    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book II)]
    [October 3, 2006]
    [Pages 1750-1757]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Breakfast for Congressional Candidate Richard W.
    Pombo in Stockton, California
    October 3, 2006

        Thank you all very much. Thanks a lot. Please be seated. I don't
    want your eggs to get cold. [Laughter] Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    welcoming me to your district. I'm proud to be here on behalf of Richard
    Pombo, and I'm proud to be able to tell the people of the State of
    California, he's doing a fine job for the people of this district.
        I know firsthand; I watch him up close; I've seen him in action. I
    think it makes sense for people from the State of California to send
    somebody to Washington, DC, who trusts the people of California. And
    that's Richard Pombo. I think it makes sense to send somebody from the
    State of California to Washington, DC, who knows what it means to make a
    living off the land. And that's Richard Pombo.
        In all due respect to those of you who are here who are attorneys of
    law--[laughter]--we've got enough of those kind of people in Washington.
    [Laughter] It makes sense to have a rancher and a farmer speak
    commonsense language. See, what we need is some common sense in
    Washington, DC. Chairman Richard Pombo brings common sense to the big
    debates of our time. He brings practical experience when it comes to
    promoting cooperative conservation.
        He understands, like I understand, that being dependent on foreign
    oil endangers the United States of America. It's a national security
    risk and an economic security risk. Richard Pombo thinks strategically
    on behalf of the people of this district and the United States. I'm
    proud to support his efforts to pass comprehensive energy. See, he and I
    know that technology is going

    [[Page 1751]]

    to help us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy in the
    longer term. We'll be using ethanol from a product grown right here in
    California to power our cars. We'll have plug-in hybrid batteries. We'll
    be using hydrogen to power our automobiles. But in the meantime, we need
    to be exploring in environmentally friendly ways for energy from the
    United States of America, to make us less dependent on foreign sources
    of energy.
        I'm proud to support Richard Pombo, a commonsense leader in the
    House of Representatives, and urge you to send him back to the United
    States Congress.
        I want to thank you all for coming. I told Richard when I walked up
    here, it's a good sign when the home folks show up in the numbers like
    you have. [Laughter] It's always a good indication that when the people
    who know you best support you the strongest. So I want to thank you for
    contributing of your hard-earned dollars and urge you to help this good
    man as we're coming down the stretch. And that means turning out the
    vote, finding those solid Republicans, discerning Democrats, and wise
    independents to go to the polls and send Richard Pombo back to the
    United States Congress.
        Laura sends her best. She sends her best to
    Richard, she sends her best to Annette and the
    Pombo family, and she sends her best to our many friends here in
    California. I'm a lucky man, when Laura said yes when I asked her to
    marry me. She has got to be the most patient woman in America. I realize
    I'm not very objective, but I'll report from the homefront, America's
    got a fabulous First Lady in Laura Bush.
        And old Richard, the chairman, married well himself; Annette, thank you for being here. Thank you for supporting
    Richard. And I'm proud to be here with Rena and
    Rachel. It's good to see you young women.
    Thanks for coming today. I know you'll be putting up the signs and
    making those phone calls for old dad coming down the stretch.
        I'm proud to be with Ralph and Onita
    Pombo, Richard's mom and dad. I suspect that
    Mrs. Pombo has something in common with my
    mother, that they're both not afraid to tell us what to do. [Laughter]
    And my only advice, Richard, is you make sure you listen to her, because
    I'm listening to mine, you'll be happy to know.
        I'm proud to be here with Mayor Ed Chavez, the mayor of Stockton, California. Mr. Mayor, thank you
    for coming. It gives me great joy to be able to look out in the audience
    and see one of the city's finest citizens and a family we call friend in
    my household, somebody who's been a friend with you during good times
    and somebody who's a friend with you during not-so-good times but
    somebody who's always a friend, and that's the Spanos family.
    Alex and Faye, thank
    you for coming.
        I want to thank all the local and State officials who have joined
    us. I especially want to thank Specialist Gerry Lee, United States Army National Guard, who not only served
    in Iraq but went down and helped those souls recovering from Hurricane
    Katrina. It's an honor to be the Commander in Chief of such fine, fine
    men and women, people who put on the uniform to the protect this
    country. And I'll tell you one thing about Richard Pombo. You don't have
    to worry, and I don't worry about him making sure our troops have all
    that's needed to do their job to support the United States of America
    and its people.
        There's a lot of issues I could talk about, because there's big
    differences of opinion in Washington, DC. I don't know how it gets
    translated back here at home. Sometimes they go up to Washington and say
    one thing, and then come back and talk differently when they--in front
    of the home people. You don't have to worry about Richard Pombo. He
    tells you exactly what he thinks. You don't have to try to read between
    the lines. You don't have to worry about him taking a poll to determine
    what he believes. He stands on principle,

    [[Page 1752]]

    and that's what you need in Washington, DC.
        And he and I share a principle, and that is what to do with your
    money, how do we deal with the hard-working people's money. And make no
    mistake about it, there is a philosophical divide in Washington, DC. You
    might remember what this Nation went through, what our economy went
    through over the last 5\1/2\ years. We had a recession. We had corporate
    scandals. There was, obviously, the devastating attack on September the
    11th, 2001. We responded and protected this people by taking a war to
    the enemy. We've had hurricanes. We've had high energy prices. Yet our
    economy is the envy of the industrialized world.
        The national unemployment rate is low. The entrepreneurial spirit is
    high. Small businesses are making a living. Our farmers and ranchers--
    they probably don't want to admit it, but our farmers and ranchers are
    doing fine. See, I'm used to farmers and ranchers; after all, I'm from
    Texas, you might remember. I also want to take a step back and tell you,
    though, that a strong farm economy and a strong ranching economy is
    really important to the national economy.
        And so in spite of these obstacles, the economy has grown. And
    something happened, and what happened was, we cut the taxes on the
    working people. We understand the role of government is not to try to
    create wealth but to create an environment in which the entrepreneurial
    spirit flourishes. The tax relief we passed is working, and the American
    economy is strong. And the fundamental question is, how do we keep it
    strong? And Richard Pombo and I believe the best way to keep this
    economy growing is to make the tax relief we passed permanent.
        And the Democrats don't agree. If the Democrats were to gain power,
    they will raise your taxes, because they believe they can spend your
    money better than you can. Oh, you'll hear all kinds of excuses: ``Let
    us raise your taxes to balance the budget.'' That's not how Washington
    works. They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your
    money. The best way to balance the budget is to keep the taxes low so we
    can grow our economy, which increases more tax revenues, and be wise
    about how we spend your money. We're on our way to cutting this deficit
    in half before the year 2009 because of the progrowth economic policies
    we put in place and because of fiscal conservatives like Richard Pombo.
        The issue on the economy is a big issue in any campaign. And I want
    the people of this district to know, plain and simple, that if Richard's
    opponent wins, your taxes will go up. Make no
    mistake about it. The Democrat Party is anxious to get their hands on
    your money. If you want to keep taxes low, if you want to make sure this
    environment for small-business growth and farmers and ranchers remains
    strong, put Richard Pombo back in the United States Congress, and we'll
    work to make the tax cuts we passed permanent.
        I also appreciate his strong support in this war on terror. I wish I
    could tell you that there wasn't a war, but that's not the truth. That
    is not the reality of the world in which we live. There's an enemy that
    still plots and plans, that wants to attack us again. They're a group of
    ideologues bound together by this evil vision of the world, that want to
    inflict harm on the United States because we stand in the way of their
    ambitions and because we strongly believe in liberty.
        The most important job of the Federal Government in the beginning of
    the 21st century is to do everything in our power to protect you from
    further attack. The key issue in this campaign is the security of the
    United States of America. You got to understand, a lot of my thinking
    about the world changed on September the 11th, 2001. I make a lot of
    decisions on your behalf, and many of those decisions were affected by
    the fact that we lost nearly

    [[Page 1753]]

    3,000 of our citizens, 3,000 innocent lives on our soil on that fateful
    day. I vowed then, and I've vowed ever since, to use every national
    asset at my disposal to protect the American people. And the best way to
    do so is to defeat those people overseas so we do not have to face them
    here at home.
        I thank Richard's support. I appreciate the fact we've got Members
    of Congress who clearly see the enemy for what they are. You can't
    negotiate with these people. You cannot hope that they will go away. I
    like to remind people, therapy isn't going to work. The best way to deal
    with these folks is to bring them to justice before they hurt America
    again.
        You know, there's a debate in Washington, DC, about how to wage this
    war, and that's positive. Ours is a democracy; I welcome the debate. But
    I also have a responsibility to make it clear the consequences of some
    of the positions our opponents take. They say that Iraq is a distraction
    in the war on terror. I strongly disagree. I think Iraq is a central
    front in the war on terror, and we must defeat the enemy in Iraq if we
    want America to be secure.
        But don't take my word for it about Iraq. Our fellow citizens ought
    to listen to the words of Usama bin Laden
    and Mr. Zawahiri, who is his number two
    in Al Qaida. They have clearly stated that Iraq is a central front in
    their war against us. They have made their ambitions clear, and that is
    to inflict harm and damage on innocent life to the point where America
    says it's not worth it and retreats and leaves before the job is done.
    They have made their ambitions clear: to topple moderate governments. Al
    Qaida's leadership has told us loud and clear in their own words, their
    ambitions are to develop new safe haven from which to launch attacks.
        Imagine a world in which there are competing forms of religious
    extremists trying to achieve dominance, a world in which moderate
    governments feel no longer capable of defending themselves against these
    radicals and extremists, a world in which they control oil, and a world
    in which a theocracy may have a nuclear weapon. Those are the stakes as
    we begin the 21st century. We're in the midst of an ideological
    struggle. And the fundamental question is, will we have people in the
    United States Congress who see the world the way it is, who clearly see
    the threats?
        I'm going to tell you this: 20 or 30 years from now it's not going
    to be said, during my administration or during Richard Pombo's time in
    Congress, that the United States of America didn't confront these
    threats now, in order to make our children live in a more peaceful
    world.
        It's hard work, but it's necessary work. Iraq is a central part on
    the war on terror, and we have a plan for victory there. We have a
    security plan that will chase down those extremists and radicals who
    would like to do us harm, and enable the Iraqis to defend themselves. We
    have a political strategy, and that is to stand squarely with the 12
    million people who said loud and clear, ``We want to be free.''
        You know, it must seem like an eternity to you, when you think about
    those elections last December. It certainly does to me, in some ways.
    Ultimately, when this chapter of history will be written, however, it's
    going to be a comma; the Iraqis voted, comma, and the United States of
    America understood that Iraq was a central front in the war on terror
    and helped this young democracy flourish so that a generation of
    Americans wouldn't have to worry about the extremists emanating from
    that country to hurt the American people.
        The stakes are high. The Democrats are the party of cut-and-run.
    Ours is a party that has got a clear vision and says we will give our
    commanders and troops the support necessary to achieve that victory in
    Iraq. We will stay in Iraq, we will fight in Iraq, and we will win in
    Iraq.
        Our strategy is to stay on the offense, and we will do that. You
    just got to know

    [[Page 1754]]

    there's some fine, fine, brave men and women in uniform--and some not in
    uniform--in the intelligence services, doing everything they can to find
    the enemy every single day. It's hard to plot and plan when you're
    hiding in a cave and are on the run. And that's our strategy, and that's
    the way we're going to keep it.
        But we got to do a job here at home too. See, our job is one in
    which we got to be right 100 percent of the time to protect you, and the
    enemy has got to be right one time. And that's why, in the days after 9/
    11, I would--I vowed that we would give those responsible for defending
    you the tools they need to do so. We worked with Congress--my
    administration worked with Congress to pass what's called the PATRIOT
    Act. It's the first measure we took that would break down barriers that
    prevented intelligence and law enforcement personnel from sharing
    information with each other.
        It's probably hard for you to understand, but law enforcement and
    intelligence officers couldn't talk, and so the PATRIOT Act addressed
    that issue. How can you protect the American people if you don't have
    all branches of government sharing information, is what we thought.
        We also established the terrorist surveillance program to monitor
    terrorist communications in and out of our country. We created a program
    with the Central Intelligence Agency to detain and question key
    terrorist operatives that were captured on the battlefield. I told the
    American people we would give our folks on the frontline of fighting
    terror to protect you the tools necessary.
        On each of these programs, the Democrats have said they share our
    goals. But when it comes time to vote, they consistently oppose giving
    our personnel the tools they need to protect us. Time and time again,
    the Democrats want to have it both ways. They talk tough on terror, but
    when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.
        Let's take the PATRIOT Act. In the weeks after 9/11, we passed this
    vital law, and I want to thank Richard Pombo for his support. You don't
    have to worry about him. He understands that those on the frontline of
    fighting terror need to have the tools necessary to protect you. And in
    the 5 years since that law was passed, it has proved invaluable to
    stopping new attacks on our country. Our law enforcement community has
    used the law to break up terror cells or prosecute terrorist operatives
    and supporters in California, in Texas and New Jersey and Illinois and
    North Carolina and Virginia, Ohio, New York, and Florida.
        In 2001, the vote in the United States Senate to pass this law was
    98 to 1. But when the bill came up for renewal in 2005, Senate Democrats
    filibustered it, that means, tried to talk it to death. That's what
    filibuster means up in Washington-speak. They didn't want it to pass. In
    fact, the Senate Democrat leader bragged, ``We
    killed the PATRIOT Act.'' That's what he said. When he was asked later
    by a reporter whether killing the PATRIOT Act
    was really something to celebrate, he answered, ``Of course it is.'' The
    Democrat attempt to filibuster the PATRIOT Act follows an approach that
    might sound familiar: They voted for it before they voted against it.
        Eventually, common sense prevailed. The bill was passed, and I
    signed it into law, and I firmly believe the American people are safer
    because that bill was renewed.
        After 9/11, we recognized the need for new tools to learn what the
    terrorists are planning and then to be able to move quickly to stop
    them. See, this is a different kind of war--that is, different kind of
    threats--and we've got to make sure the tools are given to those on the
    frontline of protecting you. If the biggest issue and the biggest job of
    the Federal Government is to protect you, we must have the tools
    necessary to do so.

    [[Page 1755]]

        So I directed the National Security Agency to establish the
    terrorist surveillance program to track terrorist communications between
    someone overseas and someone in the United States. The philosophy behind
    this program is pretty clear: If Al Qaida operatives are making calls in
    the United States, we need to know who they're calling, why they're
    calling, and what they're planning.
        Apparently, this simple logic is not very clear to the Democrats in
    the United States Congress. Last week, when legislation providing
    additional authority for the terrorist surveillance program came before
    the House of Representatives, 177 Democrats voted against listening in
    on terrorists communications.
        The stakes in this election couldn't be more clear. If you don't
    think we should be listening in on the terrorists, then you ought to
    vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue
    listening in when Al Qaida planners are making phone calls into the
    United States, then you vote Republican.
        We got to make sure people have got the tools necessary to defeat
    this enemy in a new kind of war. After the 9/11 attacks, I established a
    CIA program to detain and question key terrorist operatives and leaders
    who were captured on the battlefield in this war on terror. Captured
    terrorists have unique knowledge about where their operatives are
    deployed and what plots may be underway. In other words, they know. And
    it seems like it makes sense for us to know what they know, in order to
    protect you.
        See, I know the security of the United States depends on getting
    this kind of information. For the past 5 years, the good and decent
    professionals of the CIA have worked tirelessly to get information from
    captured terrorists that enabled us to stop new attacks on our homeland
    and to save American lives.
        Every American must understand what this program has meant to the
    security of our country. Information from the terrorists questioned by
    the CIA helped break up a cell of Southeast Asian terrorist operatives
    that had been groomed for attacks inside the United States. The program
    helped us stop an Al Qaida cell from developing anthrax for attacks
    against the United States. This program helped us stop a planned strike
    on a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti. It helped prevent a planned attack on
    the U.S. consulate in Karachi. It helped foil a plot to hijack planes
    and fly them into Heathrow Airport and London's Canary Wharf.
        Were it not for the information gained from the terrorists
    questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, our intelligence
    community believes that Al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in
    launching another attack against the American homeland. The CIA program
    has saved lives, and it remains one of the most vital tools our Nation
    has in the war against these extremists and terrorists.
        Last week, Congress held a vote on the future of this CIA program.
    The choice before every Member was clear: Should the CIA program
    continue or not? Congress voted to continue the program. I look forward
    to signing it into law.
        The vote tells us a great deal about where the two parties stand
    when it comes to defending America in this war on terror. In the House
    of Representatives, 160 Democrats--including the entire Democrat
    leadership--voted against continuing this program. Think about that.
    Almost 80 percent of the House Democrats want to stop a program that has
    provided invaluable intelligence that's saved American lives. In the
    Senate, 32 Democrats, including every member of the Senate leadership
    save one, voted to kill this vital program. That means almost three-
    quarters of the Democrats in the Senate, including both of your Senators
    here in California, voted to stop the men and women of the CIA from
    continuing a program to get information from terrorists

    [[Page 1756]]

    like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about
    planned attacks on the United States.
        During the debate on the Senate floor, one senior Democrat, their ranking member on the Judiciary Committee,
    compared the brave Americans who question these terrorists to the
    Taliban and Saddam Hussein. This exposes a
    dangerous mindset on the part of Democrats in Congress. You can't defend
    America if you cannot tell the difference between the CIA officers who
    protect their fellow citizens and brutal dictators who kill their fellow
    citizens.
        Another Senate Democrat said that
    allowing the CIA to go forward with this program to question the most
    dangerous terrorists we have captured would diminish the security and
    safety of Americans everywhere. If they feel we are safer without this
    program, the Democrats in the United States Senate need to explain to
    the American people which of the attacks that the CIA program stopped
    would they have been willing to let go forward.
        We got a clear record on this issue. We know this program is making
    Americans safer, and we're not going to allow the Democrats in Congress
    to take it away.
        People of this district have got to understand, there's a different
    mindset. Look, people in Washington are patriotic people. The Democrats
    are good people; they've just got a different view of the world than I
    have. They don't see it the way I see it. The House Democrat
    leader summed up her party's approach to the
    midterm elections. She said this--and I quote--she said this election,
    quote, ``should not be about national security.'' I strongly disagree.
    The security of this country comes first, as far as I'm concerned. And
    this Government, with supporters like Richard Pombo, will do everything
    we can to protect you. Of course, to give the leader some credit, given
    her party's record on national security, I can see why she feels that
    way. [Laughter] I wouldn't want to be talking about the record, either.
        The difference between our parties comes down to this: Democrats
    take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will
    wait until we're attacked again before we respond. We believe we're at
    war, and we will prevent those attacks from happening in the first
    place.
        Their record is clear. When people go to the polls here in this
    district and districts around the country, I want them to look at the
    record, to look at the facts. Democrats have voted time and again to
    deny our personnel the tools they need to protect you. Republicans are
    giving you the tools they need--giving our folks the tools they need to
    keep this country safe. If you want leaders in Washington that
    understand the enemy we face and who are not going to sit back and wait
    for them to attack us again, I urge you to send Richard Pombo back to
    the United States Congress.
        Again, I want to thank you for coming. I believe the decisions that
    I have made have made this country safer. And I believe the decisions I
    have made to take the enemy on overseas and to promote liberty and
    freedom to people who are desperate to be free, I believe those
    decisions are laying the foundation of peace for a generation to come.
        I'm proud to be on the stage with a fellow citizen who understands
    the power of liberty to bring the peace we want. I'm proud to be with
    you all as you help this good man get reelected. I thank you for your
    prayers. I thank you for being here, and may God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:22 a.m. at the Stockton Memorial Civic
    Auditorium. In his remarks, he referred to Annette Pombo, wife of Rep.
    Richard W. Pombo; Alex G. Spanos, owner, San Diego Chargers professional
    football team, and his wife, Faye; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al
    Qaida terrorist organization; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al Qaida
    leader responsible for planning the September 11, 2001, terrorist

    [[Page 1757]]

    attacks, who was arrested in Pakistan on March 1, 2003; and former
    President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.