President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama delivered these remarks to the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen, Denmark

Mrs. Obama. President Rogge, ladies and gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs of the International Olympic Committee: I am honored to be here.

I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, not far from where the Games would open and close. Ours was a neighborhood of working families—families with modest homes and strong values.

Sports were what brought our community together. They strengthen our ties to one another.

Growing up, when I played games with the kids in my neighborhood, we picked sides based not on who you were, but what you could bring to the game. Sports taught me self-confidence, teamwork, and how to compete as an equal.

Sports were a gift I shared with my dad—especially the Olympic Games.

Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection. Like so many young people, I was inspired. I found myself dreaming that maybe, just maybe, if I worked hard enough, I, too, could achieve something great.

But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood.

But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

That's why I'm here today. I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America.

And I'm not asking just as the First Lady of the United States, who is eager to welcome the world to our shores. And not just as a Chicagoan, who is proud and excited to show the world what my city can do. Not just as a mother raising two beautiful young women to embrace athleticism and pursue their full potential.

I'm also asking as a daughter.

See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.

You see, in my dad's early thirties, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. And as he got sicker, it became harder for him to walk, let alone play his favorite sports. But my dad was determined that sports continue to be a vital lifeline—not just to the rest of the world, but to me and my brother.

And even as we watched my dad struggle to hold himself up on crutches, he never stopped playing with us. And he refused to let us take our abilities for granted. He believed that his little girl should be taught no less than his son. So he taught me how to throw a ball and a mean right hook better than any boy in my neighborhood. But more importantly, my dad taught us the fundamental rules of the game, rules that continue to guide our lives today: to engage with honor, with dignity, and fair play.

My dad was my hero.

And when I think of what these Games can mean to people all over the world, I think about people like my dad. People who face seemingly insurmountable challenges, but never let go. They work a little harder, but they never give up.

Now, my dad didn't live to see the day that the Paralympic Games would become the force that they are today. But if he had lived to see this day—if he could have seen the Paralympic Games share a global stage with the Olympic Games, if he could have witnessed athletes who compete and excel and prove that nothing is more powerful than the human spirit, I know it would have restored in him the same sense of unbridled possibility that he instilled in me.

Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games—it's about what the Games can offer all of us. It's about inspiring this generation, and building a lasting legacy for the next. It's about our responsibility as Americans not just to put on great Games, but to use these Games as a vehicle to bring us together; to usher in a new era of international engagement; and to give us hope; and to change lives all over the world.

And I've brought somebody with me today who knows a little something about change. My husband, the President of the United States—Barack Obama.

President Obama. President Rogge, ladies and gentlemen of the International Olympic Committee:

I come here today as a passionate supporter of the Olympic and Paralympic Games; as a strong believer in the movement they represent; and as a proud Chicagoan. But above all, I come as a faithful representative of the American people, and we look forward to welcoming the world to the shores of Lake Michigan and the heartland of our nation in 2016.

To host athletes and visitors from every corner of the globe is a high honor and a great responsibility. And America is ready and eager to assume that sacred trust. We're a nation that has always opened its arms to the citizens of the world—including my own father from the African continent—people who have sought something better; who have dreamed of something bigger.

I know you face a difficult choice among several great cities and nations with impressive bids of their own. So I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reason I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago—the reason I fell in love with the city I still call home. And it's not just because it's where I met the woman you just heard from—although after getting to know her this week, I know you'll all agree that she's a pretty big selling point for the city.

You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. I was born in Hawaii. I lived in Indonesia for a time. I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. And then I came to Chicago. And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion. I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.

Each one of those neighborhoods—from Greektown to the Ukrainian Village; from Devon to Pilsen to Washington Park—has its own unique character, its own unique history, its songs, its language. But each is also part of our city—one city—a city where I finally found a home.

Chicago is a place where we strive to celebrate what makes us different just as we celebrate what we have in common. It's a place where our unity is on colorful display at so many festivals and parades, and especially sporting events, where perfect strangers become fast friends just because they're wearing the same jersey. It's a city that works—from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup we hosted in the nineties, we know how to put on big events. And scores of visitors and spectators will tell you that we do it well.

Chicago is a city where the practical and the inspirational exist in harmony; where visionaries who made no small plans rebuilt after a great fire and taught the world to reach new heights. It's a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town; where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream—a dream that no matter who we are, where we come from; no matter what we look like or what hand life has dealt us; with hard work, and discipline, and dedication, we can make it if we try.

That's not just the American Dream. That is the Olympic spirit. It's the essence of the Olympic spirit. That's why we see so much of ourselves in these Games. That's why we want them in Chicago. That's why we want them in America.

We stand at a moment in history when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations—a time of common challenges that require common effort. And I ran for President because I believed deeply that at this defining moment, the United States of America has a responsibility to help in that effort, to forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.

No one expects the Games to solve all our collective challenges. But what we do believe—what each and every one of you believe and what all of the Chicago delegation believes—is that in a world where we've all too often witnessed the darker aspects of our humanity, peaceful competition between nations represents what's best about our humanity. It brings us together, if only for a few weeks, face to face. It helps us understand one another just a little bit better. It reminds us that no matter how or where we differ, we all seek our own measure of happiness, and fulfillment, and pride in what we do. That's a very powerful starting point for progress.

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. Their interest sprung from the hope that in this ever-shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength, a cause for celebration; and that with sustained work and determination, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this Earth.

Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest. And while we do not know what the next few years will bring, there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.

At the beginning of this new century, the nation that has been shaped by people from around the world wants a chance to inspire it once more; to ignite the spirit of possibility at the heart of the Olympic and Paralympic movement in a new generation; to offer a stage worthy of the extraordinary talent and dynamism offered by nations joined together—to host games that unite us in noble competition and shared celebration of our limitless potential as a people.

And so I urge you to choose Chicago. I urge you to choose America. And if you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud. Thank you so much.

Readout of Secretary Napolitano's discussion on human trafficking at the Danish Institute for International Studies

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today delivered remarks about expanding international coordination to combat human trafficking at a forum hosted by Humanity in Action and the Danish Institute for International Studies.

“Human trafficking is a global problem that requires a global solution.” said Secretary Napolitano. “The United States, Denmark and all our international partners must continue to work together to better identify and dismantle criminal trafficking organizations.”

During the forum, Secretary Napolitano highlighted the efforts of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to dismantle global human trafficking infrastructure through close cooperation with the Danish National Police and international law enforcement partners and more than 300 ICE Victim Assistance Coordinators worldwide who work with non-governmental organizations to help provide long-term assistance efforts.

Secretary Napolitano discussed the critical role played by border officials in recognizing potential trafficking victims and criminals and highlighted U.S. Custom and Border Protection's international Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign—designed to enhance transnational collaboration, educate the public and empower victims.

Secretary Napolitano also emphasized the shared public responsibility in remaining vigilant and aware about the prevalence of human trafficking. ICE recently unveiled the “Hidden in Plain Sight” campaign in the United States—designed to raise public awareness of trafficking victims in communities nationwide.

While in Copenhagen, Secretary Napolitano also held meetings with Danish Justice Minister Brian Mikkelson and Transportation Minister Lars Barfoed to discuss ongoing multinational efforts to address human trafficking and other criminal activity, as well as transportation security and bilateral criminal information sharing partnerships.

Later this week, Secretary Napolitano will travel to Belgium, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom to meet with her international counterparts to discuss information sharing and privacy protection; collaborative efforts to secure cyber networks worldwide; international response to the H1N1 global pandemic; and coordination to combat transnational criminal activity and the global threat of terrorism.

Readout of Secretary Napolitano's remarks to the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today delivered remarks about the importance of information sharing to protect against global security threats while ensuring privacy and civil liberties protections at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.

“Responsible information sharing is one of our most effective tools in deterring global threats and enhancing our mutual security,” said Secretary Napolitano. “The United States is committed to working closely with our international partners to share valuable law enforcement information while maintaining strong privacy protections.”

In her remarks, Secretary Napolitano highlighted national security information sharing agreements between the United States and its European allies that facilitate the exchange of law enforcement data—emphasizing the critical role played by multinational initiatives in preventing acts of terrorism and interdicting transnational criminals.

Secretary Napolitano also met with Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba to discuss customs and law enforcement cooperation as well as efforts to ensure privacy with regard to bilateral information sharing partnerships between the United States, Spain and the European Union.

In Madrid, Secretary Napolitano participated in a ceremony recognizing the important work done by U.S. and Spanish customs officials to combat transnational arms and cash smuggling in two recent operations in which coordinated efforts between the countries helped yield significant seizures, arrests and indictments of transnational criminals.

Since January, the United States and Spain have collaborated on two new bilateral initiatives to bolster mutual national security efforts—one to exchange fingerprints and other data on known terrorists and criminals while protecting individual privacy and another to expand science and technology cooperation in order to enhance security and combat transnational threats.

Secretary Napolitano's week-long visit to Europe and the Middle East began yesterday in Denmark, where she joined her counterparts to discuss ongoing multinational efforts to address human trafficking and other transnational crime.

In the coming days, Secretary Napolitano will travel to the United Kingdom, Belgium and the United Arab Emirates to meet with her international counterparts to discuss information sharing and privacy protection; collaborative efforts to secure cyber networks worldwide; international response to the H1N1 global pandemic; and coordination to combat transnational criminal activity and the global threat of terrorism.

Since January, Secretary Napolitano has launched partnerships and bolstered international engagement around the world— facilitating improved information sharing and better protection against violent extremism.

Secretary Timothy Geithner delivered this testimony in Washington, DC before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Secretary Geithner. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the role of the Group of 20 (G-20) in the global economy.

This Committee has long played a central role in strengthening America's leadership in the international financial system. This role is more important than ever at this moment when global cooperation is critical for promoting America's well being and our national interests.

In the wake of the most severe global recession in decades, strong American growth will require stronger growth in our trading partners. Moving from a global economy based on U.S. demand to one based on global demand is critical to our domestic efforts to reduce unemployment and increase the wages of middle-class Americans.

At the start of this year, the world confronted the very real risk of a great depression, global deflation, and financial collapse. Over the past year, President Obama has worked closely with G-20 partners to adopt a forceful response to the global financial crisis. U.S. leadership and action, coupled with historic G-20 cooperation and response, has put out the financial fire and restarted growth in private activity. We are now moving from a period of rescue and repair to one of recovery. As growth strengthens and financial headwinds diminish, we will begin the essential process of restoring balance to public finances and fully removing the broad backstop still in place for credit markets.

Cooperation through the G-20 will remain essential as we start to unwind extraordinary measures and put in place the broad framework to achieve a strong, sustainable, and balanced recovery, and implement profound financial reforms at home and abroad.

After the experiences of the Great Depression and World War II, the United States led in the creation of the international financial system that anchored prosperity and stability for more than 60 years. Today, that system must be reformed to address 21^st century challenges. The United States again faces an opportunity to help shape a system that ensures better economic potential for future generations in America and around the world. As this Committee recognized by organizing today's hearing, the United States will be more effective in achieving our economic goals and our strategic priorities and interests when we work in partnership.

Let me briefly describe how we are working with the G-20 to advance our central objectives: rebalancing the global economy to achieve stronger and more sustainable U.S. growth goals; promoting global financial stability; and forging multilateral solutions to threats such as food insecurity, fragile states, and climate change. To achieve all of these goals, we will need to reform the global financial architecture.

Rebalancing the Global Economy to Achieve Strong and Sustainable Growth

As stabilization and recovery take hold, our policy challenge will shift to catalyzing private demand and business investment. This will require continued policy support. We cannot make the mistake of putting on the brakes too early or withdrawing support prematurely. This is why our recovery programs were designed to provide support for growth over a two-year period, and that is why other governments around the world are committed to continue the recovery now underway, before the G-20 shifts to restraint. At the recent G-20 Ministerial meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland, Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors were united on the central point that growth remains the dominant policy imperative across our countries.

But the financial crisis also showed clearly that previous global economic patterns were unsustainable. To establish a more global foundation for growth and avert future crises of this nature, we must rebalance global demand.

As U.S. consumers save more and spend less in the years ahead, and as our government embarks on a path of fiscal responsibility, emerging markets and economies with large and sustained surpluses will need to shift their growth towards domestic demand and reduce their reliance on exports. Governments around the world will need to accept this basic reality or we will all face slower growth.

Indeed, countries are already redirecting policies along these lines. In the United States, private saving has risen and the U.S. current account deficit has fallen from over 6-1/2 percent of GDP in late 2005 to about 3 percent of GDP at this time. We are seeing domestic demand play a stronger role in recoveries abroad and corresponding reductions in global imbalances elsewhere.

At the Pittsburgh Summit, President Obama secured a commitment by G-20 leaders to adopt a Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth. In St. Andrews, G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors set out a detailed process and timeframe for achieving this goal. We asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to assist us in a mutual assessment process by evaluating whether policies pursued by individual G-20 countries are consistent with a more sustainable and balanced trajectory for the global economy and, if needed, recommending how policies could be adjusted to improve the global outlook.

Why is this important? In the final analysis, it is up to each of our countries to deliver the policies needed to achieve strong, sustainable, and balanced growth throughout the world. The Administration will do its part and looks forward to working with Congress to put our fiscal policy on a sustainable footing when recovery is in place. But the fact that all of the G-20 countries signed up to this detailed process, recognizing that policy formulation in their countries will need to take broader global interests into account to avoid the booms and busts of the past, demonstrates the strong collective resolve to tackle global challenges with the same force that we brought to overcoming the crisis.

Let me assure you, however, that we are not laying the foundation for global rebalancing only in the context of the G-20. Even before the Pittsburgh Summit, we were working hard to achieve this goal through the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) with China and in our ongoing bilateral discussions. I have had lengthy conversations with my European colleagues about this subject, and I was just in Tokyo for bilateral discussions with the new government ahead of attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial in Singapore, where there was broad agreement on the need to balance growth.

Open trade and investment policies will be equally important to ensuring future U.S. economic growth, prosperity, and sustainability. Trade will be critical to creating U.S. jobs and ensuring economic dynamism and vibrancy. Importantly, G-20 countries have played an active role by pledging to keep markets open, not to erect protectionist barriers, and not to retreat into financial protectionism.

Together, Congress and the Administration have a critical role to play in showing the world that we are serious about critical financial reforms, strong trade and investment, and fiscal consolidation. These policy steps are essential to continuing the strong U.S. role in the global economic system, ensuring strong international confidence in U.S. economic fundamentals, and promoting our nation's interests. By taking action at home, we must communicate our resolve to ensure that the U.S. economy remains the strongest and most innovative in the world.

Together with the other measures we are taking, these steps will help foster a sustainable global growth path and a strong U.S. economy.

Promoting Global Financial Stability

Next, alongside the growth agenda, we must build a stronger global financial system to prevent and mitigate financial instability wherever it emanates in the international system.

In the wake of the crisis, policy makers and regulators from the United States and across the globe have mounted strenuous efforts to repair financial systems. A strong and welcome consensus exists among G-20 countries on a framework and objectives for building a more stable global financial system. We have agreed on a strategy to put in place stronger constraints on risk taking across the financial system, to bring appropriate oversight to key institutions, products and markets, such as the over-the-counter derivative markets, to reform the securities markets, and to provide the tools necessary to wind down firms that fail. All of this will make the financial system stronger and better able to withstand future pressures.

But as we saw during the financial crisis, in a world of global capital markets, even the strongest regulatory standards can be circumvented by lax oversight in other financial centers, triggering regulatory arbitrage and a race to the bottom in which everyone loses. Thus, the Obama Administration believes it is in the United States' interest to work with our G-20 partners and other countries to seek the adoption of high standards by all major economies.

That is why we expanded the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to include all of the G-20 countries.

That is why we are pursuing a vigorous agenda of regulatory reform internationally in parallel with our agenda at home. We are working with the G-20 to subject nonbank financial institutions, credit rating agencies, and hedge funds to greater scrutiny and advancing adherence to international standards across a number of other areas. We agreed at the Pittsburgh Summit along with the G-20 countries to build high-quality capital, mitigate procyclicality in financial regulations, strengthen adherence to sound compensation practices in order to foster greater financial stability, improve the functioning of over-the-counter derivatives markets, and address cross-border resolutions and systemically important financial institutions.

The challenge each G-20 nation faces is now to implement this agenda. Here at home, we are working to enact sweeping reforms designed to protect consumers and investors and create a more stable, more resilient financial system. Working with Congress to pass legislation on comprehensive reform of our nation's financial system is one of my highest priorities.

Forging Multilateral Solutions to Global Threats

Let me now shift to the third priority: working with the G-20 to forge multilateral solutions to today's global threats. From Afghanistan and Pakistan to food security and climate change, the Obama Administration is committed to revitalizing the multilateral financial institutions to help tackle our toughest global challenges.

The G-20 has strongly supported the central role of the multilateral development banks (MDBs) in the fight against global poverty and as essential partners during this time of financial stress. They serve as the first responders for the global poor and provide a high return on U.S. development dollars. We estimate that for every dollar that the United States invests in the World Bank as paid in capital, $26 of aid are delivered.

As evidenced in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq—environments that are as critical as they are challenging—the multilateral development institutions play critical roles in addressing some of our most pressing problems, often working side by side with our bilateral efforts, including Treasury's Office of Technical Assistance.

Recognizing that bilateral and multilateral aid work best when they work together, it is critical to focus more attention and resources in order to achieve greater results in the following areas:

Advancing Energy and Climate Security

The President has outlined comprehensive changes in how we use energy, focusing on policies to advance energy and climate security while promoting economic recovery efforts job creation, and driving clean energy manufacturing.

U.S. domestic action, however, can only be part of the solution to our energy security and climate change challenges. We must seek a global agreement with significant action by all major economies. As part of that agreement, developing countries will need financial support to reduce their emissions and create new markets for clean energy technologies, as well as to adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change.

Climate finance therefore will need to be scaled up significantly but we must do so in a way that is efficient and leverages U.S. investments in the arena of climate.

Because of their central role in financing and assisting countries, we have argued within the G-20 that the MDBs are uniquely positioned to play an important role in helping to transition to a green global economy.

The World Bank will specifically have a central role in contributing to financing the transition to a green economy by assisting countries in integrating climate change concerns into their core strategies. In the context of a new climate agreement, we have argued that a new climate fund should be established at an existing international financial institution to deploy financial resources effectively. We expect such a fund to build on the experience of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) at the World Bank, which this Administration has strongly supported.

While the G-20's work on climate is in its early phases, this fund can provide additional momentum to the U.N. negotiations in Copenhagen in December, as well as ensure that any agreement is implemented effectively.

At Pittsburgh, the G-20 Leaders committed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term. This groundbreaking effort will encourage the conservation of energy, improve our energy security, and provide a down-payment on our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe this step will encourage investment in clean energy sources, promote green growth, and free up resources to use for pressing social needs such as health, food security, and environmental protection. We will follow through on the commitment while also preventing an adverse effect on the poorest by providing them with targeted cash transfers and other appropriate forms of support.

Enhancing Food Security

Over the past year, the global financial crisis put millions more people at risk of chronic hunger and poverty. At the G-20 Summit in London, President Obama called for a new approach to food security that includes strategic coordination of assistance, investment in country-owned plans, a comprehensive approach to enhancing agricultural development, and the effective use of bilateral and multilateral institutions and facilities. In Pittsburgh, the President furthered this effort by securing agreement among G-20 Leaders to establish a multilateral food security trust fund at the World Bank to scale up agricultural assistance to low-income countries. To advance these efforts, I have been working with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Vilsack, my colleagues in the G-20, the World Bank, and others to advance new strategies for agricultural investments that leverage the resources and expertise of the multilateral organizations, and support accountable, country-led strategies.

Generating Growth in the Most Challenging Environments

As the United States works to stabilize the economies of vital countries, such as Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, the MDBs have a critical role to play in offering support. From assessing needs to mobilizing donor resources and providing substantial technical and financial support, the MDBs are important partners in places of strategic interest to the United States.

For example, Pakistan—one of the largest borrowers from the Asian Development Bank—will receive nearly $1.6 billion this year and another $1.4 billion next year to finance projects in the energy, transportation and agricultural sectors. Afghanistan, the largest recipient of grants from the Asian Development Bank, will receive half a billion dollars over 2009 and 2010. In Iraq, the World Bank is implementing programs worth $1 billion in education, roads, electricity, and water. These types of investments help governments meet fundamental human needs which, in turn, give citizens a stake in maintaining a stable political and economic environment.

Supporting Private Sector-led Growth, Infrastructure, and Financial Access

Additional means of strengthening the potential of the global economy include supporting private sector-led growth strategies and improving access to financial services for the poor. Through the G-20, we are seeking a renewed focus from the MDBs on promoting the business and market environments, including appropriate legal reforms needed for private enterprises of all sizes to thrive. These efforts will in turn strengthen the ability of the private sector in developing countries to foster opportunities for growth.

Improving access to financial services for the poor is also a critical component of this effort. Together with our G-20 partners, the United States has agreed to support the safe and sound spread of new modes for the delivery of financial services to the poor. Also, building on the example of micro finance, the United States and its G-20 partners have asked the MDBs to scale up the successful models of small- and medium-size enterprise financing.

Furthering the Reform Agenda

We are committed to working across the Obama Administration and particularly with the State Department and USAID to ensure coherence of this critical development agenda.

Achieving these objectives will require reform from the MDBs. To ensure the effectiveness of U.S. investments in development, we continue to press for institution-wide reforms. Our desired reform agenda includes greater progress on combating corruption; strengthening financial management; improving transparency, accountability, and governance; increasing the capacity to innovate and demonstrate results; dedicating a greater share of resources to the poorest; and seeking better coordination and division of labor among institutions.

Achieving these objectives may also require new resources. As this Committee is aware, all of the MDBs are undergoing, or have just concluded, capital reviews as part of a broader strategic repositioning. At a time when resources are at a premium here at home, the United States is carefully reviewing all options. Additionally, to underscore our commitment to poverty reduction, the U.S. will want to show leadership in MDB discussions on concessional financing for the poorest. We are conducting a thorough review of how best to equip these institutions for today's and tomorrow's challenges, and look forward to working with this Committee, as well as with our partners in the G-20, to reach agreement on a set of core priorities, reforms, and resources.

However, to be credible in these negotiations, we must fully honor our previous commitments, which currently surpass $1 billion. I hope this Committee will support our requests to pay down our arrears.

Reforming the International Financial Architecture

Reforming the international financial architecture will be critical for advancing these priorities and the cause of multilateralism. An essential element will be to strengthen international institutions and enhance cooperation, while continuing to preserve the strong leadership role of the United States in international forums.

As we continue to shape the G-20 to serve as the premier forum for global economic cooperation, we will also deepen and not diminish engagement though bilateral means such as the S&ED and through regional groupings such as APEC and the Summit of the Americas process.

As this Committee knows, the financial crisis clearly demonstrated the central role that the IMF plays in the global system as a crisis responder. Over the past year, the IMF has taken critical steps to strengthen its crisis response by improving the ways it provides needed resources to members—both emerging market and low-income countries—by streamlining conditionality in programs to focus on the most critical actions a country needs to take, and by increasing its capacity to provide precautionary support to help forestall crises, importantly through a new Flexible Credit Line.

I want to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of this Committee for your critical support for the U.S. $100 billion investment in the IMF's NAB. Rapid Congressional passage of this legislation at a critical moment in the crisis enabled the United States to play a leadership role in expanding the IMF's supplemental resources through the NAB by $500 billion and restoring financial market confidence at a dark time. The commitment of G-20 members to contribute to the NAB has resulted in contributions from leading emerging economies for the first time.

Looking ahead, the IMF will have a critical role in supporting balanced growth and financial stability. I have already touched on the important assistance the IMF can provide in helping the G-20 countries with the mutual assessment of their economic policies. What we ask of the IMF, and frankly what is needed, is candid, transparent, and independent surveillance to support this process.

In order for the IMF to effectively carry out its post-crisis mandate and to continue to fulfill its role as a crisis responder, the IMF's governance structure needs to evolve to reflect the relative weights and changing dynamics of the world economy. This means giving greater representation to dynamic emerging market and developing countries that are now playing a greater role in the global economy and it also means preserving our strong leadership role in the Fund. Progress was made on this front earlier this decade and, earlier this year, Congress passed legislation to implement those necessary reforms. The G-20 took a critical step in Pittsburgh, committing to a shift in quota share of at least five percent to dynamic emerging market and developing countries. G-20 Leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to complete the process of reviewing quotas by January 2011.

Similarly, we secured agreement among the G-20 to support a shift of at least 3 percent of the World Bank's voting power to developing and transitioning countries. We expect an international agreement to be reached on this issue in the spring of 2010 at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF. We look forward to working with this Committee as those reforms proceed.

Conclusion

Ten years ago, the Treasury Department took the lead in creating the G-20 Finance Ministers' and Central Bank Governors' process. We did so in recognition of the changing face of the global economic and financial system and the need to give dynamic emerging market economies a greater role in the system, especially in the wake of the Asia crisis. The G-20 finance process continued, on the whole successfully, during this period. It showed that our countries, despite representing a wide range of cultures, history, and developmental levels, could work together and had common interests in promoting the improved functionality of our economies. A decade later, based on this shared experience, the G-20 countries were well positioned to tackle the challenges of the crisis.

From rebalancing the global economy to preventing financial instability and addressing global threats, we must seek the engagement of partners to achieve our economic goals and objectives and serve our nation's interests. First and foremost, we are responsible for our own destiny and our job begins at home. But in today's interdependent world, no country is isolated from global events.

The turmoil of the past two years has been the worst the global economy has witnessed since the 1930s, and has put the international economic system to the most severe test it has faced since then. By shifting the forum in which we addressed the crisis from a small circle of advanced nations to a broader and more representative table of the world's major economies, we strengthened the foundation for success in taking cooperative action to pull the global financial sector back from the brink.

But the job of building an effective st international economic system for the 21 century is far from finished. If the United States is to succeed in building a strong economy for future generations at home and abroad, we must continue to seek the support of our global partners in the G-20 and other forums. Just as the United States led in developing the institutions of today, so must we lead in developing the future foundation for a strong, resilient, and innovative global economy.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. As Valerie Jarrett leaves, I want to thank her for her leadership on this and so many issues here in the White House and in the Administration, and for her personal testimony as to the importance of this issue for her, for President Obama, for all of us.

We are gathered on the eve of World AIDS Day to renew and recommit ourselves. It is obvious to those sitting in this audience, as I look out at you and see people who have been involved in this struggle for a long time, that you know that we have made progress, but we face an unending pandemic, one that spares no one, that unfortunately, disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, and which is the defining health challenge of our times. And we have to address it through a series of broad and cross-cutting global partnerships and a whole-of-government approach. And that is exactly what we are attempting to do.

We know the ravages and complexities of HIV/AIDS here in our own country, and we know, many of us, what it looks like around the world. But we can take some heart in the progress that has been made over the last two decades. Access to antiretroviral treatment in low- and middle-income countries has risen tenfold in the last five years. New HIV infections have fallen by 17 percent over the last eight years. And much of that progress has been due to the concerted efforts of the United States Government and our partners.

I want to applaud President Bush for making a serious commitment to American leadership in combating HIV/AIDS. His administration spearheaded the creation of PEPFAR—the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. And by supporting its implementation and activities, the United States has made the largest effort in history by any nation to combat a single disease. I remember well serving as a senator from New York how there was bipartisan support on behalf of this initiative, and the extraordinary commitment of dollars and technical assistance that backed it up.

PEPFAR has provided lifesaving antiretroviral treatment to over 2 million men, women, and children worldwide, through partnerships with other governments and NGOs. We've supported care for more than 10 million people, including 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. And PEPFAR's efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission have helped nearly 240,000 HIV-positive mothers give birth to children who are HIV-free. So it is clear that our nation's investments are having an impact. And President Obama is dedicated to enhancing America's leadership in the fight against global AIDS with PEPFAR serving as the cornerstone of our Global Health Initiative to promote better and more sustainable health outcomes.

Later this week, Ambassador Goosby will present the five-year strategy for the future of PEPFAR outlining the important role that PEPFAR will play in transitioning from emergency response to sustainable health systems that help meet the broad medical needs of people with HIV and the communities in which they live. In its next phase, PEPFAR programs will support a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach in many countries to increase awareness, reduce stigma, and get services to people at earlier stages.

Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it, but also to combat discrimination more broadly. We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide. It is an unacceptable step backwards—on behalf of human rights. But it is also a step that undermines the effectiveness of efforts to fight the disease worldwide.

We will also redouble our efforts to address the needs of women and girls who are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS in many parts of the world. Promoting the health of women strengthens families and communities and has positive spillover effects in areas like poverty reduction and education. Since we know the most effective health programs are integrated with functioning local and national governments, we will work with partner governments to assess capacity, identify gaps, and make customized plans to meet each country's needs.

Now, that means creating more programs like the ones that Ambassador Goosby and I visited in Africa over the summer. In Angola, for example, our PEPFAR Partnership Framework supports the country's HIV National Strategic plan to strengthen the health care infrastructure there.

We visited a clinic in South Africa, which we co-sponsor with the South African Government, and heard from patients who not only receive care but also support as they face the stigma associated with HIV and AIDS.

Our investments in PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and overall global health have made a positive difference. And we will continue our support, but we have to do more. We have to make sure that our programs foster conditions that improve people's lives and, in turn, promote stability, prosperity, and security.

In this time of very tight budgets in our own government and our own people suffering from unemployment, from other kinds of cutbacks in services, we have to do more even here at home. We've seen some of the results of the cutbacks that are happening at the state and local level. So while we are talking about our commitment internationally, let's not forget our fellow citizens who are suffering right now.

And then we also have to make the case to our fellow citizens that our investment in dealing with the pandemic worldwide is in America's interest. So we are committed to doing so. President Obama is implementing the repeal of the “HIV entry ban,” a longstanding policy that prevented people living with HIV/AIDS from entering our country. The repeal will take effect early in the new year, and we will be vigorously enforcing it.

Today, I am pleased to announce that, with the repeal of the ban, the International AIDS Society will hold the 2012 International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. This conference will draw together an estimated 30,000 researchers, scientists, policymakers, healthcare providers, activists, and others from around the world.

So as we look to 2012, we have to continue to seek a global solution to this global problem. On World AIDS Day, let us renew our commitment to ensuring that those infected and affected by HIV—the woman on treatment who is supporting her family, the child who dropped out of school to care for sick parents, the doctors and nurses without adequate resources— that all those who have joined together to fight this pandemic will someday live in a world where HIV/AIDS can be prevented and treated as a disease of the past.

Thank you all very much.

President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Oslo, Norway in his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

President Obama. 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've received this prize—Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela—my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women—some known, some obscure to all but those they help—to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries—including Norway— in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict—filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease—the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations—total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations— an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize—America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states—all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak—nothing passive— nothing naïve—in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism—it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions— not just treaties and declarations—that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest—because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another— that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths—that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations—strong and weak alike—must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I—like any head of state—reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't. The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait—a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America—in fact, no nation—can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali—we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers—but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant—the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor—we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior—for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure—and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma—there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy—but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point—the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists—a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests—nor the world's—are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements—these movements of hope and history—they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach—condemnation without discussion—can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable—and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights—it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people—or nations educate their children and care for the sick—is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement— all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action—it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more—and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities—their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint—no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith—for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

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

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached—their fundamental faith in human progress—that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith—if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace—then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him.”

Let us reach for the world that ought to be—that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton published this op-ed, titled “The U.S. Is on Board,” in the International Herald Tribune

Our world is on an unsustainable path that threatens not only our environment, but our economies and our security. It is time to launch a broad operational accord on climate change that will set us on a new course.

A successful agreement depends upon a number of core elements, but two are shaping up to be essential: first, that all major economies set forth strong national actions and resolve to implement them; and second, that they agree to a system that enables full transparency and creates confidence that national actions are in fact being implemented.

Transparency, in particular, is what will ensure that this agreement becomes operational, not just aspirational. We all need to take our share of responsibility, stand behind our commitments, and mean what we say in order for an international agreement to be credible.

Representatives from more than 190 countries have gathered in Copenhagen in the hopes of meeting this urgent challenge to our planet. If we are serious about that goal, we will all embrace these principles.

It is no secret that the United States turned a blind eye to climate change for too long. But now, under President Obama's leadership, we are taking responsibility and taking action.

Already, the Obama administration has done more at home to promote clean energy and address climate change than ever before in our history. We are investing more than $80 billion in clean energy and working with Congress to advance comprehensive climate and energy legislation. And we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation.

In light of the president's goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050. These are the kind of strong national actions that a successful agreement requires.

The United States has also pursued an unprecedented effort to engage partners around the world in the fight against climate change, and we have produced real results. President Obama launched the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate which brought together key developed and developing countries to work through issues essential to an accord. He also spearheaded an agreement, first among the G-20 and then among the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations, to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. This effort alone could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent or more by 2050.

So there should be no doubt about our commitment. We have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and operational new agreement that will provide a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth.

This needs to be a common effort. All major economies, developed and developing, need to take robust and transparent action to reduce their carbon emissions. Of course, the actions required of the developed and major developing countries will not be identical, but we must all do our part.

The simple fact is that nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world. Without their participation and commitment, a solution is impossible. Some are concerned that a strong agreement on climate change will undermine the efforts of developing nations to build their economies, but the opposite is true. This is an opportunity to drive investment and job creation around the world, while bringing energy services to hundreds of millions of the world's poor.

That is why United States is supporting an accord that both complements and promotes sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. The accord we seek will provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. And we are prepared to join an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.

We can all see the way forward that has emerged from months of negotiations: decisive national action, an operational accord that internationalizes those commitments, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process.

The United States is ready to embrace this path, and we hope that the rest of the world will rally around it this week.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Copenhagen, Denmark at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Secretary Clinton. We appointed Todd Stern as our first-ever Special Envoy for Climate Change because we understood that this is one of the most urgent global challenges of our time, and it demands a global solution. Climate change threatens not only our environment, but our economy and our security—this is an undeniable and unforgiving fact.

So in addition to the robust actions that the Obama Administration has taken at home—from the historic investment in clean energy included in the Recovery Act to the new efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and appliances—we have pursued an unprecedented effort to engage partners around the world in the fight against climate change. And we produced real results.

President Obama launched the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate which brought together key developed and developing countries. He also spearheaded an agreement, first among the G20 and then the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations, to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

And after a year of diplomacy, we have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and operational new agreement that will provide a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth. Our U.S. delegation includes not just the President of the United States, but six members of his Cabinet.

We have now reached the critical juncture in these negotiations. I understand that the talks have been difficult. I know that our team, along with many others, are working hard and around the clock to forge a deal. And we will continue doing all that we can do. But the time is at hand for all countries to reach for common ground and take an historic step that we can all be proud of.

There is a way forward based on a number of core elements: decisive national actions, an operational accord that internationalizes those actions, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The world community should accept no less.

And the United States is ready to embrace this path.

First, we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation. In light of the President's goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050.

Second, we also recognize that an agreement must provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. That's why we joined an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.

And today I'd like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.

So there should be no doubt about the commitment of the United States to reaching a successful agreement here in Copenhagen and meeting this great global challenge together.

But ultimately this must be a common effort. We all know there are real challenges that remain in the hours left to these negotiations. And it is no secret that we have lost precious time in these past days. In the time we have left here, it can no longer be about us versus them—this group of nations pitted against that group. We all face the same challenge together.

I have often quoted a Chinese proverb which says that when you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together. Well, we are in a common boat. All of the major economies have an obligation to commit to meaningful mitigation actions and stand behind them in a transparent way. And all of us have an obligation to engage constructively and creatively toward a workable solution. We need to avoid negotiating approaches that undermine rather than advance progress toward our objective.

I am deeply concerned about the consequences for developing countries—from Bangladesh to the Maldives, from the Caribbean to West Africa and the Pacific Islands—if we cannot secure the kind of strong operational accord I've described today. We know what the consequences will be for the farmer in Bangladesh or the herder in Africa or the family being battered by hurricanes in Central America. Without that accord, there won't be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effects in the developing world could be catastrophic. We know what will happen. Rising seas, lost farmland, drought and so much else. Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost.

Over the next two days, we will be discussing these issues further. This problem is not going away, even when we leave Copenhagen. But neither is our resolve. We must try to overcome the obstacles that remain. We must not only seize this moment, but raise our oars together and row in the same direction toward our common destination and destiny. And the United States is ready to do our part. Thank you.

Moderator. We'll take a few questions. John Broder, from the New York Times.

Q. The commitment toward a hundred billion dollar fund by 2020 is in line with, although at the lower end of, what Great Britain and the EU have proposed. You mentioned that it would include some alternative forms of finance. Could you spell that out a little bit? And do you seriously believe that a hundred billion dollars is going to be enough, and going to be enough to move this process to a conclusion tomorrow night?

Secretary Clinton. Well, a hundred billion dollars a year is a lot of money. That's a commitment that is very real and can have tangible effects. There is a pipeline that both has to be filled and then the funds disbursed. So we actually think a hundred billion dollars is appropriate, usable and will be effective. There are a number of different ideas about how we can pursue the financing to achieve the annual one hundred billion dollars commitment. I don't want to go into that here, because, you know, there are many different ideas. The important point for the next two days is not to talk about how we would fund money that we haven't yet agreed to fund, but to make the agreement that that is what we're going to do. Because I want to underscore what I said: in the absence of an operational agreement that meets the requirements that I outlined, there will not be that kind of financial commitment, at least from the United States.

Q. (Inaudible), TV2 Denmark. Two questions. Number one, as you may have heard, there has been sort of a stalemate in the negotiations. Who will now drive the negotiations forward? And number two, there's been rumors that President Obama may not come tomorrow. Will he come, actually?

Secretary Clinton. Well, as to the first question, we all have to drive the negotiations forward. I'm here today, not only to make this announcement, which is a significant commitment from President Obama and the United States, but to underscore the importance of engaging in a very constructive and active way over the next hours. We're running out of time. It's unfortunate that there has been problems with the process, difficulties with certain parties being willing to come to the table, all kinds of discussions and disagreements, sometimes about the past rather than about the future. But the underlying reality is, we have to do everything we can to reach this agreement. Because in the absence of a new agreement that binds everyone to their relative commitments and responsibilities, where the developed countries take on these obligations and where the developing countries work on their own mitigation and adaptation measures, with a transparency mechanism, there will not be the kind of concerted, global action that we so desperately need.

The President is planning to come tomorrow. Obviously we hope that there will be something to come for.

Q. Thank you. Margaret Ryan with Clean Skies News. Are you saying if China—we have reports this morning from Reuters, The Post and so on— where the Chinese officials are saying no, they will not commit to the kind of transparency, incorporating their commitments into an international treaty that the U.S. is asking. If they continue in that position, will the U.S. walk away from an agreement here?

Secretary Clinton. We think this agreement has interlocking pieces, all of which must go together. And we have set those out continuously. There have been numerous instances in the past year where parties have agreed to the elements of the agreement that we are seeking—at L'Aquila, the G8, the Major Economies Forum, the bilateral meeting between President Obama and President Hu Jintao in their statement in Beijing. Time and time again leading up to these negotiations, all the parties have committed themselves to pursuing an agreement that met the various standards, including transparency. It would be hard to imagine, speaking for the United States, that there could be the level of financial commitment that I have just announced in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter—and now I guess the first biggest emitter, and now nearly, if not already, the second biggest economy.

Q. Thank you Madam Secretary. David Corn, of Mother Jones Magazine and PoliticsDaily.com. Can you outline some of those requirements? You have just mentioned China a little bit. What would be the standards that you would expect China and other major developing nations to meet in order for there to be a deal in which you could go ahead with this financial commitment?

Secretary Clinton. Well, we have presented and discussed numerous approaches to transparency with a number of countries and there are many ways to achieve transparency that would be credible and acceptable. But there has to be a willingness to move toward transparency in whatever form we finally determine is appropriate. So, if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that's kind of a dealbreaker for us. In the absence of transparency of some sort— and I am not going to prescribe from this podium exactly what it must be—but there has to be a commitment to transparency. We've said it consistently. As I just referenced, there have been occasions in this past year when all the major economies have committed to transparency. Now that we are trying to define what transparency means and how we would both implement it and observe it, there is a backing away from transparency. And, you know, that to us is something that undermines the whole effort that we're engaged in.

President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Copenhagen, Denmark at the morning plenary session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference

President Obama. Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you—like me— were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

The question, then, 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, I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance.

I believe we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of a common threat. That's why I come here today—not to talk, but to act.

Now, as the world's largest economy and as the world's second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That's why we've renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations. That's why we've worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. That's why we've 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 mitigation actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet global responsibilities. We are convinced, as some of you may be convinced, that changing the way we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future—that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industries, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. We're convinced, for our own self-interest, that the way we use energy, changing it to a more efficient fashion, is essential to our national security, because it helps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and helps us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That's why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.

After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be 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. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. 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 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're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, 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 a broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's 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.

I just want to say to this plenary session that we are running short on time. And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action. I'm sure that many consider this an imperfect framework that I just described. No country will get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and no obligations with respect to transparency. They think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price; I understand that. There are those advanced nations who think that developing countries either cannot absorb this assistance, or that will not be held accountable effectively, and 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. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor—one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

Or we can 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, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We are ready to get this done today— but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it's better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past—and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet. Thank you very much.

President Barack Obama delivered this statement from Kaneohe, Hawaii

President Obama. Good morning. Yesterday I updated the American people on the immediate steps we took—the increased screening and security of air travel—to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. And I announced two reviews—a review of our terrorist watch list system and a review of our air travel screening, so we can find out what went wrong, fix it and prevent future attacks.

Those reviews began on Sunday and are now underway. Earlier today I issued the former guidelines for those reviews and directed that preliminary findings be provided to the White House by this Thursday. It's essential that we diagnose the problems quickly and deal with them immediately.

Now, the more comprehensive, formal reviews and recommendations for improvement will be completed in the coming weeks, and I'm committed to working with Congress and our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security communities to take all necessary steps to protect the country.

I wanted to speak to the American people again today because some of this preliminary information that has surfaced in the last 24 hours raises some serious concerns. It's been widely reported that the father of the suspect in the Christmas incident warned U.S. officials in Africa about his son's extremist views. It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community, but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list.

There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. We've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks. But it's becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.

Had this critical information been shared it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.

The professionalism of the men and women in our intelligence, counterterrorism and law enforcement and homeland security communities is extraordinary. They are some of the most hardworking, most dedicated Americans that I've ever met. In pursuit of our security here at home they risk their lives, day in and day out, in this country and around the world.

Few Americans see their work, but all Americans are safer because of their successes. They have targeted and taken out violent extremists, they have disrupted plots and saved countless American lives; they are making real and daily progress in our mission to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world. And for this every American owes them a profound and lasting debt of gratitude.

Moreover, as Secretary Napolitano has said, once the suspect attempted to take down Flight 253—after his attempt it's clear that passengers and crew, our homeland security systems and our aviation security took all appropriate actions. But what's also clear is this: When our government has information on a known extremist and that information is not shared and acted upon as it should have been, so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could cost nearly 300 lives, a systemic failure has occurred. And I consider that totally unacceptable.

The reviews I've ordered will surely tell us more. But what already is apparent is that there was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security. We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in our system, because our security is at stake and lives are at stake.

I fully understand that even when every person charged with ensuring our security does what they are trained to do, even when every system works exactly as intended there is still no one hundred percent guarantee of success. Yet, this should only compel us to work even harder, to be even more innovative and relentless in our efforts.

As President I will do everything in my power to support the men and women in intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security to make sure they've got the tools and resources they need to keep America safe. But it's also my job to ensure that our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively and held accountable. I intend to fulfill that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level.

That's the spirit guiding our reviews into the attempted attack on Christmas Day. That's the spirit that will guide all our efforts in the days and years ahead.

Thank you very much.