    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 17 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
    [Pages 769-781]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks on Immigration Reform and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Irvine, California

    April 24, 2006

        The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for letting
    me come by. Tom, thanks for the invitation. What I thought I would do is
    share some thoughts with you on some issues that kind of, like, may be
    on the TV screen these days--[laughter]--and then answer some of your
    questions. I'm interested to know what's on your mind.
        First, I've had a fabulous trip to your unbelievably beautiful
    State. It started off in northern California--Cisco; then I went to
    Stanford; then I went to Napa Valley. Then I rode my bicycle on Earth
    Day in Napa Valley. Then I found out the mountains are a little steep in
    Napa Valley. [Laughter] I then went down and spent a fantastic time in
    Palm Springs. What an unbelievably diverse State, and it's a fantastic
    place to end my journey, here in Orange County. I want to thank you for
    giving me a chance to come by and visit with you.
        Laura sends her very best. I, of course, checked in with her this
    morning before I headed over here, to see if she had any additional
    instructions for me for the day. [Laughter] She said, ``Keep it short.''
    [Laughter] I'm a lucky man to have Laura as a wife. You can imagine what
    it's like to be President--there's some pressure on your family, as you
    can imagine. The good news is, I've got a 45-second commute. [Laughter]
    And the better news is, I've got a wife who is a fantastic First Lady,
    who shares a passion

    [[Page 770]]

    with me to do the best we can for our country.
        I want to thank Lucy Dunn, as well as thanking Tom for putting this
    event together. I appreciate the members of the Orange County Business
    Council. I want to thank Congressman John Campbell for his service;
    appreciate you. He's the Congressman from this district, by the way. And
    Catherine is with us. thank--Congresswoman Mary Bono is with us today.
    Mary, thank you for being here. I just spent some quality time in her
    district, and I forgot to tell you that I had the privilege of riding my
    mountain bike in the desert as well. The national monument that she
    helped put together to preserve open spaces--she's got a lot of
    humility; she didn't name the national monument after herself. If I were
    to name it, I would say, ``Really Hard Bike Ride Monument.'' [Laughter]
        I want to thank Congressman Ken Calvert for joining us today. Ken,
    it's good to see you; proud of you. Congressman Gary Miller is with us
    today. Congressman, thank you. Mayor Beth Krom of city of Irvine--Madam
    Mayor, thank you for being here. Thanks for serving. There you are,
    Mayor. Thank you; appreciate you coming. Thanks for serving. I had--last
    night, by the way, I had dinner last night with the Mayor of Los Angeles
    and Mayor of Long Beach and Mayor of Anaheim, and some other mayors that
    came.
        Real important for the President to pay attention to people, what's
    on their mind, and that's what I'm here to do today. I want to share
    some things that's on my--first of all, Rick Warren, by the way, is
    here. Where are you, Rick? There you go. I appreciate you. Still got the
    calendar in the desk. [Laughter] Ambassador Argyros, good to see you,
    George. George served our country as the Ambassador to Spain. Thank you.
        I got a lot on my mind these days. I want to share two thoughts with
    you. First, I want to talk about the war on terror. I wish I could
    report to you that the war on terror was over. It's not. There is still
    an enemy that wants to do us harm. And the most important job of the
    President of the United States is to protect the American people from
    that harm. That's--and I think about it all the time.
        As you know, well, I make a lot of decisions, and at the core of my
    decisionmaking when it comes to protecting America is the lessons
    learned from September the 11th, 2001. My job is to use the resources of
    the United States to prevent such an attack from happening again. And
    the first lesson of September the 11th, 2001, is that we face an enemy
    that has no regard for innocent life, an enemy which has hijacked a
    great religion to suit their political needs.
        And therefore, the only way to deal with them is to stay on the
    offense, to pressure them, and to bring them to justice, which is
    precisely what the United States of America is doing and will continue
    to do for the safety of the American people.
        The second lesson is, we must deny these folks safe haven. They need
    to find safe haven from which to plot and plan. We denied them safe
    haven in Afghanistan, and we're denying them safe haven in Iraq.
        One of the important things that a President must do is to take the
    words of the enemy very seriously. And when the enemy speaks--and they
    speak quite often--we listen carefully. We listen to their aims and
    their objectives. These are not a kind of isolated, angry people. These
    are folks bound together by an ideology that is totalitarian in nature.
    They believe that capitalism produces weak societies. They want to
    spread their idea of life throughout the Middle East; they have stated
    so--in word after word. And they believe that with time, they can
    establish a safe haven in Iraq.
        And here's the danger of having an enemy with a safe haven in Iraq:
    Iraq has got wealth. Iraq has--had weapons of mass destruction and has
    the knowledge as to how to produce weapons of mass destruction. And the
    confluence of a terrorist network with weapons of mass destruction is
    the biggest threat the United States of America faces. They have said
    it's just a matter of time.
        And they've got a powerful weapon, by the way--the enemy does. And
    that is the willingness and capacity to kill innocent people. And they
    understand the United States of America is a compassionate nation. They
    view--I'm sure they view this as a weakness of our country; I happen to
    view it as a strength that we value every life, that every

    [[Page 771]]

    person is precious. But they know, and it doesn't take much to realize
    that when you put carnage on our TV screens, it causes us to weep. It
    causes people, rightly, to say whether or not the cause is worth it.
    It's a legitimate question for the American people.
        But it's very important for the American people to understand that
    they're trying to run us out of Iraq for a purpose. And the purpose is
    to be able to have safe haven from which to launch further attacks. And
    I understand it. And we've got a strategy in place to achieve victory.
        Yesterday I went over to Twentynine Palms--I want to tell you
    something about the United States military: These young men and women
    are incredibly dedicated. They are motivated. They understand that we
    must defeat the enemy over there so we do not have to face them here at
    home. Most of them raised their hand to volunteer after September the
    11th. Many of them have said, ``I want to continue to serve our
    country.'' We're lucky to have people like them willing to serve. And
    the United States Government, whether you agree with my policy or not,
    must stand by our troops. When they're in harm's way, they deserve the
    best pay, the best equipment, and the best possible support.
        And I told them, I told them they didn't have to worry about me. I
    believe we're going to win in Iraq. And a victory in Iraq will be a
    major blow to the totalitarian vision of bin Laden and his lieutenants--
    a major blow. One, it will be a tactical blow. We'll deny them that
    which they want. But secondly, it will be a major blow because, in the
    long term, the best way to defeat an ideology of hatred is with an
    ideology of hope.
        I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I
    think are true: One, I believe there's an Almighty; and secondly, I
    believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in
    everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to
    be free. I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be
    free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other. And I know
    that the best way to defeat the enemy, the best way to defeat their
    ability to exploit hopelessness and despair is to give people a chance
    to live in a free society.
        You know, the Iraqis went to the polls last December for the third
    time in one year. It seems like a decade ago, doesn't it? It seems like
    it was just an eternity ago that 12 million people defied terrorists,
    threats, and said, ``We want to be free. We're sick and tired of a
    society that had been suppressed by a brutal tyrant. We want to go to
    the polls. We want to be self-governing.'' I wasn't surprised; I was
    pleased, but not surprised. If you believe that liberty exists in the
    soul of each person on the face of the Earth, it shouldn't surprise you
    that, given the chance, people will say, ``We want to be free.'' And now
    the role of the United States is to stand by the courageous Iraqis as
    their democracy develops.
        It's not easy work, by the way, to go from tyranny to democracy. We
    had kind of a round go ourself, if you look back at our history. My
    Secretary of State's relatives were enslaved in the United States even
    though we had a Constitution that said all were--that believed in the
    dignity, or at least proclaimed to believe in the dignity of all. The
    Articles of Confederation wasn't exactly a real smooth start for our
    Government to begin. And what you're watching on your TV screens is a
    new democracy emerging. And I had the privilege of calling the President
    of Iraq, the new Speaker of Iraq, and the Prime Minister-designee of
    Iraq, there at--in the comfort of my hotel room in Palm Desert--Palm
    Springs. And I can't tell you how heartened I was to hear their words.
        First of all, they expressed great appreciation for the American
    people and our troops and the families of our troops. Secondly, to a
    person--this is a Kurd, a Shi'a, and a Sunni I'm talking to--each one of
    them said, ``We want to have a national unity government. We're sick of
    the sectarian violence. We believe if you stand with us, we can achieve
    our objective of becoming a democracy that listens to the people.'' And
    I believe them. And I believe them. And I told them--I said, look, it's
    going to be up to you to make it work, but you can count on the United
    States of America because we believe in liberty and the capacity of
    liberty to change lives and to change the neighborhood for a more
    peaceful tomorrow.

    [[Page 772]]

        This is a new chapter in our relationship. We had an important
    milestone when the unity government was formed, and now there's a new
    chapter in the relationship, and we're moving forward.
        You know, it's really important for people to be able to connect the
    concept of freedom to our security. And it's hard. It's hard,
    particularly in a day and age when every act of violence is put in your
    living room. And I know that. I fully understand the challenge I face as
    the Commander in Chief to describe to the American people why the
    sacrifice is worth it.
        And perhaps the best way to do so is to share one of my favorite
    lessons of history with you, and that is that my relationship with Prime
    Minister Koizumi of Japan is a special relationship. He's an interesting
    guy. He's a--and he's a friend, and we work to keep the peace. We sit
    down--when we sit down, we talk about the importance of democracy
    developing in Iraq. The Japanese had troops, by the way, in Iraq to help
    this young country. We talked about North Korea. We talk about issues of
    peace. I find it so interesting and so ironic that those are the
    conversations I have with him, especially since 60 years ago, my dad--
    and I suspect many of your relatives--fought the Japanese as the enemy.
        And so what happens between 18-year-old George H.W. Bush, Navy
    fighter pilot, signing up to fight the sworn enemy of Japan, and his son
    sitting down to talk about the peace? What happened was, Japan adopted a
    Japanese-style democracy. Democracy can help change the world and lay
    the foundation for peace. And that's what's happening today. These are
    historic times. My job is to lead this Nation to protect you, and my job
    is to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. And that is
    why I told those marines yesterday that we're going to complete the
    mission.
        I got a lot of other things to talk about. I want to talk about
    immigration. So I saw my friend Brulte, ex-politician, you know? Always
    a friend. He said, ``People are wondering why you would come to Orange
    County to talk about immigration.'' [Laughter] And the answer is because
    that's what a leader does.
        And I want to talk to you, tell you my thoughts about the subject.
    First of all, I understand it is an emotional subject. And it's really
    important that those of us who have microphones and can, you know,
    express ourselves, do so in a respectful way that recognizes we are a
    nation of immigrants, that we have had a grand tradition in this country
    of welcoming people into our society. And ours is a society that is able
    to take the newly arrived, and they become equally American. I believe
    that immigration has helped reinvigorate the soul of America. I know
    that when somebody comes to our country because he or she has a dream
    and is willing to work hard for that dream, it makes America a better
    place.
        Now, first and foremost, the Federal Government has the role to
    enforce our border. The American people are right in saying to the
    Government, enforce the border. Listen, I was an old border Governor. I
    understand it's important to enforce our border, and we are. We got a
    lot of good people down there working hard on the border to keep people
    from coming--and contraband, or whatever--from coming into this country
    illegally. We've increased the number of Border Patrol. And I want to
    thank the Congresswoman and Congressmen here, for being wise about
    providing resources to increase the number of patrol on the border. But
    that's not enough.
        We've got to have modern equipment to be able to help people find
    people that are coming across a very long and difficult border--to
    protect; so we got infrared. Unmanned vehicles are being--aerial
    vehicles are being--UAVs are being deployed. I mean, we're now beginning
    to modernize our border so that the people we've asked to enforce the
    border have got the tools necessary to do so. In parts of the rural
    border, there needs to be berms to prevent people from flying across in
    their SUVs, smuggling people into America. And we're strengthening this
    border. I'll tell you something that's interesting: Since 2001, 6
    million people have been caught illegally trying to get in this country,
    and turned back--6 million people. So people are working down there, and
    they're working hard.

    [[Page 773]]

        And I'm going to continue to work with Congress. I know these people
    from Congress are interested in providing the Border Patrol and those
    responsible for enforcing the border the tools necessary to do their
    job, and I thank you for that.
        Secondly, we have got a problem with--we have a problem we're going
    to solve this year, by the way, of catching people from--non-Mexican
    illegal immigrants, and just sending them back into society. There
    wasn't enough detention beds. So you got the people down there working
    hard and 6 million people caught since 2001 and sent home. Well, most of
    the Mexican citizens who were caught trying to illegally come in the
    country just sent back to their country. But if you catch somebody from
    Central America coming back, you just can't send them back for a while,
    so there needs to be a place to detain them. We didn't have enough
    bedspace. And so we had catch-and-release. We're asking people to go
    down there and do their job, and they find somebody from Central America
    sneaking in, and they say, ``Check back in with us in 45 days; come and
    see your immigration guy down there.'' [Laughter] And they weren't
    checking back in after 45 days. [Laughter] They were coming to work,
    see. They wanted to put food on the table for their families, and they
    weren't interested in checking back in.
        And so it meant there was a lot of wasted effort by the Border
    Patrol. We're going to change that. One of the things that Congress has
    done, it's done a good job of providing additional money for bedspace
    and money to make sure that we can send people back home. You got people
    coming up who want to work, see. They're going broke at home; they want
    to put food on the table; they go to unbelievable lengths to come and
    feed their families. We're catching them; we're putting them back in--
    we're stopping that. Our job is to enforce this border--6 million people
    have been turned back. And we got a strategy in place to make sure that
    this border is as tight as it possibly can be.
        Secondly, in order to make sure immigration laws work, you got to
    enforce the laws on the books, see. If it's illegal to hire somebody,
    then the Federal Government has got to enforce those laws. We're a
    nation of law. And by the way, you can be a nation of law and a
    compassionate nation at the same time. You don't have to be--[applause].
        Now, the problem we have is, is you got some person out there in
    central Texas needing a worker, and he can't find a worker, an American.
    And so he says, ``Look, is anybody--help me find somebody? I got
    something to do.'' This economy is growing, see--4.7 percent
    unemployment rate nationwide--pretty good numbers. And people are having
    trouble finding work that's--Americans won't do, and that's a fact of
    life. And so he says, ``Why don't you send somebody over to help me.''
    And they show up, and they put a Social Security card out there, and it
    looks real. You know, our small-business owners are not document
    checkers. These are people trying to get ahead, and it's impossible to--
    [applause]. It's impossible to really effect the enforcement of our laws
    if people are able to use forged documents.
        Now, we've increased the amount of manpower there to hold people to
    account for hiring illegals, but it is difficult to hold somebody, an
    employer to account if they're putting false papers on--the truth of the
    matter is, what's happened is, people are trying to come in this
    country, and we got smugglers smuggling them in. And they're putting
    them in the back of 18-wheelers, stuffing human beings in the back of
    trucks, because they're come--people are coming to do jobs Americans
    won't do. They're putting people out in deserts. We've lost a lot of
    people, a lot of decent, hard-working people--trying to come in this
    country in the desert--losing their lives. These smugglers are coyotes;
    they're, kind of, preying on innocent life. And they've got a whole
    document forgery industry going on.
        See, we made it such that an underground industry thrives on human
    beings, people coming to do work that the Americans will not do. And so
    I think that the best way to enforce our border, and the best way,
    besides making sure it's modern and we've got manpower and equipment
    down there--which we do, and it's increasing every week--is to come up
    with a rational plan that recognizes people coming here to work and let
    them do so on a temporary basis. That's why I'm for a temporary-worker
    program that will--

    [[Page 774]]

    that says to a person, ``Here is a tamper-proof card that says you can
    come and do a job an American won't do, fill a need.'' Tamper-proof
    card, all of a sudden, makes interior enforcement work. In other words,
    we now know who's getting the cards, and we know they can't be tampered
    with. So when somebody--the guy says, ``Show me your tamper-proof card
    before I hire you.'' And if they do, fine. But if they don't, say, ``I'm
    not hiring you. You got to have the card to get work.''
        Secondly, we got a lot of people sneaking across the border to do
    jobs. It is really hard to enforce the border with people sneaking
    across to do jobs. Doesn't it make sense to have a rational, temporary-
    worker plan that says, you don't need to sneak across the border; you
    can come on a temporary basis to do a job Americans won't do. So you
    don't have to sneak across--so you don't have to pay money to a coyote
    that stuffs you in the back of a truck; so you don't have to burden our
    borders.
        Look, we want our Border Patrol hunting down gun smugglers and dope
    runners. And it just seems rational to me and logical to me that says,
    okay, fine, you can come and do a job Americans won't do for a temporary
    period of time with a tamper-proof card.
        All of a sudden, we've kind of taken this smuggling industry and
    dismantled it through rational policy. All of a sudden, we recognize
    that we want to treat people with respect. I know this is an emotional
    debate. And I can understand it's emotional. But one thing we cannot
    lose sight of is that we're talking about human beings, decent human
    beings that need to be treated with respect.
        Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not
    going to work. You can hear people out there hollering, it's going to
    work. It's not going to work. It just--it's--and so therefore, what do
    we do with people who are here? And this is one of the really important
    questions Congress is going to have to deal with.
        I thought the Senate had an interesting approach by saying that if
    you've been here for 5 years or less, you're treated one way; and 5
    years or more, you're treated another. It's just an interesting concept
    that people need to think through, about what to do with people that
    have been here for quite a period of time.
        Now, my attitude is this: I think that people ought to be,
    obviously, here to work on a temporary basis. The definition of
    temporary will be decided in the Halls of Congress.
        Secondly, I believe that a person should never be granted automatic
    citizenship. And let me tell you why I believe that--that if you've been
    here, broken the law and have been here working, that it doesn't seem
    fair to me, to say you're automatically a citizen, when somebody who has
    been here legally working is standing in line trying to become a citizen
    as well. In other words, there's the line for people.
        But what I do think makes sense is that a person ought to be allowed
    to get in line. In other words, pay a penalty for being here illegally,
    commit him or herself to learn English, which is part of the American
    system--and get in the back of the line. In other words, there is a line
    of people waiting to become legal through the green card process. And
    it's by nationality. And if you're a citizen here, who has been here
    illegally, you pay a penalty; you learn English; and you get in line,
    but at the back--not the front. And if Congress wants a shorter line for
    this--for a particular nationality, they increase the number of green
    cards. If they want a longer line, they shrink the number of green cards
    per nationality.
        This is an important debate for the American citizens to conduct.
    It's a debate that requires clear, rational thought, and it's really
    important for those of us in positions of responsibility to remember
    that we're a nation of law, a welcoming nation, a nation that honors
    people's traditions no matter where they're from because we've got
    confidence in the capacity of our Nation to make us all Americans, one
    Nation under God.
        And so that's what's on my mind today--got a lot of other things, if
    you're interested. But I got some time for some--I'd like to answer some
    questions if you got any, or hear from you.
        Yes, sir.

    President's Analysis of First Term

        Q. Morning, sir. [Inaudible]

    [[Page 775]]

        The President. Pretty good. I think I'm doing all right, yes.
    [Laughter]
        Q. I understand you get a lot of tough questions, and you're very
    candid person, so assuming that you agree with the fact that no one's
    perfect----
        The President. I agree with that.
        Q. Good.
        The President. Especially me. [Laughter]
        Q. I'd like to get your candid response to your perspective from the
    outside looking in, and now the inside looking out. Before you became
    President, obviously, you had some perceptions based on your family
    history, being Governor, what it would be like to be President of the
    U.S. Now that you are President and you've had a chance to go through
    the experience and you're in your second term, candidly, if you had it
    to do over, would there be anything that you'd do differently?
        The President. I appreciate it. The fundamental question--the
    threshold question is, would I run in the first place? That's really the
    first question that one would ask. Now that I'm here, seeing what it's
    like, would I do it again? And the answer is, absolutely.
        I have enjoyed this experience in a way that's hard for me to
    describe to you. Listen, there have been some rough moments. But it is
    an incredible honor to serve our country.
        The second threshold question is, would I commit troops to protect
    the American people? It's really a fundamental question. Knowing what I
    know today, would I have done anything differently with our troops?
        First, you got to know that the hardest decision for a President is
    to put anybody in harm's way--because I fully understand the
    consequences of making such a decision. I was at church yesterday in
    Twentynine Palms. In the pew that I was sitting in was a mother and
    stepfather grieving for a guy who lost his life, and I knew that I would
    have to deal with this as best as I possibly can.
        I also wanted to let you know that it's before you commit troops
    that you must do everything you can to solve the problem diplomatically.
    And I can look you in the eye and tell you, I feel I've tried to solve
    the problem diplomatically to the max, and would have committed troops
    both in Afghanistan and Iraq knowing what I know today.
        Obviously, as we look back--and every war plan is perfect until it
    meets the enemy. It's fine on paper until you actually start putting it
    into practice. And there is a--decisions like preparing an Iraqi Army
    for a--external threat. Well, it turns out, there may have been an
    external threat, but it's nothing compared to the internal threat. We
    got in and started trying to build some big reconstruction projects
    right off the bat. And it didn't make any sense because it was easy
    for--they were--became convenient targets for the enemy. And so we
    started to decentralize our reconstruction--this kind of--I'm getting
    down to the minutia. But there are some tactics that--when I look back--
    that we could have done differently.
        The fundamental question on the Iraq theater, though, is, did we put
    enough troops in there in the first place? That's the debate in
    Washington. I'm sure you've heard about it. It's a--here let me just
    tell you what happened. I called Tommy Franks in with Don Rumsfeld and
    said, ``Tommy, if we're going in, you design the plan, and you got what
    you need.'' I said--I remember the era when politicians were trying to
    run wars, people trying to fine-tune this or fine-tune that. One of the
    lessons of Vietnam, it seemed like to me--still does--is that you
    can't--people tried to make decisions on behalf of the military, which I
    think is a terrible precedent to make if you're the Commander in Chief.
    By the way, you can't run a war, you can't make decisions based upon
    polls and focus groups, either.
        And so I told Tommy, I said, ``You know you got what you need.'' And
    then it's my--then the fundamental question is, when I'm looking him in
    the eye, do I think he's comfortable telling the Commander in Chief
    what's real and isn't real? So I spent a lot of time with Tommy, and the
    first time I'm with him I'm trying to figure out whether or not he has
    got the ability to walk in the Oval Office--which can be kind of an
    intimidating place--and say, ``Here's what I think, Mr. President.''
        I was comforted by the fact that Tommy and I were raised in the same
    part of the world. He went to Midland Lee High School

    [[Page 776]]

    with Laura, by the way. I felt like that there was kind of a kinship to
    begin with, and I'm confident, sir, that Tommy told me exactly what was
    on his mind. I believe that. And so, therefore, the troop level that he
    suggested was the troop level necessary to do the job. And I support it
    strongly.
        And I fully understand people are going to think back and, could you
    have done something different, or not different? And that's fair, and
    it's worthwhile. And we still have Members of Congress who are coming
    in--and they should--are coming in and say, ``Mr. President, have you
    thought about this, or are you going to do that?'' And we're constantly
    adjusting on the ground to meet an enemy which changes. But on the big
    decisions of sending the troops in, I'd have done it again.
        Thank you. Great question.
        Yes, sir.

    Vision for the Future

        Q. Good morning--I'm 14 years old, and I was wondering what America
    is going to be like in 10 years. [Laughter]
        The President. Here's what America needs to be like--maybe 20--
    [laughter]--10 to 20. You need to be driving an automobile with hydrogen
    as the main source of power. And at the very least, with a hybrid--a
    plug-in battery of a hybrid vehicle that will you get--let you get the
    first 40 miles without using gasoline. In other words, between 10 to 20
    years from now, we got to get off Middle Eastern oil. It's a problem.
        You'll be able to see a technology, a technology that will be able--
    enable you to converse with somebody on long distance, and it seems like
    the person is right there in the room with you. I saw that at Cisco.
    It's an amazing technology that will mean that education changes to the
    better. You can hire a--you've got a--if you got yourself a State like
    we got in Texas, that's rural, you can get a chemistry professor from
    one of the urban centers and put them on the screen, and it's like the
    professor is right in the room, teaching. There's a way to husband
    resources.
        You'll have the capacity to interface with people around the world
    in a real-time basis. You'll be able to talk more clearly. Information
    will become even more powerful than it is today. And the fundamental
    question is, what do we do with that information? You'll be confronted
    with very difficult choices when it comes to science. The first choice
    we all have to deal with right off the bat is whether or not it's okay
    to destroy life to save life. In other words, as technology progresses,
    as this country of ours is more technologically advanced, you're going
    to be confronted with serious ethical choices. It's just--there will be
    a clash between morality and science that will present some really
    difficult decisions for people.
        You'll be able to have a leader that can go and sit down with a duly
    elected leader of a major Middle Eastern country, saying, ``How can we
    keep the peace together?'' I believe you'll see there's a democracy
    movement moving across the Middle East over the next 10 years. Much of
    it's going to be led by women who don't want to be a second-class
    citizen in any society. I think you'll see a relationship between the
    United States and other great powers that will enable us to work
    together to be able to provide a stable platform.
        What I hope you don't see is a nation that loses its nerve and
    becomes isolationist and protectionist. That's one of my concerns, so I
    put it in the State of the Union. It was such a concern that, instead of
    going with the--here are the 29 things we're going to do either for you
    or to you, it was--[laughter]--I talked about isolation and
    protectionism. It's very important for this Nation to be a confident
    nation and to remain a leader of the world. You cannot win the war on
    terror if you kind of pull back and say, let somebody else deal with it.
        You can't do your duty as a nation that should subscribe to the
    theory that to whom much is given, much is required--and that duty is to
    help deal with HIV/AIDS, for example, on the continent of Africa. We
    have a duty to help feed the hungry, in my judgment.
        What I hope you don't see is a nation that loses its confidence in
    the capacity to trade with countries like China. Hu Jintao was--came to
    visit, and we had a wonderful visit with him. But I know there are some
    Americans who wonder whether or not it's worth

    [[Page 777]]

    the effort to try to outcompete with China. They look at the statistics,
    and they worry about whether or not it is possible to compete with
    China. I say, you bet it's possible to compete with China. And not only
    can we compete with China, if we have a level playing field, we'll do
    just fine.
        And so what I'm telling you is, I hope you have a nation that at
    home, is one that is able to balance technology and ethical concerns, a
    nation, by the way--I hope those taxes remain low, see. One of the
    things you got to make sure--you got to have that proper balance between
    what Government really needs and money in your pocket.
        And anyway--great question, by the way, for a 14-year-old guy. I'm
    not so sure if I were 14, I'd have been able to get that question out. I
    might have been a little nervous. [Laughter]
        Let's see--yes, ma'am.

    Community Health Centers

        Q. First of all, I want to thank you for coming to Orange County. I
    don't know who said it wasn't a good idea, but I think it's a great
    idea. And we love you, so thank you for being here. I very much support
    your immigration plan. I think it's a good framework. But the one
    question I have--last year my daughter fell and broke her hip--she's 12.
    And it was 5 hours in the emergency room at the hospital before she
    could see a doctor. And a lot of people in the ER were there because it
    was their primary medical facility----
        The President. Correct.
        Q. So in your plan, how do you plan to address health care and
    schools and so forth that are really impacted?
        The President. Community health centers. We--this administration,
    working with the Congress, has funded the expansion of what's called
    community health centers. Community health centers are places for the
    poor and the indigent to get primary care so to do exactly what--to
    address the problem that you described, which is primary care in
    emergency rooms are costly. They are--it's not a cost-effective
    treatment--I guess it is once you get the treatment, but it's not cost-
    effective overall and, therefore, the advent of community health
    centers.
        And I don't know if you've got them here in Orange County; I hope
    you do. I bet you do. You don't have any? Well, get to working,
    Congressman. [Laughter] But that's the best way, really, to be able to
    address the issue, whether it be for an immigrant who is here or anybody
    else that cannot afford health care. The best place to get primary care
    is not the emergency rooms. And so we've got a comprehensive strategy.
    And we're expanding them all across the country, and I'm surprised you
    don't have one here. I bet you do, and you just don't know it. And
    therefore, what needs to happen is, there needs to be a campaign to
    explain what's available for people so that they don't go to the
    emergency rooms.
        Yes, sir.

    Cuba

        Q. Mr. President, I emigrated from Cuba when I was about 9 years
    old--legally, I might add.
        The President. Pedro Pan? Were you Pedro Pan?
        Q. No.
        The President. No? Okay.
        Q. But anyway, besides marrying a wonderful woman and having two
    great sons, coming to this great land is the best thing that has ever
    happened to me, and I appreciate your comments on immigration. And my
    question to you, Mr. President, is that I would like to go to Cuba, to
    travel, to see--I want to go see my front door that was bullet-riddled
    when they were fighting Batista's guys. And I can't go there legally.
    And I don't understand, how can we trade with Vietnam--we lost over
    50,000 Americans there--how can we trade with Communist China, we can't
    even go to Cuba? And I think that if the borders were opened up with
    Cuba and American enterprise got to go down there, I think Castro would
    fall like a rock off a cliff. And my question to you, sir, is why can't
    we open----
        The President. Okay, here's why----
        Q. Yes.
        The President. Here's why: Fidel Castro has got the capacity to
    arbitrage your dollars to the advantage of his administration. You pay
    in dollars; he pays in Cuban money and collects the difference. So you
    go to a hotel

    [[Page 778]]

    in Havana. The money goes to the hotel, which has kind of got a deal
    with the Government in order to be there in the first place, and the
    workers get paid in a currency that's worthless compared to the U.S.
    dollar. And he makes the balance. And so, in all due respect, I have
    taken the position that trade with the country enables a tyrant to stay
    in power, as opposed to the opposite. If it's honest disagreement of
    opinion--I fully recognize--but that's why I made the decision I made.
    And anyway, my preacher, by the way, at St. John the Divine Church, is a
    guy who came from Cuba at about the same age you did. You look a little
    younger than he is--but, nevertheless, that's why. That's why.
        Yes, sir.

    Immigration Reform

        Q. As you said, you make a lot of important decisions on a day-by-
    day basis. I'm interested in the personal, as well as political, aspects
    of your counsel. Do you know any illegal-status individuals coming from
    Midland, Texas? What do they feel? And how do they counsel you on this?
    And also, politically, it's an intensely State-specific issue. Are the
    States most affected by illegal immigration speaking in a collective
    voice?
        The President. Really good question. No, I don't believe I know
    anybody who is in Texas illegally. Had I hired somebody who had been
    here illegally, I guarantee you'd have read about it. [Laughter]
        Isn't that right, Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times]?
        The interesting thing about this issue is--I want to be respectful
    in correcting you about the nature of the immigration debate--it is more
    widespread than you think. It really is. It's a--there's a lot of States
    who have been affected and maybe impacted in a much more different way
    than California and Texas has been. Texas and California are--have had a
    history of Latino presence. It's been a part of our heritage. And
    there's a--but there are many communities in the United States that for
    the first time are getting to become acquainted with the Latino
    heritage. And that probably impacts people even more significantly than
    parts of California and Texas; it really does. And so there is a
    universal concern about the issue. And what's really important about
    this issue is to try to set aside all the emotion and think about how to
    solve the problem in a rational, calm way.
        But, no, it's--people--obviously, if you're from--I was talking to a
    Congressman from--I don't want to--they'll start trying to find the guy,
    so I'm not going to give him any hints, but--[laughter]. It's a guy.
    Anyway, but he said, ``My town was, like, a small number of minorities,
    and now it's 50 percent Latino, and we don't know what to do.'' And this
    is a new phenomenon. This isn't something that's been around for
    decades. This is a brandnew phenomenon. And so there is a national
    concern about this issue; it really is. And, obviously, it takes--it
    reflects the nature of the local community, gets--flares up one way or
    another around the country. But it's--there's a lot of people talking
    about it. And it's--we've got to get something done. I want a
    comprehensive bill. I don't want a--[applause].
        Yes, sir, back there in the end-zone.

    Education

        Q. Mr. President--for us to compete globally, we need to get better
    in math and science. What do you see as the role of the Federal
    Government in that regard?
        The President. Yes, thanks. First, the role of the Federal
    Government is to make sure that we get it right at the early grades. And
    that's why I worked hard for and was extremely proud to sign the No
    Child Left Behind Act. And the No Child Left Behind Act starts with
    these basic premises: One, children can learn, and we ought to expect
    them to learn. And I know that sounds simple. But that's not the way it
    was in certain school districts. You look like a vet, and you know full
    well that in certain school districts--just move them through, man. What
    mattered was the age, not what--the level of knowledge.
        Secondly, that accountability can be used effectively, particularly
    if it's designed at the local level. In other words, you can use an
    accountability system to determine whether a curriculum is working, or
    you can use an accountability system to determine how your school
    district is doing relative to the school

    [[Page 779]]

    district next door to you. You can use an accountability system to
    determine whether or not we're closing an achievement gap that needs to
    be closed if America is going to be a promising place for all people--
    not just some, but all people.
        And so I worked with both Republicans and Democrats--it actually can
    happen sometimes in Washington that we're able to work together--and
    passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which said, in return for Federal
    money--in increasing amounts, by the way--on particularly Title I money,
    we expect you just to show us. We expect you to measure. You notice I
    didn't say, we expect you to administer the test we designed. I'm a
    local-control-of-schools person, and I knew that if a Federal test were
    designed, it could force people to behave according to the tests. In
    other words, you can cause people to lose their independence if you're
    the test designer. And so I said, California, design your own test, and
    measure three through eight and post the results for everybody to see so
    that concerned citizens, when they saw failure, would have something to
    say to the--to you, ``Change, or thank you for doing what you're
    doing.''
        And as a result of measuring, I can report to you that math scores
    and science scores for fourth graders and reading scores--math and
    reading scores for fourth graders and eighth graders is on the rise,
    particularly amongst African American and Latino students.
        Things are changing. It's amazing what happens when you say, there's
    accountability in the system. The problem is, as you know full well, but
    others may not, is that when a child gets to high school, our math and
    science skills, relative to other countries in the world, is abysmal.
    And it's not right. And we're not going to be able to compete
    successfully for the jobs of the 21st century. So here's the strategy:
    Apply the same rigor in math that we've applied in reading.
        And here's what happens in early grades in reading: If you don't
    pass the test, there is supplemental service money to enable a child to
    get up to speed. In other words, we diagnose the problem, and we're
    actually providing money to solve the problem, and it's paying off. They
    ought to apply the same rigor to eighth grade math and ninth grade
    math--measure, find deficiencies, and provide extra money for school
    districts to make sure children get back up to speed.
        Secondly, it is very important for there to be role models in
    classrooms that basically says, science and math are cool. They weren't
    too cool when I was going to school, you know. And therefore, one of the
    things we can do is have adjunct professors in classrooms. I went to a
    school with Margaret Spellings, who is the Secretary of Education, in
    Maryland the other day, and there were two NASA scientists there. And
    part of their job was not only to work at the NASA facility close by but
    to go into classrooms, to say to children, math and science are really
    important for you.
        Thirdly, AP works--Advanced Placement. I bet you've got some good AP
    teachers. The Advanced Placement program is the way to set high
    standards for our children. And so, therefore, the Federal Government
    ought to help train 70,000 AP teachers in classrooms. That says, we
    believe in setting high standards; we ought not to accept a system that
    doesn't continue to raise the bar and measure and to hold people to
    account.
        Finally, there's--we've got an additional 1 million students on Pell
    grants. These are grants to help people who can afford--can't afford
    college, go to college. And they're very important--it's a very
    important tool to help people realize dreams. But I think we ought to
    enhance the Pell grants for those who take rigorous academics in high
    school for years one and two. And if you maintain a 3.0 grade-point-
    average and take science, math, or critical languages in third and
    fourth year of college, you ought to get an additional $4,000 on top of
    your Pell grant.
        There is a strategy; the strategy of the Federal Government is a
    part of the strategy. The local school district is an integral part of
    the strategy. Thanks for being a superintendent, appreciate it.
        Yes, sir.

    Highway Infrastructure/Levees in California

        Q. I'm a civil engineer, and we recently put out a report card for
    the Nation's infrastructure and--by the American Society of

    [[Page 780]]

    Civil Engineers. It was abysmal, is a word that you've used. And we're
    really concerned that our Nation is coming to a crisis on its
    infrastructure. And yet we seem to have problems with the Federal
    Government coming up with the funds that we need for the various parts
    of our transportation and our water resources.
        The President. Well, I appreciate that very much. We passed a pretty
    good sized highway bill--like really big. And it's a 6-year bill, and so
    it's--we've got 5 more years to run on it. But it was a pretty
    interesting struggle about how much to spend and how much not to spend.
    And I think if you look at the history of that highway bill, pretty much
    the bill I signed was more than some thought was necessary.
        I did talk to your Governor about an important subject, and that's
    the levees. And I appreciated his time the other day when I was in--up
    there in Cisco Systems. And we talked about the levees, and I said, we
    want to help. He's committed, by the way, to the--to rebuilding the
    infrastructure of California. It's a good, strong commitment. And it's
    what Governors do; they lead. But he said, ``Look, we need to work
    together on this,'' and what he wanted--what they--his office suggested
    is that we allow the State of California to use the Corps of Engineers
    to pay the Federal share of levee rebuilding when the water goes down,
    and then through the budget process, reimburse the State of California.
    I agreed to that.
        In other words, he--the Governor is concerned about being able to
    get started enough on levee--quick enough on levee repairs so we don't
    waste time. And part of the concern is there's a sharing arrangement
    between the Federal Government and the State government. And so I said,
    advance the State share--advance the Federal share through State money,
    and we'll reimburse you. That's an important beginning. In other words,
    the funding match is not an excuse. And secondly, he needs regulatory
    relief from Federal law and State law in order to be able to take
    advantage of the dry season to get the levees done. And so we're working
    with him on that.
        And--but, no, I appreciate your concern. It's a--infrastructure is
    always a difficult issue. It's a Federal responsibility and a State and
    local responsibility. And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our
    responsibility at the Federal level with the highway bill. There are
    other infrastructures we got to get built. We need a broadband highway
    all across America if we're going to end up being a competitive nation.
    I talked about the ability to be able to converse in real-time--speedy
    and very fast ways. But that requires us to make sure that broadband is
    effectively distributed all across the country--not just in big cities
    but out in rural America as well. And we're working hard to--on right-
    of-way issues and other issues to get broadband extensively spread
    throughout the country.
        Yes, sir.

    Immigration Reform

        Q. Mr. President, I want to thank you for being here in Orange
    County. In your first term you came to Santa Ana, if you recall----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----we met with you at the Bowers Museum--it was a wonderful chat
    we've had with several of the leadership. Your honor, I--I'm calling you
    ``your honor'' already--[laughter]--anyway, we believe, as you know, the
    Latino community is America.
        The President. Por cierto.
        Q. Por cierto, exactamente. And we believe that the effort that
    you're putting forth as a comprehensive legislation is what we need in
    this country. We believe that the economy is going to be great. We
    believe that the issue that has been raised about the possible changes
    and possible funding for many infrastructures as well as emergency
    services will be there, because we're going to make these people to pay
    taxes, just like you and I. So we thank you for that.
        We just want to ask you a question. What is it that we need to do,
    and you need to do, to make sure Congress will pass this comprehensive
    immigration bill?
        The President. Well, that's starting right here. You know, they've
    been on vacation and now starting to work the issue. And one way to work
    it: Stand right here in front of these cameras in California, talking
    about it in a candid way. And I'm going to do my

    [[Page 781]]

    part to continue to call this Nation to responsible dialog and remind
    the United States Congress, we need to get a comprehensive bill passed.

        The state of play right now is, the Senate reached an important
    compromise, I thought, and it was--they had a chance to get a bill; it
    just got caught up in, in my judgment, needless politics. One of the
    problems we face in Washington is we've got too much needless politics.
    We got people who aren't willing to--they want to play--they want to
    make the other person look bad, as opposed to make the country look
    good. And I'm going to continue to call people, whether it be on Social
    Security reform or immigration reform, to think about the country first
    and put our political parties aside. And I'm confident, if we can do
    that, we'll come up with a rational plan that will make the country
    proud.

        I'd like to stay here all day, but I got to go to Vegas. [Laughter]
    Something about what goes on there, stays there--or something like that.
    God bless you. Thanks for letting me come.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:14 a.m. at the Hyatt Regency Irvine. In
    his remarks, he referred to Thomas Phelps, chairman of the board, and
    Lucetta Dunn, president, chief executive officer, and secretary, Orange
    County Business Council; Catherine Campbell, wife of Representative John
    Campbell; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, CA; Mayor
    Beverly O'Neill of Long Beach, CA; Mayor Curt Pringle of Anaheim, CA;
    Rick Warren, pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, CA; Usama bin
    Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; President Jalal
    Talabani, Speaker of Parliament Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, and Prime
    Minister-designate Jawad al-Maliki of Iraq; former California State
    Senator James L. Brulte; Gen. Tommy R. Franks, USA, (Ret.), former
    combatant commander, U.S. Central Command; President Hu Jintao of China;
    President Fidel Castro of Cuba; and Gov. Arnold A. Schwarzenegger of
    California. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish
    language transcript of these remarks.