GUEST: Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
MODERATOR: Tim Russert - NBC News
Sunday, December 1, 2002

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Will there be war with Saddam Hussein? How goes the war on terrorism? And how we pay for war, expanded health care and still more tax cuts. The Democrats line up for 2004: Daschle, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Gore, Kerry, Lieberman, Sharpton and more. What must they do to recapture the White House? With us: A man considering a run for the presidency: Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. And: In our MEET THE PRESS Minute, George Christian, who served as press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson, died last week at age 75. He appeared on MEET THE PRESS in 1969 and said some most interesting things about the presidency, the press and telling the truth. But first: Joining me now is Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Senator, welcome.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA): Glad to be here, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: You have been traveling the country, spent the holidays, no doubt, talking to family and friends. Are you running for president?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I’ve made a decision to file a committee. I’m going to file this week an exploratory committee, a formal committee, and I’m going to begin the process of organizing a national campaign.

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a big step.

SEN. KERRY: It’s an enormous step and it’s not one I take lightly, but it’s one that I’m excited about. It’s a challenge. I think the country is in a very different place than many people in Washington think it is, and I think certainly than this administration believes it is. I think there’s a deep anxiety in the American people about security, and they put it all under the word “security”—job security, income security, retirement security, health security, education security, physical, personal security and, of course, national security. And I think, literally, on almost every issue facing the country, I believe there is a better choice for this nation.

MR. RUSSERT: Once you file the papers with the Federal Exploratory Committee, there is no real turning back.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I mean, I hope not, but on the other hand, if you find that—you know, I can remember in times in war when you turn around and the troops aren’t there behind you. I mean, that happened previously to people and it can happen now. When you really get into the formal stage, Tim, which I am now entering, you find out who’s prepared to be there. You see if you can raise the money. It becomes real. And that’s one of the reasons why I made the decision I wanted to do it and do it now. But, obviously, the formal announcement of candidacy is down the road some months and I hope, indeed, I’ll be able to do that, but I’ve got to do the work to make that happen.

MR. RUSSERT: In a nation of 288 million people, how can you conclude that you’re the best person to be president?

SEN. KERRY: I don’t conclude it. It’s for the American people to conclude. And, first of all, it’s for the people in our primary process to conclude. There are other good people who are standing up. There are others who will contest. That’s part of the process. I welcome that part of the process. I want this to be a contest of ideas, and I want it to be based not on my running against anybody but running for a vision for this country.

I believe, as I said a moment ago, Tim, and I believe this deeply, after a career in the Senate now, I’ve been a prosecutor, I’ve been a lieutenant governor for a brief period of time and I served in the armed services— I love this country. I have a great sense of what this country can be and what it is. What it can be is built on sort of the journey we have traveled with a great sense of confidence about where we can go as a nation, but I think on almost every issue, on the economy, on the needs of average working Americans, middle-class families in America who are struggling harder and harder to pay health care, send their kids to college, to make their wages grow, to be able to live the better life we all dream of, or even all of a host of what I call quality of life issues—the environment, transportation, infrastructure investment in our cities, and finally, America’s role in the world—on every single one of those, Tim, there is a better choice for this nation, a choice that can take us to a better place, make us more secure, raise the quality of life for our citizens, and we have to change our politics. We have to begin to put those choices on the table for our fellow Americans. That’s the purpose of doing this. And in the end, the American people will decide who the right person is.

MR. RUSSERT: America’s role in the world: one week from today, Saddam Hussein must provide to the United Nations a list of his weapons of mass destruction. If, in fact, he provides a list that President Bush deems to be in material breach, and the president decides to engage in military action against Iraq, even without the United Nations, would you support the president?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I don’t think that it’s that simple, and I hope it won’t be that simple. It shouldn’t be that simple. We see today on the front pages of our newspapers a prediction of a cost of a war conducted unilaterally by the United States of maybe $100 billion to $200 billion. That is, without even measuring the damage that could be caused to our relationship all across the globe with countries that we need. That’s if we proceeded hastily and unilaterally. I believe that would be an enormous mistake, Tim. We have a process in place. That process has to be legitimate.

I said last summer, early on, that this country, our country, the United States of America, should not go to war because it wants to go to war. We should go to war because we have to go to war. And we need the consent of the American people and we need legitimacy in order to do that. That’s why I and others argued so strongly that the president should go to the United Nations. And Secretary Powell and others ultimately won that position. We need to exhaust that possibility of those inspections working in a legitimate way so that we bring other countries with us. I went to New York to meet with the Security Council, and they assured me that if we go through that process, and, in the end, Saddam Hussein does not live up to his responsibilities, they are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, and they will bear some of the costs. On the other hand, if we go by ourselves, we are truly by ourselves. And I think that’s dangerous.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, Saddam Hussein promised in 1991, under the truce for the Persian Gulf War, that he would not have weapons of mass destruction and he would provide evidence of that. If he provides evidence the president finds lacking, finds him in material breach, if the French, Russians, Chinese say, “Well, you know what? It’s not a big breach. Let’s give him another chance,” but the president of the United States says, “No, he’s breaking his word; we’re going.”

SEN. KERRY: Well, that’s different from what you said to me at first. If you do that Tim, if you have a breach that, by everybody’s standard, at least in the United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president, join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach, and then others— some of them can’t be persuaded— that’s a different decision. But I don’t believe that it should be that difficult. In my judgment, if we have evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the Security Council and say, “Here is the evidence. It’s time for all of you to put up. We need to all do this together.” And that’s what I think the resolution that was passed suggests.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would be willing to support the president without U.N. support?

SEN. KERRY: I would be willing to support the president providing there is an imminent threat that has been shown and that the breach reaches the standard that we all agree on. I will not support the president to proceed unilaterally if it is simply the president’s effort to try to do regime change without regard to the legitimacy of the inspection process or the legitimacy of the United Nations process itself. And I believe, Tim, very deeply, that that will cost our country in the long term in the war on terror and in many other ways that are going to be extraordinarily complex to undo for years to come. We need to proceed with legitimacy here. I congratulate the president up until now. I think in the last month he has been doing that. He is showing a patience with the inspection process. I think we need to let that run its course and this country will be stronger if we do./span>

MR. RUSSERT: During the Persian Gulf War, back in 1991, on the cusp of the war, you took to the Senate floor. And let me show you what you said: “My fear is that our beloved country is not yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war.” And you went on, “It sounds like we are risking war for pride, not for vital interests.” As it turned out, the country was ready for what it bore. It was a relatively quick war in the Persian Gulf. Do you now believe that you made a fundamental misjudgment on your vote in 1991?

SEN. KERRY: No, not at all. In fact, I’ve said again and again that that was the right vote at that moment in time. And I said in the same speech, Tim, I also said that I did not believe we were courting another Vietnam. I did not believe that the first Iraq war would be a Vietnam. I believed we would win it very quickly and my reasoning...

MR. RUSSERT: But we were ready for it.

SEN. KERRY: Well, actually we weren’t. The American people at that time were divided 50-50, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, at the time had serious reservations, which he expressed, to people who have great judgment on those issues, people like Sam Nunn, then chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I think there was a great deal of sense that we were moving very rapidly, more rapidly than we needed to. I was not against using force. I was against moving so precipitously that we didn’t have the consent that I talked about of the American people. Now, it turned out just fine. And it’s interesting, because I was in the first group of people who went over to Iraq and Kuwait immediately after the war. I flew in a helicopter 50 feet above the highway of death, and I remember looking down and seeing a very different readout from the intelligence that we had been given earlier. The nature of the berms, the nature of the fortifications, the nature of the trenches. It was a much easier effort than we had been led to believe. Based on the intelligence we were given, I believe we made the right decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you now acknowledge it was a war for vital interests and not for pride?

SEN. KERRY: It was always a stand for vital interests, of course it was, and I said that...

MR. RUSSERT: Not for pride. Not for pride.

SEN. KERRY: Well, the pride was moving rapidly. I thought we were moving rapidly, Tim, because, I mean, the president at the time was saying “The coalition won’t hold together.” I believed it would hold together, and I thought we owed ourselves another three to four weeks to build the support of our nation so that if things turned sour, as we all know they can in war, we had the legitimacy which some of us who fought Vietnam remember bitterly, and we lost at that point in time. I don’t want to see us lose the legitimacy to our effort. We have to begin with that legitimacy. That’s what I was fighting for then. That’s what I’m fighting for now.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, your leader of the Democrats in the Senate, has said, that “Thus far the war on terrorism cannot be deemed a success.” Do you agree?

SEN. KERRY: No, I don’t agree with that completely. I think there are problems with the war on terror. I mean, look, target number one, Osama bin Laden. Target number two, al-Qaeda. Target number three, Mullah Omar. All three of them are still loose. We had al-Qaeda and we had, you know, Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora. I think we made a bad decision in how we fought that particular encounter. I think we repeated the mistakes in Anaconda subsequent to Tora Bora, and as a result both Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda dispersed and they remain very powerful. So mistakes have been made.

In addition, if you read the report that Gary Hart and Warren Rudman have submitted to the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s a very important report. This administration has wasted an entire year in this homeland security effort. I, and others, stood up within moments of the president’s speech when he announced Tom Ridge and said, “Unless he has line control, unless he has line authority, unless he has a budget, this is not going to work.” It wasn’t until people were pressing the question of what happened on September 11 that in the rush of one week and almost secretly, the administration leapt up and announced the Department of Homeland Security. I believe that year was wasted, and I think that today in our port security, in our Coast Guard, in the private sector efforts that we need to try to deal with potential terror, in the front-line troops—fire, police, hospitals—there are enormous gaps and deficits in the preparedness level of our country, and I think those are problems. And we have to acknowledge them and be realistic about how we proceed.

MR. RUSSERT: Would President Kerry make smallpox vaccinations available to all Americans?

SEN. KERRY: I would try to do that as rapidly as possible, notwithstanding, we understand, there are some risks to it.

MR. RUSSERT: The commission looking into September 11, now headed by Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell, Republican, Democrat, former secretaries of State, The New York Times editorial board weighed in the other day and said this: ”[The Commission] must be fiercely independent and unafraid to challenge some of Washington’s most powerful institutions. We were mildly encouraged to hear Mr. Kissinger say that he would ‘accept no restrictions’ on the commission’s work. To deliver on that, promise, Mr. Kissinger must start by severing all ties to Kissinger Associates, the lucrative consulting business he has built up during the past two decades. As a consultant, Mr. Kissinger offered not just his own foreign policy expertise, but his famously easy access to the powerful and well connected.” Should Mr. Kissinger sever all ties with his company?

SEN. KERRY: I think it is going to be extraordinarily important for Dr. Kissinger to prove to the nation that he comes to this without any linkages that could remain suspect. Families and every citizen in this country want as thorough an explanation as possible. And I might add, Tim, this is another place...

MR. RUSSERT: So he should sever ties?

SEN. KERRY: I think he should sever ties. At least...

MR. RUSSERT: And should...

SEN. KERRY: ...for the time being, he...

MR. RUSSERT: And should Senator Mitchell recuse himself from any business interests he may have in the Middle East?

SEN. KERRY: I think in the course of this process, all parties would come to this unencumbered. And in many ways, you know, Dr. Kissinger and I had differences years ago over Vietnam. I’ve gotten to know him since then. I have no personal quarrel with him, at that point. We’ve been able to make peace, much as we did with Vietnam. But I think someone like a Rudy Giuliani or a Warren Rudman could have brought to this particular inquiry the kind of independence that the nation wants at the outset. And I...

MR. RUSSERT: But Dr. Kissinger is an interesting appointment. But in your relationship with him as such because of the Vietnam War, do you believe that he ended the war in Vietnam as quickly as he could have?

SEN. KERRY: I don’t think it was his alone to end, and I have often criticized President Nixon, who ran in 1968 with the promise of a secret plan for peace for having kept the promise of keeping it a secret for years. The answer is that war could have been ended sooner. Many of us know that and believe that and history has now shown that.

MR. RUSSERT: You also said that Dr. Kissinger could have done more to bring the POWs home and that he knowingly left.

SEN. KERRY: No, I didn’t say that. I said that...

MR. RUSSERT: Leslie Gelb, New York Times, “Senator Kerry hit Mr. Kissinger on the charge that he had not done all he could to free servicemen knowing left behind in the United States.”

SEN. KERRY: But he and others claimed and showed evidence to the effect that they didn’t necessarily know. That is a subjective judgment as to whether or not they knew. We...

MR. RUSSERT: So you’re not satisfied.

SEN. KERRY: No, I believe and our report showed, signed by all 12 senators who are members of the committee, that it was our belief that some were left behind, particularly in Laos. We had no evidence, no credible evidence whatsoever that anybody was still alive. That was the judgment that we made. But I think history will show that with respect to Laos, that fell into a dark pit. And I think the country, as a whole, did not make the efforts back then for some 20 years to try to close that gap.

MR. RUSSERT: Including Mr. Kissinger.

SEN. KERRY: Including Mr. Kissinger.

MR. RUSSERT: What would President Kerry do about Saudi Arabia and the alleged money trail that may be traced all the way back to the embassy here in Washington involving funding of hijackers?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, we have to press Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries in the region for a new day, if you will, for a new kind of relationship. Everyone knows that money has been sliding out of those countries to Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Brigade, to other terrorists efforts and that there has been an, you know, uneasy alliance. Some have called it a Faustian bargain. Some have—you know, it’s simply a bargain with the radicals in order to preserve the status quo and allow them to stay in power. I think that increasingly, beginning with September 11, they have become aware of the tenuous situation that they find themselves in. And they’re beginning to move. Are they moving fast enough? Not to our liking. So we are going to have to continue to press in order to get the Saudis to be more vigilant, more transparent, more accountable and to help to be true brokers in the interest of peace in that region.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the current administration has pressed the Saudis sufficiently?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do specifically in terms of pressing them more?

SEN. KERRY: Well, some things, Tim, are not best done in public, though the public is sort of asking for signs of, you know, that kind of visible confrontation. I think there has to be a great deal more backdoor diplomacy. Now, one of the great criticisms that I have of this administration is its disengagement with the Middle East for almost the first 14 months of the administration. I think they gave the green light, if you will, to the most negative instincts of that region to begin to take hold and that is one of the reasons we’ve seen such a diminution, if you will, in the effort to try to be able to move the peace process forward. Now, we’re not in a situation where we can because there are elections shortly in Israel. This is not the moment and there are other pressing issues, but I think the administration has to re-engage. It has to offer stronger vision of peace. And it has to do so in a way that doesn’t require any unfair or inappropriate or before-the-fact concessions from Israel, but at the same time legitimately pays respect to the need to honor the rights of people who are disenfranchised and oppressed in the region. And I think we have to be a fair broker in the way that every president— from President Nixon all the way through President Clinton—was a broker in that effort.

MR. RUSSERT: Will these Israelis have to give up settlements in order to obtain peace?

SEN. KERRY: Not unilaterally and not before the fact, but the Mitchell proposal and American policy is that those settlements must stop and no one can sit with a straight face and look anybody in the eye and suggest that you cannot have those settlements be part of whatever a solution is going to be, but you need someone to negotiate with. You need an entity. I think the administration has been correct to fault the Palestinian Authority for its inability to stay the violence and to begin to show the kind of leadership necessary to be a party to that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you negotiate with Yasser Arafat?

SEN. KERRY: Not with Yasser Arafat directly, no, but I think that you have to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority, with new leadership hopefully. I think there are ways to get to that faster, but I think it’s unrealistic as the administration did to try to completely eliminate Arafat from the picture because that’s not our choice if you’re going to say to them, “Have elections,” and they can turn around and re-elect him. So I think they’ve proceeded clumsily. I think they’ve proceeded haltingly. They’ve had very mixed messages along the way. And I think we need an engagement that offers a vision of what peace might look like and begins to leverage our best interests in the effort to get there. I might add, with Iraq, that is very difficult to do. So not only are the interests of the war on terror, to some degree, diminished by the current intensity of our focus, preoccupation on Iraq, but other interests in the region are also affected, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to take a quick break. A lot more of our conversation with Senator John Kerry on domestic issues: the Bush tax cut, health care. A lot more right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, looks like he’s running for president, after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back talking to Senator John Kerry, who’s filing his papers to run for president of the United States. Senator, we’re on the verge of a war with Iraq, we’re in the middle of a war on terrorism—should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut, the 15 percent, the people that we Democrats fought so hard who weren’t originally in the plan at all-the average worker, middle-class citizen of our country, we gave them a tax cut. You don’t take that back, Tim. So you don’t roll that part back.

What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. I would propose a major tax reform effort. People are sick and tired of a tax system that they know favors people who can play the loopholes and play the games. The average worker in this country feels oppressed by taxation. We need to give, I think, a tax break now, today, now, to move our economy forward in the form of a payroll tax, refundable credit so it doesn’t affect Social Security. But that is where 80 percent of Americans pay most of their taxes, in the payroll tax. And...

MR. RUSSERT: So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years, for the...

SEN. KERRY: No new tax cut under the Bush plan.

MR. RUSSERT: Immediately.

SEN. KERRY: Most of which goes to the wealthiest Americans, because we simply can’t afford it.

MR. RUSSERT: Effective immediately.

SEN. KERRY: It doesn’t make economic sense. Effective as soon as we can implement. That’s going to be an uphill battle. They have both houses of Congress and the presidency. But this is the fight, Tim—this is the fight for our country. We can’t go on any longer pretending to Americans that you can have everything, and that nobody has to have any cost attached to it, that we can still have a politics that says we’re going to give the wealthiest Americans back the largest proportion of a tax cut 10 years from now.

We have economic problems now. But in addition to those economic problems, we have enormous demands in this nation. And what September 11 taught us, or reminded us, perhaps, is that there are some things that only the government will do. You know, the Republicans love to sort of say to you, “Oh, it’s not the government’s money, it’s your money, and you deserve a refund.” They don’t tell you that it’s your traffic jam, it’s your school that’s falling apart, it’s your airport system that doesn’t work, it’s your security system that isn’t there. And they don’t tell you that today, it’s your children’s money, not your money. Because we’re borrowing from the future in order to pay for those tax cuts. If we’re going to borrow, Tim, let’s at least do it to build the infrastructure of our nation, to have a first-rate transportation system, a high-speed rail, to have energy independence, to do the things we need to do to excite the economy of our country, to create jobs and to move us into the 21st century as the world’s leader, thinking about the future, not just the present.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question. “Are you prepared this morning to suggest that President Bush and the Congress roll back the tax cut that was enacted earlier this year?” Kerry: “No, the last thing— when you have an economic downturn, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy.”

SEN. KERRY: I’m not doing either. That’s exactly what I’m doing.

MR. RUSSERT: The economy is in a downturn...

SEN. KERRY: That’s correct.

MR. RUSSERT: ...but by freezing the Bush tax cut...

SEN. KERRY: I’m saying no new tax cuts, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: But would you implement the ones that are now scheduled to take place?

SEN. KERRY: Those are new tax cuts.

MR. RUSSERT: The Bush administration says that is raising taxes because people...

SEN. KERRY: Well, I don’t care what they say, Tim. The average American understands that a tax cut that you don’t have today is a new tax cut. It’s not raising taxes. I mean, at the same time, I told you, if you’re told by NBC that your pay is going to go up in a year but it doesn’t go up because they can’t afford it, did you have a pay cut? The answer is no you did not.

MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans...

SEN. KERRY: And in no way—look, we can’t cower in front of their silly argument that by not being given a new tax cut it’s an increase. No average American believes that’s an increase, and every American...

MR. RUSSERT: So when the Republicans wanted to limit the growth in Medicare that should not have been called a cut by Democrats.

SEN. KERRY: No. If you’re holding something at equal spending, but inflation is going up at a rate above that, you’re not keeping up with inflation, that is a cut. That is in fact a cut, Tim. But the fact is that if you don’t get a tax reduction that is promised— now, look, the heart of this tax cut is in 10 years, but it affects all of our budgeting today. I believe that Americans want to deal with health care. You know, the average American has had their health-care bill go up 30 percent 40 percent; 17 percent increase last year in prescription drugs. People— 42 million Americans don’t have any health care, Tim.

People are prepared to trade 11 bucks a week for a health-care program, for investments in their schools, for the things that make America strong. And I think if you look at history, during World War II, while Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt sat in the White House thinking about prosecuting a war in the Pacific, in North Africa, in Europe, they didn’t just focus on that. They focused on growing the middle class in America. They focused on rights. They focused on investments. And we grew this nation. And we have to do more today than just focus on the war on terror.MR. RUSSERT: There is a big philosophical debate, however, how you grow the economy. Let me show you one explanation. “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions.” And it goes on: “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut its rates now.”

SEN. KERRY: Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that?

SEN. KERRY: I don’t agree with cutting the rates at the top end. We’ve cut them. We’ve had any number of tax cuts that I have voted for in the last few years. I have voted for a number of different tax reductions. I voted for the 1986 tax simplification bill, which cut rates. But we can’t afford today to give to the wealthiest Americans who have done the best in the last years—you and me among them, Tim—we can’t afford to give ourselves a tax cut now at the expense of investing in the long-term needs of our nation. And the fact is that what this economy needs is not to be hamstrung in all of our economic choices by a tax cut that takes place 10 years from now. We need to give people a tax cut now at the level where it will have the most impact on the economy.

I’m in favor of a tax cut. My tax cut comes in a payroll tax reduction that will put more money in the pocket of the middle class and average worker of our nation now than the tax cut proposed by President Bush, but it doesn’t tie us into a 10-year reduction of our ability to do health care, prescription drugs, environmental cleanup, build our schools, hire teachers, strengthen America for the long run, Tim. And those are the things we need to invest in.

MR. RUSSERT: The last sitting member of Congress elected to the White House was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kennedy. Let me show you. That was John Kennedy I was quoting from. He believed cutting taxes across the board was the best way to stimulate the economy.

SEN. KERRY: And it was at that moment in time, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: And the people at the top end pay a disproportionate number of the tax revenues.

SEN. KERRY: Yes, they do.

MR. RUSSERT: Why would you deny them a tax cut?

SEN. KERRY: We aren’t. We gave them a tax cut. We’ve given people a tax cut in the last few years, Tim. The question is: Can we afford it now, measured against the other needs of the country? If John Kennedy were here today, I am convinced John Kennedy would feel we need to invest in our education.

Look, we have 25 percent of our kids, preschool, in poverty in America; 20 percent of our children are in poverty in America.

MR. RUSSERT: But he gave an across-the-board tax cut...

SEN. KERRY: But...

MR. RUSSERT: ...wealthy and middle class and poor.

SEN. KERRY: But, Tim, you can’t do it all at the same time. That was a different economic time. That was a different moment. It also was preceded by a different number of years under the Eisenhower administration, during which we had a different economy. We have given tax cuts in the last few years, but we have disinvested in America. We have a situation today—look, we haven’t even funded the Superfund. We have people living next to toxic waste sites; 44 percent of the river bodies and lakes and waters of America are unfishable and unswimmable. Are you content with that? I mean, it seems to me, Tim, that you look at the promise of the Leave No Child Behind Act. It’s a word game. We’re leaving millions of children behind every single day in America because the president went back on his promise to fund education in order to be able to borrow from our children to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. That doesn’t make economic sense, and I’m going to fight it.

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned health care several times this morning. Al Gore, who—your nominee in 2000, potential nominee in 2004, has said he’s changed his mind and now embraces the notion of a single-payer health-care plan. Is that the answer?

SEN. KERRY: Well, if single-payer is the Canadian plan or the British plan, a plan where the government makes all the choices, the answer is no. I’m for universal health care for all Americans. And it is long since time that we put such a plan on the table. Bill Bradley did that last time. He had a fight with Al Gore over it. I think there were some problems with the Bradley plan, but I applaud him for having put that plan, much of which I think was quite sound. And we need to build—my colleague, Senator Kennedy, has talked about it in the last week. I thought he gave a terrific speech talking about how we build on the employer-based system and how we can be creative in many ways. There’s about $250 billion in the system wasted because of the lack of information technology. If we were simply to treat diabetes better, something the administration isn’t even seeking to do, we could save maybe $50 billion for the 16 million people who are going to get it but don’t need to have amputations or disabilities as a result.

There are enormously creative ways, Tim, if we think differently, if we’re prepared to be creative, if we’re prepared to break the orthodoxy of the politics of Washington, so we can put these issues on the table. We can have a tax cut for the average American, for the middle class, but those who’ve done the best in the last 10 years do not, at this moment, need the tax cut measured against the other needs of the nation. And that’s what governing is about, making those tough choices.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post did a poll of perspective nominees for 2004 amongst Democrats. This is what they found. Al Gore at 49; Joe Lieberman, 10; Daschle, 6; Kerry, 6; Gephardt, 4; Sharpton, 3; Dean, 1; Edwards, 1. Is Al Gore the front-runner if he runs?

SEN. KERRY: Sure, absolutely, but...

MR. RUSSERT: He said this past week that the media was in part responsible for his defeat.

SEN. KERRY: Well, look, I’m not going to get into parsing that. I think those polls right now—I’m encouraged by them because Al Gore has run for national office four times. Joe Lieberman’s run for national office once—enormous exposure. Tom Daschle’s been the majority leader—enormous exposure. I’m delighted to be within striking distance without ever having had that kind of exposure, and I look forward to the next months of organizing.

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder wrote a column in June which I want to show you again: ”[Sen. John] Kerry is also a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991— just what you would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s running mate, the Republicans will surely say.” The Congressional Quarterly does an analysis of key votes and let me show you. Over the last four years, Kennedy and Kerry voted exactly alike 100 percent of the time over your 17 years in the Senate now. You’ve voted, like, 93 percent of the time. Will you have Senator Kennedy’s support for your presidential run?

SEN. KERRY: Well, it’s up to Senator Kennedy to make any announcement about his support, but Icertainly would want it and I would welcome it. I think he’s an extraordinary legislator, and the fights he has fought are fights that have made a difference to the quality of life of our fellow Americans. I differ with him on some issues. He knows that, and I think you have to look at those issues. I voted...

MR. RUSSERT: But won’t you be branded another Massachusetts Ted Kennedy liberal?

SEN. KERRY: I think, Tim, as people get to know me in the course of this, they’ll know the things that I have fought for and the things I stand for. I was a prosecutor. I’ve sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I’m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it’s applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I’m for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to be paroled. Now, I think that’s tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that. Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to education. Several years ago, you gave several speeches on education and you said that we should end teacher tenure as we know it. Is that still your view?

SEN. KERRY: As we know it. As we know it. In Massachusetts, we changed the law regarding tenure, to pass something called a fair dismissal law. It is a law that gives teachers protection and rights. It is a law that respects teachers. I do not believe we should bash teachers or try to, you know, make them the culprits for a system that lacks resources and that has become extraordinarily difficult to manage. But I do think you have to have an opening and a closing to the process so you can have accountability in the school system. I was one of those who joined in a centrist group of senators, with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and others, to write and then pass the education reform bill, which I regret to say this president has not funded in the way that he promised. Now, you can’t leave no child behind, Tim, if you’re not prepared to put the resources into our educational system.

MR. RUSSERT: You also told The New Republican in 1998, “And what about vouchers? ‘Clearly it could be part of a mix if you’re embracing other reforms,’ says Kerry.” Is that still your view?

SEN. KERRY: No, I don’t believe I have ever supported vouchers. I’ve never voted for them and I don’t support them because they take away from the public school system. Tim, look, 90 percent of America’s kids go to school in public schools. You couldn’t have enough vouchers or enough charter schools created fast enough, and there aren’t enough seats at the table of charter schools to cure the problem of America’s education system. There is only one way to do it. And that is to empower every public school in America to be as good as any charter school or any other school, and you have to make a commitment. We have a new problem in America. It’s called separate and unequal. The problem of the 1960s, which Thurgood Marshall took to the Supreme Court was separate and equal. We have a more insidious problem today in separate and unequal. And you don’t have a prayer in many communities of providing equality in education unless you have equality of resources. We don’t have that because of the property tax-based system of funding schools and because states and their budgets are hurting now. The federal government has a responsibility to the nation to step up and guarantee that we are going to help these kids in these communities to be able to reach the brass ring in this nation, and I believe that is the greatest priority. We have to fully fund the disabilities, the special needs kids. That should happen. And we have to begin to address the resource question of attracting teachers and principals to the most difficult schools to teach in in America.

MR. RUSSERT: You are a highly decorated veteran of Vietnam. Your wife has said several times that you still have nightmares about your experience. How so?

SEN. KERRY: Well, occasionally, depending on where I am and what’s going on, depends, you know, if you’re traveling and there’s movement or something, it, you know, takes you back to Vietnam. And you have a nightmare. It’s not recurrent.

MR. RUSSERT: That changed your life, that experience, in many ways.

SEN. KERRY: I beg your pardon?

MR. RUSSERT: That experience changed your life in a major way.

SEN. KERRY: Well, it—in a positive way, Tim. I am proud beyond words of the fact that I served. I loved the men I served with. And I love the men, when I say served with, all those who wore the uniform in that period of time and went through a very difficult period. Coming home was as difficult for many as being there. But it served me in so many ways. I learned so much about our country. The men I fought with on my boat, we talk to this day, we get together. We didn’t talk or think about each other as Republicans or Democrats or conservative or a kid from Massachusetts or South Carolina, we were just all brothers in arms and Americans. And we prayed to the same god and we fought for the same flag. And I find that that’s a guiding principle as I think about our nation, our nation’s needs and how we need to change the politics of this country and begin to talk to each other and find new solutions.

MR. RUSSERT: Your wife is very outspoken, very opinionated. Is she ready for the ordeal of this campaign?

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. She is. I look forward to America, hopefully, getting to know my wife. She’s an extraordinary, special woman.

MR. RUSSERT: You won’t try to muzzle her or control her?

SEN. KERRY: Try? That’s—listen, that’s not the way a president—my wife is a caring, thoughtful, remarkably involved person. And I want people to know the things she cares about. She’s taught me a lot. And I think people will enjoy getting to know her.

MR. RUSSERT: You told Joe Klein, a New Yorker Profile, “there was plenty of times when I was disengaged, frivolous, four sheets to the wind on a weekend.” Now, I checked the dictionary and I found three sheets to the wind.

SEN. KERRY: Well, maybe I was truly in excess. I mean, those were— I think I was talking about my college days and post-college. And, you know, when we were having fun, we were young Navy officers in San Diego. We had a great time, Tim. We’d come in from our not overly arduous training and go surf for three or four hours and then go out and have a great meal and enjoy our friendship. It was a special time. And, you know, I look back on it fondly. I learned a lot from all of that experience.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator John Kerry, we thank you for sharing your views with us and we will be covering your campaign with great interest.

SEN. KERRY: Good. Thanks, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: And we’ll be right back with our MEET THE PRESS Minute, President Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary George Christian talks about the presidency and the press 33 years ago. Some interesting insights, right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. George Christian served as press secretary to Lyndon Johnson from 1966 to ’69, three of the most tumultuous years in modern American political history. He appeared on MEET THE PRESS during his last full day in the White House. The next day, Richard Nixon was inaugurated the 37th president: (Videotape, January 19, 1969):

MR. HUGH SIDEY (Time & Life): Mr. Christian in the early years of this democratic era, it was discussed off and on whether or not the government has “a right to lie at certain times in order to protect itself or its national position, international position.” I wonder if in your tenure as press secretary, the White House or the government or the president, have any of these ever invoked that so-called policy privilege?

MR. GEORGE CHRISTIAN (Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson): Mr. Sidey, the government, in serving the people of this country, certainly at times has the right not to tell the full story. It is not in the national interest to tell the full story on many things that involve sensitive negotiations with other countries. It may involve major policy decisions which have not yet been made and which options are still open. So, there are instances in this administration where the full story has not been told immediately and as quickly as reporters wanted it told. But I think it’s the responsibility of people in government and the departments, as well as the White House, to make judgments on what can be said in the national interest and what should not be said in the national interest. And sometimes this runs counter to the particular demands of the times.

MR. SIDEY: Have you ever directly lied, Mr. Christian?

MR. CHRISTIAN: I have not.

MR. LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK (NBC News): Mr. Christian, you’ve been both the newsman and a press secretary. Have you any suggestions as you leave the office for improving the relationship between the presidency and the press in the public interest?

MR. CHRISTIAN: The presidency and the press, I believe, Mr. Spivak, have a fairly good relationship.

I’m not sure it ought to be a close relationship. It should be rather arm’s length. It should be a critical relationship. I think presidents ought to be free to criticize the press and the press ought to be free to criticize the president. And I think both presidents, in the plural, and press, in the plural sense, are sensitive to criticism, and I think this is partly what makes the country tick. And God save the republic if we ever have a president who isn’t sensitive to criticism.

Copyright 2002, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.