The White House

Office of the First Lady

Remarks by the First Lady during Visit to Toys for Tots Warehouse

Oakhill Business Center, Stafford, Virginia

11:55 A.M. EST

MRS. OBAMA:  Well, thank you, everyone.  It's good to see you all.  Man, okay, you can make some noise.  (Laughter.)  I know they've told you to be restricted and -- but it's Christmas!  (Laughter.)  And we brought toys.  It's so good to see everybody.

Let me thank a few people -- Major Stapp for all his work and leadership, and his wife and his family, all of your families who have helped.  We know that the Marine Corps, you guys do a lot of the work, but you couldn't do what you do if you didn't have your families supporting you.  So I want to thank all the spouses who've stepped up, as well.

I want to thank all the volunteers who have lent a hand to this effort.  We've tried to do our part at the White House.  We've made an announcement.  We've led a wonderful drive that Tara and Lindsey have worked on on our end.  And I want to find Tara and Lindsey.  Where are you, guys?  Just raise your hands because -- oh, you guys are back there.  (Applause.)  Tara and Lindsey helped to coordinate the effort at the White House, and they did a phenomenal job.

We only brought 30 percent of what we actually collected because that's all that we could fit into the van, but we are still collecting as we speak.  Every office in the White House, not just in the actual White House building, but in the executive building, everyone has chipped in and stepped up beyond belief.  This was one of the easy asks that we've had to do this year.

So I want to thank you for allowing us to be a part of this.  The work that you do, particularly in these economic times, are so important.  And what you guys represent, the Marine Corps, in this effort, as I was saying earlier, is that in a time where you all are already serving and making such a huge sacrifice, all of you -- the troops and their families -- that you show America that you can dig even deeper in this time, and put your time and effort into making sure that kids all around this country have something wonderful to wake up to on Christmas morning, that's what America is all about -- people already sacrificing, stepping up, and doing a little bit more. 

And we are just so proud and so grateful for what you were doing for this country, what you've done for this effort.  And we will be a part of this as long as I'm in the White House.  We will be continuing to help this effort.

So I want to thank you all from the bottom of my hearts.  And on behalf of the President, Malia, Sasha, Bo, and Grandma -- (laughter) -- we wish everybody a Happy Holidays, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, everybody out there who's celebrating anything happy.  (Laughter.) 

So let's get to work.  We've got work to do.  (Applause.)

(Mrs. Obama tours the warehouse facility and sorts toys.)

(Inaudible) -- and this is typical of this effort.  We've got, you know, more than enough toys for younger kids.  And one of the challenges that this program has is really finding toys for the older kids.  And those are the bins for the kids that are 11-14, and as you can see, they're almost empty here.

And for those of you that are writing stories, there's still time to just ask people, as they think about donating in the coming days and weeks, that they really focus on some of the older kids, 11-14.  I know Semonti -- we have handouts of some suggestions for what people can get.

But this would be a good way in these last few days just to push to make sure -- because you look over in those bins and you just sort of think, you know, the little kids, great, but, you know, if you're 11, you're still waiting for Santa, and you still want to make sure that they have something in the stocking.

So again, for those of you that are writing stories in the next day or so, it'd be great to emphasize that.  I would really appreciate it, and so would all the kids and volunteers here.

So I'm going to go back shopping -- (laughter) -- because we still have a couple of more days, and we're going to pick up some more toys for 11- to 14-year-olds.

Thank you, guys.  Thank you all.  Thanks.

END
12:08 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President After Meeting with Senate Democrats

Roosevelt Room

3:15 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  We just had a very productive session about the final stages of health care reform in the Senate.  And from the discussions we had it's clear that we are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded Congresses and Presidents for generations -- an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American.

There are still some differences that have to be worked on. This was not a roll call.  This was a broad-based discussion about how we move forward.  But whatever differences remain, there is broad consensus around reforms that will finally, number one, protect every American from the worst practices in the health insurance industry.  No longer will these companies be able to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting illness or condition.  No longer will they be able to drop you from coverage when you get sick.  No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments that you need. We are all in agreement on those reforms.

We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care.  Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future.  This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program.  And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

Now, I just want to repeat this because there's so much misinformation about the cost issue here.  You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are -- whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.

And in terms of deficits -- because we keep on hearing these ads about how this is going to add to the deficit -- the CBO has said that this is a deficit reduction, not a deficit increase.  So all the scare tactics out there, all the ads that are out there are simply inaccurate. 

Some of the same people who cited the CBO when it was saying it didn’t reduce the deficit, saying CBO is the most credible possible arbiter of whether or not this adds the our deficit, now suddenly are ignoring what the CBO says. 

Finally, we agree on reforms that will make coverage affordable for 30 million Americans who don't have it.  Every day that goes by, another 14,000 Americans lose their health care coverage.  A recent study shows that in the next decade, half of all Americans under the age of 65 will be without coverage at some point.  On the other hand, if this reform passes -- when it passes -- for the very first time in their lives, these Americans will be able to provide health insurance for their families.  And those Americans who are already covered will no longer have to live in fear that their family might fall through the cracks of the system we have now.

These aren't small changes.  These are big changes.  They represent the most significant reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare.  They will save money.  They will save families money; they will save businesses money; and they will save government money.  And they're going to save lives.  That's why this reform is supported by groups like the AARP who represents most of America's seniors.  That's why this reform has to pass on our watch.

Now, let's be clear.  The final bill won't include everything that everybody wants.  No bill can do that.  But what I told my former colleagues today is that we simply cannot allow differences over individual elements of this plan to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to solve a longstanding and urgent problem for the American people.  They are waiting for us to act.  They are counting on us to show leadership.  And I don't intend to let them down, and neither do the people standing next to me.  There's too much at stake for families who can't pay their medical bills, or see a doctor when they need to, or get the treatment they need.  The stakes are enormous for them.

The stakes are enormous for businesses, who are already seeing their premiums go up 15, 20, 30 percent.  A lot of the critics of this entire process fail to note what happens if nothing gets done -- and the American people have to be very clear about this:  If we don't get this done, your premiums are guaranteed to go up.  If this does not get done, more employers are going to drop coverage because they can't afford it.  If this does not get done, it is guaranteed that Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget. 

Those things are guaranteed.  That's the status quo.  That is the trajectory that we are currently on.  I don't intend to have that happen.  And I believe that the Senate doesn't intend to have that happen.  And I think any fair reading of this bill will indicate that all the criteria that I laid out when I met before a joint session have now been met.  It is deficit-neutral; it bends the cost curve; it covers 30 million Americans who don't have health insurance; and it has extraordinary insurance reforms in there that make sure that we're preventing abuse.

By the way, it also does things that Tom Harkin has been a champion of for years:  prevention and wellness, to make sure that people are getting the care they need and the checkups they need and the screenings they need before they get sick -- which will save all of us money and reduce pressures on emergency rooms all across the country.

So there are still disagreements that have to be ironed out. There is still work to be done in the next few days.  I think it's important for every single member of the Senate to take a careful look at what's in the bill. 

We welcome the scrutiny from the press.  Recently there was an article in The New Yorker that talked about all the cost savings and how important they are going to be in terms of bending the cost curve over the long term. 

I am absolutely confident that if the American people know what's in this bill and if the Senate knows what's in this bill that this is going to pass, because it's right for America.  And I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that we can get this done and start rolling up our sleeves and getting to work improving the lives of the American people.

All right.  Thank you, everybody.

END
3:23 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by The President on Energy Efficiency and Job Creation

Home Depot
Alexandria, Virginia

11:09 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Hello!  Hello!  (Applause.)  Thank you guys.  Thank you.  Everybody, please have a seat.

We've got a couple of special guests here today.  First of all, the outstanding senator from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, Senator Mark Warner is here.  Where's Mark?  Right there.  (Applause.)  We've got a couple of champions for job creation here in Northern Virginia -- Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran.  (Applause.)

Can I just ask, how come they got the Home Depot thing and you guys don't have it?  (Laughter.)  What, the senators are too cool to put it on?  What's going on here? (Laughter.)

Working to jumpstart our retrofit efforts around the country, Senator Jeff Merkley and Congressman Peter Welch are here as well.  (Applause.)  We've got Alexandria Mayor William Euille.  Where's William?  There he is.  Good to see you, Bill.  (Applause.)  And we've got Frank Blake and his team here at Home Depot.  Where's Frank?  There he is.  (Applause.)

So seeing how Christmas is just around the corner, and we’re at Home Depot, I thought I might knock out some of my holiday shopping.  (Laughter.)  I figure my Energy Secretary wants a few million energy-efficient light bulbs.  (Laughter.)  My Press Secretary wants something that will prevent leaks.

AUDIENCE:  Ooooh!

THE PRESIDENT:  Come on, guys.  (Laughter.)  It took a while there for -- (laughter.)  But I’ve also come here to spend some time with workers and contractors and manufacturers and small business owners who've been especially hard hit by our economic downturn.  A few of us just spent some time at a roundtable talking about the role they want to play in job creation and in our economic recovery, and how government can best help to give them a boost.

I don’t need to remind them or any of you about the situation we found ourselves in at the beginning of this year.  The economy was in a freefall.  As a result of our financial crisis, folks couldn’t access affordable credit to run their businesses, or take out an auto loan or a student loan or, in some cases, pay their mortgages.  Home values were plummeting.  And we were hemorrhaging about 700,000 jobs per month.

Today, the economy is growing for the first time in more than a year, and November’s job report was the best that we’ve had in nearly two years.

But the fact is, even though we’ve stopped the rapid job losses that we were seeing just a few months ago, more than seven million Americans have lost their jobs in the two years since this recession began.  Unemployment still stands at 10 percent.  So we’re not finished with our task -- far from it.  We've got a lot of work to do.  And I promise you, in the White House we're hard at work every single day, until every single person who wants a job can find a job.

That's why last week, I announced some additional targeted steps to spur private sector hiring and give an added boost to small businesses by building on the tax cuts in the Recovery Act and increasing access to the loans desperately needed for small businesses to grow.  We'll rebuild and modernize even more of our transportation and communication networks across the country.  And I called for the extension of emergency relief like unemployment insurance and health benefits to help those who've lost their jobs, while boosting consumer spending and promoting job growth.

We also want to take some strategic surgical steps in areas that are going to generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.  From the moment we took office, even as we took immediate steps to deal with the financial crisis, we began investing in newer, stronger foundations for lasting growth -- one that would free us from the cycle of boom and bust that has been so painful; one that can create good jobs and opportunities for a growing middle class.  That's at the heart of our efforts, and clean energy can be a powerful engine for creating that kind of growth.

That's why the Recovery Act included the single biggest investment in job-creating clean energy in our history:  in renewable sources of energy; in advanced manufacturing; in clean vehicle technology; in a bigger, better, smarter electric grid that can carry clean, homegrown energy from the places that harness it to the places that need it.

And after these investments have been given the better part of a year to take root, a picture of their impact is starting to emerge.  I just received a report from Vice President Biden that confirms that as a result of the steps that we've taken, a major transformation of our economy is well underway.  We are on track to double renewable energy production, and double our capacity to manufacture clean energy components like wind turbines and solar panels right here in the United States by the year 2012 -- doubling it.  (Applause.)

But there's a lot more that we can do, and that's what I've come to Home Depot to talk about.

In our nation's buildings -- our homes and our office consume almost 40 percent of the energy we use and contribute almost 40 percent of the carbon pollution that we produce and everybody is talking about right now in Copenhagen.  Homes built in the first half of the last century can use about 50 percent more energy than homes that are built today.  And because most of our homes and office aren't energy-efficient, much of that energy just goes to waste, while costing our families and businesses money they can't afford to throw away.

The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient --insulation new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment -- is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.

As a result of a variety of investments made under the Recovery Act, including state and local energy grants, we're on pace to upgrade the homes of half a million Americans by this time next year -- half a million Americans:  boosting the economy, saving money and energy, creating clean energy jobs that can't be outsourced.  But this is an area that has huge potential to grow.  That's why I'm calling on Congress to provide new temporary incentives for Americans to make energy-efficiency retrofit investments in their homes.  And we want them to do it soon.

I know the idea may not be very glamorous -- although I get really excited about it.  We were at the roundtable and somebody said installation is not sexy.  I disagree.  (Laughter.)  Frank, don't you think installation is sexy stuff?  (Applause.)  Here's what’s sexy about it:  saving money.  Think about it this way:  If you haven't upgraded your home yet, it's not just heat or cool air that's escaping -- it's energy and money that you are wasting.  If you saw $20 bills just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere, you'd try to figure out how you were going to keep that.  But that's exactly what's happening because of the lack of efficiency in our buildings.

So what we want to do is create incentives that stimulate consumer spending, because folks buy materials from home improvement stores like this one, which then buys them from manufacturers.  It spurs hiring because local contractors and construction workers do the installation.  It saves consumers money -- perhaps hundreds of dollars off their utility bills each year -- and it reduces our energy consumption in the process.

In other words, most of this stuff is going to pay for itself.  You put in the insulation, you weatherize your home now, you will make up that money in a year or two years or three years, and then everything after that is just gravy.  But the challenge for a lot of people is getting that money up front.  They know that this is a smart thing to do, but times are tight right now and it's hard to afford making that capital investment. And that's where the government can come in to provide the incentive to help people make that initial investment so that they can recover that money over the long term.

These incentives will build on the work that my administration is doing to eliminate existing barriers to retrofitting millions of homes across the country.  My Middle Class Task Force and the Council on Environmental Quality recently released a report titled "Recovery Through Retrofit," that explains some of these hurdles and how we can overcome them: providing homeowners with straightforward and reliable information on retrofitting their homes, reducing their costs to do it, and ensuring that we've got a well-trained workforce ready to make it happen.

So I think this is an extraordinary idea.  All the ideas that we've discussed were talked about at the jobs forum we held at the White House a couple of weeks ago.  And in fact, Frank Blake was there and mentioned that 30 percent of Home Depot's business is made up of small contractors of five or fewer employees who often do this kind of work.  And they and the folks that I met with earlier know just how important a program like this could be.

The economic downturn hit both small contractors and our broader construction industry especially hard.  Construction unemployment reached 21 percent in the beginning of this year.  The investments we made under the Recovery Act has helped, but obviously there's a lot more work to do to put construction workers and millions of other Americans who are ready and eager to help rebuild America and move our recovery forward back on the job again.  And we're not going to rest until we do it.

So it's fitting that we're here today at Home Depot with folks who play a vital role in helping America's families build strong homes and strengthen the ones that they've got, because that's exactly what we're trying to do -- rebuild our -- rebuild America's house on a stronger foundation of growth and prosperity.  It's not going to be easy, but we've got the concrete poured.  And one thing is clear:  We're moving in the right direction.  So I promise you we are going to get this job done.  Together, we can leave something for future generations that makes America that much stronger.

And I just want to emphasize one last point.  There's a lot -- a lot of times there's an argument about economic growth versus the environment.  And in the debate that's going on about climate change right now, a lot of people say we can't afford to deal with these emissions to the environment.  But the fact of the matter is energy efficiency is a perfect example of how this can be a win-win.  Manufacturers like Owens Corning, whose CEO is here today, they win because they produce this stuff.  And those are American jobs.  And right now -- I just heard from the CEO, because Australia put an incentive to do exactly what we're talking about, they’ve seen a huge increase in their volume of experts -- exports to Australia.  Well, why can't we do the same thing here?

When it comes to contractors, contractors all around the country know that this is work they can do, they can do effectively, they can do well, and it's a reliable business.  It's not going to be subject to as many of the vacillations as home sales are in the current environment where you've got a soft housing market.  So this can help fill the void in a major industry that's taken a big hit.

And the workers, we have somebody who just got trained and is already on the job crawling through attics and putting all this stuff together.  Over the course of six months or a year, somebody can get trained effectively.  And LIUNA is doing terrific work with this -- its apprenticeship program.  And what this means is that people who are unemployed right now, they can get a marketable skill that they can take anywhere.

So this is a smart thing to do, and we've got to get beyond this point where we think that somehow being smart on energy is a job destroyer.  It is a job creator.  But it's going to require some imagination and some foresight, and it requires us to all work together.  That's what this White House is committed to doing.  I know that's what all of you are committed to doing.

We are going to generate so much business for you, Frank.  We are going to generate so much work for you guys from LIUNA. We're going to create so much business -- so many business opportunities for contractors here that over the course of the next several years, people are going to see this I think as an extraordinary opportunity, and it's going to help America turn the corner when it comes to energy use.

I'm excited about it.  I hope you are, too.  See, I told, insulation is sexy.  Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END

11:23 A.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by President Obama and President Sleiman of Lebanon after Meeting

Oval Office

2:51 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much, everybody.  I want to welcome President Sleiman and his delegation for the excellent visit that we've had. 

I thought that this meeting was critical because the relationship between the United States and Lebanon is critical.  We have a strong friendship between the two countries.  Part of that results from the fact that we have 2 million Lebanese Americans who have made extraordinary contributions to the life of the United States, and continue to do so.  Obviously Lebanon is a critical country in a critical region, and we want to do everything that we can to encourage a strong, independent, and democratic Lebanon.

The President has, I think, done extraordinary work in managing what is a difficult situation, and we have continued to see progress in dealing with a lot of the cross-currents that exist not only in Lebanon but also in the region as a whole.

The United States wants to be a partner in this process.  We want to strengthen Lebanese armed forces so that they can help to secure the sovereignty and territory of Lebanon.  We want to make sure that there's full implementation of United States -- United Nations' resolutions that help keep the peace in the region and ensure Lebanon's stability.

We both agree that the issues of Middle East peace are linked to the issues that exist inside Lebanon, and so the more we can work together to encourage the parties involved -- not only Israel and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis and the Syrians, for example -- to have constructive dialogue and try to negotiate out of the current impasse, the better off Lebanon will be, the better off the world will be.

We also want to make sure that the United States' assistance to Lebanon is not seen just through a security lens.  As I indicated in my speech in Oslo last week, part of peace is economic opportunity and justice in civil society.  And so to the extent that we can help provide support around issues like education that promote opportunity within Lebanon, we want to do so.

Let me just close by saying here on the South Lawn there is actually a Lebanese cedar tree that was planted 30 years ago, a testimony to difficult times for both the United States and Lebanon, but also the fact that we remain hopeful about the future.  That tree is strong; it is thriving.  I think it represents the friendship between the United States and Lebanon. And we will continue to water that tree just as we continue to nurture the relationship between our two countries.

And I don't know if you want to do a quick translation.  I apologize, I should have stopped in between my comments.

(President Obama's comments are translated.) 

PRESIDENT SLEIMAN:  (As translated.)  Thank you very much.  I am pleased -- I had the pleasure today to come here in response to the invitation of this President, of President Obama to the United States, and I had the pleasure to meet President Obama and high officials in the United States administration.

We have with President Obama a common policy of openness and dialogue.  And we believe that the election of President Obama was a great mark in history, especially his speech in Cairo, which gave hope to find peaceful solutions to controversial issues.  In addition to that, President Obama gaining of Nobel Peace Prize also gave hope to people across the world, and especially the people of the Arab countries, to find a peaceful solution that would return the rights of the people of Palestine, and that would ensure withdrawal and grant Palestinian refugees the right of return.

We have asserted our attachment and our support to the Arab Peace Initiative, which was stated in 2002 in Beirut and which was affirmed in the Doha summit, which grants all the rights back to their owners. 

We have also discussed the situation in Lebanon which had witnessed great stability last year and this year, be it on the political, security, and economic levels. 

We also discussed the Israeli threats against Lebanon that are taking place and that place obstacles to the economic growth of the country.  We ask President Obama and the United States to exert further pressure on Israel to implement Resolution 1701 and to withdraw from Israeli occupied -- Lebanese occupied territories namely from the village of Ghajar, Kfar Shouba, and the Shebaa Farms.

We also talked about the bilateral relations between Lebanon and the United Nations.  We believe we have many common denominators with the United States.  The first one are Americans of Lebanese descent which play a great role in the United States, and also the shared values we have with the United States and its people, namely the value of democracy, respect of human rights, public freedom, rejection of extremism and fundamentalism, and confronting terrorism.

And Lebanon has paid a very heavy price to preserve these values -- a heavy price because of the cost of its soul of its people, its infrastructure, and also it had a heavy economical price, especially regards this part of the Lebanese views we're obliged to indicate.

We have asked for the support of the United Nations on various levels:  first of all, on the military level, because a strong army and strong armed forces could defend Lebanon against hostility of the enemy.  Also it could allow the country to confront terrorism which focus dangers not only on Lebanon but on humanity as a whole.

The second level is the economic level in order to promote new -- more economic growth and social justice, because injustice is sometimes taken as a pretext by terrorist and fundamentalist organizations to recruit people and invite them to terrorism.

We also asked for the political support of the United States to take a political position to support Lebanon and to support a peaceful solution for the Middle East crisis -- that cannot be done at the detriment of Lebanon -- and to reject settlements.  We insist on the rights of return for Palestinians because as stated in the Arab Peace Initiative, we reject any form of settlement since it contradicts our constitution and our special circumstances.  So did the Arab Peace Initiative state as well.

In 2010, and since we have been elected as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we will keep on cooperating and coordinating with the United States on issues related to the world so that we can ensure Lebanon's interests, and so that we can represent the position of the Arab League and the general interest of all of humanity and reach better solutions.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I'm going to have to take one question.

Q    Mr. President, did you talk about Hezbollah weapons? Because it's my understanding that the Lebanese government now considers it an internal issue and doesn't want the Security Council to deal with it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  We discussed this.  And as President Sleiman said, we discussed the enforcement of 1701.  We've made progress on this front, but it's incomplete.  President Sleiman emphasized his concerns with respect to Israel.  I want to be clear that I emphasized to him our concerns about the extensive arms that are smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a threat to Israel.  And it is in the interests I think of all parties concerned to make sure that enforcement is exerted with respect to such smuggling, as well as to any other issues.

So one of the things that I want to make clear is that President Sleiman and I aren't going to agree on every issue with respect to how Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, are interacting.  What we do share is a commitment to resolve these issues through dialogue and negotiations, as opposed to through violence. 

And that is consistent with the democratic traditions of Lebanon.  That's consistent with what we believe is in the interests of both Lebanon as well as the other countries in the region.  And we are going to continue to be promoting those processes that bring parties together, even though there are going to be some strong disagreements with respect to what the terms, for example, of a final peace between Israel and the Palestinians may be.  And I'm confident that we can arrive at those -- such an agreement as long as all the parties are entering into it in good faith.

Okay.  All right, thank you, everyone.

END
3:13 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President on the Economy

Diplomatic Reception Room

12:38 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I've just finished a candid and productive meeting with the CEOs of 12 of our nation's largest financial institutions.  I asked them to come to Washington today -- at the end of this difficult year for their industry, but also for the economy -- to discuss where we've been, what we expect of them going forward, and how we can work together to accelerate economic recovery.

Our nation's banks play, and have always played, a crucial role in our national economy -- from providing loans for homes and cars and colleges; to supplying the capital that allows entrepreneurs to turn ideas into products and businesses to grow; to helping people save for a rainy day and a secure retirement.  So it's clear that each of us has a stake in ensuring the strength and the vitality of the financial system.

And that's why one year ago, when many of these institutions were on the verge of collapse -- a predicament largely of their own making, oftentimes because they failed to manage risk properly -- we took difficult, and, frankly, unpopular steps to pull them back from the brink, steps that were necessary not just to save our financial system, but to save our economy as a whole.

Today, due to the timely loans from the American people, our financial system has stabilized, the stock market has sprung back to life, our economy is growing, and our banks are once again recording profits.  A year ago, many doubted that we would ever recover these investments, but we've managed this program well.  This morning, another major bank announced that it would be repaying taxpayers in full, and when they do, we'll have collected 60 percent of the money owed -- with interest.  We expect other institutions to follow suit, and we are determined to recover every last dime for the American taxpayers.

So my main message in today's meeting was very simple:  that America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry -- and now that they're back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy.

That starts with finding ways to help creditworthy small and medium-size businesses get the loans that they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs.  This is something I hear about from business owners and entrepreneurs across America -- that despite their best efforts, they're unable to get loans.  At the same time, I've been hearing from bankers that they're willing to lend, but face a shortage of creditworthy individuals and businesses.

Now, no one wants banks making the kinds of risky loans that got us into this situation in the first place.  And it's true that regulators are requiring them to hold more of their capital as a hedge against the kind of problems that we saw last year.  But given the difficulty businesspeople are having as lending has declined, and given the exceptional assistance banks received to get them through a difficult time, we expect them to explore every responsible way to help get our economy moving again.

And I heard from these executives that they are engaging in various programs like "second look" programs, hiring more folks, raising their target goals in terms of lending -- all of which sounded positive, but we expect some results, because I'm getting too many letters from small businesses who explain that they are creditworthy and banks that they've had a long-term relationship with are still having problems giving them loans.  We think that's something that we can -- that can be fixed.  And so I urged these institutions here today to go back and take a third and fourth look about how they are operating when it comes to small business and medium-sized business lending.

We also discussed the need to pass meaningful financial reform that will protect American consumers from exploitation and American -- the American economy from another financial crisis of the kind which we just came out of.

I noted the resistance of many of the financial sectors to these reforms -- the industry has lobbied vigorously against some of them -- some of these reforms on Capitol Hill.  So I made it clear that it is both in the country's interest -- and ultimately, in the financial industry's interest -- to have updated rules of the road to prevent abuse and excess.  Short-term gains are of little value to our banks if they lead to long-term chaos in the economy.

And I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people.  If they wish to fight common-sense consumer protections, that's a fight I'm more than willing to have.

The way I see it, having recovered with the help of the American government and the American taxpayers, our banks now have a greater obligation to the goal of a wider recovery, a more stable system, and more broadly shared prosperity.

So I urged them to work with us in Congress to finish the job of reforming our financial system to bring transparency and accountability to the financial markets; to ensure that the failure of one bank or financial institution won't spread throughout the entire system, and to help protect consumers from misleading and dishonest practices with products like credit and debit cards, with mortgages and auto and payday loans.

Now, I should note that around the table all the financial industry executives said they supported financial regulatory reform.  The problem is there's a big gap between what I'm hearing here in the White House and the activities of lobbyists on behalf of these institutions or associations of which they're a member up on Capitol Hill.  I urged them to close that gap, and they assured me that they would make every effort to do so.

In the end, my interest isn't in vilifying any one person or institution or industry; it's not to dictate to them or micromanage their compensation practices to ensure that consumers and -- my job is to ensure that consumers and the larger economy are protected from risky speculation and predatory practices, that credit is flowing, that businesses can grow, and jobs are once again being created at the pace we need.

Some of the banks and financial institutions have taken small but positive steps to improve lending to small and medium-sized businesses, as I indicated.  They've begun reworking mortgages that are now underwater because of declining home values, and they have acknowledged that much more needs to be done going forward.  Many have begun to follow our lead in shifting from paying huge cash bonuses to awarding long-term stock, which will encourage more prudent decision-making -- but, as I indicated in this meeting, they certainly could be doing more on this front as well.

These efforts reflect a recognition ultimately that the fate of our financial institutions is tied to the fate of our economy and our country -- and these institutions can't endure if workers don't have jobs, and businesses can't grow, and consumers don't have money to spend.  Ultimately, in this country, we rise and fall together -- banks and small businesses, consumers and large corporations, and we have a shared interest in working together to ensure a lasting recovery that will benefit all of us and not just some of us.

I called today's meeting with this in mind, and I told the group that I look forward to continued engagement and progress in the months and years ahead.

Thank you.

END
12:46 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Toast Remarks by the President at the 2009 Nobel Banquet

The Grand Hotel, Oslo, Norway

9:48 P.M. CET

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Your Royal Highnesses -- to all my friends, my family.  This is obviously an extraordinary evening, and I must say -- I was telling the committee members that, having entirely exhausted myself with the speech this afternoon -- (laughter and applause) -- I have -- I spoke for a very long time.  (Laughter.)  I have only a very few words to say. 

First of all, I would like to thank the committee once again for the extraordinary confidence that they placed in me and this great honor that I have received tonight.  As I indicated before, no one was more surprised than me.  (Laughter.)  And I have to say that when the chairman spoke introducing me, I told him afterwards that I thought it was an excellent speech and that I was almost convinced that I deserved it.  (Laughter and applause.)

I also wanted to pick up on a theme in both our speeches, and that is the extraordinary power that this prize has in lifting up those who otherwise would be forgotten; in magnifying the cause of justice when it's confronting great resistance.  In 1964, when Dr. King received this prize, the course of the civil rights movement was still uncertain.  How that would play itself out was not yet entirely known.  And for a Baptist preacher from the South to be lifted up on the international stage, to highlight the fact that this was not simply a parochial struggle but was rather a struggle for the ages, a struggle for the hearts and minds not just of the American people but of the world, and how we thought about each other and how we thought about minorities in countries everywhere -- what extraordinary power that had.  And as a consequence, I think it's fair to say that it helped to put the wind behind the sails of a movement that is largely responsible for both Michelle and my presence here tonight.

You know, it's obviously one of life's great ironies that Alfred Nobel, the man responsible for inventing dynamite -- (laughter) -- helped to establish this extraordinary moral force in the world.  He bequeathed his largest share of fortune to the Nobel prizes and the roster of Nobel laureates has grown to include not only the finest minds in science and literature and economics, but I think what captivates people most is the giants of peace that it has acknowledged.

When Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament on November 27, 1895, it's not entirely clear that he could have foreseen the impact that his prizes would have.  But he did know this truth:  that our destinies are what we make of them, and that each of us in our own lives can do our part in order to make a more just and lasting peace and forge the kind of world that we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.

That has been the mission of the committee.  It has carried out over these 108 years this charge with extraordinary diligence, creativity, and as I indicated today at lunch, great moral imagination.  And so, for that, I am grateful not only to the current committee, but past committee members who I know are here.  The world thanks you for the work that you do.  And as a consequence, what I'd like to do is to propose a toast -- once I get some wine.  (Laughter.) 

I'd like to propose -- actually, if you will bear with me, in Washington, in the Senate or the House, this is called a point of personal privilege.  I don't want to make her cry, but I do want to say my sister is here tonight, and it was in one of the earlier toasts discussed a passage in my book that talks about my mother and the values that she instilled in me.  And I do think that it's worth noting that, to the extent I am deserving of this esteemed prize, either now or in the future, it will be largely because of her and the largeness of her heart.  (Applause.)

So, to Alfred Nobel -- Skål.  Cheers.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
9:55 P.M. CET

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Oslo City Hall
Oslo, Norway

1:44 P.M. CET

THE PRESIDENT:  Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
 
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility.  It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate.  Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
 
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated.  (Laughter.)  In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage.  Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight.  And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics.  I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
 
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.  One of these wars is winding down.  The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
 
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.  Some will kill, and some will be killed.  And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
 
Now these questions are not new.  War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.  At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
 
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.  The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met:  if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
 
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed.  The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.  Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.  In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent.  And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
 
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war.  And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace:  a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
 
In many ways, these efforts succeeded.  Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed.  But there has been no Third World War.  The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall.  Commerce has stitched much of the world together.  Billions have been lifted from poverty.  The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced.  We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
 
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.  The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.  Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
 
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations.  The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.  In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
 
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago.  And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
 
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth:  We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
 
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago:  "Violence never brings permanent peace.  It solves no social problem:  it merely creates new and more complicated ones."  As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.  I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
 
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.  I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.  For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
 
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause.  And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
 
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world.  Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this:  The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.  The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.  We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will.  We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
 
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.  And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.  The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms.  But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
 
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.  Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago.  "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."  A gradual evolution of human institutions.
 
What might this evolution look like?  What might these practical steps be?
 
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.  I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense.  Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
 
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.  For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
 
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.  More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
 
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.  Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.  That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
 
America's commitment to global security will never waver.  But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone.  America alone cannot secure the peace.  This is true in Afghanistan.  This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering.  And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
 
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan.  But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.  I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this:  The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.  Peace requires responsibility.  Peace entails sacrifice.  That's why NATO continues to be indispensable.  That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries.  That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
 
Let me make one final point about the use of force.  Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it.  The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
 
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct.  And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.  That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.  That is a source of our strength.  That is why I prohibited torture.  That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.  And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.  (Applause.)  And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
 
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war.  But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
 
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.  Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.  Sanctions must exact a real price.  Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
 
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.  In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear:  All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.  I am committed to upholding this treaty.  It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy.  And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
 
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system.  Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted.  Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.  Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people.  When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences.  Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail.  And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
 
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek.  For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.  Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
 
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War.  In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
 
And yet too often, these words are ignored.  For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development.  And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
 
I reject these choices.  I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.  Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence.  We also know that the opposite is true.  Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.  America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.  No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
 
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.  We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.  It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.  And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
 
Let me also say this:  The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone.  At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.  I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.  But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo.  No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
 
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies.  Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.  Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.  There's no simple formula here.  But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
 
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
 
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive.  It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family.  The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
 
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity.  It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change.  There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.  For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
 
Agreements among nations.  Strong institutions.  Support for human rights.  Investments in development.  All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about.  And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
 
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
 
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion.  In some places, this fear has led to conflict.  At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards.  We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.  We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
 
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.  These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded.  But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.  For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith.  Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature.  For we are fallible.  We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil.  Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.  We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.  The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
 
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity.  We lose our sense of possibility.  We lose our moral compass.
 
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future.  As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history.  I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
 
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.  (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace.  Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on.  Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example.  We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice.  We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity.  Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.  We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
2:20 P.M. CET

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Declaraciones del Presidente al aceptar el Premio Nobel de la Paz

Oslo City Hall; Oslo, Norway

EL PRESIDENTE: Sus Majestades, Sus Altezas Reales, distinguidos miembros del Comité Nóbel de Noruega, ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y ciudadanos del mundo:
 
Recibo este honor con profunda gratitud y gran humildad. Es un premio que habla sobre nuestras mayores aspiraciones: que a pesar de toda la crueldad y las adversidades de nuestro mundo, no somos simples prisioneros del destino. Nuestros actos tienen importancia y pueden cambiar el rumbo de la historia y llevarla por el camino de la justicia.
 
Sin embargo, sería una negligencia no reconocer la considerable controversia que su generosa decisión ha generado. (Risas.) En parte, esto se debe a que estoy al inicio y no al final de mis labores en la escena mundial. En comparación con algunos de los gigantes de la historia que han recibido este premio –Schweitzer y King; Marshall y Mandela– mis logros son pequeños. Y luego hay hombres y mujeres alrededor del mundo que han sido encarcelados y golpeados en su búsqueda de la justicia; gente que trabaja en organizaciones humanitarias para aliviar el sufrimiento; millones en el anonimato cuyos silenciosos actos de valentía y compasión inspiran incluso a los cínicos más empedernidos. No puedo contradecir a quienes piensan que estos hombres y mujeres –algunos conocidos, otros desconocidos para todos excepto para quienes reciben su ayuda– merecen este honor muchísimo más que yo.
 
Pero quizá el asunto más controversial en torno a mi aceptación de este premio es el hecho de que soy Comandante en Jefe de un ejército de un país en medio de dos guerras. Una de esas guerras está llegando a su fin. La otra es un conflicto que Estados Unidos no buscó; uno en que se nos suman otros cuarenta y dos otros países –incluida Noruega– en un esfuerzo por defendernos y defender a todas las naciones de ataques futuros.
 
De todos modos, estamos en guerra, y soy responsable por desplegar a miles de jóvenes a pelear en un país distante. Algunos matarán. A otros los matarán. Por lo tanto, vengo aquí con un agudo sentido del costo del conflicto armado, lleno de difíciles interrogantes sobre la relación entre la guerra y la paz, y nuestro esfuerzo por reemplazar una por la otra.
 
Bueno, estas interrogantes no son nuevas. La guerra, de una forma u otra, surgió con el primer hombre. En los albores de la historia, no se cuestionaba su moralidad; simplemente era un hecho, como la sequía o la enfermedad, la manera en que las tribus y luego las civilizaciones buscaban el poder y resolvían sus discrepancias.
 
Y con el tiempo, a medida que los códigos legales procuraban controlar la violencia dentro de los grupos, los filósofos, clérigos y estadistas también procuraban controlar el poder destructivo de la guerra. Surgió el concepto de “guerra justa”, que proponía que la guerra solamente se justifica cuando cumple con ciertas condiciones previas: si se libra como último recurso o en defensa propia; si la fuerza utilizada es proporcional y, en la medida posible, si no se somete a civiles a la violencia.
 
Por supuesto, sabemos que durante gran parte de la historia, se ha cumplido pocas veces con este concepto de guerra justa. La capacidad de los seres humanos de idear nuevas maneras de matarse unos a los otros resultó ser inagotable, como también nuestra capacidad para tratar sin ninguna piedad a quienes no lucen como nosotros o le rinden culto a un Dios diferente. Las guerras entre ejércitos dieron lugar a guerras entre naciones: guerras totales en que la distinción entre combatiente y civil se volvía borrosa. En el transcurso de treinta años, este continente se sumió dos veces en matanzas de ese tipo. Y aunque es difícil pensar en una causa más justa que la derrota del Tercer Reich y las potencias del Eje, la Segunda Guerra Mundial fue un conflicto en el que el número total de civiles que murieron superó al de soldados que perecieron.
 
Como consecuencia de esa destrucción y con la llegada de la era nuclear, quedó claro para vencedores y vencidos, por igual, que el mundo necesitaba instituciones para evitar otra guerra mundial. Y, entonces, un cuarto de siglo después de que el Senado de Estados Unidos rechazara la Liga de Naciones, una idea por la cual Woodrow Wilson recibió este premio, Estados Unidos lideró al mundo en el desarrollo de una estructura para mantener la paz: un Plan Marshall y Naciones Unidas, mecanismos para regir la manera en la que se libran guerras, los tratados para proteger los derechos humanos, evitar el genocidio y restringir las armas más peligrosas.
 
De muchas maneras, estos esfuerzos fueron exitosos. Sí, se han librado guerras terribles y se han cometido atrocidades. Pero no ha habido una Tercera Guerra Mundial. La Guerra Fría concluyó con una muchedumbre jubilosa que derrumbó un muro. El comercio tejió lazos entre gran parte del mundo. Miles de millones han salido de la pobreza. Los ideales de libertad, autonomía, igualdad y el imperio de la ley han avanzado a tropezones. Somos los herederos de la fortaleza y previsión de generaciones pasadas, y es un legado por el cual mi propio país legítimamente siente orgullo.
 
Pero aún asi, transcurrida una década del nuevo siglo, esta antigua estructura está cediendo ante el peso de nuevas amenazas. El mundo quizá ya no se estremezca ante la posibilidad de guerra entre dos superpotencias nucleares, pero la proliferación puede aumentar el peligro de catástrofes. El terrorismo no es una táctica nueva, pero la tecnología moderna permite que unos cuantos hombres insignificantes con enorme ira asesinen a inocentes a una escala horrorosa.
 
Es más, las guerras entre naciones con mayor frecuencia han sido reemplazadas por guerras dentro de naciones. El resurgimiento de conflictos étnicos o sectarios; el aumento de movimientos secesionistas, las insurgencias y los estados fallidos – todas estas cosas progresivamente han atrapado a civiles en un caos interminable. En las guerras de hoy, mueren muchos más civiles que soldados; se siembran las semillas de conflictos futuros, las economías se destruyen; las sociedades civiles se parten en pedazos, se acumulan refugiados y los niños quedan marcados de por vida.
 
No traigo hoy una solución definitiva a los problemas de la guerra. Lo que sí sé es que hacerles frente a estos desafíos requerirá la misma visión, arduo esfuerzo y perseverancia de aquellos hombres y mujeres que actuaron tan audazmente hace varias décadas. Y requerirá que repensemos la noción de guerra justa y los imperativos de una paz justa.
 
Debemos comenzar por reconocer el difícil hecho de que no erradicaremos el conflicto violento en nuestra época. Habrá ocasiones en las que las naciones, actuando individual o conjuntamente, concluirán que el uso de la fuerza no sólo es necesario sino también justificado moralmente.
 
Hago esta afirmación consciente de lo que Martin Luther King dijo en esta misma ceremonia hace años: “La violencia nunca produce paz permanente. No resuelve los problemas sociales: simplemente crea problemas nuevos y más complicados”. Como alguien que está parado aquí como consecuencia directa de la labor a la que el Dr. King le dedicó la vida, soy prueba viviente de la fuerza moral de la no violencia. Sé que no hay nada débil, nada pasivo, nada ingenuo en las convicciones y vida de Gandhi y King.
 
Pero en mi calidad de jefe de Estado que juró proteger y defender a mi país, no me puede guiar solamente su ejemplo. Enfrento al mundo como lo es, y no puedo cruzarme de brazos ante amenazas contra estadounidenses. Que no quede la menor duda: la maldad sí existe en el mundo. Un movimiento no violento no podría haber detenido los ejércitos de Hitler. La negociación no puede convencer a los líderes de Al Qaida a deponer las armas. Decir que la fuerza es a veces necesaria no es un llamado al cinismo; es reconocer la historia, las imperfecciones del hombre y los límites de la razón.
 
Menciono este punto, comienzo con este punto porque en muchos países hoy en día hay un profundo cuestionamiento del accionar militar, independientemente de la causa. Y a veces, a esto se suma una suspicacia automática por tratarse de Estados Unidos, la única superpotencia militar del mundo.
 
Sin embargo el mundo debe recordar que no fueron simplemente las instituciones internacionales –no sólo los tratados y las declaraciones– los que le dieron estabilidad al mundo después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Independientemente de los errores que hayamos cometido, hay un hecho clarísimo: Estados Unidos de Norteamérica ha ayudado a garantizar la seguridad mundial durante más de seis décadas con la sangre de nuestros ciudadanos y el poderío de nuestras armas. El servicio y sacrificio de nuestros hombres y mujeres de uniforme han promovido la paz y prosperidad desde Alemania hasta Corea, y permitido que la democracia eche raíces en lugares como los países balcánicos. Hemos sobrellevado esta carga no porque queremos imponer nuestra voluntad. Lo hemos hecho por un interés propio y bien informado: porque queremos un futuro mejor para nuestros hijos y nietos, y creemos que su vida será mejor si los hijos y nietos de otras personas pueden vivir en libertad y prosperidad.
 
Entonces, sí, los instrumentos de la guerra tienen un papel en mantener la paz. Sin embargo, este hecho debe coexistir con otro: que independientemente de cuán justificada, la guerra conlleva tragedia humana. La valentía y el sacrificio del soldado están llenos de gloria, expresan devoción por la patria, la causa y los compañeros de armas. Pero la propia guerra nunca es gloriosa, y nunca debemos exaltarla como si lo fuera.
 
Entonces, parte de nuestro desafío es reconciliar estos dos hechos aparentemente irreconciliables: que la guerra a veces es necesaria y que la guerra es, de cierta manera, una expresión de desatino humano. Concretamente, debemos dirigir nuestros esfuerzos a la tarea que el Presidente Kennedy propuso hace tiempo. “Concentrémonos”, dijo, “en una paz más práctica, más alcanzable, basada no en una revolución repentina de la naturaleza humana, sino una evolución gradual de las instituciones humanas”. Una evolución gradual de las instituciones humanas.

¿Qué apariencia cobraría esta evolución? ¿Cuáles podrían ser estas medidas prácticas?
 
Para comenzar, considero que todos los países, tanto fuertes como débiles, deben cumplir con estándares que rigen el uso de fuerza. Yo, como cualquier jefe de Estado, me reservo el derecho de actuar unilateralmente si es necesario para defender a mi país. No obstante, estoy convencido de que cumplir con estándares, estándares internacionales, fortalece a quienes lo hacen y aísla –y debilita– a quienes no.
 
El mundo respaldó a Estados Unidos tras los ataques del 11 de septiembre y continúa apoyando nuestros esfuerzos en Afganistán, debido al horror de esos atentados sin sentido y el principio reconocido de defensa propia. De la misma manera, el mundo reconoció la necesidad de confrontar a Sadam Husein cuando invadió Kuwait, un consenso que envió un mensaje claro a todos sobre el precio de la agresión.
 
Es más, Estados Unidos -- de hecho ningún país -- puede insistir en que otros sigan las normas si nosotros nos rehusamos a seguirlas. Pues cuando no lo hacemos, nuestros actos pueden parecer arbitrarios y menoscabar la legitimidad de intervenciones futuras, por más justificadas que sean.
 
Esto pasa a ser particularmente importante cuando el propósito de la acción militar se extiende más allá de la defensa propia o la defensa de una nación contra un agresor. Más y más, todos enfrentamos difíciles interrogantes sobre cómo evitar la matanza de civiles por su propio gobierno o detener una guerra civil que puede sumir a toda una región en violencia y sufrimiento.
 
Creo que se puede justificar la fuerza por motivos humanitarios, como fue el caso en los países balcánicos o en otros lugares afectados por la guerra. La inacción carcome nuestra conciencia y puede resultar en una intervención posterior más costosa. Es por eso que todos los países responsables deben aceptar la noción de que las fuerzas armadas con un mandato claro pueden ejercer una función en el mantenimiento de la paz.
 
El compromiso de Estados Unidos con la seguridad mundial nunca flaqueará. Pero en un mundo en que las amenazas son más difusas y las misiones más complejas, Estados Unidos no puede actuar solo. Estados Unidos por su cuenta no puede lograr la paz. Ése es el caso en Afganistán. Es el caso en estados fallidos como Somalia, donde el terrorismo y la piratería van de la mano con la hambruna y el sufrimiento humano. Y lamentablemente, seguirá siendo la realidad en regiones inestables en el futuro.
 
Los líderes y soldados de los países de la OTAN –y otros amigos y aliados– demuestran este hecho por medio de la habilidad y valentía que han mostrado en Afganistán. Pero en muchos países, hay una brecha entre los esfuerzos de los militares y la opinión ambivalente del público en general. Comprendo por qué la guerra no es popular. Pero también sé lo siguiente: la convicción de que la paz es deseable rara vez es suficiente para lograrla. La paz requiere responsabilidad. La paz conlleva sacrificio. Es por eso que la OTAN continúa siendo indispensable. Es por eso que debemos reforzar esfuerzos de mantenimiento de la paz a nivel regional y por la ONU, y no dejar la tarea en manos de unos cuantos países. Es por eso que les rendimos homenaje a quienes regresan a casa de misiones de mantenimiento de la paz y entrenamiento en el extranjero, en Oslo y Roma; Ottawa y Sydney; Dhaka y Kigali; los homenajeamos no como artífices de guerra sino como promotores, como promotores de la paz.
 
Permítanme un punto final sobre el uso de la fuerza. Incluso mientras tomamos decisiones difíciles sobre ir a guerra, también debemos pensar claramente sobre cómo librarla. El Comité del Nóbel reconoció este hecho al otorgar su primer premio de paz a Henry Dunant, el fundador de la Cruz Roja, y un promotor del Tratado de Ginebra.
 
Cuando la fuerza es necesaria, tenemos un interés moral y estratégico en obligarnos a cumplir con ciertas normas de conducta. Incluso cuando enfrentamos crueles adversarios que no cumplen con ninguna regla, creo que Estados Unidos de Norteamérica debe seguir dando el ejemplo respecto a estándares en conducta de guerra. Eso es lo que nos diferencia de quienes combatimos. Ésa es la fuente de nuestra fuerza. Es por eso que prohibí la tortura. Es por eso que ordené que se clausure la prisión en la Bahía de Guantánamo. Y es por eso que he reiterado el compromiso de Estados Unidos de cumplir con el Tratado de Ginebra. Perdemos nuestra identidad cuando no cumplimos los ideales mismos que estamos luchando por defender. (Aplausos.) Y honramos – honramos dichos ideales al cumplir con ellos no sólo cuando es fácil, sino cuando es difícil.
 
He hablado extensamente sobre asuntos que debemos sopesar con la razón y el corazón cuando optamos por librar guerra. Pero permítanme pasar ahora a nuestro esfuerzo por evitar opciones tan trágicas y hablar sobre tres maneras en que podemos promover una paz justa y duradera.
 
En primer lugar, al tratar con aquellos países que trasgreden normas y leyes, creo que debemos desarrollar alternativas a la violencia que son suficientemente firmes como para cambiar la conducta, pues si queremos una paz duradera, entonces las palabras de la comunidad internacional deben tener peso. Se debe hacer que aquellos regímenes que van en contra de las normas rindan cuentas por sus actos. Las sanciones deben conllevar un escarmiento real. La intransigencia debe combatirse con mayor presión, y esa presión existe sólo cuando el mundo actúa al unísono.
 
Un ejemplo urgente es el esfuerzo por evitar la proliferación de armas nucleares y lograr un mundo sin ellas. A mediados del siglo pasado, las naciones acordaron regirse por un tratado con un objetivo claro: todos tendrán acceso a la energía nuclear pacífica; quienes no tienen armas nucleares deben renunciar a ellas, y quienes tienen armas nucleares deben procurar el desarme. Me he comprometido a plasmar este tratado. Es el eje de mi política exterior. Y estoy trabajando con el Presidente Medvedev para reducir las reservas de armas nucleares de Estados Unidos y Rusia.
 
Pero también nos incumbe a todos insistir en que países como Irán y Corea del Norte no jueguen con el sistema. Quienes afirman respetar las leyes internacionales no deben hacer caso omiso de cuando se incumplen dichas leyes. Quienes se interesan por su propia seguridad no pueden cerrar los ojos ante el peligro de una carrera armamentista en el Oriente Medio o el Extremo Oriente. Quienes procuran la paz no pueden permanecer cruzados de brazos mientras los países se arman para una guerra nuclear.
 
El mismo principio se aplica a quienes incumplen con las leyes internacionales al tratar brutalmente a su propio pueblo. Cuando hay genocidio en Darfur; violaciones sistemáticas en el Congo, o represión en Birmania, deben haber consecuencias. Sí, habrá acercamiento; sí, habrá diplomacia – pero tienen que haber consecuencias cuando esas cosas fallen. Y mientras más unidos estemos, menores las probabilidades de que nos veamos forzados a escoger entre la intervención armada y la complicidad con la opresión.
 
Esto me lleva al segundo punto: el tipo de paz que buscamos. Pues la paz no es simplemente la ausencia de un conflicto visible. Solamente una paz justa y basada en los derechos inherentes y la dignidad de todas las personas realmente puede ser perdurable.
 
Fue este entendimiento lo que motivó a quienes redactaron la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Tras la devastación, reconocieron que si no se protegen los derechos humanos, la paz es una promesa vana.
 
Sin embargo, con demasiada frecuencia, se ignoran estas palabras. En algunos países, la excusa para no defender los derechos humanos es la falsa sugerencia de que éstos son principios occidentales, extraños a culturas locales o etapas de desarrollo de una nación. Y dentro de Estados Unidos, desde hace tiempo existe tensión entre quienes se describen como realistas o idealistas, una tensión que polariza las opciones: una mera lucha en defensa de nuestros intereses o una campaña interminable por imponer nuestros valores alrededor del mundo.
 
Rechazo estas opciones. Creo que la paz es inestable cuando se les niega a los ciudadanos el derecho a hablar libremente o practicar su religión como deseen; escoger a sus propios líderes o congregarse sin temor. Los agravios que no se ventilan empeoran, y la supresión de identidad tribal y religiosa puede llevar a la violencia. También sabemos que lo opuesto es cierto. Sólo cuando Europa obtuvo la libertad pudo finalmente encontrar la paz. Estados Unidos nunca ha librado una guerra contra una democracia, y nuestros amigos más cercanos son los gobiernos que protegen los derechos de sus ciudadanos. Independientemente de la frialdad con que se definan, no se satisfacen los intereses de Estados Unidos ni del mundo con la negación de las aspiraciones humanas.
 
Entonces, incluso mientras respetamos las culturas y tradiciones particulares de diferentes países, Estados Unidos siempre será una voz para las aspiraciones universales. Daremos testimonio de la silenciosa dignidad de reformistas como Aung Sang Suu Kyi; de la valentía de los zimbabuenses que emitieron sus votos a pesar de golpizas; de los cientos de miles que han marchado silenciosamente por las calles de Irán. Dice mucho el que los líderes de estos gobiernos les teman a las aspiraciones de sus propios pobladores más que al poder de cualquier otra nación. Y es la responsabilidad de todas las personas libres y los países libres dejarles en claro a estos movimientos que la esperanza y la historia están de su lado.

Permítanme decir esto también: la promoción de los derechos humanos no puede limitarse a la exhortación. A veces, debe ir acompañada de laboriosa diplomacia. Sé que el trato con regímenes represivos carece de la grata pureza de la indignación. Pero también sé que las sanciones sin esfuerzos de alcance –y la condena sin discusión– pueden mantener un status quo agobiante. Ningún régimen represivo puede ir por un nuevo sendero a no ser que tenga la opción de una puerta abierta.
 
En vista de los horrores de la Revolución Cultural, la reunión de Nixon con Mao parecía inexcusable, pero no hay duda de que ayudó a llevar a China por un camino en el cual millones de sus ciudadanos han podido salir de la pobreza y conectarse con sociedades abiertas. Los lazos del Papa Juan Pablo con Polonia creó un espacio no sólo para la Iglesia Católica sino también para líderes sindicales como Lech Walesa. Los esfuerzos de Ronald Reagan por el control de armas y la aceptación de la perestroika no sólo mejoraron las relaciones con la Unión Soviética sino que les otorgó poder a disidentes en toda Europa Oriental. No existe una fórmula simple. Pero debemos tratar de hacer lo posible por mantener el equilibrio entre el ostracismo y la negociación; la presión y los incentivos, de manera que se promuevan los derechos humanos y la dignidad con el transcurso del tiempo.
 
En tercer lugar, una paz justa incluye no sólo derechos civiles y políticos, sino que debe abarcar la seguridad económica y las oportunidades, pues la paz verdadera no es solamente la falta de temor, sino también la falta de privaciones.
 
No hay duda de que el desarrollo rara vez echa raíces sin seguridad; también es cierto que la seguridad no existe cuando los seres humanos no tienen acceso a suficiente alimento, el agua potable o los medicamentos que necesitan para sobrevivir. No existe cuando los niños no pueden aspirar a una buena educación o un empleo decente que mantenga a una familia. La falta de esperanza puede corromper a una sociedad desde su interior.
 
Y es por eso que ayudar a los agricultores a alimentar a su propia gente, o a los países a educar a sus niños y a cuidar a los enfermos no es simplemente caridad. También es el motivo por el cual el mundo debe unirse para hacerle frente al cambio climático. Hay pocos científicos que no estén de acuerdo en que si no hacemos algo, enfrentaremos más sequías, hambruna y desplazamientos masivos que alimentarán más conflictos durante décadas. Por este motivo, no son sólo los científicos y activistas los que proponen medidas prontas y enérgicas; también lo hacen los líderes militares de mi país y otros que comprenden que nuestra seguridad común está en juego.
 
Acuerdos entre naciones. Instituciones sólidas. Apoyo a los derechos humanos. Inversiones en desarrollo. Todos éstos son ingredientes vitales para propiciar la evolución de la cual habló el Presidente Kennedy. Sin embargo, no creo que tendremos la voluntad, la determinación o la resistencia para concluir esta labor sin algo más: esto es, la expansión continua de nuestra imaginación moral; una insistencia en que hay algo intrínseco que todos compartimos.
 
Al reducirse el mundo, uno pensaría que iba a ser más fácil que los seres humanos reconozcamos lo similares que somos; que comprendamos que todos nosotros queremos básicamente lo mismo; que todos anhelamos la oportunidad de vivir con cierto grado de felicidad y satisfacción para nosotros y nuestra familia.
 
Sin embargo, dado el vertiginoso ritmo de la globalización y la homogenización cultural promovida por la modernidad, no debería sorprendernos que la gente tema perder lo que aprecia de su identidad particular: su raza, su tribu y quizá más que nada, su religión. En algunos lugares, este temor ha producido conflictos. A veces, incluso parecemos estar retrocediendo. Lo vemos en el Oriente Medio, donde el conflicto entre árabes y judíos parece estar agravándose. Lo vemos en los países donde las divisiones tribales causan estragos.
 
Y más peligroso aun, lo vemos en la manera en que se usa la religión para justificar el asesinato de inocentes por personas que han distorsionado y profanado la gran religión del Islam, y que atacaron a mi país desde Afganistán. Estos extremistas no son los primeros en matar en nombre de Dios; hay amplia constancia de las atrocidades de las Cruzadas. Pero nos recuerdan que ninguna Guerra Santa puede ser jamás una guerra justa, pues si uno realmente cree que cumple con la voluntad divina, entonces no hay necesidad de templanza, no hay necesidad de perdonarle la vida a una madre embarazada o a un asistente médico, o trabajador de la Cruz Roja, ni siquiera a una persona de la misma religión. Una perspectiva tan distorsionada de la religión no sólo es incompatible con el concepto de la paz, sino también creo que es incompatible con el propósito de la fe, pues la regla de vital importancia en todas las principales religiones es tratar a los demás como te gustaría que te traten a ti.
 
Cumplir con esta ley de amor siempre ha sido el foco en la lucha de la naturaleza humana. No somos infalibles. Cometemos errores y caemos presa de las tentaciones del orgullo y el poder, y a veces la maldad. Incluso aquellos de nosotros con las mejores intenciones a veces dejamos de rectificar los errores ante nosotros.
 
Pero no tenemos que pensar que la naturaleza humana es perfecta para continuar creyendo que se puede perfeccionar la condición humana. No tenemos que vivir en un mundo idealizado para seguir aspirando a los ideales que lo harían un lugar mejor. La no violencia que practicaban hombres como Gandhi y King quizá no sea práctica o posible en todas las circunstancias, pero el amor que predicaron, su fe en el progreso humano, siempre debe ser la estrella que nos guíe en nuestra travesía.
 
Pues si perdemos esa fe, si la descartamos como tonta o ingenua, si existe un divorcio entre ésta y las decisiones que tomamos sobre asuntos de guerra y paz… entonces perdemos lo mejor de nuestra humanidad. Perdemos nuestro sentido de lo que se puede lograr. Perdemos nuestro compás moral.
 
Al igual que las generaciones anteriores a la nuestra, debemos rechazar ese futuro. Como dijo el Dr. King en una ceremonia similar hace tantos años, “Me rehúso a aceptar la desesperanza como la respuesta final a la ambigüedad de la historia. Me rehúso a aceptar la idea de que la realidad actual de la naturaleza humana haga que el hombre sea moralmente incapaz de alcanzar las aspiraciones eternas que siempre enfrenta”.
 
Aspiremos al mundo que debería existir: esa chispa de divinidad que aún llevamos  como inspiración en el alma. (Aplausos.)

Hoy en algún lugar, en estos precisos momentos, en el mundo como lo es, un soldado ve que alguien lo sobrepasa en potencia de fuego pero permanece firme para mantener la paz. Hoy en algún lugar de este mundo, una joven manifestante aguarda la brutalidad de su gobierno, pero tiene la valentía de seguir marchando. Hoy en algún lugar, una madre enfrenta una pobreza devastadora pero de todos modos se da tiempo para enseñarle a su hijo, junta las pocas monedas que tiene para enviar a ese niño a la escuela porque cree que un mundo cruel todavía puede dar cabida a sus sueños.
 
Vivamos siguiendo su ejemplo. Podemos reconocer que la opresión siempre estará entre nosotros y aun así, esforzarnos por lograr la justicia. Podemos admitir la inflexibilidad de la depravación y aun así, esforzarnos por lograr la dignidad. De ojos abiertos, podemos comprender que habrá guerras y aun así, esforzarnos por lograr la paz. Podemos hacerlo, pues ésa es la historia del progreso humano; ésa es la esperanza de todo el mundo, y en este momento de desafíos, ésa debe ser nuestra labor aquí en la Tierra.

Muchas gracias. (Aplausos.)

FIN       2:20 P.M. CET

###
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President on Community Health Centers

South Court Auditorium

12:39 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I am pleased that you could all join us today as we announce three new initiatives to help our community health centers provide better care to people in need all across America.  (Applause.)

I want to thank our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius; our Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin; our Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, Dr. Mary Wakefield; and our Deputy Secretary of HHS, Bill Corr, for being here today and for their outstanding work to support community health centers.  There they are.  (Applause.)  By the way, Regina, it's good to see you in your uniform.  (Laughter.)  We had been waiting for that.

I also want to thank the many members of Congress who are with us today both in the audience and up on the stage, particularly Bernie Sanders and Representative Jim Clyburn.  We are grateful for all that you've done.  (Applause.)  

And I especially want to recognize the leaders here today from health centers across the country for what all of you are doing in your communities every day –- working long hours to provide quality care at prices that people can afford, with the dignity and respect they deserve, and in a way that takes into account the challenges that they face in their lives.

For you folks, health care isn't just about diagnosing patients and treating illness –- it's about caring for people and promoting wellness.  It's about emphasizing education and prevention, and helping people lead healthier lives so they don't get sick in the first place.   

And it works.  Studies show that people living near a health center are less likely to go to the emergency room and less likely to have unmet critical medical needs.  CHCs are proven to reduce ethnic and racial disparities in care.  And the medical expenses of regular CHC patients are nearly 25 percent lower than those folks who get their care elsewhere -- 25 percent lower.   

So you can see why, in a speech marking the first anniversary of the first community health centers in America, Senator Ted Kennedy declared, "You have not only assured the best in health care for your families and neighbors, but you've also begun a minor revolution in American medicine."

Now, unfortunately, today, nearly 45 years later, that care has yet to reach many of the folks in this country who need it most.  Today, millions of Americans still have difficulty accessing primary health care, and many of them are uninsured.  Many have insurance, but live in underserved areas, whether in urban or rural communities.  So they don't get regular checkups, they don't get routine screenings.  When they get sick or hurt, they tough it out and hope for the best, and when things get bad enough they head to the emergency room.   

So we end up treating complications, crises and chronic conditions that could have been prevented in the first place.  And the cost is measured not just in dollars spent on health care, or in lost workplace absences and lower productivity, but in the kind of raw human suffering that has no place in the United States of America in the year 2009.

No matter what party we belong to, or where on the political spectrum we fall, none of us thinks this is acceptable.  None of us would defend this system.  And that's why we've taken up the cause of health insurance reform this year.  It's why many of the folks in this room fought so hard to ensure that the Recovery Act included unprecedented investments –- a total of $2 billion –- to upgrade and expand our health centers –- investments that embody the act's core mission:  to help folks hardest hit by this recession, to put people back to work, and to leave a legacy of improvements that will continue to lift up communities for generations to come. 

Today, we're well on our way to meeting these goals.  We've created or saved up to 1.6 million jobs, according to the CBO -- the Congressional Budget Office -- through the Recovery Act.  Our economy is growing again.  We're doubling our capacity in renewable energy and rebuilding schools and laboratories, railways, and highways.  Yesterday, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued a new report showing the Recovery Act has helped many states keep and improve access to health insurance for families in need.

And so far, we've allocated nearly $1.4 billion to health centers across America so they can get to work building and renovating and hiring new staff this year.  And today, I'm pleased to announce that we're awarding more than $500 million to 85 centers in more than 30 states and Puerto Rico that are providing critical care for so many folks with nowhere else to turn.  (Applause.) 

We're investing in places like Canyonlands Community Health Care in Arizona, that has one facility operating in a building originally constructed as a chicken coop and another in a cramped fire station.  We're investing in places like Avis Goodwin Community Health center in Dover, New Hampshire, that's become so overcrowded -- you must be from there.  (Laughter.)  It's become so overcrowded the doctors are using bathrooms and closets as offices.  We're investing in Bucksport Regional Health Center in Maine, where doctors are double-booked and the waiting rooms are often standing room only.  We're giving places like these the funding they need to upgrade and expand their facilities so they can meet the skyrocketing demand for services that's come with this economic downturn. 

But we won't just want our health centers to provide more care for more patients; we want them to provide better care as well.  So starting today, we're making $88 million in funding available for centers to adopt new health information technology systems to manage their administrative and financial matters and transfer old paper files to electronic medical records.  (Applause.)  These investments won't just increase efficiency and lower costs, they'll improve the quality of care as well –- preventing countless medical errors, and allowing providers to spend less time with paperwork and more time with patients. 

That's the purpose of the final initiative I'm announcing today as well -– a demonstration project to evaluate the benefits of the "medical home" model of care that many of our health centers aspire to.  The idea here is very simple:  that in order for care to be effective, it needs to be coordinated.  It's a model where the center that serves as your medical home might help you keep track of your prescriptions, or get the referrals you need, or work with you to develop a plan of care that ensures your providers are working together to keep you healthy.  

So taken together, these three initiatives –- funding for construction, technology, and a medical home demonstration –- they won't just save money over the long term and create more jobs, they're also going to give more people the peace of mind of knowing that health care will be there for them and their families when they need it. 

And ultimately, that's what health insurance reform is really about.  That's what the members of Congress here today will be voting on in the coming weeks.  (Applause.)  

Now, let me just end by saying a little bit about this broader effort.  I know it's been a long road.  (Laughter.)  I know it's been a tough fight.  But I also know the reason we've taken up this cause is the very same reason why so many members from both parties are here today –- because no matter what our politics are, we know that when it comes to health care, the people we serve deserve better. 

The legislation in Congress today contains both Democratic ideas and Republican ideas, and plenty of compromises in between.  The Senate made critical progress last night with a creative new framework that I believe will help pave the way for final passage and a historic achievement on behalf of the American people.  I support this effort, especially since it's aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost.  So I want to thank all of you for sticking with it, for all those late nights, all the long weekends that you guys have put in.  With so much at stake, this is well worth all of our efforts.

It is now my pleasure to sign the memo that will direct Secretary Sebelius to get started on that medical home demonstration.  So let's do that.  (Applause.)

END
12:48 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President on Job Creation and Economic Growth

The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

11:23 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Strobe, for your extraordinary leadership here at Brookings, and thanks to all of you in attendance. 

Almost exactly one year ago, on a frigid winter's day, I met with my new economic team at the headquarters of my presidential transition offices in Chicago.  And over the course of four hours, my advisors presented an analysis of where the economy at that time stood, accompanied by a chilling set of charts and graphs, predicting where we might end up.  It was an unforgettable series of presentations.

Christy Romer -- who's here today -- tapped to head the Council of Economic Advisers, as well as Larry Summers, who I'd chosen to head the National Economic Council, described an imminent downturn comparable in its severity to almost nothing since the 1930s.  Tim Geithner, my incoming Treasury Secretary, reported that the financial system, shaken by the subprime crisis, had halted almost all lending, which in turn threatened to pull the broader economy in a downward spiral.  Peter Orszag, my incoming Budget Director, closed out the proceedings with an entirely dismal report on the fiscal health of the country, with growing deficits and debt stretching to the horizon.  Having concluded that it was too late for me to request a recount -- (laughter) -- I tasked my team with mapping out a plan to tackle the crisis on all fronts. 

It wasn't long after that meeting, as we shaped this economic plan, that we began to see some of these forecasts materialize.  Over the previous year, it was obvious that folks were facing hard times.  As I traveled across the country during the long campaign, I would meet men and women bearing the brunt of not only a deepening recession, but also years -- even decades -- of growing strains on middle class families.  But now the country was experiencing something far worse.  Our gross domestic product -- the sum total of all that our economy produces  -- fell at the fastest rate in a quarter century.  Five trillion dollars of Americans' household wealth evaporated in just 12 weeks as stocks, pensions, and home values plummeted.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs each month, equivalent to the population of the state of Vermont.  That was true in December, January, February, March.  The fear among economists across the political spectrum that was -- was that we were rapidly plummeting towards a second Great Depression.

So, in the weeks and months that followed, we undertook a series of difficult steps to prevent that outcome.  And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party, which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that had led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve.

We acted to get lending flowing again so businesses could get loans to buy equipment, and ordinary Americans could get financing to buy homes and cars, to go to college, and to start or run businesses.  We enacted measures to stem the tide of foreclosures in our housing market, helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes and helping to stop the broader decline in home values which was eating away at what tends to be a family's largest asset. 

To achieve this, and to prevent economic collapse, we were forced to extend assistance to some of the very banks and financial institutions whose actions had helped precipitate the turmoil.  We also took steps to prevent the rapid dissolution of the American auto industry -- which faced a crisis partly of its own making -- to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs during an already fragile, shaky time.  These were not decisions that were popular or satisfying; these were decisions that were necessary.

Now, even as we worked to address the crises in our banking sector, in our housing market, and in our auto industry, we also began attacking our economic crisis on a broader front.  Less than one month after taking office we enacted the most sweeping economic recovery package in history:  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The Recovery Act was divided into three parts.  One-third went for tax relief for small businesses and 95 percent of working families.  Another third was for emergency relief to help folks who've borne the brunt of this recession.  We extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 17 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families relying on COBRA. And for state and local governments facing historic budget shortfalls as demand for services went up and revenues went down, we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers and public school workers, firefighters and police officers.

The last third of the Recovery Act is for investments to put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done:  doubling our capacity in renewable energy like wind and solar; computerizing medical records to save money and lives; providing the largest boost to medical research in history; renovating classrooms and school laboratories; and upgrading roads and railways as part of the largest investment in infrastructure since the creation of the Interstate Highway System half a century ago.

And even as the Recovery Act has created jobs and spurred growth, we have not let up in our efforts to take every responsible action to get the economy growing and America working. 

This fall, I signed into law more than $30 billion in tax cuts for struggling businesses, extended an effective tax credit for homebuyers, and provided additional unemployment insurance for one million Americans.  And the Treasury is continuing to adapt our financial stability plan, helping to facilitate the flow of small credit to small businesses and families.  In addition, we're working to break down barriers and open overseas markets so our companies can better compete globally, creating jobs in America by exporting our products around the world.

Now, partly as a result of these and other steps, we are in a very different place today than we were one year ago.  We may forget, but we're in a very different place.  We can safely say that we are no longer facing the potential collapse of our financial system and we've avoided the depression many feared.  Our economy is growing for the first time in a year, and the swing from contraction to expansion since the beginning of the year is the largest in nearly three decades. 

Finally, we're no longer seeing the severe deterioration in the job market that we once were.  In fact we learned on Friday that the unemployment rate fell slightly last month.  This is welcome news, and news made possible in part by the up to 1.6 million jobs that the Recovery Act has already created and saved according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But I'm here today because our work is far from done.  For even though we've reduced the deluge of job losses to a relative trickle, we are not yet creating jobs at a pace to help all those families who've been swept up in the flood.  There are more than 7 million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began.  That's a staggering figure, and one that reflects not only the depths of the hole from which we must ascend, but also a continuing human tragedy. 

It was mentioned that I was in Allentown, Pennsylvania, this past weekend, and went to a job center where people were engaged in job search.  And it ran the spectrum -- blacks, whites, Hispanics, young people who were just starting their careers, individuals 50, 60 years old, looking for a job.  And they were putting a brave face on it, confident that eventually things would work out, but you could also see the sense of anxiety, the fear that perhaps this time it was different.  Sometimes it's hard to break out of the bubble here in Washington and remind ourselves that behind these statistics are people's lives, their capacity to do right by their families.  It speaks to an urgent need to accelerate job growth in the short term while laying a new foundation for lasting economic growth.

My economic team has been considering a full range of additional ideas to help accelerate the pace of private sector hiring.  We held a jobs forum at the White House that brought together small business owners, CEOs, union members, economists, folks from non-profits, and state and local officials to talk about job creation.  And I've asked people to lead forums in their own communities -- sending the results to me -- so we are hearing as many voices as possible as we refine our proposals.  We've already heard a number of good ideas, and I know we'll learn of many more.

So today, I want to outline some of the broader steps that I believe should be at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth -- those areas that will generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.

First, we're proposing a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new staff.  Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created roughly 65 percent of all new jobs in America.  These are companies formed around kitchen tables in family meetings, formed when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, formed when a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.  These are also companies that drive innovation, producing 13 times more patents per employee than large companies.  And it's worth remembering, every once in a while a small business becomes a big business -- and changes the world.

That's why it's so important that we help small business struggling to stay open, or struggling to open in the first place, during these difficult times.  Building on the tax cuts in the Recovery Act, we're proposing a complete elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment along with an extension of write-offs to encourage small businesses to expand in the coming year.  And I believe it's worthwhile to create a tax incentive to encourage small businesses to add and keep employees, and I'm going to work with Congress to pass one.

Now, these steps will help, but we also have to address the continuing struggle of small businesses to get loans that they need to start up and grow.  To that end, we're proposing to waive fees and increase the guarantees for SBA-backed loans.  And I'm asking my Treasury Secretary to continue mobilizing the remaining TARP funds to facilitate lending to small businesses.

Second, we're proposing a boost in investment in the nation's infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks.  These are needed public works that engage private sector companies, spurring hiring all across the country. 

Already, more than 10,000 of these projects have been funded through the Recovery Act.  And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead.  It was planned this way for two reasons:  so the impact would be felt over a two-year period; and, more importantly, because we wanted to do this right. 

The potential for abuse in a program of this magnitude, while operating at such a fast pace, was enormous.  So I asked Vice President Biden and others to make sure to the extent humanly possible that the investments were sound, the projects worthy, and the execution efficient.  What this means is that we're going to see even more work -- and workers -- on recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months.

Even so, there are many more worthy projects than there were dollars to fund them.  I recognize that by their nature these projects often take time, and will therefore create jobs over time.  But the need for jobs will also last beyond next year and the benefits of these investments will last years beyond that.  So adding to this initiative to rebuild America's infrastructure is the right thing to do. 

Third, I'm calling on Congress to consider a new program to provide incentives for consumers who retrofit their homes to become more energy-efficient, which we know creates jobs, saves money for families, and reduces the pollution that threatens our environment.  And I'm proposing that we expand select Recovery Act initiatives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy jobs which have been proven to be particularly popular and effective. 

It's a positive sign that many of these programs drew so many applicants for funding that a lot of strong proposals -- proposals that will leverage private capital and create jobs quickly -- did not make the cut.  With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private sector jobs.

Finally, as we are moving forward in these areas, we should also extend the relief in the Recovery Act, including emergency assistance to seniors, unemployment insurance benefits, COBRA, and relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs.  This will help folks weathering these storms, while boosting consumer spending and promoting job growth.

Of course, there's only so much government can do. Job creation will ultimately depend on the real job creators:  businesses across America.  We were encouraged today to hear from the Business Roundtable that their survey showed greater confidence and greater potential investment coming out of the business community. 

Government can help lay the groundwork on which the private sector can better generate jobs, growth, and innovation.  After all, small business tax relief is not a substitute for ingenuity and industriousness by our entrepreneurs -- but it can help those with good ideas to grow and expand.  Incentives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy manufacturing don't automatically create jobs or lower carbon emissions -- but these steps provide a framework in which companies can compete and innovate to create those jobs and reduce energy consumption.  And while modernizing the physical and virtual networks that connect us will create private-sector jobs, they'll do so while making it possible for companies to more easily and effectively move their products across this country and around the world, and that will create more jobs.

And given the challenges of accelerating the pace of hiring in the private sector, these targeted initiatives are right and they are needed.  But with a fiscal crisis to match our economic crisis, we also must be prudent about how we fund it.  So to help support these efforts, we are going to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- or TARP -- the fund created to stabilize the financial system so banks would lend again.

I don't think I have to tell you there has rarely been a less loved or more necessary emergency program than TARP, which -- as galling as the assistance to banks may have been -- indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system.  Launched hastily -- understandably, but hastily -- under the last administration, the TARP program was flawed, and we have worked hard to correct those flaws and manage it properly.  And today, TARP has served its original purpose and at much lower cost than we expected.

In fact, because of our stewardship of this program, and the transparency and accountability we put in place, TARP is expected to cost the taxpayers at least $200 billion less than what was anticipated just this past summer.  And the assistance to banks, once thought to cost taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profits for the taxpaying public.  So this gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.

Small business, infrastructure, clean energy -- these are areas in which we can put Americans to work while putting our nation on a sturdier economic footing.  That foundation for sustained economic growth -- that must be our continuing focus and our ultimate goal. 

I've said this before.  Even before this particular crisis, much of our growth for a decade or more had been fueled by unsustainable consumer debt and reckless financial speculation, while we ignored the fundamental challenges that hold the key to our economic prosperity.  We cannot simply go back to the way things used to be.  We can't go back to an economy that yielded cycle after cycle of speculative booms and painful busts.  We can't continue to accept an education system in which our students trail their peers in other countries, and a health care system in which exploding costs put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage.  And we cannot continue to ignore the clean energy challenge or cede global leadership in the emerging industries of the 21st century.  And that's why, even as we strive to meet the crisis of the moment, we have insisted on laying a new foundation for the future.

Because an educated workforce is essential to a 21st century global economy, we've launched a competitive Race to the Top fund through the Recovery Act to reform our schools and raise achievement, especially in math and science.  And we've made college more affordable, proposed a historic set of reforms and investments in community college, and set a goal of once again leading the world in producing college graduates by the year 2020.

Because even the best-trained worker in the world can't compete if our businesses are saddled with rapidly increasing health care costs, we are fighting to do what we have discussed in this country for generations -- finally reforming our nation's broken health insurance system and relieving this unsustainable burden.

Because our economic future depends on a financial system that encourages sound investments, honest dealings, and long-term growth, we've proposed the most ambitious financial reforms since the Great Depression.  We'll set and enforce clear rules of the road, close loopholes in oversight, charge a new agency with protecting consumers and address the dangerous, systemic risks that brought us to the brink of disaster.  These reforms are moving through Congress, we're working to keep those reforms strong, and I'm looking forward to signing them into law.

And because our economic future depends on our leadership in the industries of the future, we are investing in basic applied research, and working to create the incentives to build a new clean energy economy.  For we know the nation that leads in clean energy will be the nation that leads the world.  I want America to be that nation.  I want America's prosperity to be powered by what we invent and pioneer -- not just what we borrow and what we consume.  And I know that we can and will be that nation if we are willing to do what it takes to get there.

Now, there are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other.  This is a false choice.  Ensuring that economic growth and job creation are strong and sustained is critical to ensuring that we are increasing revenues and decreasing spending on things like unemployment insurance so that our deficits will start coming down.  At the same time, instilling confidence in our commitment to being fiscally prudent gives the private sector the confidence to make long-term investments in our people and in America.

So one of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility.  Even as we have had to spend our way out of this recession in the near term, we've begun to make the hard choices necessary to get our country on a more stable fiscal footing in the long run.  So let me just be clear here.  Despite what some have claimed, the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance.  In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years.  We have a structural gap between the money going out and the money coming in. 

Folks passed tax cuts and expansive entitlement programs without paying for any of it -- even as health care costs kept rising, year after year.  As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House.  And I'd note:  These budget-busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility, while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control.  It's a sight to see.

The fact is we have refused to go along with business as usual; we are taking responsibility for every dollar we spend.  We've done what some said was impossible:  preventing wasteful spending on outdated weapons systems that even the Pentagon said it didn't want.  We've combed the budget, cutting waste and excess wherever we could.  I'm still committed to halving the deficit we inherited by the end of my first term -- cutting it in half.  And I made clear from day one that I would not sign a health insurance reform bill if it raised the deficit by one dime -- and neither the House, nor the Senate bill does.  We've begun not only changing policies in Washington, we've also begun to change the culture in Washington.

In the end, the economic crisis of the past year was not just the result of weaknesses in our economy.  It was also the result of weaknesses in our political system, because for decades, too many in Washington put off the hard decisions.  For decades, we've watched as efforts to solve tough problems have fallen prey to the bitterness of partisanship, to prosaic concerns of politics, to ever-quickening news cycles, to endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges.

We've seen the consequences of this failure of responsibility.  The American people have paid a heavy price.  And the question we'll have to answer now is if we're going to learn from our past, or if -- even in the aftermath of disaster -- we're going to repeat those same mistakes.  As the alarm bells fade, the din of Washington rises, as the forces of the status quo marshal their resources, we can be sure that answering this question will be a fight to the finish.  But I have every hope and expectation that we can rise to this moment, that we can transcend the failures of the past, that we can once again take responsibility for our future.

Every night I read letters and e-mails sent to me from people across America -- ordinary folks, people who share their hopes and their hardships, their faith in this country, their frustration with what's happened in this economy.  I hear from small business owners worried about making payroll, keeping their doors open.  I hear from mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, who've seen one or two or more family members out of work.  The toughest letters are in children's handwriting -- kids write to me, my dad just lost a job; my grandma is sick, she can't afford health insurance -- kids who can't just be kids because they're worried about mom having her hours cut or dad losing a job, or a family without health insurance. 

These folks aren't looking for a handout, they're not looking for a bailout -- just like those people I visited in Allentown -- all they're looking for is a chance to make their own way, to work, to succeed using their talents and skills.  And they're looking for folks in Washington to have a seriousness of purpose that matches the reality of their struggle.

Everywhere I've gone, every stop I've made, there are people like this, men and women who have faced misfortune, but who stand ready to build a better future:  students ready to learn, workers eager to work, scientists on the brink of discovery, entrepreneurs seeking the chance to open a small business.  Everywhere I go, there are once-shuttered factories just waiting to whir back to life in burgeoning industries.  There is a nation ready to meet the challenges of this new age and to lead the world in this new century.  And as we look back on the progress of the past year, and look forward to the work ahead, I have every confidence that we will do exactly that.

These have been a tough two years.  And there will no doubt be difficult months ahead.  But the storms of the past are receding.  The skies are brightening.  And the horizon is beckoning once more.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
11:51 A.M. EST