We're looking at border policies, both with Canada and with Mexico. And we'll continue doing what we're doing now, which is any time we get a lead, we're going to disrupt — we're going to bring them in and give them a chance to protect Americans.

REPORTER: Sir, would you consider bringing — or asking Congress to come back early and finish the economic stimulus?
DUBYA: No.
REPORTER: Are you angry at anyone in Congress?
DUBYA: No, I'm not angry at all. I'm joyous. I welcome the holiday season. No, but I don't intend to bring them back early.
REPORTER: What is the impact of not passing a stimulus before the end of the year?
DUBYA: Well, the impact was it was disappointing.
REPORTER: What about for the American people?
DUBYA: Well, we'll just have to see. We'll have to see what the effects are. And we'll have time when they come back to take a look-see at the state of the economy. We're continuing to get mixed signals. Hopefully, the economy will be good, but we'll just have to — we'll deal with it when we get back.

And I must say, relations with Congress are a heck of a lot better than they have been in the past, because congressmen and senators of both parties are interested about what's doing right for the American people.

Because when I was coming up, and a lot of other older-looking people here who were coming up with me — that would never have happened in the past.

The problem with the kind of federal approach and only federal approach is, is that we may encourage you to become trained in a job that doesn't exist. And so the real thing is, is there money available for job training? Is there money available from the federal government to say to Governor Bush of Florida, here is some dough. Set up a system that will actually match people with skills and jobs that exist.

And so one of the areas where I think the average Russian will realize that the stereotypes of America have changed is that it's a spirit of cooperation, not one-upmanship. That we now understand one plus one can equal three, as opposed to us and Russia we hope to be zero.

Oh, I read all kinds of speculation about what this administration was or was not going to do. What I'm telling you is, is that we are fully committed to the Mitchell process. And we are fully committed to working with both sides to bring the level of terror down to an acceptable level for both.

Now, there are some who are second-guessing tax relief. You hear the voices begin to filter out of their home states. I presume those who now oppose tax relief are for raising your taxes.

One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a — a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone.

There's a lot of people in the Middle East who are desirous to get into the Mitchell process. And — but first things first. The — these terrorist acts and, you know, the responses have got to end in order for us to get the framework — the groundwork — not framework, the groundwork to discuss a framework for peace, to lay the — all right.

You can't pass a law that says 'thou shalt love thy neighbor' or 'you will be neighborly'. That's because America is full of just such decent people.

It's a meaningful piece of legislation for this part of the country because a lot of people make their living on the farm and on the ranch. And we want our families to be on the farms and ranch.

We have a responsibility and Congress needs to bring me a bill that will help the patients who come to these hospitals maintain a reasonable insurance, and a bill that doesn't help lawyers.

I haven't had a chance to talk, but I'm confident we'll get a bill that I can live with if we don't.

Russia is no longer our enemy and therefore we shouldn't be locked into a Cold War mentality that says we keep the peace by blowing each other up. In my attitude, that's old, that's tired, that's stale.

Can't living with the bill means it won't become law.

But I also made it clear to [Vladimir Putin] that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe.

I had no idea we had so many weapons. What do we need them for?

I'm going to say it in the administration, it is important for us to use our resources and technologies to develop such a system so as to make threats to people around the world that, you know, as obsolete as possible, as irrelevant as possible. And that threat's not only in the Far East, but in the Middle East, as well, and to our own homeland.

If you live off the land, the people who care more about that than the people who live off the land — the reason I bring that up is because I want — a good policy understands the proper role of the federal government.

First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country.

One of the biggest issues is changing the tone in our nation's capital. It's not really an issue like we know it.

We need to change that attitude about how prolific we can be with the people's money.

Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea, there's not very much transparency. We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements.

Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector, and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is ... er ... the death tax is.

My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt.

As you know, I shy away from hypotheticals, Pancho. I'm going to resist the Christmas tree effect of tax policy. I don't want people putting ornaments on my plan.

The budget caps were busted, mightily so. And we are reviewing... some budgetary reform measures that will reinstate - you know, possibly reinstate budgetary discipline. But the caps no longer - the caps, I guess they're there. But they didn't mean much.

I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.

We say to seniors, "We understand how important prescription drug coverage, so prescription drugs will be an ingrinable part of the Medicare plan."

On principle, there ought to be a limit to how much the federal government can take of anybody's hardworking hard work, of hardworking money.

If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it.

I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is - is - is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don't get the new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways. So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you.

I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.

We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans.

This campaign not only hears the voices of the entrepreneurs and the farmers and the entrepreneurs, we hear the voices of those struggling to get ahead.

The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas.

My plan is one, by the way, joined by Democrats as well as Republicans, that understands by taking advantage of the compounding rate of interest, younger workers will be able to have some — have benefits that are — that we anticipate a promise for the long run.

John and I both agree, and strongly agree, that if a shareholder, a stakeholder, a labor union member don't have the right to say where their money is being spending, on a campaign or an idea or on an issue, that shouldn't be spent.

In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal — federal cuff link, the federal structure on programs, there needs to be flexibility at the state level.

I would have said yes to abortion if only it was right. I mean, yeah it's right. Well no it's not right that's why I said no to it.

I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth.

What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position.

America is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade because America's hearts are not right.

No one is going to threaten the governor of the state of Texas. My job is to enforce the laws of the state of Texas. That is my job and that is what I intend to do.

We believe in swift and sure punishment, and Texans believe in the death penalty. If you're a Canadian and come to our state, don't murder anybody.

I've always believed the death penalty will deter death.

Skeptics say, "Governor, if you take away our licenses, we won't be able to earn a living to pay child support." To those parents, I have a simple response: "Pay up."

I understand agriculture, I have a vision... we ought to be the country feeding faces all across the world.

All crime is hate crime.