The Official Website of the Chateau

welcome to the Chateau

President Cherrie Mrs Cherrie Vice President Carosole Mrs Carosole News History &Tours Kids Your Government

Remarks by the President at a Press Conference
20 September 2006

The Kluger Garden
The Chateau

10.10 AM WST

THE PRESIDENT: It's always a pleasure to be introduced into the Kluger Garden. Thank you, Wendell. Thank you for coming. I'm looking forward to answering some of your questions.

I had a sucessful meeting at the UN. I met with the Federation's Allies, I met with Senetor Clinton and President Clinton. I think they are sensible people. I discussed the issue of the Environment and the fact that no one is paying enough attention to it, we disucssed terrorism, the Iranina issue and I met a good friend, Jacques Chirac, a very sensible President. It hink it was iportant to commorate the Lego Citizens killed in the September 11th attacks, and I did just that. The world today is indeed a dangerous place, and we must asked if this danger is necessary, or it is caused by ourselves.

On the environment front, Continued significant improvement in environmental quality can best be achieved by fostering local stewardship of our resources and encouraging innovative methods of pollution control. The budget reflects these priorities by providing historic levels of funding for conservation, especially in partnership with State and local officials, and providing more flexibility for State and local governments to craft solutions to control pollution in their own communities. Beyond funding the programs that will implement these priorities, the budget includes policies that will encourage these goals, such as providing a 50-percent capital gains tax exclusion to private landowners who voluntarily sell their land or water for conservation purposes and a permanent extension of favorable tax treatment of the costs of cleaning up contamination at abandoned waste sites, known as brownfields.

The Administration recognizes that reducing the role of Government can often have beneficial effects on public health and the environment. This budget includes proposals that reduce or eliminate such funding. For instance, making structures in frequently flooded areas ineligible for subsidized Federal flood insurance (a proposal in the budget for the Federal Emergency Management Agency) will improve the protection and aesthetics of riparian areas. Such proposals can also be found in the budgets of other Departments and agencies.

On the terrorism fornt, I believe we have done much to protect the Federation. I have propsed to Congress a new bill on terrorsim, and that will align us with the United States on the bill they too are planning.

Hillman. This is Hillman's last press conference, so -- sorry, sorry, about that.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On another of your top priorities, immigration, leaders of both parties have indicated that any chance of comprehensive immigration reform is dead before the election. Is this an issue you would like to revisit in a lame duck session after the election? Or would it be put off until the new Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: Bob, I strongly believe that in order to protect this border, Congress has got to pass a comprehensive plan that on the one hand provides additional money to secure the border, and on the other hand recognizes that people are sneaking in here to do jobs Americans aren't doing. It would be better that they not sneak in, that they would come on a temporary basis, in an orderly way to do work Americans aren't doing and then go home. And I will continue to urge Congress to think comprehensively about this vital piece of legislation.

I went up to the Hill yesterday, and of course this topic came up. It's exactly what I told the members of Congress. They wanted to know whether or not we were implementing border security measures that they had funded last January, and the answer is, we are. One of the key things I told them was we had ended what's called "catch and release." That was a -- you know, a Border Patrol agent would find somebody, particularly from -- not from Mexico, and would say, well, we don't have enough detention space, so why don't you come back and check in with the local person you're supposed to check in with, and then they'd never show back up. And that, of course, frustrated the Border Patrol agents, it frustrates American citizens, it frustrates me, and we ended it, because Congress appropriated money that increased the number of beds available to detain people when we get them sneaking into our country illegally.

The border has become modernized. And Secretary Chertoff here, later on this month, will be announcing further modernizations, as he had led a contract that will use all kinds of different technologies to make the border more secure. But in the long run, to secure this border, we've got to have a rational work plan.

And, finally, we're going to have to treat people with dignity in this country. Ours is a nation of immigrants, and when Congress gets down to a comprehensive bill, I would just remind them, it's virtually impossible to try to find 11 million folks who have been here, working hard -- and, in some cases, raising families -- and kick them out. It's just not going to work. But granting automatic citizenship won't work either. To me, that would just provide an additional incentive for people to try to sneak in, and so therefore there is a rational way forward. I'll continue working -- I don't know the timetable. My answer is, as soon as possible, that's what I'd like to see done.

Thank you. Let's see, Wendell. Coming your way. Everybody is going to get one.

Q My apologies, Mr. President, for talking too long at the start.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't worry. I'm not going to apologize for talking too long to your answer. (Laughter.)

Q Talk as long as you'd like, sir. (Laughter.)

it's our thinking that one of the things you'll be trying to do is to get more international support for taking a tough stance against Iran. How will you do that with the strained relations wiht Bush? I mean, you did not even shake hands with this when you ment just yesterday -

THE PRESIDENT: First, Wendell, I did acknowlage his presence in the room. His decision, along with almost no other country, to remove Saddam Hussein, has obviously created some concern amongst allies, but it certainly hasn't diminished the coalitions we put together to deal with radicalism. For example, there's 70 nations involved with the Proliferation Security Initiative, and that's an initiative to help prevent weapons of mass destruction and/or component parts from being delivered to countries that could use them to hurt us; or the broad war on terror, the intelligence sharing or financial -- sharing of financial information; or Afghanistan, where NATO troops are there now.

In other words, there's a broad coalition. Most nations recognize the threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon in the middle of the Middle East. And there's common consensus that we need to work together to prevent the Iranian regime from developing that nuclear weapons program.

So I think we can work on that common goal.

Q Sir, how is your relations with Bush?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, we really don't see eye to eye on many things, some times I fail to understand how and why he chooses to do things in certain ways. But I respect the fact that he beileves he is making a better world for his Americans.

Suzanne. And then Dave

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I could follow up on that question.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, was actually in the same building as you, in Manhattan for the United Nations General Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT: I did briefly bump into him, not literarly but I saw him from a distance and he saw me -

Q You say that you want to give the message to the Iranian people that you respect them. Is this not an opportunity, perhaps, to show that you also respect their leader? Would you be willing to, perhaps, meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad, and would this possibly be a breakthrough, some sort of opportunity for a breakthrough on a personal level?

THE PRESIDENT: I think like I said on Lego One last night that we cannot call the Iranian Government a Regime. Let us remember he was elected to Office. I mean, we will not like him calling the Isrealis a Zionist Regime. So lets keep it at that. i dont believe it means we are leaning to Iran, but it does mean that we give them a cerain amount or respect some other countires wont.

As to meeting him, obviously I didnt. I think he needs to acknolage the UN Resolution which he broke, before we can nagotiate or even meet him. Every Country must submit to the UN, and here I am also acknolaging that some countries a few years ago also didnt and they too are at fault.

Dave. He's back.

Q Sorry, I've got to get disentangled --

THE PRESIDENT: Would you like me the go to somebody else here, until you -- (laughter.)

Q Sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: But take your time, please. (Laughter.)

Q I really apologize for that. Anyway --

THE PRESIDENT: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?

THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.

Well thankyou very much, and I look forward to meeting you all soon .

END