Remarks of John O. Brennan, "Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws"

Remarks of John O. Brennan
Assistant to the Presidentfor Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Program on Law and Security
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Friday, September 16, 2011

“Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws”

Good evening.  Thank you, Dan, for your very kind introduction and for your service to our nation, in both the judicial and executive branches.  At the White House, Dan helped us navigate some of the most complex legal issues related to our efforts to keep the American people safe.  I know that President Obama is grateful for his service.  And I am grateful for having had the opportunity to sit through his many law tutorials during national security meetings in the White House Situation Room.  I dare say that those tutorials were a tad less expensive than what some of you currently are paying for his pearls of wisdom. 

It’s a pleasure to be here at Harvard Law School, and I want to acknowledge Dean Minow and members of the staff and faculty who are here tonight. 

I especially want to thank Professor Gabriella Blum and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution for being the driving force behind your new Program on Law and Security.  The preservation of our national security and the laws that define us as the United States of America demand that we understand the intersection of the two—indeed, how they reinforce one another.  So I commend you for your efforts, we look forward to your contributions, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here for your inaugural event. 

It’s wonderful to see a number of friends and colleagues who I’ve had the privilege to work with over many years—public servants who have devoted their lives to protecting our nation.  And let me say what a thrill it is to see so many students here this evening.  I just hope your choice to listen to me on a Friday night is not an indictment of your social lives.

Now, I am not a lawyer, despite Dan’s best efforts.  I am the President’s senior advisor on counterterrorism and homeland security.  And in this capacity—and during more than thirty years working in intelligence and on behalf of our nation’s security—I’ve developed a profound appreciation for the role that our values, especially the rule of law, play in keeping our country safe.  It’s an appreciation of course, understood by President Obama, who, as you may know, once spent a little time here.  That’s what I want to talk about this evening—how we have strengthened, and continue to strengthen, our national security by adhering to our values and our laws. 

Obviously, the death of Usama Bin Laden marked a strategic milestone in our effort to defeat al-Qa’ida.  Unfortunately, Bin Laden's death, and the death and capture of many other al-Qa’ida leaders and operatives, does not mark the end of that terrorist organization or its efforts to attack the United States and other countries.  Indeed, al-Qa’ida, its affiliates and its adherents remain the preeminent security threat to our nation.

The core of al-Qa’ida—its leadership based in Pakistan—though severely crippled, still retains the intent and capability to attack the United States and our allies. Al-Qa’ida’s affiliates—in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and countries throughout Africa—carry out its murderous agenda. And al-Qa’ida adherents – individuals, sometimes with little or no contact with the group itself – have succumbed to its hateful ideology and work to facilitate or conduct attacks here in the United States, as we saw in the tragedy at Fort Hood.

Guiding principles

In the face of this ongoing and evolving threat, the Obama Administration has worked to establish a counterterrorism framework that has been effective in enhancing the security of our nation.  This framework is guided by several core principles.

First, our highest priority is – and always will be – the safety and security of the American people.  As President Obama has said, we have no greater responsibility as a government.

Second, we will use every lawful tool and authority at our disposal.  No single agency or department has sole responsibility for this fight because no single department or agency possesses all the capabilities needed for this fight. 

Third, we are pragmatic, not rigid or ideological – making decisions not based on preconceived notions about which action seems “stronger,” but based on what will actually enhance the security of this country and the safety of the American people.  We address each threat and each circumstance in a way that best serves our national security interests, which includes building partnerships with countries around the world.

Fourth—and the principle that guides all our actions, foreign and domestic—we will uphold the core values that define us as Americans, and that includes adhering to the rule of law.  And when I say “all our actions,” that includes covert actions, which we undertake under the authorities provided to us by Congress.  President Obama has directed that all our actions—even when conducted out of public view—remain consistent with our laws and values.

For when we uphold the rule of law, governments around the globe are more likely to provide us with intelligence we need to disrupt ongoing plots, they’re more likely to join us in taking swift and decisive action against terrorists, and they’re more likely to turn over suspected terrorists who are plotting to attack us, along with the evidence needed to prosecute them.

When we uphold the rule of law, our counterterrorism tools are more likely to withstand the scrutiny of our courts, our allies, and the American people.  And when we uphold the rule of law it provides a powerful alternative to the twisted worldview offered by al-Qa’ida.  Where terrorists offer injustice, disorder and destruction, the United States and its allies stand for freedom, fairness, equality, hope, and opportunity. 

In short, we must not cut corners by setting aside our values and flouting our laws, treating them like luxuries we cannot afford.  Indeed, President Obama has made it clear—we must reject the false choice between our values and our security. We are constantly working to optimize both.  Over the past two and a half years, we have put in place an approach—both here at home and abroad—that will enable this Administration and its successors, in cooperation with key partners overseas, to deal with the threat from al-Qa’ida, its affiliates, and its adherents in a forceful, effective and lasting way.

In keeping with our guiding principles, the President’s approach has been pragmatic—neither a wholesale overhaul nor a wholesale retention of past practices.  Where the methods and tactics of the previous administration have proven effective and enhanced our security, we have maintained them.  Where they did not, we have taken concrete steps to get us back on course. 

Unfortunately, much of the debate around our counterterrorism policies has tended to obscure the extraordinary progress of the past few years.  So with the time I have left, I want to touch on a few specific topics that illustrate how our adherence to the rule of law advances our national security.

Nature and geographic scope of the conflict

First, our definition of the conflict.  As the President has said many times, we are at war with al-Qa’ida. In an indisputable act of aggression, al-Qa’ida attacked our nation and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.  And as we were reminded just last weekend, al-Qa’ida seeks to attack us again.  Our ongoing armed conflict with al-Qa’ida stems from our right—recognized under international law—to self defense.

An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict.  The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida as being restricted solely to “hot” battlefields like Afghanistan.  Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the United States takes the legal position that —in accordance with international law—we have the authority to take action against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces without doing a separate self-defense analysis each time.  And as President Obama has stated on numerous occasions, we reserve the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.

That does not mean we can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for a state’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally—and on the way in which we can use force—in foreign territories. 

Others in the international community—including some of our closest allies and partners—take a different view of the geographic scope of the conflict, limiting it only to the “hot” battlefields.  As such, they argue that, outside of these two active theatres, the United States can only act in self-defense against al-Qa’ida when they are planning, engaging in, or threatening an armed attack against U.S. interests if it amounts to an “imminent” threat. 

In practice, the U.S. approach to targeting in the conflict with al-Qa’ida is far more aligned with our allies’ approach than many assume.  This Administration’s counterterrorism efforts outside of Afghanistan and Iraq are focused on those individuals who are a threat to the United States, whose removal would cause a significant – even if only temporary – disruption of the plans and capabilities of al-Qa’ida and its associated forces.  Practically speaking, then, the question turns principally on how you define “imminence.”

We are finding increasing recognition in the international community that a more flexible understanding of “imminence” may be appropriate when dealing with terrorist groups, in part because threats posed by non-state actors do not present themselves in the ways that evidenced imminence in more traditional conflicts.  After all, al-Qa’ida does not follow a traditional command structure, wear uniforms, carry its arms openly, or mass its troops at the borders of the nations it attacks.  Nonetheless, it possesses the demonstrated capability to strike with little notice and cause significant civilian or military casualties.  Over time, an increasing number of our international counterterrorism partners have begun to recognize that the traditional conception of what constitutes an “imminent” attack should be broadened in light of the modern-day capabilities, techniques, and technological innovations of terrorist organizations.

The convergence of our legal views with those of our international partners matters.  The effectiveness of our counterterrorism activities depends on the assistance and cooperation of our allies—who, in ways public and private, take great risks to aid us in this fight.  But their participation must be consistent with their laws, including their interpretation of international law.  Again, we will never abdicate the security of the United States to a foreign country or refrain from taking action when appropriate.  But we cannot ignore the reality that cooperative counterterrorism activities are a key to our national defense.  The more our views and our allies’ views on these questions converge, without constraining our flexibility, the safer we will be as a country. 

Privacy and transparency at home

We’ve also worked to uphold our values and the rule of law in a second area—our policies and practices here at home. As I said, we will use all lawful tools at our disposal, and that includes authorities under the renewed PATRIOT Act.  We firmly believe that our intelligence gathering tools must enable us to collect the information we need to protect the American people.  At the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate oversight and rigorous checks and balances that protect the privacy of innocent individuals. 

As such, we have ensured that investigative techniques in the United States are conducted in a manner that is consistent with our laws and subject to the supervision of our courts.  We have also taken administrative steps to institute additional checks and balances, above and beyond what is required by law, in order to better safeguard the privacy rights of innocent Americans. 

Our democratic values also include—and our national security demands—open and transparent government.  Some information obviously needs to be protected.  And since his first days in office, President Obama has worked to strike the proper balance between the security the American people deserve and the openness our democratic society expects.

In one of his first acts, the President issued a new Executive Order on classified information that, among other things, reestablished the principle that all classified information will ultimately be declassified.  The President also issued a Freedom of Information Act Directive mandating that agencies adopt a presumption of disclosure when processing requests for information.

The President signed into law the first intelligence authorization act in over five years to ensure better oversight of intelligence activities.  Among other things, the legislation revised the process for reporting sensitive intelligence activities to Congress and created an Inspector General for the Intelligence Community. 

For the first time, President Obama released the combined budget of the intelligence community, and reconstituted the Intelligence Oversight Board, an important check on the government’s intelligence activities.  The President declassified and released legal memos that authorized the use, in early times, of enhanced interrogation techniques.  Understanding that the reasons to keep those memos secret had evaporated, the President felt it was important for the American people to understand how those methods came to be authorized and used.

The President, through the Attorney General, instituted a new process to consider invocation of the so-called “state secrets privilege,” where the government can protect information in civil lawsuits.  This process ensures that this privilege is never used simply to hide embarrassing or unlawful government activities.  But, it also recognizes that its use is absolutely necessary in certain cases for the protection of national security.  I know there has been some criticism of the Administration on this.  But by applying a stricter internal review process, including a requirement of personal approval by the Attorney General, we are working to ensure that this extraordinary power is asserted only when there is a strong justification to do so.

Detention and interrogation

We’ve worked to uphold our values and the rule of law in a third area—the question of how to deal with terrorist suspects, including the significant challenge of how to handle suspected terrorists who were already in our custody when this Administration took office.  There are few places where the intersection of our counterterrorism efforts, our laws, and our values come together as starkly as it does at the prison at Guantánamo.  By the time President Obama took office, Guantánamo was viewed internationally as a symbol of a counterterrorism approach that flouted our laws and strayed from our values, undercutting the perceived legitimacy—and therefore the effectiveness—of our efforts.

Aside from the false promises of enhanced security, the purported legality of depriving detainees of their rights was soundly and repeatedly rejected by our courts.  It came as no surprise, then, that before 2009 few counterterrorism proposals generated as much bipartisan support as those to close Guantánamo.  It was widely recognized that the costs associated with Guantánamo ran high, and the promised benefits never materialized.

That was why—as Dan knows so well—on one of his first days in office, President Obama issued the executive order to close the prison at Guantánamo. Yet, almost immediately, political support for closure waned.  Over the last two years Congress has placed unprecedented restrictions on the discretion of our experienced counterterrorism professionals to prosecute and transfer individuals held at the prison.  These restrictions prevent these professionals—who have carefully studied all of the available information in a particular situation—from exercising their best judgment as to what the most appropriate disposition is for each individual held there. 

The Obama Administration has made its views on this clear. The prison at Guantánamo Bay undermines our national security, and our nation will be more secure the day when that prison is finally and responsibly closed.  For all of the reasons mentioned above, we will not send more individuals to the prison at Guantánamo.  And we continue to urge Congress to repeal these restrictions and allow our experienced counterterrorism professionals to have the flexibility they need to make individualized, informed decisions about where to bring terrorists to justice and when and where to transfer those whom it is no longer in our interest to detain.

This Administration also undertook an unprecedented review of our detention and interrogation practices and their evolution since 2001, and we have confronted squarely the question of how we will deal with those we arrest or capture in the future, including those we take custody of overseas.  Nevertheless, some have suggested that we do not have a detention policy; that we prefer to kill suspected terrorists, rather than capture them.  This is absurd, and I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight. 

As a former career intelligence professional, I have a profound appreciation for the value of intelligence.  Intelligence disrupts terrorist plots and thwarts attacks.  Intelligence saves lives.  And one of our greatest sources of intelligence about al-Qa’ida, its plans, and its intentions has been the members of its network who have been taken into custody by the United States and our partners overseas.

So I want to be very clear—whenever it is possible to capture a suspected terrorist, it is the unqualified preference of the Administration to take custody of that individual so we can obtain information that is vital to the safety and security of the American people.  This is how our soldiers and counterterrorism professionals have been trained.  It is reflected in our rules of engagement.  And it is the clear and unambiguous policy of this Administration.

Now, there has been a great deal of debate about the best way to interrogate individuals in our custody.  It’s been suggested that getting terrorists to talk can be accomplished simply by withholding Miranda warnings or subjecting prisoners to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  It’s also been suggested that prosecuting terrorists in our federal courts somehow impedes the collection of intelligence.  A long record of experience, however, proves otherwise.

Consistent with our laws and our values, the President unequivocally banned torture and other abusive interrogation techniques, rejecting the claim that these are effective means of interrogation.  Instead, we have focused on what works.  The President approved the creation of a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG, to bring together resources from across the government – experienced interrogators, subject matter experts, intelligence analysts, and linguists – to conduct or assist in the interrogation of those terrorists with the greatest intelligence value – both at home and overseas.  Through the HIG, we have brought together the capabilities that are essential to effective interrogation, and ensured they can be mobilized quickly and in a coordinated fashion. 

Claims that Miranda warnings undermine intelligence collection ignore decades of experience to the contrary.  Yes, some terrorism suspects have refused to provide information in the criminal justice system, but so have many individuals held in military custody, from Afghanistan to Guantánamo, where Miranda warnings were not given.  What is undeniable is that many individuals in the criminal justice system have provided a great deal of information and intelligence—even after being given their Miranda warnings.  The real danger is failing to give a Miranda warning in those circumstances where it’s appropriate, which could well determine whether a terrorist is convicted and spends the rest of his life behind bars, or is set free.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized a limited exception to Miranda, allowing statements to be admitted if the unwarned interrogation was “reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.”  Applying this public safety exception to the more complex and diverse threat of international terrorism can be complicated, so our law enforcement officers require clarity. 

Therefore, at the end of 2010, the FBI clarified its guidance to agents on use of the public safety exception to Miranda, explaining how it should apply to terrorism cases.  The FBI has acknowledged that this exception was utilized last year, including during the questioning of Faisal Shahzad, accused of attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.  Just this week in a major terrorism case, a federal judge ruled that statements obtained under the public safety exception before the defendant was read his Miranda rights are, in fact, admissible at trial. 

Some have argued that the United States should simply hold suspected terrorists in law of war detention indefinitely.  It is worth remembering, however, that, for a variety of reasons, reliance upon military detention for individuals apprehended outside of Afghanistan and Iraq actually began to decline precipitously years before the Obama Administration came into office. 

In the years following the 9/11 attacks, our knowledge of the al-Qa’ida network increased and our tools with which to bring them to justice in federal courts or reformed military commissions were strengthened, thus reducing the need for long-term law of war detention.  In fact, from 2006 to the end of 2008, when the previous administration apprehended terrorists overseas and outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, it brought more of those individuals to the United States to be prosecuted  in our federal courts than it placed in long-term military detention at Guantánamo. 

Article III courts & reformed military commissions

When we succeed in capturing suspected terrorists who pose a threat to the American people, our other critical national security objective is to maintain a viable authority to keep those individuals behind bars. The strong preference of this Administration is to accomplish that through prosecution, either in an Article III court or a reformed military commission.  Our decisions on which system to use in a given case must be guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case, and relative strengths and weaknesses of each system.  Otherwise, terrorists could be set free, intelligence lost, and lives put at risk. 

That said, it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will—in keeping with long-standing tradition—be processed through our Article III courts.  As they should be.  Our military does not patrol our streets or enforce our laws—nor should it.

This is not a radical idea, nor is the idea of prosecuting terrorists captured overseas in our Article III courts.  Indeed, terrorists captured beyond our borders have been successfully prosecuted in our federal courts on many occasions. Our federal courts are time-tested, have unquestioned legitimacy, and, at least for the foreseeable future, are capable of producing a more predictable and sustainable result than military commissions. The previous administration, successfully prosecuted hundreds of suspected terrorists in our federal courts, gathering valuable intelligence from several of them that helped our counterterrorism professionals protect the American people.  In fact, every single suspected terrorist taken into custody on American soil—before and after the September 11^th attacks—has first been taken into custody by law enforcement. 

In the past two years alone, we have successfully interrogated several terrorism suspects who were taken into law enforcement custody and prosecuted, including Faisal Shahzad, Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, and many others.  In fact, faced with the firm but fair hand of the American justice system, some of the most hardened terrorists have agreed to cooperate with the FBI, providing valuable information about al-Qa’ida’s network, safe houses, recruitment methods, and even their plots and plans.  That is the outcome that all Americans should not only want, but demand from their government. 

Similarly, when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.  There is bipartisan agreement that U.S. citizens should not be tried by military commission.  Since 2001, two U.S. citizens were held in military custody, and after years of controversy and extensive litigation, one was released; the other was prosecuted in federal court.  Even as the number of U.S. citizens arrested for terrorist-related activity has increased, our civilian courts have proven they are more than up to the job.   

In short, our Article III courts are not only our single most effective tool for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists—they are a proven tool for gathering intelligence and preventing attacks.  For these reasons, credible experts from across the political spectrum continue to demand that our Article III courts remain an unrestrained tool in our counterterrorism toolbox.  And where our counterterrorism professionals believe prosecution in our federal courts would best protect the full range of U.S. security interests and the safety of the American people, we will not hesitate to use them.  The alternative—a wholesale refusal to utilize our federal courts—would undermine our values and our security. 

At the same time, reformed military commissions also have their place in our counterterrorism arsenal.  Because of bipartisan efforts to ensure that military commissions provide all of the core protections that are necessary to ensure a fair trial, we have restored the credibility of that system and brought it into line with our principles and our values.  Where our counterterrorism professionals believe trying a suspected terrorist in our reformed military commissions would best protect the full range of U.S. security interests and the safety of the American people, we will not hesitate to utilize them to try such individuals.  In other words, rather than a rigid reliance on just one or the other, we will use both our federal courts and reformed military commissions as options for incapacitating terrorists. 

As a result of recent reforms, there are indeed many similarities between the two systems, and at times, these reformed military commissions offer certain advantages.  But important differences remain—differences that can determine whether a prosecution is more likely to succeed or fail. 

For example, after Ahmed Warsame—a member of al-Shabaab with close ties to al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula—was captured this year by U.S. military personnel, the President’s national security team unanimously agreed that the best option for prosecuting him was our federal courts, where, among other advantages, we could avoid significant risks associated with, and pursue additional charges not available in, a military commission.  And, if convicted of certain charges, he faces a mandatory life sentence. 

In choosing between our federal courts and military commissions in any given case, this Administration will remain focused on one thing—the most effective way to keep that terrorist behind bars. The only way to do that is to let our experienced counterterrorism professionals determine, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, which system will best serve our national security interests.

In the end, the Obama Administration’s approach to detention, interrogation and trial is simple.  We have established a practical, flexible, results-driven approach that maximizes our intelligence collection and preserves our ability to prosecute dangerous individuals.  Anything less—particularly a rigid, inflexible approach—would be disastrous.  It would tie the hands of our counterterrorism professionals by eliminating tools and authorities that have been absolutely essential to their success. 

Capacity building abroad

This brings me a final area where upholding the rule of law strengthens our security—our work with other nations.  As we have seen from Afghanistan in the 1990s to Yemen, Somalia and the tribal areas of Pakistan today, al-Qa’ida and its affiliates often thrive where there is disorder or where central governments lack the ability to effectively govern their own territory.

In contrast, helping such countries build a robust legal framework, coupled with effective institutions to enforce them and the transparency and fairness to sustain them, can serve as one of our most effective weapons against groups like al-Qa’ida by eliminating the very chaos that organization needs to survive.  That is why a key element of this Administration’s counterterrorism strategy is to help governments build their capacity, including a robust and balanced legal framework, to provide for their own security. 

Though tailored to the unique circumstances of each country, we are working with countries in key locations to help them enact robust counterterrorism laws and establish the institutions and mechanisms to effectively enforce them.  The establishment of a functioning criminal justice system and institutions has played a key role in the security gains that have been achieved in Iraq.  We are working to achieve similar results in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

These efforts are not a blank check.  As a condition of our funding, training, and cooperation, we require that our partners comply with certain legal and humanitarian standards.  At times, we have curtailed or suspended security assistance when these standards are not met.  We encourage these countries to build a more just, more transparent system that can gain the respect and support of their own people. 

As we are seeing across the Middle East and North Africa today, courageous people will continue to demand one of the most basic universal rights—the right to live in a society that respects the rule of law.  Any security gains will be short-lived if these countries fail to provide just that. So where we see countries falling short of these basic standards, we will continue to support efforts of people to build institutions that both protect the rights of their own people and enhance our collective security.

Flexibility—critical to our success

In conclusion, I want to say again that the paramount responsibility of President Obama, and of those of us who serve with him, is to protect the American people.  To save lives.  Each of the tools I have discussed today, and the flexibility to apply them to the unique and complicated circumstances we face, are critical to our success. 

This President’s counterterrorism framework provides a sustainable foundation upon which this Administration and its successors, in close cooperation with our allies and partners overseas, can effectively deal with the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents.  It is, as I have said, a practical, flexible, result-driven approach to counterterrorism that is consistent with our laws, and in line with the very values upon which this nation was founded.  And the results we have been able to achieve under this approach are undeniable.  We divert from this path at own peril. 

Yet, despite the successes that this approach has brought, some—including some legislative proposals in Congress—are demanding that we pursue a radically different strategy.  Under that approach, we would never be able to turn the page on Guantánamo.  Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice—our federal courts.  Miranda warnings would be prohibited, even though they are at times essential to our ability to convict a terrorist and ensure that individual remains behind bars.  In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work. 

I am deeply concerned that the alternative approach to counterterrorism being advocated in some quarters would represent a drastic departure from our values and the body of laws and principles that have always made this country a force for positive change in the world.  Such a departure would not only risk rejection by our courts and the American public, it would undermine the international cooperation that has been critical to the national security gains we have made.

Doing so would not make us safer, and would do far more harm than good.  Simply put, it is not an approach we should pursue.  Not when we have al-Qa’ida on the ropes.  Our counterterrorism professionals—regardless of the administration in power—need the flexibility to make well-informed decisions about where to prosecute terrorist suspects.

To achieve and maintain the appropriate balance, Congress and the Executive Branch must continue to work together.  There have been and will continue to be many opportunities to do so in a way that strengthens our ability to defeat al-Qa’ida and its adherents.  As we do so, we must not tie the hands of our counterterrorism professionals by eliminating tools that are critical to their ability to keep our country safe. 

As a people, as a nation, we cannot—and we must not—succumb to the temptation to set aside our laws and our values when we face threats to our security, including and especially from groups as depraved as al-Qa’ida.  We’re better than that.  We’re better than them.  We’re Americans.

Thank you all very much.

Remarks by the President at a DNC Event

Private Residence
Washington, D.C.

7:54 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. I am going to keep my opening remarks very brief, because I want to have a conversation with you more than anything else. And so, my first task is just to thank Elizabeth, her wonderful children, for hosting us here. It is true that I have been here before; I think the first time I was here, I had just been elected to the Senate, and I still remember Smith and you being incredibly gracious to me, and opening up your home at a time when I was still the new kid on the block. (Laughter.) So I appreciate that, and I thank you for your extraordinary public service as well.

I want to thank all of you for being here. Many of you are old friends and have been supporters for a long time. Some of you are new, and I’m very grateful for you taking the time to be here.

As Elizabeth described aptly, we are going through extraordinary times. These are no ordinary times. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And, historically, after financial recessions, it is a challenge and a struggle. And over the last two and a half years, what we’ve been able to do is stabilize an economy, but at a level where unemployment remains way too high.

And so, last week, I went before Congress, and I explained to them why they need to act -- to put construction workers back to work, and teachers back in the classroom, and veterans back to work, and dealing with the long-term unemployed -- and tried to communicate a sense of urgency. The country does not have patience for the traditional political games here in Washington. Those games are okay when unemployment is at 5 percent and, basically, people can choose to ignore it. But right now, they need action. And certainly what they don’t need is to make sure that Washington is an impediment to economic growth and putting people back to work.

As Elizabeth said, this particular Congress has not shown itself particularly eager to work with me to solve problems. I think that’s -- (laughter) -- that’s a fair assessment. (Laughter.) But the American people, that’s what they’re demanding; that’s what they’re insisting on. And so, we are going to be, over the next several weeks and next several months, out there talking very specifically about how Washington could make a difference right now.

Of course, I didn’t run for the presidency just to deal with immediate concerns. There are a wide range of problems that existed long before this particular recession hit. We still have an education system that is not training our kids for the 21st century and the demands of a global economy. We still are suffering from a lack of an energy policy that can deal both with our environmental challenges, but also our economic challenges.

Our health care bill, I think, is going to make a huge difference, providing 30 million people affordable coverage for the first time. But it’s got to be implemented, and it’s only part of the way there. We still have enormous inequality in our society, and providing the ladders of opportunity for people who want to live out that American Dream, but are finding too many roadblocks along the way.

We still have a fiscal situation that arises not only from this most recent crisis, but also some long-term trends, where those of us in this room do very well, while folks who are struggling don’t do quite as well. And there’s, I think, an innate sense among the American people that things aren’t fair, that the deck is stacked against them -- that no matter how hard they work, their costs keep on going up, their hours are longer, they’re struggling to make their mortgage, and somehow nobody’s paying attention.

And all those long-term trends -- our structural deficit, energy policy, education -- 2012 is going to offer a clearer contrast than I think we’ve ever seen before. 2008 was a big election -- obviously I thought so, because -- (laughter.) But in some ways 2012, I think, is going to be more clarifying, because if you see the direction that the Republican Party is now going in, you have a party that offers a fundamentally different vision of where America should be, and what we should be aspiring to, and what our core values are. And that contest is going to, I think, help shape America for not just the next five years, but for decades to come. And that’s why your involvement and your engagement is going to be absolutely critical.

Now, I know that, over the last couple of months, there have been Democrats who voiced concerns and nervousness about, well, in this kind of economy, isn’t this just -- aren’t these just huge headwinds in terms of your reelection? And I just have to remind people that -- here’s one thing I know for certain: The odds of me being reelected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place. (Laughter and applause.) And in that spirit, I just want to point out, it was somebody during the photo line who -- I think right here -- made what I think is a very important wish. And that is that my next inauguration is warmer than the last one. (Laughter.)

But we remain very confident about our ability to win a contest of ideas in 2012 -- as long as we can get the message out. Now, the campaign has not begun; my job -- I’ve got a day job, and I’m going to have to spend a lot of time continuing to govern over the next several months. And that’s why your voices -- you being out there talking about the American Jobs Act, talking about our track record in terms of what we’ve done over the last three years, talking to people about what’s at stake -- is going to be so important.

Elizabeth has done an extraordinary job in the past representing the United States. Well, this is one of those times where all of you are going to have to be my ambassadors over the next several months, to make sure that people who I think continue to believe in change and continue to believe in hope are mobilized effectively in 2012. And if you’re there with me, then I’m confident that we’ll have an inauguration, although I can’t promise good weather. (Laughter.)

All right. Thank you very much, everybody. And then I think we’re going to move the press out, and then we’ll have a conversation. (Applause.)

END
8:02 P.M. EDT

Remarks by the President Awarding the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Dakota Meyer

East Room

2:50 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please be seated. Thank you, Chaplain Kibben. Good afternoon, everyone. And on behalf of Michelle and myself, welcome to the White House.

It’s been said that “where there is a brave man, in the thickest of the fight, there is the post of honor.” Today, we pay tribute to an American who placed himself in the thick of the fight -- again and again and again. In so doing, he has earned our nation’s highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor. And we are extraordinarily proud of Sergeant Dakota Meyer. (Applause.)
 
Today is only the third time during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that a recipient of the Medal of Honor has been able to accept it in person. And we are honored to be joined by one of the two other recipients -- Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry, who is here.

I would point out something else -- of all the Medal of Honor recipients in recent decades, Dakota is also one of the youngest. He’s 23 years old. And he performed the extraordinary actions for which he is being recognized today when he was just 21 years old.

Despite all this, I have to say Dakota is one of the most down-to-Earth guys that you will ever meet. In fact, when my staff first tried to arrange the phone call so I could tell him that I’d approved this medal, Dakota was at work, at his new civilian job, on a construction site. He felt he couldn’t take the call right then, because he said, “If I don’t work, I don’t get paid.” (Laughter.) So we arranged to make sure he got the call during his lunch break. (Laughter.) I told him the news, and then he went right back to work. (Laughter.) That’s the kind of guy he is. He also asked to have a beer with me, which we were able to execute yesterday.

Dakota is the kind of guy who gets the job done. And I do appreciate, Dakota, you taking my call. (Laughter.) The Medal of Honor reflects the gratitude of the entire nation. So we’re joined here by members of Congress, including somebody from your home state, the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. We are joined here by leaders from across my administration, including Secretary of Veterans Affairs Ric Shinseki and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and leaders from across our Armed Forces, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Amos.

We’re honored to welcome Dakota’s father, Mike, who’s here; his extraordinary grandparents; and more than 120 of Dakota’s family and friends, many from his home state of Kentucky. I want to welcome Dakota’s comrades from the Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, and we are humbled by the presence of the members of the Medal of Honor Society.

Dakota, I realize the past two years have not been easy for you, retelling the story of that day and standing here today. You’re a very modest young man. But, as you’ve said, you do it for a simple reason -- retelling the story -- because it helps you to honor those who didn’t come home, and to remind your fellow Americans that our men and women in uniform are over there fighting every single day.

So that’s how we’ll do this today. It’s fitting that we do so this week, having just marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks that took our nation to war. Because in Sergeant Dakota Meyer, we see the best of a generation that has served with distinction through a decade of war.

Let me tell the story. I want you to imagine it’s September 8, 2009, just before dawn. A patrol of Afghan forces and their American trainers is on foot, making their way up a narrow valley, heading into a village to meet with elders. And suddenly, all over the village, the lights go out. And that’s when it happens. About a mile away, Dakota, who was then a corporal, and Staff Sergeant Juan Rodriguez-Chavez, could hear the ambush over the radio. It was as if the whole valley was exploding. Taliban fighters were unleashing a firestorm from the hills, from the stone houses, even from the local school.

And soon, the patrol was pinned down, taking ferocious fire from three sides. Men were being wounded and killed, and four Americans -- Dakota’s friends -- were surrounded. Four times, Dakota and Juan asked permission to go in; four times they were denied. It was, they were told, too dangerous. But one of the teachers in his high school once said, “When you tell Dakota he can’t do something, he’s is going to do it.” (Laughter.) And as Dakota said of his trapped teammates, “Those were my brothers, and I couldn’t just sit back and watch.”

The story of what Dakota did next will be told for generations. He told Juan they were going in. Juan jumped into a Humvee and took the wheel; Dakota climbed into the turret and manned the gun. They were defying orders, but they were doing what they thought was right. So they drove straight into a killing zone, Dakota’s upper body and head exposed to a blizzard of fire from AK-47s and machine guns, from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

Coming upon wounded Afghan soldiers, Dakota jumped out and loaded each of the wounded into the Humvee, each time exposing himself to all that enemy fire. They turned around and drove those wounded back to safety. Those who were there called it the most intense combat they’d ever seen. Dakota and Juan would have been forgiven for not going back in. But as Dakota says, you don’t leave anyone behind.

For a second time, they went back -- back into the inferno; Juan at the wheel, swerving to avoid the explosions all around them; Dakota up in the turret -- when one gun jammed, grabbing another, going through gun after gun. Again they came across wounded Afghans. Again Dakota jumped out, loaded them up and brought them back to safety.

For a third time, they went back -- insurgents running right up to the Humvee, Dakota fighting them off. Up ahead, a group of Americans, some wounded, were desperately trying to escape the bullets raining down. Juan wedged the Humvee right into the line of fire, using the vehicle as a shield. With Dakota on the guns, they helped those Americans back to safety as well.

For a fourth time, they went back. Dakota was now wounded in the arm. Their vehicle was riddled with bullets and shrapnel. Dakota later confessed, “I didn’t think I was going to die. I knew I was.” But still they pushed on, finding the wounded, delivering them to safety.

And then, for a fifth time, they went back -- into the fury of that village, under fire that seemed to come from every window, every doorway, every alley. And when they finally got to those trapped Americans, Dakota jumped out. And he ran toward them. Drawing all those enemy guns on himself. Bullets kicking up the dirt all around him. He kept going until he came upon those four Americans, laying where they fell, together as one team.

Dakota and the others who had joined him knelt down, picked up their comrades and -- through all those bullets, all the smoke, all the chaos -- carried them out, one by one. Because, as Dakota says, “That’s what you do for a brother.”

Dakota says he’ll accept this medal in their name. So today, we remember the husband who loved the outdoors --Lieutenant Michael Johnson. The husband and father they called “Gunny J” -- Gunnery Sergeant Edwin Johnson. The determined Marine who fought to get on that team -- Staff Sergeant Aaron Kenefick. The medic who gave his life tending to his teammates -- Hospitalman Third Class James Layton. And a soldier wounded in that battle who never recovered -- Sergeant First Class Kenneth Westbrook.

Dakota, I know that you’ve grappled with the grief of that day; that you’ve said your efforts were somehow a “failure” because your teammates didn’t come home. But as your Commander-in-Chief, and on behalf of everyone here today and all Americans, I want you to know it’s quite the opposite. You did your duty, above and beyond, and you kept the faith with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps that you love.

Because of your Honor, 36 men are alive today. Because of your Courage, four fallen American heroes came home, and -- in the words of James Layton’s mom -- they could lay their sons to rest with dignity. Because of your Commitment -- in the thick of the fight, hour after hour -- a former Marine who read about your story said that you showed how “in the most desperate, final hours…our brothers and God will not forsake us.” And because of your humble example, our kids -- especially back in Columbia, Kentucky, in small towns all across America -- they’ll know that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can do great things as a citizen and as a member of the American family.

Therein lies the greatest lesson of that day in the valley, and the truth that our men and women in uniform live out every day. “I was part of something bigger,” Dakota has said, part of a team “that worked together, lifting each other up and working toward a common goal. Every member of our team was as important as the other.” So in keeping with Dakota’s wishes for this day, I want to conclude by asking now-Gunnery Sergeant Rodriguez-Chavez and all those who served with Dakota -- the Marines, Army, Navy -- to stand and accept thanks of a grateful nation. (Applause.)

Every member of our team is as important as the other. That’s a lesson that we all have to remember -- as citizens, and as a nation -- as we meet the tests of our time, here at home and around the world.

To our Marines, to all our men and women in uniform, to our fellow Americans, let us always be faithful. And as we prepare for the reading of the citation, let me say, God bless you, Dakota. God bless our Marines and all who serve. And God bless the United States of America. Semper Fi. (Applause.)

MILITARY AIDE: The President of the United States, in the name of the Congress, takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to Corporal Dakota L. Meyer, United States Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty, while serving with Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009.

Corporal Meyer maintained security at a patrol rally point, while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of Afghan National Army and border police into the village of Ganjgal for a pre-dawn meeting with village elders. Moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, machine guns from four to five positions on the slopes above. Hearing over the radio that four U.S. team members were cut off, Corporal Meyer seized the initiative.

With a fellow Marine driving, Corporal Meyer took the exposed gunner’s position in a gun truck as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain in a daring attempt to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trapped U.S. team. Disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their lone vehicle, Corporal Meyer killed a number of enemy fighters with the mounted machine guns and his rifle -- some at near point-blank range -- as he and his driver made three solo trips into the ambush area.

During the first two trips, he and his driver evacuated two dozen Afghan soldiers, many of whom were wounded. When one machine gun became inoperable he directed the return to the rally point to switch to another gun truck for a third trip into the ambush area, where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining U.S. personnel and Afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush.

Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, Corporal Meyer made two more trips into the ambush area in a third gun truck, accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles, to recover more wounded Afghan soldiers and search for the missing U.S. team members.

Still under heavy enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. Corporal Meyer’s daring initiative and bold fighting spirit throughout the six-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy’s attack and inspired the members of the command force to fight on. His unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades, in the face of almost certain death, reflect a great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

(The Medal is presented.) (Applause.)

CHAPLAIN KIBBEN: Let us close in prayer: God, may this ceremony serve as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with receiving the grace gift of freedom. And as we depart this hallowed hall and return to our daily lives, we pray that you would ennoble and enable us, that when called up we would recall the resolute fearlessness of Sergeant Dakota Meyer and all those who wear the stars of valor, and live up to our responsibilities to bring honor to You and to this country.

It is in Your Holy name we pray. Amen.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for joining us here today. We are grateful for Dakota. We are grateful for all our men and women in uniform. And I hope that all of you have not only been inspired by this ceremony, but also will enjoy the hospitality of the White House. I hear the food is pretty good. (Laughter.)

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)

END
3:06 P.M. EDT

Remarks by the President to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 34th Annual Awards Gala

Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

8:24 P.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Buenas noches. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Please, please, have a seat.

I want to thank Congressman Gonzalez, Senator Menendez for your outstanding leadership. I want to thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute for inviting us here this evening. It is wonderful to be back with all of you to help kick off Hispanic Heritage Month.

Now, before I begin, I want to acknowledge a few people who are with us here tonight. We are honored to be joined by Her Royal Highness Princess Cristina of Spain. (Applause.) We are honored to be joined by our first Latina Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor. (Applause.) I want to recognize House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- (applause) -- our great friend and champion, as well as congratulate Secretary Ken Salazar and Secretary Hilda Solis for their awards tonight and for their outstanding work. (Applause.)

I also want to give a special shout-out to my friend Rey Decerega, the program director here at CHCI. Not many people can give the President of the United States stitches on his lip and get away with it. (Laughter.) Rey is in unique company. (Laughter.) I sent him a photograph of the moment, as he was throwing his elbow at me, and said, he's the only person who ever did that and the Secret Service did not arrest. (Laughter.) And I hear he’s pretty tough off the basketball court, too.

Finally, I want to thank all the members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus here tonight. And I also want to apologize for them because they spent last week listening to me talk. So you probably thought you could escape this by coming to this dinner.

But I’m here because we're at a critical time for our country. The fight we’re having right now -- the fight to put more Americans back to work, to make our country stronger in the long run, to prove that we can get something done here in Washington -- this fight could not be more important for the people in this room, for the Latino community, and for millions of Americans who need help.

I don't have to tell you these are tough times. You know how hard this recession has hit families -- especially Latino families. You know the sacrifices that folks are making every single day just to pay the mortgage, or fill up the car, or to keep the lights on, keep kids in school.

These are families in Los Angeles and San Antonio and Miami. But they’re also families in Decatur and Des Moines. As I said when I spoke here last year, problems in the Latino community are problems for the entire American community. Our future is tied to how well the Latino community does. The reverse is also true -- when our country is hurting, everyone feels the pain.

Right now, most Americans -- whether they are black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American -- they’re working hard to meet their responsibilities. All they want in return is for that hard work to pay off. And they want those of us in Washington to meet our responsibilities, and do our part to make their lives just a little bit easier, to create those ladders of opportunity.

And that’s why, last week, I asked Congress a simple question: In the face of a national emergency, can we finally put a stop to the political circus and actually do something to help the economy? (Applause.) Can we restore some of the fairness and the security that has defined this nation since our founding?

I believe we can, and I believe we must. And that’s why, on Monday, I sent the American Jobs Act to Congress and asked them to pass it right away. (Applause.) The proposals in this legislation have, in the past, been supported by Democrats and Republicans. And all of it will be paid for.

And the idea behind this bill is simple: to put more people back to work and put more money into the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers and teachers and veterans and the long-term unemployed. It will give tax breaks to companies who hire new workers, and to small business owners, and to the middle class. And it will help restore confidence in our economy so businesses will invest and hire.

Passing this jobs bill will put people to work rebuilding our decaying roads and our bridges, and will repair and modernize 35,000 schools by fixing roofs, insulating windows, and installing science labs and high-speed Internet, and getting our kids out of trailers -- (applause) -- all throughout the community, especially in the Latino community, where our children -- the population is growing fastest.

At a time when countries like China are building high-speed rail lines and gleaming new airports, we’ve got over a million unemployed construction workers -- many of them Latino -- who could be doing the same thing right here in the United States. That’s not right. It’s time for us to fix it. And that’s why Congress should pass this bill right away. (Applause.)

Passing this jobs bill will put thousands of teachers in every state back to work helping our kids compete with their peers around the world. Because at a time when teachers are being hired in countries like South Korea, we can’t be laying them off in San Diego or Philadelphia -- not when our children’s future is at stake. Let’s put teachers back in the classroom where they belong. (Applause.)

Passing this jobs bill will cut taxes for small business -- including 250,000 Latino-owned businesses. And it will give companies a tax credit if they hire American veterans, because if you risk your life serving this country, you shouldn’t have to worry about finding a job when you get home. This is our chance to help make it right. (Applause.)

Passing this jobs bill will give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people a summer job next year. And their parents, who desperately want to work, will have more ladders out of poverty. That’s why Congress needs to pass this bill right now.

Passing this jobs bill will give companies up to a $4,000 tax credit if they hire someone who's been looking for a job for more than six months. It will build on a program in Georgia that takes the people who collect unemployment insurance and gives them temporary work as a way to build up their skills while they look for a permanent job. And this plan will also extend unemployment insurance for another year -- and that benefits over one million Latinos and their families. They need help, and it would be a huge blow to our economy if these families stopped spending money on necessities. Let’s pass this bill and keep that from happening. (Applause.)

And finally, passing this jobs bill will give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut next year. Money that would have been taken out of your paycheck will now go into your pocket; 25 million Latino workers will benefit. Some folks have been working pretty hard in Congress to keep tax breaks for wealthy Americans. The least they can do is fight just as hard for the middle class and people at the bottom. Let’s get this done. Lets make sure that ordinary folks get some relief as well. (Applause.)

So this is what the American Jobs Act is all about: New jobs for construction workers and teachers, veterans, young people, long-term unemployed. Tax credits for middle-class families and for small businesses. And we’ll pay for it -- all of it -- in a way that not only covers the cost of the plan but helps to bring down our debt and our deficits over the long term.

I’ll be talking more about how we’re going to pay for this plan on Monday, but the bottom line is it has to be done in a balanced way where everyone shares the sacrifice and nobody is asked to bear the whole burden.

We need to make more spending cuts on top of the trillion dollars of cuts I’ve already signed into law, and that's going to be tough. We need to make modest adjustments to programs like Medicare and Medicaid that will help preserve them for the next generation while protecting current retirees. But we also need to make some real choices when it comes to our tax code -- choices about what kind of country do we want to be.

Instead of asking middle-class families to bear even more of a burden, let’s ask big corporations to give up tax loopholes that small businesses don’t get. (Applause.) Instead of telling seniors “you’re on your own,” let’s make sure our wealthiest citizens aren’t paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. That's not right. (Applause.) In this country, everybody should be getting a fair shake, and everybody should be paying their fair share. That’s who we are as Americans. That’s who we have to be now.

A jobs bill that puts Americans back to work; a balanced approach to pay for it that will lower our deficit in the long run -- these are the steps Congress needs to take right now to put our country on a stronger footing. But we also know we've got to do more. If we’re going to continue to grow our economy at a time when companies can set up shop anywhere in the world, we've got to do more; we've got to look a little further down the road.

And that starts with giving our children the best opportunity to succeed -- something I know Latino families are focused on every single day. Because if we’re going to out-build and out-innovate every other country on Earth, the most important thing we can do is make sure that every single young person in this country has an opportunity to thrive. The most important investment we can make is in education. (Applause.)

That’s why we launched the Race to the Top initiative -- which now reaches almost one-quarter of our country’s Latino students -- to help encourage schools to do the very best with our kids: Identify and support students before they drop out; implement effective bilingual education programs; make English Language Learners a priority.

We have strengthened Pell Grants and we're investing in community colleges that help teach the skills that companies need. And that’s part of the reason why the number of young Latinos enrolled in college rose by 24 percent in the last year. They can actually afford to go to school because of the help that members of Congress who are here tonight helped deliver. (Applause.) We've got more Latinos attending college than ever before. And even though we’re not there yet, we are going to do everything in our power -- I will do everything in my power -- to make the DREAM Act a reality. (Applause.)

This has been a long and frustrating road for all of us. Republicans helped write the DREAM Act because they knew it was the right thing to do for our country. That was a while back. But then last year, we passed the DREAM Act through the House only to see it blocked by Senate Republicans. And now, for the first time in a decade, the bill doesn’t have a single Republican cosponsor. Not one. Nothing about the need for the legislation changed. Nothing about the language in the legislation changed. The only thing that changed was politics in Washington.

That’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking to see innocent young people denied the right to earn an education or serve in our military because of their parents’ action and because of the actions of a few politicians in Washington. It's heartbreaking to see these incredibly bright, gifted people barred from contributing to our country and to our economy.

Because the truth is, reforming our immigration system is crucial for our economic future. This country was built and sustained by people who risked everything because they believed in the idea of America -- the idea that anybody with a dream and a willingness to work can make a life for themselves here. (Applause.) That is part of the American Dream. That's the essence of the American Dream. (Applause.)

That’s why it doesn’t make sense that we educate more foreign-born workers than any country in the world, but our broken, outdated immigration system often sends them home to invent and build and grow their companies someplace else. It doesn’t make any sense that immigrant workers are forced into the shadows, earning unfair wages, at the same time that businesses are breaking the rules and getting away with it, while those that follow the rules get punished.

We need an immigration policy that works, one that meets the needs of our families and our businesses while honoring our tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Because no matter what you may hear, in this country there is no “us” or “them.” There is only “us.” One nation, under God, indivisible. (Applause.) And immigrants are part of that American family and a source of our strength. (Applause.)

Now, as I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own. There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- (applause) -- I'd like to work my way around Congress. (Applause.) But the fact is, even as we work towards a day when I can sign an immigration bill, we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld. But as you know as well as anyone that -- anybody else, how we enforce those laws is also important. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is applying common-sense standards for immigration enforcement. And we’ve made progress so that our enforcement policies prioritize criminals who endanger our communities, not students trying to achieve the American Dream. (Applause.)

But we live in a democracy, and at the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself under our democratic system. If we’re going to do big things -- whether it’s passing this jobs bill, or the DREAM Act, or comprehensive immigration reform -- we’re going to have to get Congress to act. I know Nancy Pelosi is ready to act. I know the CHC is ready to act. But we got to get more folks in Congress to act. It’s time to stop playing politics and start listening to the people who sent us to Washington in the first place -- because the rest of America is way ahead of us on this.

So everybody here tonight, keep the heat on me, keep the heat on Nancy, the rest of the Democrats. We feel good about where we’re at. But if we’re being honest, we know the real problem isn’t the members of Congress in this room. It’s the members of Congress who put party before country because they believe the only way to resolve our differences is to wait 14 months till the next election.

And I’ve got news for them. The American people don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months. (Applause.) Some of them are living paycheck to paycheck; month to month; day to day. Others want to go to college right now. They want to defend their country right now. And that’s why I’m asking everybody in the Latino community -- not just here, but all across the country -- lift up your voice. Make yourself heard. If you think it’s time to pass a jobs bill that will put millions of Americans back to work, call on Congress to do the right thing.

If you think it’s time to give businesses the incentive to hire, and put more money into your pockets, make yourself heard. Tell Congress to do the right thing. And if your congressman or woman is already on the right page, talk to somebody else’s congressman. (Laughter.)

If you think it’s time to stop the political games and finally pass the DREAM Act and reform our immigration system, pick up the phone, get on the computer -- tell your representatives in Washington the time is action -- the time for action is now. We can’t wait. Not when so much is at stake.

These are difficult times. But, remember, we’ve been through worse. And think about everybody here -- your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents -- they struggled in ways we can’t even imagine to deliver that American Dream to you. We’ve always been a nation full of vision, a bold and optimistic America that does big things. We don’t have a cramped vision. We don’t try to exclude. We try to embrace and bring people in to this idea of America.

It’s a vision where we live within our means, but we invest in our future; where everybody makes sacrifices, but nobody has to bear the burden alone, and everybody shares in our success; where we live up to the idea that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your surname -- whether your ancestors landed at Ellis Island, or came over on a slave ship, or crossed the Rio Grande -- we are all connected, and we all rise and fall together. (Applause.)

That’s the America I believe in. That’s the America that you believe in. That’s the America we can once more have, as long as all of us are working together. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
8:43 P.M. EDT