THE WASHINGTON REVIEW & COMMENTARY: Weekly News From The White House

Vice President Joe Biden - December 3, 2009

NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Why the Senate Should Vote Yes on Health Care

By JOE BIDEN

Published: December 20, 2009 Washington

IF I were still a United States senator, I would not only vote yes on the current health care reform bill, I would do so with the sure knowledge that I was casting one of the most historic votes of my 36 years in the Senate. I would vote yes knowing that the bill represents the culmination of a struggle begun by Theodore Roosevelt nearly a century ago to make health care reform a reality. And while it does not contain every measure President Obama and I wanted, I would vote yes for this bill certain that it includes the fundamental, essential change that opponents of reform have resisted for generations.We have been here before.

In the past, as the moment of decision drew nearer, criticism from both the left and the right grew louder. Compromises were derided. The perfect became the enemy of the good.  Most recently, in 1993, Democrats had a chance to forge a compromise with Senator John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, on a health care reform bill. Congress’s failure to pass health care reform that year led to 16 years of inaction – and 16 years of exploding health care costs and rising numbers of uninsured Americans.We can’t let that happen again.

While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough – it is very good. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when people get sick. Charging exorbitant premiums based on sex, age or health status will be outlawed. Annual and lifetime caps on benefits will be history. Those who already have insurance will be able to keep it, and will gain peace of mind knowing they won’t be priced out of the market by skyrocketing premiums. And more than 30 million uninsured Americans will gain access to affordable health care coverage.

That is not all. President Obama and I know we have to put our fiscal house in order. This is why those who claim they oppose reform because they fear for our country’s fiscal stability should finally acknowledge what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office makes crystal clear: not only is the Senate bill paid for, it is this country’s single largest deficit-reduction measure in a dozen years. I share the frustration of other progressives that the Senate bill does not include a public option. But I’ve been around a long time, and I know that in Washington big changes never emerge in perfect form.

Those in our own party who would scuttle this bill because of what it doesn’t do seem not to appreciate the magnitude of what it has the potential to accomplish. Howard Dean was head of the Democratic Party. I respect his leadership on health care, and I understand his criticism of the bill. But it is worth noting that on some of the key health reform issues – like ensuring that Americans have access to stable, affordable coverage, and doing away with abusive practices by insurance companies – the reforms in the Senate bill would do even more than Vermont, the state he governed, has done. And they would do it for the entire country. What’s more, this bill would expand both choice and competition in an insurance market that, for many Americans, has offered far too little of either.

The issues in the health reform bill are complicated, but the consequences of failing to pass it are straightforward. Those who would vote no on this bill need to look into the eyes of Americans who don’t have health care now and tell them they’re going to be better off without this bill – better off continuing to live without health coverage. They should explain to all those Americans who are denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions or whose insurance ran out because of lifetime caps that they don’t need this bill. And they should tell the families who have insurance and the small-business owners who provide it that the relentless rise in their premiums without this bill will somehow make them glad it didn’t pass.Is America better off today because a chance at a compromise health bill was missed in 1993?

For my friends on the left, the rising toll of the uninsured provides an emphatic no. For my friends on the right, the soaring share of federal spending on health care likewise provides a no. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

If the bill passes the Senate this week, there will be more chances to make changes to it before it becomes law. But if the bill dies this week, there is no second chance to vote yes. What those who care about health insurance reform need to realize is that unless we get 60 votes now, there will be no health care reform at all. Not this year, not in this Congress – and maybe not for another generation.

###

Joe Biden, a United States senator from Delaware from 1973 to 2009, is the vice president of the United States.

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Says Health Insurance Reform Will Protect Patients and Hold Insurance Companies Accountable
 
WASHINGTON –  In his weekly address, President Obama praised the strong patient protections in the health insurance reform bills in Congress, and called on Senators to stop blocking this critical reform effort.  The legislation contains many of the protections originally proposed in the bipartisan Patient’s Bill of Rights a decade ago, plus additional protections and rights; and it will reduce costs for families, strengthen Medicare, and lower the deficit.
 
The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.
 
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
December 19, 2009
 
Over the past few decades, there has been an intense struggle in Washington between the lobbyists for the insurance industry and the interests of the American people over what has been called a Patient’s Bill of Rights – a set of rules to protect Americans from some of the worst practices of the health insurance industry; rules to ensure that all Americans are getting the care they need from their doctors and the care they deserve from their insurance companies.
 
The last time a Patient’s Bill of Rights was within reach was roughly a decade ago, and it was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, from Ted Kennedy to John McCain. It included the right to an appeals process so you could challenge an unfair decision by an insurance company before a third party. It included the right to choose your own doctor. It included the right to access information about what your health insurance plan means for you. And it called for a new level of transparency so that patients would know if their doctors had a conflict of interest when providing services. 
 
Now, this Patient’s Bill of Rights never made it into law. It fell victim – again and again – to the same special interest lobbying that has blocked passage of health insurance reform for so many decades. But today, we are being given another chance to make it a reality, because each of these rights, and many more, are incorporated in the health insurance reform bill that recently passed the House of Representatives and in the bill that is currently making its way through the Senate.
 
Both the House and Senate bills would make it against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition or illness. Both would stop insurers from charging exorbitant premiums on the basis of age, health, or gender.  Both would prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick. And both would put a limit on how much you have to pay out of pocket for the treatments you need in a year or lifetime.
 
Simply put, the protections currently included in both the health insurance reform bill passed by the House and the version currently on the Senate floor would represent the toughest measures we’ve ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable.  Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills. Just open these proposals at random and you’ll find on almost any page patient protections that dwarf any of those passed by Congress in at least a decade.
 
These protections are just one part of a landmark reform that will finally reduce the cost of health care. When it becomes law, families will save on their premiums. Small businesses and Americans who don’t get any insurance today through their employers will no longer be forced to pay punishingly high rates to get coverage. This legislation will also strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program, while saving senior citizens hundreds of dollars a year in prescription costs. And reforms to target waste, inefficiency, and price-gouging by the insurance industry will help make this the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
 
The insurance industry knows all this. That’s why they’re at it again, using their muscle in Washington to try to block a vote they know they will lose. They’re lobbying. They’re running ads. They’re spending millions of dollars to kill health insurance reform, just like they’ve done so many times before.  They want to preserve a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.
 
But now – for the first time – there is a clear majority in the Senate that’s willing to stand up to the insurance lobby and embrace lasting health insurance reforms that have eluded us for generations. The question is whether the minority that opposes these reforms will continue to use parliamentary maneuvers to try and stop the Senate from voting on them.
 
Whatever their position on health insurance reform, Senators ought to allow an up or down vote. Let’s bring this long and vigorous debate to an end. Let’s deliver on the promise of health insurance reforms that will make our people healthier, our economy stronger, and our future more secure. And as this difficult year comes to a close, let’s show the American people that we are equal to the task of meeting our great challenges.
 
Thanks for listening, and on behalf of Michelle, Malia, Sasha, and Bo, happy holidays, from our family to yours.

President Barack Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
DURING PRESS AVAILABILITY
 
Bella Center
Copenhagen, Denmark
 
10:30 P.M. CET
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me start with a statement and then I’ll take a couple of questions.
 
     Today we’ve made meaningful and unprecedented — made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen.  For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.
 
     Let me first recount what our approach was throughout the year and coming into this conference.  To begin with, we’ve reaffirmed America’s commitment to transform our energy economy at home.  We’ve made historic investments in renewable energy that have already put people back to work.  We’ve raised our fuel efficiency standards.  And we have renewed American leadership in international climate negotiations.
 
     Most importantly, we remain committed to comprehensive legislation that will create millions of new American jobs, power new industry, and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
 
     That effort at home serves as a foundation for our leadership around the world.  Because of the actions we’re taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions.  We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change.  And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way.
 
     These three components — transparency, mitigation and finance — form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen.  Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come.
 
This success would have not been possible without the hard work of many countries and many leaders — and I have to add that because of weather constraints in Washington I am leaving before the final vote, but we feel confident that we are moving in the direction of a significant accord.
 
In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone.
 
Earlier this evening I had a meeting with the last four leaders I mentioned — from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.  And that’s where we agreed to list our national actions and commitments, to provide information on the implementation of these actions through national communications, with international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.  We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and importantly, to take action to meet this objective consistent with science.
 
Taken together these actions will help us begin to meet our responsibilities to leave our children and our grandchildren a cleaner and safer planet.
 
Now, this progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough.  Going forward, we’re going to have to build on the momentum that we’ve established here in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time.  We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.
 
To continue moving forward we must draw on the effort that allowed us to succeed here today — engagement among nations that represent a baseline of mutual interest and mutual respect.  Climate change threatens us all; therefore, we must bridge old divides and build new partnerships to meet this great challenge of our time.  That’s what we’ve begun to do here today.
 
For energy holds out not just the perils of a warming climate, but also the promise of a more peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.  If America leads in developing clean energy, we will lead in growing our economy, in putting our people back to work, and in leaving a stronger and more secure country to our children.
 
And around the world, energy is an issue that demands our leadership.  The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek.  That’s why I came to Copenhagen today, and that’s why I’m committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe.  That’s also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action.
 
     So with that, let me just take a couple of questions, and I’m going to start with Jeff Mason.
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Can you give a little bit more detail about how the transparency issue will work, how countries will show or prove that they’re doing what they say they’ll do on emissions curbs?  And can you speak also more specifically about cutting emissions?  There’s no mention of that in your statement or in what we’ve heard so far, specifically about the agreement.
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, on the second question first, the way this agreement is structured, each nation will be putting concrete commitments into an appendix to the document, and so will lay out very specifically what each country’s intentions are.
 
     Those commitments will then be subject to a international consultation and analysis, similar to, for example, what takes place when the WTO is examining progress or lack of progress that countries are making on various commitments.  It will not be legally binding, but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they’re doing, and there will be a sense on the part of each country that we’re in this together, and we’ll know who is meeting and who’s not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth.
 
     With respect to the emissions targets that are going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050.  So that’s why I say that this is going to be a first step.  And there are going to be those who are going to — who are going to look at the national commitments, tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates that even more needs to be done.  The challenge here was that for a lot of countries, particularly those emerging countries that are still in different stages of development, this is going to be the first time in which even voluntarily they offered up mitigation targets.  And I think that it was important to essentially get that shift in orientation moving, that’s what I think will end up being most significant about this accord.
 
     From the perspective of the United States, I’ve set forth goals that are reflected in legislation that came out of the House that are being discussed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.  And although we will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today, we will I think have reaffirmed our commitment to meet those targets.  And we’re going to meet those targets, as I said before, not simply because the science demands it, but also because I think it offers us enormous economic opportunity down the road.
 
     Q    And the first part of the question, about the transparency issue?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I said, there is a specific –
 
     Q    (Inaudible.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Exactly.  There is the annexing combined with a process where essentially they are presenting to the world — subject to international consultation and then analysis — exactly what are these steps.  So if I make a claim that I’m reducing greenhouse gases because I’ve changed mileage standards on cars, there will be a process whereby people will be able to take a look and say, is that in fact in effect?
 
Jennifer Loven.
 
Q    Thank you, sir.  You’ve talked to, in your remarks earlier today, about other nations needing to accept less than perfect in their view.  Can you talk about what you gave up and where you might have shifted the U.S. position to get to this point?  And also, if this was so hard to get to, just what you have today, how do you feel confident about getting to a legally binding agreement in a year?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I think it is going to be very hard and it’s going to take some time.  Let me sort of provide the context for what I saw when I arrived.
 
And I think it’s important to be able to stand in the shoes of all the different parties involved here.  In some ways the United States was coming with a somewhat clean slate, because we had been on the sidelines in many of these negotiations over several years.
 
Essentially you have a situation where the Kyoto Protocol and some of the subsequent accords called on the developed countries who were signatories to engage in some significant mitigation actions and also to help developing countries.  And there were very few, if any, obligations on the part of the developing countries.
 
Now, in some cases, for countries that are extremely poor, still agrarian and so forth, they’re just not significant contributors to greenhouse gases.  But what’s happened obviously since 1992 is that you’ve got emerging countries like China and India and Brazil that have seen enormous economic growth and industrialization.  So we know that moving forward it’s going to be necessary if we’re going to meet those targets for some changes to take place among those countries.  It’s not enough just for the developed countries to make changes.  Those countries are going to have to make some changes, as well — not of the same pace, not in the same way, but they’re going to have to do something to assure that whatever carbon we’re taking out of the environment is not just simply dumped in by other parties.
 
     On the other hand, from the perspective of the developing countries like China and India, they’re saying to themselves, per capita our carbon footprint remains very small, and we have hundreds of millions of people who don’t even have electricity yet, so for us to get bound by a set of legal obligations could potentially curtail our ability to develop, and that’s not fair.
 
     So I think that you have a fundamental deadlock in perspectives that were brought to the discussions during the course of this week.  And both sides have legitimate points.
 
     My view was that if we could begin to acknowledge that the emerging countries are going to have some responsibilities, but that those responsibilities are not exactly the same as the developed countries, and if we could set up a financing mechanism to help those countries that are most vulnerable, like Bangladesh, then we would be at least starting to reorient ourselves in a way that allows us to be effective in the future.
 
     But it is still going to require more work and more confidence-building and greater trust between emerging countries, the least developed countries, and the developed countries before I think you are going to see another legally binding treaty signed.
 
     I actually think that it’s necessary for us ultimately to get to such a treaty, and I am supportive of such efforts.  But this is a classic example of a situation where if we just waited for that, then we would not make any progress.  And in fact I think there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward, we ended up taking two steps back.
 
But I want to be very clear that ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science, and the science indicates that we’re going to have to take more aggressive steps in the future.  Our hope is that by investing in clean energy, in research, in development, in innovation, that in the same way that the Clean Air Act ended up spurring all kinds of innovations that solved the acid rain problem at a much cheaper and much more rapid pace than we expected, that by beginning to make progress and getting the wheels of innovation moving, that we are in fact going to be in a position to solve this problem.
 
     But we’re going to need technological breakthroughs to get to the goals that we’re looking for.  In the meantime, we’ve got to be able to take the steps that are in our grasp right now, like for example energy efficiency, something I emphasized last week.
 
     All right.  Helene Cooper.  I’m sorry.
 
     Q    What about the compromise shift question? 
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  I have to say that, quietly, we did some pretty good ground work during the course of this year, so that our position was relatively clear.  I think that the one principle that I brought to this is that whatever commitments we make, I want to be able to be sure that they’re actually commitments that we can keep.  So we tried to be modest in what we thought we could accomplish.  I think there was interest on the part of some to, for example, increase our mitigation targets.  Although when you look out in the years 2025 or 2030, our goals are actually entirely comparable with Europe’s.  On the front end they appear to be less, because frankly, they’ve had a head start over the last several years in doing things like energy efficiency that we care about.
 
     What I said to the other people in the room is, is that I want to make sure that whatever it is that we promise we can actually deliver on, and that it would be unrealistic for us to think that we can turn on a dime and that suddenly a clean-energy economy is going to emerge overnight, given the fact that it’s going to require significant effort.  And companies and industries are going to be wanting to make changes — we’re already seeing those changes, but they haven’t all borne fruit yet.  And we want to make sure that we’re not getting too far ahead of ourselves in terms of targets, even as I understand that the science compels us to move as rapidly as we can.
 
     All right.  Helene Cooper.
 
     Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about this listing of the — in the appendix.  Going forward do you think that’s going to continue to be sufficient, or do you think verification is going to remain a source of friction between the U.S. and China?  And also on cap and trade, are you able to — were you able to assure the leaders here that you’ll make that a legislative priority next year?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  With respect to the appendix, these countries have set forth for the first time some very significant mitigation efforts, and I want to give them credit for that.  I mean, if you look at a country like India, as I said, they’ve got hundreds of millions of people who don’t have electricity, hundreds of millions of people who, by any standard, are still living in dire poverty.  For them, even voluntarily to say, we are going to reduce carbon emissions relative to our current ways of doing business by X percent is an important step.  And we applaud them for that.
 
     The problem actually is not going to be verification in the sense that this international consultation and analysis mechanism will actually tell us a lot of what we need to know.  And the truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth.  So I think we’re going to have a pretty good sense of what countries are doing.
 
     What I think that some people are going to legitimately ask is, well, if it’s not legally binding what prevents us from, 10 years from now, looking and saying, you know, everybody fell short of these goals and there’s no consequences to it?  My response is that, A, that’s why I think we should still drive towards something that is more binding than it is.  But that was not achievable at this conference.
 
     And the second point that I’d make is that Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.  And so I think that it’s important for us, instead of setting up a bunch of goals that end up just being words on a page and are not met, that we get moving — everybody is taking as aggressive a set of actions as they can; that there is a sense of mutual obligation and information sharing so that people can see who’s serious and who’s not; that we strive for more binding agreements over time; and that we just keep moving forward.  That’s been the main goal that I tried to pursue today.
 
And I think that as people step back, I guarantee you there are going to be a lot of people who immediately say, the science says you got to do X, Y, Z; in the absence of some sort of legal enforcement, it’s not going to happen.  Well, we don’t have international government, and even treaties, as we saw in Kyoto, are only as strong as the countries’ commitments to participate.
 
Because of the differing views between developing countries and developed countries, in terms of future obligations, the most important thing I think we can do at this point — and that we began to accomplish but are not finished with — is to build some trust between the developing and the developed countries to break down some of the logjams that have to do with people looking backwards and saying, well, Kyoto said this, or Bali said that, or you guys need to do something but we don’t need to do something; getting out of that mindset and moving towards a position where everybody recognizes we all have to move together.  If we start from that position, then I think we’re going to be able to make progress in the future.
 
But this is going to be hard.  This is hard within countries; it’s going to be even harder between countries.  And one of the things that I’ve felt very strongly about during the course of this year is that hard stuff requires not paralysis, but it requires going ahead and making the best of the situation that you’re in at this point, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there.
 
Okay, thank you very much everybody.  We’ll see some of you on the plane.
 
Q    Mr. President, who will sign the agreement — since you’re leaving, who here has the power to sign it?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got our negotiators who are here.  I’m not going to be the only leader who I think leaves before it’s finally presented, but they are empowered to sign off — given at this point that most of the text has been completely worked out.
 
     Q    Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement?
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there’s actually a signature — since, as I said, it’s not a legally binding agreement, I don’t know what the protocols are.  But I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.
 
     All right.  Thanks, guys.

President Barack Obama At Climate Summit, Copenhagen, Denmark - December 18, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
Copenhagen Summit
 
Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009
 
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
 
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
 
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
 
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
 
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
 
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
 
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
 
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
 
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
 
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
 
Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
 
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
 
We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
 
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
 
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
 
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
 
###

REMARKS BY 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 — installing 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.)

 
BACKGROUND ON THE PRESIDENT’S MEETING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY & JOB CREATION

HOME DEPOT
ALEXANDRIA, VA
10:45 AM
 
As a follow up to his speech last week, the President will visit a Home Depot in Alexandria, Virginia this afternoon to highlight the importance of providing incentives to consumers who retrofit their homes save money,  reduce the pollution and create jobs.  He will first meet with a group representing the labor, small business and manufacturing communities, all stakeholders in the shift to a more energy efficient economy. Following the event, the President will have lunch at the White House with business leaders representing different parts of the supply chain; manufacturing, retail and in-home audits and implementation to discuss the opportunities for creating jobs through incentivizing home energy efficiency upgrades. 
 
The Vice President also sent a memo to the President yesterday afternoon on the positive impact of the energy components of the Recovery Act.   Through the Recovery Act and more effective use of programs already in existence, the administration is taking the critical steps to transform the United States into a global clean energy leader. The energy components of the Recovery Act represent the largest single investment in clean energy in American history and are leveraging private investment and fostering American innovation and ingenuity. They are jumpstarting a major transformation of our energy system including unprecedented growth in the generation of renewable sources of energy, enhanced manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology, advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, and a bigger, better, smarter electric grid. 
 
Background on meeting participants below:
Stephon Burgess, Ardently Green
Stephon Burgess is a 23 year old DC resident who was unemployed for 12 months. Recently, Stephon was retrained and hired to work on installing weatherization and energy efficiency solutions in existing homes. He was recruited to the LIUNA Weatherization Training Center by Washington Interfaith Network, a local DC clergy organization and is supported by WeatherizeDC, a non-profit developing community interest in weatherization. Stephon now works full time for Ardently Green, a local small business Home Performance Contractor and Energy Star partner focused on making existing homes more energy efficient.
 
Gerald Palmer, President, Southland Insulators
Gerald Palmer is the President of Southland Insulators, an insulation and home performance contractor in Northern Virginia. Southland works in residential, commercial and building retrofit.  In addition to insulation, Southland has crews trained in Home Performance with Energy Star.  Southland has been named “Contractor of the Year” twice by the National Association of Home Builders. Southland currently employs about 100 office and field staff in its Manassas headquarters, and conducts energy efficiency work in about 5000 homes per year.
 
John R. Shields, Jr., Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
John R. Shields, Jr. grew up in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and currently resides in Crofton, MD. He has been a sheet metal worker since 1977, and came in through their residential program. After working for two years as a residential mechanic, installing sheet metal ductwork in single family homes and townhouses, Mr. Shields entered the apprenticeship program. He completed his four year sheet metal apprenticeship, and has also graduated from the National Labor College with a Bachelor of Arts in Labor Studies. Mr. Shields was a full time instructor for Sheet Metal Workers Local Union #100 for two and one half years, and he currently serves as Business Manager/Financial Secretary for Local Union #100 and the Financial Secretary for the Maryland State and Washington, D.C. Building and Construction Trades Council.
 
A. Tamasin Sterner, Founder, Pure Energy
Tamasin Sterner has been working on energy efficiency in buildings for 30 years. She is the founder of Pure Energy, an energy services firm that develops, designs, and implements energy efficiency programs for homeowners, utilities, and state energy efficiency agencies. Ms. Sterner is certified by the Building Performance Institute, and she has taught hundreds of courses on energy efficiency strategies for individuals and organizations. Ms. Sterner and Pure Energy are based in Lancaster, PA.
 
Michael Thaman, Chairman and CEO, Owens Corning
Michael H. Thaman is the chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Owens Corning, a world leader in building materials and composite systems. He started with Owens Corning in 1992, and has held positions in manufacturing, corporate development and international business. Mr. Thaman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton University where he graduated with highest honors. Mr. Thaman is a member of the Business Roundtable where he chairs the Energy Efficiency Task Force and serves on the Executive Committee of the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

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.

President Barack Obama Meets With Financial Services Industry - December 14, 2009

Background on President Obama’s Meeting with Members of the  Financial Services Industry
 
MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY
ROOSEVELT ROOM
 
Today, the President met with members of the financial services industry to discuss economic recovery, small business lending, improving lending practices for homeowners and the Administration’s plans for financial reform. 
 
 
Members of the Financial Services Industry In Attendance:
Ken Chenault, President and CEO, American Express
Richard Davis, Chairman, President, and CEO, US Bancorp
Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO, JP Morgan Chase
Richard Fairbank, Chairman and CEO, Capital One
Bob Kelly, Chairman and CEO, Bank of New York Mellon
Ken Lewis, President and CEO, Bank of America
Ron Logue, Chairman and CEO, State Street Bank
Gregory Palm, Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel, Goldman Sachs
Jim Rohr, Chairman and CEO, PNC
John Stumpf, President and CEO, Wells Fargo
 
NOTE: Due to inclement weather the following members of the financial services industry that were previously expected to participate are now unable to attend, but will be connected via conference call to the meeting:
Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs
John Mack, Chairman and CEO, Morgan Stanley
Dick Parsons, Chairman, Citigroup
 
Administration Officials In Attendance:
Rahm Emmanuel
Valerie Jarrett
Dr. Christina Romer
Larry Summers
Secretary Timothy Geithner

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Global Partnership
 
The President today welcomed substantial progress in the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate with the release of ten new Technology Action Plans.

President Obama launched the MEF in March 2009, creating a new dialogue among developed and emerging economies to combat climate change and promote clean energy.  At their July summit in L’Aquila, Italy, MEF Leaders launched a Global Partnership on clean energy technologies.
Through the Global Partnership, the United States and other MEF partners have been working to develop a suite of Technology Action Plans, which lay out options for ambitious government action on ten key clean energy technologies: advanced vehicles; bioenergy; building energy efficiency; capture capture, use and storage; high-efficiency, low-emissions coal; industrial energy efficiency; marine energy; smart grid; solar energy; and wind energy. 

The Technology Action Plans and an Executive Summary are publicly available at http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org.
To put these recommendations into immediate action, the President has asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to intensify cooperation with his counterparts both in MEF countries and around the world.

President Barack Obama - December 11, 2009

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Applauds Important Step Forward on Financial Reform
 
WASHINGTON –  In his weekly address, President Obama applauded the House for passing financial reform legislation and called on the Senate to continue working toward meaningful reform that stands up for consumers,  sets clear rules of the road for businesses and investors and restores a sense of responsibility and accountability to both Wall Street and Washington. 
 
The audio and video will be available at 6:00am Saturday, December 12, 2009 at www.whitehouse.gov.
 
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
Saturday, December 12, 2009
 
Over the past two years, more than seven million Americans have lost their jobs, and factories and businesses across our country have been shuttered.  In one way or another, we’ve all been touched by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
 
The difficult steps we’ve taken since January have helped to break our fall, and begin to get us back on our feet.  Our economy is growing again.  The flood of job loss we saw at the beginning of this year slowed to a relative trickle last month.  These are good signs for the future, but little comfort to all of our neighbors who remain out of a job.  And my solemn commitment is to work every day, in every way I can, to push this recovery forward and build a new foundation for our lasting growth and prosperity.
 
That’s why I announced some additional steps this week to spur private sector hiring.  We’ll give an added boost to small businesses across our nation through additional tax cuts and access to lending they desperately need to grow.  We’ll rebuild more of our vital infrastructure and promote advanced manufacturing in clean energy to put Americans to work doing the work we need done.  And I have called for the extension of unemployment insurance and health benefits to help those who have lost their jobs weather these storms until we reach that brighter day.
 
But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we address the irresponsibility and recklessness that got us into this mess in the first place.
 
Some of it was the result of an era of easy credit, when millions of Americans borrowed beyond their means, bought homes they couldn’t afford, and assumed that housing prices would always rise and the day of reckoning would never come.
 
But much of it was due to the irresponsibility of large financial institutions on Wall Street that gambled on risky loans and complex financial products, seeking short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences.  It was, as some have put it, risk management without the management.  And their actions, in the absence of strong oversight, intensified the cycle of bubble-and-bust and led to a financial crisis that threatened to bring down the entire economy. 
 
It was a disaster that could have been avoided if we’d had clearer rules of the road for Wall Street and actually enforced them.
 
We can’t change that history.  But we have an absolute responsibility to learn from it, and take steps to prevent a repeat of the crisis from which we are still recovering. 
 
That’s why I’ve proposed a series of financial reforms that would target the abuses we have seen and leave us less exposed to the kind of breakdown we just experienced.
 
They would bring new transparency and accountability to the financial markets, so that the kind of risky dealings that sparked the crisis would be fully disclosed and properly regulated.
 
They would give us the tools to ensure that the failure of one large bank or financial institution won’t spread like a virus through the entire financial system.  Because we should never again find ourselves in the position in which our only choices are bailing out banks or letting our economy collapse.
 
And they would consolidate the consumer protection functions currently spread across half a dozen agencies and vest them in a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  This agency would have the authority to put an end to misleading and dishonest practices of banks and institutions that market financial products like credit and debit cards; mortgage, auto and payday loans.
 
These are commonsense reforms that respond to the obvious problems exposed by the financial crisis.
 
But, as we’ve learned so many times before, common sense doesn’t always prevail in Washington.
 
Just last week, Republican leaders in the House summoned more than 100 key lobbyists for the financial industry to a “pep rally,” and urged them to redouble their efforts to block meaningful financial reform.  Not that they needed the encouragement.  These industry lobbyists have already spent more than $300 million on lobbying the debate this year.
 
The special interests and their agents in Congress claim that reforms like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will stifle consumer choice and that updated rules and oversight will frustrate innovation in the financial markets.  But Americans don’t choose to be victimized by mysterious fees, changing terms, and pages and pages of fine print.  And while innovation should be encouraged, risky schemes that threaten our entire economy should not.
 
We can’t afford to let the same phony arguments and bad habits of Washington kill financial reform and leave American consumers and our economy vulnerable to another meltdown.
 
Yesterday, the House passed comprehensive reform legislation that incorporates some of the essential changes we need, and the Senate Banking Committee is working on its own package of reforms.  I urge both houses to act as quickly as possible to pass real reform that restores free and fair markets in which recklessness and greed are thwarted; and hard work, responsibility, and competition are rewarded – reform that works for businesses, investors, and consumers alike.
 
That’s how we’ll keep our economy and our institutions strong.  That’s how we’ll restore a sense of responsibility and accountability to both Wall Street and Washington.  And that’s how we’ll safeguard everything the American people are working so hard to build – a broad-based recovery; lasting prosperity; and a renewed American Dream.  Thank you.

President Barack Obama and Mrs. Obama returning to the White House - December 11, 2009

Statement by the President on House Passage of the Financial Reform Bill
 
I commend the House of Representatives for passing The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.  This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors.
 
The Senate is working on similar legislation, and I urge both houses of Congress to pass this necessary reform as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people.  I look forward to signing a strong bill that establishes and enforces clear rules; closes the loopholes that allowed Wall Street firms and other creditors to game the system and evade accountability; protects consumers and investors from predatory lending and deceptive financial practices; and gives the government the necessary tools to prevent any institution from posing a risk to the whole system or making the American taxpayer collateral damage in the event of future turmoil.
 
The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington. We have a responsibility to learn from it, and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation, and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again. That’s how we will build a stronger foundation for our lasting growth.

The President and First Lady Michelle Obama at the Grand Hotel in Oslo, Norway - December 10, 2009

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.)

White House Drug Czar Kicks of National Impaired Driving Prevention Month
 
          WASHINGTON – Citing the dangers posed by drivers under the influence of alcohol and drugs, President Barack Obama has proclaimed December “National Impaired Driving Prevention Month,” Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy, announced today.
            “During this holiday season, we must all be especially vigilant in protecting our families, friends, and neighbors from drivers who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol,” the President said in the proclamation.
            “Although we have succeeded in decreasing the number of drunk drivers in recent years, we have seen a disturbing increase in Americans driving under the influence of drugs,” the President said.  “Operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs poses the same risks as drunk driving, and we must do more to stop this growing epidemic.”
            The recently released National Roadside Survey, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, showed that 16 percent of nighttime drivers on weekends tested positive for drug use. During the daytime hours, about 11 percent of motorists tested positive.
            The survey showed that the drugs most commonly used by nighttime drivers were marijuana, cocaine, and prescription or over-the-counter drugs.
            “Drugs impair perception, judgment, motor skills, and memory,” said Director Kerlikowske.  “These effects can be dangerously magnified when the drugs are also consumed with alcohol, even in cases where a driver’s blood alcohol level is below legal limits.”
            Kerlikowske said Federal, state, and local agencies are taking steps to prevent and reduce drunk and drugged driving.  Through the Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program, the Federal government supports efforts of state and local jurisdictions to detect and arrest drug-impaired drivers.  The DEC program also provides training to prosecutors and judges to help states successfully prosecute drug-impaired drivers.
            Other Federal programs focus on prevention.  The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has developed free resources to prevent drugged, drunk, and distracted driving among teenagers.
 
For more information on preventing drugged driving, visit:
http://www.theantidrug.com/advice/teens-today/drugged-drunk-and-distracted-driving/default.aspx
 
To view the Presidential Proclamation, visit:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2009impaireddriving.prc_.rel_.pdf

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
A Just and Lasting Peace
Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
Oslo, Norway
                                                                                       
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. 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 have 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 of 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 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 forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. 
 
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.  Some will kill.  Some will be killed.  And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
 
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. 
 
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, 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 it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.  
 
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 thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is 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, and 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, 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. 
 
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; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and 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 that 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 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’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is 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 is sometimes 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 because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
 
Yet 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 other peoples’ 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 and 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 irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. 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.”
 
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 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 cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.
 
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 is 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 waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. 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 have 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 is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is 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 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 that 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. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
 
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now 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 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 toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am 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 law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. 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 upon 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 all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are 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.  
 
I reject this choice. 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 to these movements that hope and history are 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 – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward 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 is 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 they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
 
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is 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, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
 
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of 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, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is 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 all basically want 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, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about 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 are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. 
 
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 even a person of one’s own faith.  Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the 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.  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 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 faith in human progress – 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 is 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 nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
 
So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.  Somewhere today, in the here and now, 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, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his 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.  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 is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
AFTER BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP MEETING ON JOBS
 
Diplomatic Reception Room
 
12:26 P.M. EST
 
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Sorry I’m a little late. I have just concluded an informative and constructive discussion with Republican and Democratic leaders about job creation and our economic future.  We spoke about the challenges facing our families, our businesses, and our country as a whole, and what we can do to overcome them.  Today’s meeting built on some of the ideas that I offered in the economic speech that I gave yesterday and on some of the ideas discussed at the Job Forum that we held at the White House last week.
 
Looking at the situation we face today, what’s clear is that our economy is in a very different place than it was when I took office last year.  Our economy at that time was on the brink of collapse.  The credit and the housing markets were in deep trouble and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.  Economists of every stripe were concerned that we might be slipping into a second depression.
 
That’s not what happened.  Because of the Recovery Act and a number of other measures, and because of distasteful but necessary steps to help our auto industry recover and stabilize our banks, we’ve pulled our economy back from the abyss.  And while there’s a lot of work left to do, our economy is now growing for the first time in over a year and we just received the best jobs report in over two years.
 
Of course, it’s a sign of how tough times are that the best job report in two years still shows a loss of 11,000 jobs.  And I’m not going to rest until every American who’s looking for work can find a job; until we put America back to work.
 
It’s no secret that there’s been less than full bipartisan support for the Recovery Act and some of the steps that have broken the freefall of our economy.  But my hope is that as we move forward, we can do so together, recognizing that we have a shared responsibility to meet our economic challenges on behalf of all Americans — those who elected us to make sure that we’re doing the people’s business.
 
Small businesses, for example, are the engines that drive much of the hiring in our economy.  So we should be able to forge a consensus around a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new employees.  These steps include elimination of the capital gains taxes on small business investment along with an extension of write-offs to encourage expansion in the coming year.  And I’ve urged congressional leaders to create a tax incentive to create — to encourage small businesses to add and keep workers.
 
I’ve proposed making an additional investment in the nation’s infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks.  We’ve already begun to do so.  In the first six months of 2010, Recovery Act outlays on projects related to infrastructure will actually double what was done over the previous six months.  This is not only going to put more Americans back to work, but this is also work that America needs done and will help fortify our economy for years to come.
 
I’ve called on Congress to provide temporary incentives for consumers to buy the materials needed to retrofit their homes for greater energy efficiency.  This program will spur hiring and spending, promote energy conservation, and help Americans put more money in their pockets by saving on their energy bills.  I’ve also proposed that we extend proven initiatives that promote energy efficiency and clean energy jobs.  And to help Americans weather this economic storm, I’ve called for an extension of emergency relief to states, seniors, and citizens who need it most.
 
Finally, to support these efforts, we’re going to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program, what’s known as TARP — the emergency fund created to stabilize the banking system.  This program has served its original purpose and the cost has been much lower than we expected, giving us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought at the time and also allowing us to invest in job creation on Main Street rather than on Wall Street.  More will need to be done to put our nation on a firm fiscal footing, and I’m looking forward to working with the group of leaders that I just met today about how we can structure a plausible scenario to get to medium- and long-term deficit reduction. 
 
Now, it’s appropriate that I met with leaders of both parties.  Spurring hiring and economic growth are not Democratic or Republican issues.  They are American issues that affect every single one of our constituents.  I am absolutely committed to working with anybody who is willing to do the job to make sure that we can rebuild our economy and make sure that Americans all across the country, regardless of political persuasion, are seeing the kinds of opportunities that we expect here in the United States of America. 
 
I’m confident we can do so.  I’m confident we can put our economic troubles behind us.  But it’s going to require some work and cooperation and a seriousness of purpose here in Washington. And I hope that as we enter into the holiday season the leaders that I just met with will feel the same way.
 
Thank you very much.

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.)

President Obama Releases National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats
 
Today, President Obama released the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats. This Strategy outlines the President’s vision for addressing the challenges from proliferation of biological weapons or their use by terrorists.  It highlights the beneficial nature of advances in the life sciences and their importance in combating infectious diseases of natural, accidental, and deliberate origin.  It also outlines how the risks associated with misuse and potential consequences of a biological attack require tailored actions to prevent biological threats.   Click HERE for the Strategy.
 
The Strategy emphasizes the need to (1) improve global access to the life sciences to combat infectious disease regardless of its cause; (2) establish and reinforce norms against the misuse of the life sciences; and (3) institute a suite of coordinated activities that collectively will help influence, identify, inhibit, and/or interdict those who seek to misuse the life sciences. Through this Strategy the United States Government will work with domestic and international partners on the following seven objectives to PROTECT against misuse of the life sciences to support biological weapons proliferation and terrorism:
 
·         Promote global health security: Increase the availability of and access to knowledge and products of the life sciences that can help reduce the impact from outbreaks of infectious disease whether of natural, accidental, or deliberate origin.
 
·         Reinforce norms of safe and responsible conduct: Reinforce a culture of responsibility, awareness, and vigilance among all who utilize and benefit from the life sciences to ensure that they are not diverted to harmful purpose.
 
·         Obtain timely and accurate insight on current and emerging risks: Improve threat identification, notification, and assessment capabilities as well as our understanding as to the global progress and distribution of the life sciences to help identify and understand new and emerging challenges and inform appropriate actions to manage the evolving risk.
 
·         Take reasonable steps to reduce the potential for exploitation: Identify, sensitize, support, and otherwise safeguard knowledge and capabilities in the life sciences and related communities that could be vulnerable to misuse.
 
·         Expand our capability to prevent, attribute, and apprehend:  Further hone our abilities to identify and stop those with ill intent to reduce the risk of single, multiple, or sequential attacks. 
 
·         Communicate effectively with all stakeholders: Ensure the United States Government is advancing cogent, coherent, and coordinated messages.
 
·         Transform the international dialogue on biological threats: Promote a robust and sustained discussion among all nations as to the evolving biological threat and identify mutually agreed steps to counter it.