【正文】 ut to getclosed.
　　And what we canamp。rsquo。t afford to do isto keep all the loopholes that are currently in place andlower the corporatetax rate. We would then blow anotherhole in the deficit that would have tobe filled. And what Iamp。rsquo。m not willing to do is to havehigher rates on the middle class in order topay for that.
　　Some of the CEOs here had a working groupearlier today, the mission of which was toaddress the question of how do youstay petitive. Interestingly, atleast to me, their firstpriority first priority was this: immigration reform. The . needs immigration reformto retaintalented workers educated in the . and attract talent to the . Immigrationreform could provide an instantjolt to the . economy which we need.
　　I know you agree with thatstatement, but itamp。rsquo。s hard to see that happening right now. Youamp。rsquo。vegot the Senate off on one track itamp。rsquo。spassed a prehensive bill the House wonamp。rsquo。t even agreeto take up. Democrats want to do prehensivereform. Republicans want to do stepbystepreform. Itamp。rsquo。s a poisonous politicalatmosphere. Can you make it happen?
　　THE PRESIDENT: I am actually optimistic that weamp。rsquo。re going toget this done. I am acongenitaloptimist. I would have to be Iamp。rsquo。m named Barack Obama and I ran forPresident. (Laughter.)
　　And won.
　　THE PRESIDENT: And won twice. (Laughter.)
　　So, look, keep in mind, first ofall, that what the CEOs here said is absolutely right. This isa boost to our economy. Everywhere I go, I meet with entrepreneursand CEOs who say, Iamp。rsquo。vegot these terrific folks, they just graduated fromCalTech or MIT or Stanford, theyamp。rsquo。re ready to dobusiness here, some of themhave these amazing new ideas that we think we can mercialize but theyamp。rsquo。rebeing dragged back to their home countries, not because they want to gobutbecause the immigration system doesnamp。rsquo。t work.
　　The good news is that the Senatebill was a bipartisan bill and we know what theponent parts of thisare. Weamp。rsquo。ve got to have strong bordersecurity. Weamp。rsquo。ve got to havebetterenforcement of existing laws. Weamp。rsquo。ve gotto make sure that we have a legal immigrationsystem that doesnamp。rsquo。t cause peopleto sit in the queue for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years in somecases, 20years. We should want to immediately sayto young people who weamp。rsquo。ve helped toeducate in this country, you want to stay,we want you here.
　　And we do have to deal with about11 million folks who are in this country, most of themjust seekingopportunity。 they did break the law by ing here or overstaying their visa,andtheyamp。rsquo。ve got to earn their way out of the shadows pay a fine, learnEnglish, get to the back ofthe line, pay their back taxes but giving them amechanism whereby they can get right by oursociety. And thatamp。rsquo。s reflected in the Senate bill.
　　Now, I actually think that thereare a number of House Republicans including Paul Ryan, Ithink, if you askhim about it who agree with that. Theyamp。rsquo。re suspicious of prehensivebills, but if they want to chop thatthing up into five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, Idonamp。rsquo。t carewhat it looks like as long as itamp。rsquo。s actually delivering on those core valuesthat we talkabout.
　　But Democrats have been pretty suspiciousthat all five pieces wonamp。rsquo。t get done.
　　THE PRESIDENT: And thatamp。rsquo。s the problem. I mean, the key is what we donamp。rsquo。t want todois simply carve out one piece of it letamp。rsquo。s say agricultural jobs, which are important, but iseasier,frankly, or the highskilled jobs that many in your audience here wouldimmediately wantto do but leave behind some of the tougher stuff that stillneeds to get done. Weamp。rsquo。re not goingtohave a situation in which 11 million people are still living in the shadows andpotentiallygetting deported on an ongoing basis.
　　So weamp。rsquo。re going to have to do itall. In my conversations with theRepublicans, I actually thinkthe divide is not that wide. So what we just have to do is find a pathwaywhere Republicans inthe House, in particular, feel fortable enough aboutprocess that they can go ahead andmeet us.
　　This, by the way, Jerry, I thinkis a good example of something thatamp。rsquo。s been striking meabout our politics for awhile. When you go to other countries, the political divisions are so muchmorestark and wider. Here in America, thedifference between Democrats and Republicans, weamp。rsquo。refighting inside the 40yardline, maybe in
　　Youamp。rsquo。ve fooled most people on that in thelast few months, Iamp。rsquo。d say. (Laughter.)
　　THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, no. I would distinguish between the rhetoric and the tacticsversus theideological differences. I mean, in most countries youamp。rsquo。ve got people call measocialist sometimes, But, no, youamp。rsquo。ve got to meet real socialists.(Laughter.) Youamp。rsquo。ll have a sense ofwhata socialist is. (Laughter.)
　　Iamp。rsquo。m talking about lowering thecorporate tax rate. My health carereform is based on theprivate marketplace. The stock market is looking pretty good last time I checked. And it is truethat Iamp。rsquo。m concerned aboutgrowing inequality in our system, but nobody questions theefficacy of marketeconomies in terms of producing wealth and innovation and keepinguspetitive.
　　On the flip side, mostRepublicans, even the tea party one of my favorite signs during thecampaignwas folks hoisting a sign, “。Government, keep your hands off my Medicare.”。 (Laughter.)Think about that. (Laughter.) I mean, ideologically, they did not like the idea of thefederalgovernment, and yet they felt very protective about the basic social safety netthat hadbeen structured.
　　So my simple point is this: If we can get beyond the tactical advantagesthat partiesperceive in painting folks as extreme and trying to keep an eyealways on the next election,and for a while at least, just focus on governing,then there is probably 70 percent overlap on awhole range of issues. A lot of Republicans want to getinfrastructure d