgage on my house.  Thank you all very, very much.  [applause]

Governor

BILL RICHARDSON

Mark Smith: Please give a warm Iowa Federation of Labor welcome to the next candidate, Governor Bill Richardson.  [applause]  Governor, welcome to Iowa.  Let me quickly review the ground rules.  One, two or three questions from each of our three questioners.  You have two minutes to answer each question.  At the end, you have 5 minutes, or less, for closing remarks.  It’s “or less” if you go beyond the allotted time to answer the questions.  We just subtract it off your 5 minutes.  Now let me introduce the questioners: AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka, Iowa Federation of Labor Executive Vice President Jan Laue, and CWA President Larry Cohen.  First round of questions will be asked by Secretary-Treasurer Trumka.

Rich Trumka: Thank you, Mark.  First of all, Governor, welcome to Iowa.  Thanks for being with us.  We truly appreciate it.  And thank you also for your years of support for working people.  I’ve asked this question of all the candidates, it’s a vision question.  It’s how you see the economy.  Workers see the economy as simply not working for them.  Their wages are stagnated, there’s growing income inequality and anxiety the likes of which we haven’t seen since the 1920s.  The wealthiest people in the country are doing exceptionally well.  The rest of America are not doing so well.  Governor, why is it so difficult for so many to make a decent living in the richest nation on the face of the earth at its most rich point in time?

Bill Richardson: I’m positive about this country.  I believe we can get out of this economic morass that has been a nightmare for America’s middle class.  If you look at America, and globalization has not included the working class and the middle class, not just in America, but around the world.  Wages have not kept up with inflation.  Health care costs are out of control.  I was in Newton, Iowa where 2700 human beings lost their jobs because of a restructuring.  Pensions are an issue that we have to look at for the future.  We’ve got an administration that gives tax cuts to the wealthy.  We’ve got an administration that says the economy’s doing well, the stock market is in good shape, unemployment is down.  Yet we have a middle class that today is grappling with two jobs, working moms that can’t keep up. 

A key is going to be this, my vision is this.  I believe being a member of a union is good for American workers, and good for America.  8% of the force is unionized, if you take public employee unions.  If you include the building trades and others, it’s 12%.  I’ve always felt that unions in this country, historically, have represented a positive change for America, when it comes to wages and health care, when it comes to pensions, when it comes to protection.  As President, I would commit to you what I’ve done as governor and congressman for 15 years and Secretary of Energy, always backing unions and labor. 

And that is I would fight to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed.  [applause]  I would fight to get card share passed.  [applause]  I would fight to increase the number of 8% to 15% or 20%.  I would have goals, because I believe that that is how you—besides creating a living wage for Americans, besides expanding the earned income tax credit and child care, and so many other options—that I believe as President what I would do is be a President that says: “My Secretary of Labor will be a union membe