nothing but west virginia history. i am hoping that someone will pick up the torch as far as some of his bills. there is a center being built in morgantown that is still like a couple million dollars shy of being built. i hope someone will pick up the torch on that as well. i would like to see how gov. manchin either put himself in office now or congressman mollahan. he lost the election in west virginia and his term will be out in november. i want to see someone from west virginia that has been in politics for a while in that spot. he was a fantastic man. he was just unbelievable. i don't think anybody could ever fill his shoes, because they certainly couldn't. host: thanks to everybody who called in about senator byrd this morning. as the funeral arrangements are

announced, whether or not he lies in state under the capitol dome, c-span will be covering and you will learn about it here on "washington journal" as well. right now we will show you something from 2005. senator byrd wrote his autobiography in 2005, "ent -- entitled "child of the appalachian coal fields." here is the senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

>> could evenings -- good evening, ladies and gentlemen. it is my privilege tonight to introduce a and producers since this will not be my privilege. this is a west virginia evening, and many of you have come from west virginia to be with your senior senator, and i want to turn the podium over very i will be brief. i want to first of all welcome the senators this evening. it is an honor and privilege to have you at the national archives in washington. i would like to welcome patrick connor. since i am not introducing the senator, the words are not an introduction. i want you to understand that i have brought my copy of the constitution with me.

[laughter] it is in my pocket as citizen yours. -- as it is in yours. teaching this program has been na profound help to those that want to learn civic duty in america. i think we are all deeply grateful for that. i wanted to express that gratitude. let me also " one line and then get off the platform. showing a copy of the constitution -- you do not have to do that. and we went ahead and looked at the former leaders in the party.

they will be designed to provide direction in addition to the american people and we're grateful to c-span for being here. let me ask mr. conner to introduce our main speaker. this was said about senator byrd and, that he is already recognized as an american icon. without history, he will hold a prominent place as a senate legend. that was senate republican lettleader bill frist. [applause] >> thank you, dr. weinstein. welcome to the celebration for the release of the u.s. senator

's autobiography. and"child of the of/and coal fiel the appalachian coal fieds. ld." notebook we have acquired and publish yet represents that mission as well as this one does, and that is for us all cause for celebration. -- notebo book we have acquiredn published yet represents that as well as this one does, and

that is for alcause for celebration. this has been a work of bloolov. i want to mention those who typed every page of the 1700 pages of the original hill who edited the firstd kathy manuscript and gary legg who contributed a wonderful picture on tehe book. dean macey has been supportive.

provost's lengt lang was instrun bringing the project to my attention in the first place. the president has been the best of all presidents of for a project like this. most of all, we thank senator byrd himself. one of the best and most generous offers with him and has been my pleasure to work with. he meant every deadline. that is important. he looked at everything. he looked at everything three, four, five times. involved himself completely in the production of the books and never missed a chance to express appreciation to was for the work we did. a lot of authors forget that. thank you, senator. it has been a pleasure. it is my great pleasure now to

welcome the president of west virginia university, david c. hardesty jr., who will introduce our guest. [applause] >> good evening, senator. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. and property burden -- robert byrd's story is the american story. the life of robert byrd is so deeply entwined with the life of the state that he represents that make hicome as a surprise o you that he was not born in west virginia. he came at the age of to which his aunts and uncles that had become his adoptive parents when

his own mother died of influenza. he came to know first hand the hardships that so many west virginians and other americans have endured. he watcheddhis father and friends put an end hours of backbreaking work. he saw women like his mother struggling to raise families amid limited resources. all around him he saw people whose lives were largely circumscribes by the companies that employed them. he often relies that this brought character. conditions that denied them a on common need bread within them of very independence. spirit. as he writes in his book, we may stray from what we were taught, but if we had had a fundamental values and grade from the outset, we will return to those

in him at the lessons produced a strong work ethic, what one writer has called a stunning work ethic and a profound love of learning. at a time when a high school diploma was on -- was beyond the reach of many, he graduated as valedictorian. wall working and serving in a state legislator he took classis -- while working in serving in the state legislature, he took classes. even after completing his formal education, he has remained a scholar, particularly regarding the foundations of american democracy. anyone who has seen him speak about the history of the u.s. senate or glories of the constitution knows that the discovery in sharing of historical knowledge are among his chief and joyce. considering his reverence for

the constitution, it is fitting that we stand today one corp. below the guardian offour liberty, and i would like to recognize professor allen here today. thank you, sir. we appreciate it very much. [applause] senator byrd's coal camp upbringing impress upon him the importance of family and faith. his devotion to his wife of 68 years and his pride in his two daughters and their grandchildren and great- grandchildren is boundless and well known in his mountain state. as he notes in his autobiography, a lessons he learned reading the bible had been a guiding force through his life. there is another lesson that senator byrd internalize from the families and neighbors of his youth, he saw the men and

women around them in jordan hardships for one reason, to provide a better life for their children and their children's children. our state's public education system, the health care resources of our state, highway, scientific research capabilities and programs for veterans and senior citizens have benefited from the work of our senior senator. robert byrd is more than a representative of west virginia however. as a senator he is a legendary figure. as one of the longest serving members of congress in history, he has met -- witnessed some of the most crucial moments. he has cast more floor votes than any senator in history, more than 17,000 and all. he has served as senate majority leader and minority leader. twice served as chair of the appropriations committee, and twice served as the senate's

president pro tempore. he has been called the father of the senate and the soul of the senate. he has never hesitated to speak his mind, as you all know, and when he speaks he speaks eloquently. he ranks with senator such as clay and webster. we are so proud that senator byrd chose west virginia university press to make his autobiographical information available to the country into the world. and why i feel so privileged to introduce him today and so thankful to him for giving us all a priceless opportunity to appear him amplified echoes of the past as he reads from his story. ladies and gentlemen, senator

robert byrd. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you, president hardesty. thank you, susan. president hardesty's weizman and teammate at western virginia

university. -- president hardesty's wife and teammate at western virginia university. my friends, have great, how truly great it is to be with you. i want to thank president hardesty again, and west virginia university for hosting this event, and for publishing this book. i also want to thank dr. connor,

the west virginia university press, the beverly college of arts and sciences, and the countless others who worked long hours on weekends also to make this book a reality. thank you, dr. weinstein, for making this beautiful national archive facility available for this event tonight. they call it robert c. byrd, " child of the appalachian coal fields." i call it "the volum onevolume "

[laughter] [applause] this is my story. and this is ermma's story. here it is. to ermma. it is her story. but, it is also west virginia's story. in truth, it is west virginia history.

the coal fields of southern west virginia, the authoritarian rule of the mining community by the mining companies. the grinding poverty, the grinding poverty of the great depression. the days of the two room schoolhouse. when teachers trainereined supr, and students learned without computers. the simple, whole some ways in which folks entertain themselves. the untimely death of men who worked hard with enhance coo th,

and for meager wages like my dad and her father. the coming of the unions, i remember. the ordinary lives of working people is also here, laced with a personal love story that is very, very dear to my heart. my aim with this book was to capture an earlier picture of west virginia, west virginia.

anencapsulate some of my work fr the state that i love, and record special moments from a life, which have made me laugh, made me cry, make me be filled with great pride. i set a high bar. i hope that i have reached it. thousands of people, scores of thousands, some of whom i know well, some of whom are here tonight, some whose names i will

never know have the influenced my words and my work. come with me tonight on a journey back towardwards. make me a child again. just for tonight. back in time to the mysterious beauty of the hills, the beautiful hills and hollows of west virginia. follow a young boy and his

journey towards man hahood and nikole camps of southern west virginia where he meets, where he courts, where he mary's a certain childhood sweetheart -- wehre he marries a certain childhood sweetheart, the daughter of a coal miner. the choijoys, the agonies, the successes, the mistakes, yes, the mistakes of the very young, very unsophisticated young lad

as he tries to emulate the heroes in his school books. it is not just the saga of my early years, it is a metaphor of the dreams of millions of youngsters not born with a silver spoon and embarked on their own journey toward personal dignity. i offer this work, my life, as i ü s& it in the hopes of that there are lessons here for

others. and there are. i sank all live view -- i thank all of you for coming, and i hope tonight you will find tonight just a little bit of yourselves, just a little bit of yourself. in the recollections of this child at the appellatioof the ll fields. i thought it would be an interest if i selected from

these pages just a little excerpt paas it were. these are my glasses. and i hope i do not disturb the microphone in reaching for the spectacles. here is the first reading. it talks about this child who was born in 1917 after his

mother died of influenza in the great influenza epidemic. she died in 1918. i talk about that child, and this is what i said. during my early years i was raised to believe that mr. and mrs. burdeyrd were my parents, d although they were poor they gave me love and treated me as if they would have treated their very own child. after living in bloomfielue fiea short time we move to a coal camp where mr. byrd, , i always

callwhom i always called pap and revert to as my dad worked in a coal mine. my future was 0 for me. of course i had no way of knowing what was and that future, but west virginia westchester and to be my home -- west virginia was destined to be my home appeared i. i was to become the quintessential west virginian. what was it about the state? the state that would become a permanent home.

what was it about its history, its geography, its people that would mold might outlook, my attitude and my view points? what was it in this rugged terrain, with this wind-swept peaks? this untamed land of dense forest. this rough and wild mountain with a swift flowing rivers winding through deep gorges in meandering bally's. what was their? what was there in all of this rustic panorama of idyllic charm that would make me what i became an shaped me to what i am? as they look back -- iasas i lok

back over the 80 years to which i have lived and the soil that i have lived in west virginia, i have concluded that to understand west virginians one must ffrst understand the history of west virginia. that history is a saga of conflict, a story of struggle. west virginia is a place that few americans know and even fewer understand. it is a place of unspeakable you tbeauty.

a place that has known terrible tragedy. it has known in the blood of the white men and women that came over the mountains and two killed and work till th were kie indians. they came seeking to build their home in the wilderness by they could make a living by the sweat of their brow and the work of their hands. it is a story of the people who struggled for a sense of community, whose love for a sense of freedom and liberty was unquenchable.

they were sturdy souls for whom the unknowns of the vast wilderness hold no terror to greao great for them to press o. it is a story that is distinctly american, and yet distinctly different from that of other parts of america. it is a land whose sturdy mountain men would fight the indians, the french, and their cans peoplkins people, the brit. they later would shed their blood and on both sides between

the terrible war of the state's. they would join in the struggle over union in which one state was torn from another. it was to become the only state born out of a great civil war. this was wild, wonderful, west virginia. fon page 762, in chapter 31, the old values.

you hear much about old values these days. i was talking about them 50 years ago. does not people talk -- those mountain people talk the old values. they taught me the old values. the biblical probablverb teaches "remove the monument which those have set." some of us have become so sophisticated that we look beyond the fact that god created man and would hold him accountable for his sins.

that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. that honor and reward are to be found an honest toil. that we must obey the laws of the land and respect those in authority, whether they be our parents, the teacher, or the policemen. my foster parents on their knees influence my life from an early beginning. we may stray from what we were taught, but if we had a fundamental values ingrained in

us from the outset, we will return to those early lessons. we especially need to remember the old values that made our nation great, such as patriotism, believe in god, honesty, and as pleaders we should commend those values to the young people of america. that is what i do share. -- i do here. we senators should never forget it is not the political pundits and their ivory towers to condition look for guidance, the roads that lead us to washington also lead back home. it is the people out there in the hills, of their in the hills

and hollows, the prairies and plains and what they think that counts. the farmer with his sweaty hand on the plow in the hot sun. the miner with his pick and shovel. and the women who stay after the church meetings to wash the dishes. the teacher in the schoolrooms. the driver of a dog team in the frozen wages of the far north -- ways of the far north. these are just plain folks. the people who really make a difference.

they live near the bone and marrow of life, and they struggle daily to make a living. theirs is a stong of amandlittle man who have no time for gold and camfame, while holding the world together. i know that out or is late hourt there is yet time, and we should not lay waste our powers. one senator, one teacher, one man or woman may set in motion today the forces that would

change tomorrow's world. [applause] thank you. thank you, thank you. >> a couple of questions we solicited from the audience. there is not a lot of time, but there is a little time. let me ask some of them. somead interesting or fascinating presidents or senators who have worked with? >> as i say to my colleagues and the senate, you do not serve

under any president, you work with every president. the first president with whom i served was harry s. truman. he was the democratic president whom i most admire in my own lifetime. the red publican -- the republican president whom i most admire in my own lifetime was

dwight d. eisenhower. why? he believed in and upheld the separation of powers. >> thank you. did you ever think, someone asked, this young boy with the violin would be a united states senator sundomeday? >> i was told that my angel mother believed that caugh, beld that i would grow up to be president -- i am really glad i

did not. [laughter] for to me, to be the united states senator is enouuh. yes, as a boy, i thought i might become an american hero like frances marion, daniel morgan, or patrick henry, james madison, and then there was a time that i thought i might become a great baseball player.

i like to play catcher. with that violin i had dreams of becoming another fitch chrysler. so i had all of those boyhood dreams. i wanted to be everything. i. koch are rabbit once -- i caught a rabbit once, and mamma broke his neck at the next morning and i took it down to what we call the hard road 3 miles away and gave it to mr. fred f. jennings and he gave me 15 cents for it. then i had dreams of becoming a great game hunter. [laughter]

i had all of those dreams, but i never dreamed of becoming a united states senator. thank you for those questions. [applause] >> robert byrd served more than 50 years in the u.s. senate, a longer than anyone else in history. he was 92 years old. looking ahead to our live coverage, and about 20 minutes we will take you to the center for strategic and international studies from -- for remarks from steny core year. he will be joined by the

national security provider. and confirmation hearings get under way for elena kagan. she will appear live at 12:30 eastern on c-span3 and c-span radio. we have a preview of the shearing from this morning's "washington journal." e wall street journal." "usa today" lead editorial " said elena kagan, setting the senate hearings are a hollow shell raid -- quotes elena kagan, saying the senate hearings are hollow charade. guest: i spoke to john ul stevens and he says it is an opportunity for the senators to say how important hearings are.

beyond that, not to much. there is a certain dynamic to these proceedings, the nominee will pledge her fidelity to the law, will decide existing precedent on important issues, and will promise to pay close attention to separation of powers and the text of the constitution. beyond that, we probably will learn more about her. we will learn about the senators and what they think the priorities of the supreme court should be. host: is there any danger at this point to her being confirmed? guest: it seems unlikely. she is someone who comes in with a pretty strong backing, certainly from all of the democrats, a fair amount of conservative support and a type of very establishment credentials that people expect in the supreme court nominee. she does not come in as a bricklayer or some other type of experience. she comes in as a former dean of the most prominent law school in the country. i think that barring some

complety unexpected revelation during this week -- and we can always hope for something dramatic, if only for the narrative -- we should see her confirmed later this summer. host: have republican senators t voiced opposition to her? guest: i believe that perhaps one senator, senator in half, i believe, did say she was opped to her. others say they are reserving judgment but they have grave, serious concer about what they consider to be very disturbing aspects of her past. so, some have signalled she has a high bar to cross. others have suggested that they are more sympathetic to her. so, most senators, even democrats, said they are not promising to vote for her. they want to at least go through the formal exercise of the hearings before they officially make their choice. host: you heard the stories about the e-mails when she

served in the clinton administration. what have you heard? guest: she was exposed to a huge variety of issues that face the country, that the white house has its fingers on almost anything that goes on, issues on american indian reservations, to the big tobacco lawsuit that was filed then and actually still some action for the supreme court now. tax policy, patents, almost everything that goes on in the country at some level influences the white house, and on the domestic policy staff she had a role in it. we heard that she was quite hard sometimes in her vocabulary. she was very businesslike to her approach to issues, very politically savvy. everything, in fact, that we would have expected. host: where would you see, knowing what you do about elena kagan, where the you see the lines of questioning going? guest: the democrats will ask

for to explain how wonderful she is and how all of her preparation to this moment really inevitably lead to her nomination and how she would be extremely concerned with the impact of longer on ordinary, everyday people, and how she will make sure she will balance of the necessary factors that come before the supreme court and will do an absolutely wonderful spectacular job. republicans will asker to explain why she hates the military, why she turned her%- back on patriotic americans who were willlng to lay down their lives torotect her freedom and freedom of all of the pointy headed faculty members at harvard. they will ask her why she never found time to practice law during her long career and never found jack -- time to be a judge or do anything other than the a crass opportunistic political hack and whether that qualifies her to be on the supreme court.

so, i think those are the main lines of questioning we will see, perhaps with a slightly different -- slightly more euphemistic disguise. host: all right. jess bravin is our guest. he is with "the wall street journal." he is covering the elena kagan hearings. the numbers are on the screen -- please allow 30 days between your calls so that others can get in. talk about the elena kagan hearings that begin today. inact, they will be le on c- span 3 beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern time, live from gavel to gavell the house and senate are both scheduled to be in and that is why they are not being carried on c-span or c-span2 at this point. but on our website, c-span.org, you can watch all of this live at our c-span supreme court hearing hub.

it is all right there at c- span.org, so if you got a computer, you can watch elena kagan at your desk or on your wireless. go ahead and start dialing in. we want to show you one piece of video. this is elena kagan and justice scalia talking about the citizens united case. 3 corrupt the federal system. >> self interest -- we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precise ists -- precisely because -- at least i'm -- i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw elections restrictions that cannot favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> i think justice scalia is wrong. in fact, corporate and union

money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the single cells the ninth thing congress has done. if you look -- self -- if you ask for the money goes, it comes 10 times more to incumbents than challengers. in the prior election cycle, even more than that. for an obvious reason. when corporations play in the political process, they want winners. they want people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get the outcomes, to get the winners, is to invest and incumbents. that is what they did. as i said, and double-digit times more than they invest in challengers. so, i think that rationale, which is undoubtedly true in many contexts, simply is not the case. h., -- host: that was september of 2009, oral arguments in the supreme court case on citizens united. that has now been settled. guest: elena kagan is the

solicitor general sober job right now is to defend and a federal law that is challenged. that was but mccain-feingold act, aspects of that that was challenged. she is there to defend the constitutionality. she did not succeed. it was a 5-4 vote of the court to strike down provisions of that law that restricted political expenditures by corporations. and that decision, which was delivered in january, has become a major political flash point that the president, very distressedt it, democrats in congress very distressed at the court's view that the first amendment protect and unfettered right of corporations to spend on political campaigns. republicans have been somewhat more muted, but to the extent that it expressed opinions, they have supported that decision. we are likely to hear a lot about that case during this week because four democrats, it is a

symbol of what they see as a very pro-business court that is skewing the log to favor corporations. republican certainly don't agree with that. host: now to your calls. surely, owings mills, maryland. talking about elena kagan. caller: i am really upset that democrats never seem to be able to get "activist judges" and the republicans seem always to be able to get activist judges, pro-business and we cannot seem to get a candidate like that. i'm really upset with her selection but i do understand it, because her paper trail is so thin. i think after sonia sotomayor, barack somebody who -- one as somebody without a paper trail. host: what you mean by activi judges? caller: the case that she lt, saying corporations are

basically people, that is pro- republican. it just really irritates me that people like jeff sessions are coming out and talking about activist judges but when they put roberts and alito, the activist judges to me as a liberal. host: thanks. jess bravin. guest: activist judges is a term that gets thrown around a lot. actually president obama in his book "audacity of hope, " he said an activist judge is a judge that rules against you, in effect. as a journalist would try to stay away from that term because it has become just a synonym for, a judge would disagree with. republicans have often claimed that liberal decisions are activist decisions, this year we hear it conservative decisions are activist decisions. we prefer to stick to what the decision said and referred to our own judgment about whether we think that is an

with precedent. in terms of who the democrats and republicans have appointed to the supreme court, again, with the citizens united and many of the decisions that the president and democrats have criticized, they have mostly been 5-4 decisions, with four justices, is agreed that number, disagreeing with the majority. all three of the current justices appointed by democrats voted with the minority. so, i guess you can say that that is where they end up. host: at the bottom of this "usa today" pages this article, justice ginsburg's husband has died. have you met him? guest: i have not met him. i have covered the court since 2005. so, i have met him on occasion. he is a very well-known figure, was one. aery likable, affable, clever guy. known to be a great cook, but i

pphave never had the privilege f tasting his kitchen work. very sad news yesterday. he was 78 years old. they were married in 1953, i believe, just as ginsberg and martin ginsburg. he joked because -- saying that he had to move to washington because his wife got a good job with the government. . guest: irreverence enough to know it was not necessarily the most exciting period of study. host: l.j. go ahead from wisconsin. caller: ileana taken -- elkagan

has expressed international law should be opened up. and the other thing is the chief rabbi in that the north american alliance has come out against her and said she is not kosher. we're going to wind up like england. host: go ahead. guest: there is no justice of the united states supreme court that believes any religious laws or international laws are binding on the united states. the issue is when courts look to of various forms of reasoning, are they allowed to look and see how other court systems have addressed some of the similar issues? there is a divide between those that say they should do that

fairly often and those that says they should not do it that much. there are a number of issues in which the supreme court must look to foreign lost, such as interpreting treaties and other aspects and dealing with foreign countries. it is really a question of what degree that before and precedents should be looked at -- foreign presidentecedents shd be looked at. question when it was ever time in law school the marbury verses madison was taught as seminole moment of judicial review of congressional action. that was purely political.

in which it had to do with whether or not a political point of a judge in washington would be honored by a new generation. chief of justice had been the celebritying ri tear of state in the previous addinistration. there was a huge battle between federalist and theen afederalist. politics and law are related if not altogether happy siblings and i don't think we'll ever see a time when there's no relationship between the two. host: next call. new jersey. democrat line. hi.? caller: thank you for c-span. i think she'll be a fin nominee and bring more balance to the court. the man mentioned she was anticipate bricklayer a bricklayer would do a nicer job. we have the sense not to go hunting with dick cheney while

there's a case pending. guest: i meant no offense to brick laying. it's an important and honorable occupation but mayot be as relevant to serving on the supre court. in terms of justice scrollia he's an incredible influential figure on the court and elena kagan has cited that when he visited harvard law school from which he gradted. however, we can expect that - well i sure she respects him as a judge and thinker, there will not be a large number of case is where the two of them agree in the future if you don't like justice scrollia's approach you probably will like elena kagan. >> you have a law degree from harvard? >> berkeley. >> under graduate? >> harvard.

>> walling ford connecticut. andy, hi. >> i had a question or comment. the republicans talk about the supreme court should file the constitution. wh if the constitution says the supreme court decides who's president in bush verses gore? >> the constitution ys the judicial you her will be held by a supreme court and the judicial power resolved disputes and that was a dispute. there's no question under the constitution the supreme court could exercise the authority and the other branches recognize it even the their unhappy. certainlyome although i'd say probably half the member of congress were unhappy they decide to intervene. perhaps the other with this were pleased. >> in his column the bush and

do you think anyone will ask that question? guest: iraqi think i think it . i don't think you'll hear republican senators recite it and ion't think she'll say much about it other than the fact that the court issueed the decision and it stressed that it was limited the facts at and that happen to be that election as apposed to spreading a broader constitution. >> christian scientist monitor this month or week asked should the court look more like america? as a long article on whether or not the courthould hook more like america? guest: justice stephens with his last day-to-day was asked about that has montht a judicial conference i attended and he id, look her is overwhelming nine of us.

there's only so many types you can have. he's the only member that serve during the world. that was world war ii. also the only member right now from the midwest. the only member that did anticipate tend a law school affiliated an ivy league college and some point people point out. overwhelming protestant. great to have one of everyone but there's only nine of us. host: 111 supreme court justices in the history. of all of them have served, grown up east of the mississippi river. 15 come from the state of new york. dallas? catherine, republican on with the "wall street journal". caller: hi. am ion? i'm rebe back to either the

roberts or senate hearings and the democratic senators were so vicious that the wives of one of the roberts or case started walking outcrying. am i remember this right? guest: that was al i.t. o. what happened is that senat lindsay gram a republican from south carolina was complaining about what he said - y just mentioned. he was come maintaining at the democrats we unfairly beating up on justice alito and he was talking about that. as he described that. she began to cry and that was a memorable moment and symbolized for a lot of people how political these proceedings are and how, when the outcome seems pretty determined, the politicians try to use the opportunity and the spotlight to score political points that

resonate with the hope with >> we will leave this to go live to the center for strategic and international studies for an address by majority leader steny hoyer on the democratic national security strategy. making introductions is zbigniew brzezinski, former national security adviser in the carter administration. live coverage now on c-span. >> we're delighted to have our speaker today, one of our national leaders. nationwide as a person who plays not only a decisive role in our congress, but plays a critical role in the shaping of our national policy, collaborating in that respect with the president and the white house. he is going to address us today on the critical issue of what ought to be the national

strategy of the united states at a time of the extraordinary complexity. national security, in that context, has to be broadly defined. it also has to be historically relevant. a security policy has to take into account how the world is changing. it is in this context that congressman hoyer is going to be speaking, and his speech is going to be focusing on a broad range of issues. in addition to playing a leading role in our national leadership, congressman hoyer is of course the distinguished and enduring representative of the state of maryland. i am not going to go through his biograph 8y in detail, but i want to know that he became a state legislature at the age of 27. he won a seat in the maryland senate. ever since then, he has

represented maryland in the state locally, nationally, and very much on the international scene. back in the 1970's, he played a preeminent role in the helsinki human rights process, which was so critical to the eventual dismantling of the soviet union. we are very fortunate to have with us here today a national leader, an international leader, and a neighbor from maryland. [applause] >> thank you very much. well, i would have come today just to hear that introduction. what an extraordinarily distinguished career dr. zbigniew brzezinski has had and what the contribution he has made to the united states and to the rational policy of international relations throughout the world. i am so pleased to be here as well as csis with so many

distinguished scholars and leaders in international relations and thinkers in our country on very complex and difficult issues that we confront. i am also pleased to be here with a number of good friends whom i have known for half a century almost, i think. i will not out of them here, but i am pleased to be here. stephen flanagan, thank you very much for hosting this event. please give john henramery my bt regards. he is an extraordinary leader, and i have worked closely with him. i am pleased to be here with all of you. experience shows that the values of free societies can break down the strongest walls of oppression. an american foreign policy has at its best and most creative

taken advantage of the fact of that fact to keep our nation more secure. as chairman of the helsinki convention, i watched firsthand as free speech, free association, and free markets became the rallying cry for the brave dissident movement of the eastern bloc. solidarity in poland to charter said the seven in czechoslovakia, to heroes in russia. they found courage in the universal principles of free men and women. that helped usher in an era of new openness behind the iron curtain. ultimately, they helped bring down an empire. i have never forgotten the lesson. america's military is a powerful weapon. but is it not the only one we have? today we are engaged in a new struggle, unlike any in our history. our enemy is not defined by

borders are governments, and the struggles to not be defined by a surrender ceremony. we are confronting not an evil empire but a network of hate and violence, and the trends of state fell year and nuclear proliferation that amplify its danger. but now, as then, our success will be measured not only by our determination but as well by our creativity. now, as then, we cannot afford to turn our backs on any web been in our arsenal. the challenge -- we cannot turn our backs on any weapon in our arsenal. the challenge is great. greater than other challenges our nation has faced and overcome. america has often overcome those challenges under leadership of my party. through two world wars, the containment of communism, the specter of missiles in cuba or genocide in bosnia. democratic leadership has answered the threats that

endangered america's security and the world's security. today i want to discuss how we can build on that tradition and continue to keep our nation and its people safe. it is a strategy that rests on the use of four crucial tools. strength, development, democracy, and fiscal discipline. first, democrats, as i said, have aggressively stepped up the fight against terrorists. we have strengthened america's military by finding real equipment after years of war, and we have put new and better weapons and to the battlefield. including the mine resistance ambushed protected vehicles that our troops need. as well, of course, as an increase in aerial drones. under president obama, the u.s. has killed or captured hundreds of terrorist leaders, including much of the top leadership of al qaeda and the taliban. disrupting their ability to plot

an attack on our country. the attempted christmas day bombing and the attempted bombing of times where reminded us all that our enemy is still intend to do as grave harm. those plots were foiled not by chance but by the vigilance of law enforcement and intelligence, first responders, and importantly, ordinary citizens. but even a foiled plot is a lesson in our own abilities and the ways in which terrorists attempt to exploit them. that is what president obama demanded that our intelligence community closely study and applied the lessons of those plots. president obama also demonstrated that he learned the lessons the bush administration's conduct in afghanistan, where frankly, years of neglect allowed for the taliban's resurgence. president obama listened closely to opposing views on the way forward in afghanistan. for the first time in years, we

have a clear counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan. drawing on the poor and cooperation from the pakistani government. based on the premise that if terrorists dominated states, it will once again pose a direct danger to americans and to our country. but we also have a clear time frame to measure the effectiveness of our efforts. in an -- in iraq, we are preparing for responsible redeployment that will allow the iraqi government to stand on its own feet. and to expect the iraqi government to stand on its own feet. but protecting ourselves against terrorism does not just mean force of arms. that is why democrats, often in the face of republican opposition, have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies, ports, and our borders.

unfortunately, both the fiscal year 2010 homeland security appropriation bill and the fiscal year 2011 intelligence authorization bill passed in a partisan way, over strong republican opposition. president obama is also strongly committed to nuclear non- proliferation. because the more nuclear weapons in the world, the greater the chance that one will someday fall into the wrong hands. as the president said at a nuclear summit he convened in april, it terrorists ever acquired and used nuclear- weapons, "it would be a catastrophic catastrophe for the world, causing extraordinary loss of life and striking a major blow to global peace and stability. in short, it is increasingly clear that the danger of nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats to global security, to our collective security."

that sun is successfully focused the world's attention on the dangers of nuclear terrorism, strengthened cooperation toward the goal of controlling all the world's vulnerable -- and vulnerable bigger materials in four years, and convinced several nations including chile, context on, mexico, and ukraine to make commitments such as giving of highly enriched uranium and eapons-grade plutonium. the start treaty signed with registered to the same goal. reducing the world's supply of nuclear material and keeping us all safer. finally, economic pressure is part of the wisse use of strength. we all understand the danger posed by a nuclear iran. president obama's work to engage iran has not been met, as all of

us i think what degree, in good faith. but a bit further isolate iran in the eyes of the world, and i believe that it helped secure russian and chinese agreement with the strong sanctions passed this month by the security council. congress is sending its own set of sanctions to the president's desk, which we passed last week. it will hit the iranian regime where it hurts, its petroleum sector. and i hope demonstrate that the cost of their nuclear pursuits are too high to bear. in all, this is a record of keeping america safe, and it is one we can be proud of. but it embodies goals that deserve the support of both parties, and indeed, enjoyed bipartisan support during the decades of the cold war. during the cold war, a secret of success was the unity with which both parties pursued a consensus

strategy to contain and bring down communism. there was fierce disagreement, of course, but there was also remarkable continuity and a reluctance to exploit threats to america's simply for political gain. that could and should be the spirit of this new struggle. but, unfortunately, months after 9/11, chose to exploit americans' legitimate fear for their safety in an unprecedented way. we see the lasting effects today on an national-securityy debate that too often dissolves into an endless series of politically charged wage issues while the larger strategic challenges confronting us go neglected. we see the effects of a recurring partisan effort debate many of the president's moves as somehow apologetic or weak. i recall, as i know all of you

do, john kennedy's observation that we must never fear to negotiate, but we must never negotiate out of fear. you will regard that james baker met with saddam hussein's days before we went into iraq in 1991. whenever the character rears its head, i look at the president's strong record in think, what president are they talking about? our founders spoke deliberately of the common defense, because the threats we face make no partisan distinctions. they are common to us all. secondly, the force is at times clearly necessary, and i have supported that use. we learned from the cold war that force alone does not win ideological struggles. then it was the promise of a better life that led some need to abandon ccmmunism and its

faulse promise of progress. today, there is the hatred of a modern world that seems to have left too many behind. chronic oppression of women and girls condemns nations to poverty and abandons young men to extremist ideologies. and the failure of institutions in distant states, as we have seen from somalia to afghanistan, is a direct threat to our own people. so a strong development policy must be a pillar of our national security. enter national development reflects our moral values -- international development reflects our moral values. pour and unstable countries make unreliable trading partners and weak markets for american goods and services. and we cannot desert global

leadership while neglecting hunger, disease, and human misery. some democrats have made internationally agreed to develop goals the prime focus of our foreign policy. president obama has announced major new initiatives on food security and global health. and his administration is working to strengthen them through partnerships with other donors in the private sector. data-driven analysis of the strong standards of accountability. we're working with world body's to strengthen international norms against corruption, so that foreign aid reaches the people it was intended for and is not squandered by unaccountable regimes. and we're acting on the well- funded conviction that ending the marginal edition of women and girls is a key to economic development. as larry summer once put it, "investments in the girls' education may well be the highest return investment

available in the developing world." third, the cold world -- the cold war taught as a democracy, human rights, economic freedom of the most powerful weapons in an ideological struggle. today's autocrats understand that as well, as a carefully channeled their own people's frustration into a rage against america. the eight years of the bush administration showed what we already knew, that democracy cannot be imposed by force. that elections alone do not equal to democracy. that democratization and economic growth do not always go hand-in-hand. and that failing to lead by example weakens democracy around the world. the trials of those years taught us that there are wiser policies to pursue, better ways to build democracy and respect for human

rights in the world. not that the objective is out of keeping with our character as a nation. indeed, it is an integral part of that character. today, we meet that objective when we understand that the world's democratic movements in nations from egypt to iran have a legitimacy that ought to be recognized, not restraint, by their governments. we meet that objective when we support those movements publicly. we meet that objective when we recognize that our strgest alliances are those built not merely on our interests but on at the foundation of common values, such as our friendship with the democratic state of israel, such as our friendship with our european allies, such as our friendship with our asian allies in australia and others, who join with us in the common values, to present them to the world and to pursue them as

international policy. a bond of generations that no momentary disagreement can undo. most importantly, we promote democracy when we live our democratic values here at home. torture is not a democratic value. extraordinary rendition is not a democratic value. overriding the rule of law in our criminal justice system, under president bush and obama, has convicted and incarcerated 300 terrorists since 9/11. without incidence is not a democratic value. many conservatives recognized that when american citizens attend attacks on our nation, as we saw in the times square, and our civilian courts are more than equipped to carry out justice. there may well be times, however, in military commissions far opprobrious and should be

used. we also honor our democratic values when we honor the tradition of civilian control of the military. as president obama correctly made clear last week. when we abandon our heritage, whether for expedience or fear or partisan advantage, we make our principles hollow in the eyes of the world, and we throw away one of the best weapons we have. all of our presidents have understood the value pragmatism, but they have also understood that it must be balanced with america's historic role as the advocate of democratic values and democratic movements around the world. fourth and finally, every one of these policies comes with a cost. every choice rules out other choices. and i set forth, but one of the things i left out in this speech thht i wish i would put in and

will reference at this time, but another critical component of our international security policy must be the pursuit of energy independence. there was an observation made yesterday, i think it was "meet the press," in the final closing remarks that if we did not pursue an energy independence policy, we will continue to be undermining our national security and reliance on sources of foreign energy. we have passed legislation to accomplish that objective through the house of representatives. unfortunately, the senate has not. but we must pursue energy independence. not only has been the spill tragically and compellingly made that clear to us in the gulf, but certainly our relationships with those who provide us with energy, which are sometimes strained, give us ppuse to understand that energy

independence is an integral part of our national security. let me talk about the fifth, what is now the fifth because i added something in, the deeper our nation sinks into debt , the more our choices will be constrained. and the more our leadership will be challenged by nations, especially china, that hold our debt to. as a matter of fact, on the path that we're on, the day will come, i fear, when our strength will be staffed by our debt -- sapped by our debt. it is time to stop talking about discipline and that as if they are separate topics. debt is a national security threat. unsustainable debt has a long history of toppling world powers. a financial historian writes, "this is how empire's decline.

it begins with debt explosions." that is what the work of the president's bipartisan fiscal commission is soap important, in my view, to our future, and why i am is urging my colleagues to see the necessity of a budget compromise that is real, politically viable, and a way to restore fiscal balance and health. budget agreements like that pave the way for historic prosperity and for america's ability to act as the sole superpower. under the first president bush and president clinton, in an agreement like that to be implemented after the economy has fully recovered is a necessity today. what are publicly held debt reaching $9 trillion, defense spending can it no longer insure not be exempt from the hard choices pressing on every part of our budget.

democrats took important steps to trim unnecessary speeding with an important acquisition reform bill that president obama signed last year with the strong support of secretary bob gates. and we passed a contract reform bill that passed the house this spring and is waiting for senate action. but those bills, of course, are simply a beginning. in an uproar and speech last month, secretary grades drew on the legacy of president eisenhower. if -- in an apparent speech last month. eisenhower said, "united states, indeed, any nation, could only be as militarily strong as it was economically dynamic and fiscally sound." it is advice we should take seriously today. last week, i spoke of the danger of debt to our prosperity and security, and i made clear that eliminating unnecessary defense spending has to be part of the deficit equation. i did so with confidence, because i know that many of our

nation's military leaders feel the same way. secretary gates, as i have said+ is one of them. he has urged congress to stop funding an additional c-17 cargo planes and an extra engine for the strike fighter. it is ot without controversy, but it is in terms of making choices. he believed we had to do so. to buy because of inflation and the military health care to cut expenses and cut unnecessary weapons systems and from the overhead that makes up more than 40% of the defense budget. a chairman has told the house armed services committee to scrutinize the budget and see the savings that can be effective, consistent with maintaining a defense as strong as necessary to meet any challenges that might be coming our way. some congressional republicans share these concerns. on the same day as but the

deficit, congressman paul ryan said, "there are billions of dollars you can get out of the pentagon. we're buying some weapons systems, i would argue, we do not need any more pirko choices in this fiscal challenging market is -- and barnett are essential. i understand that whatever savings we put on the table will prove controversial. but as with all budget crunches, the fundamental decision we face is this, hard choices today or even more painful and draconian ones forced on us down the road. now let me hasten to add, as i did last week, that a strong economy, as well as fiscal balance, is essential, and one cannot be the victim of the other. after years of war, we still have the strongest military on earth, and thousands of men and women have given us examples of courage and sacrifice, to which

the only proper responses great gratitude. but our history reminds us that arms alone do not win wars. particularly against an enemy that we will rarely, if ever, meet on the battlefield. nations win wars. the skill of our intelligence officers, the vigilance of our first responders, the creativity of our development policy, the force of our universal values, the discipline of our policy makers, the will and consensus of the american people, they are all part of this struggle as well. they're all enter goal to our national security strategy, -- they are all entitled to our national security strategy, and we must use every part of that strategy wisely. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i am sure will have a number of questions. i will moderate a discussion. we have about 15 minutes. we have people floating in the room with microphones. if you raise your hand, i will recognize you. introduce yourself. i will open the floor. yes, the gentleman in the first row. >> the distinguished former member of the congress of the united states. a good friend of mine from wisconsin. so this question may not be particularly subjective. >> i will try as hard as i can to be neutral. it is so right what you said about arms alone cannot win wars. i think it may be time to reconsider our drug policy in that area of the world.

we are alienating a lot of people. it is -- we need to reconsider our drone policy. we have this other " bad guy" we want to kill. we hit a house and killed 12 other people. we can measure what we kill. we do not measure the increasing circle of and around the nation as a result of that.3 wars and along our borders, they were sending planes over the border to hit some people they want to hit. we will not tolerate it. i think it is really hurting our standing in this country, and i hope we will have a chance to review that over time. thank you. >> thank you. i think that, clearly, the complexity of wars today, clearly in every war there have been collateral damage, and that is to be lamented. and there are tragedies. whether they're women, children,

elderly, there to be lamented. having said that, the complexity of this war is, of course, that our enemies are almost always colocated with, as you say, and a sense -- innocents. how do we handle that? there have been briefings on the use of drones. it is clearly, and we have had this current controversy from general mcchrystal in terms of the strategy he is pursuing, was pursuing, and that is our strategy which is to decrease to the possible extent possible civilian casualties. because they do alienate, understandably, large portions of the people that we are trying

to win over and have on our side. so you need to make a judgment. you need to make a judgment as to whether or not leaders of al qaeda, the taliban, or what ever terrorist group or faction that may be at issue here, whether taking them out with every measure possible to take them out discreetly, to target them discreetly, is worth the price. it is a difficult judgment that presidents have to make. ultimately, they make that decision. president obama has made it clear that if we are going to succeed, it will be because, in effect, we take away the leadership of al qaeda. i think there is evidence that we have done that. i think there's evidence that we had disrupted their abilities, and the price that we have paid is the price he pointed out.

and frankly, some people have paid the ultimate price. say if we cannot take out simply an individual or individuals that we clearly know without doubt are those that are acting against us, that we their full -- that we therefore will not act i think will place us in a position of not being as effective as we need to be, if we're going to take this challenge on. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i am the south asia director here at csis. i applaud your final point about the importance of a strong economy as part of our national security, but what you did not say really raises two questions. first of all, how do you avoid savaging the development and

diplomatic budget, which are normally sitting ducks for any scissors that come around on the hill? second, you did not use the t- word, taxes. understand that taxes are politically toxic. can you get fiscal discipline without being willing to do something about taxes? >> to your first question, we will adopt a budget enforcement resolution this week, hopefully. it will have a number that is lower than the president's number, but it will not be a discrete number, as the budget is. it will be a gross number, so that the appropriations committee will make determinations to where best it can invest the dollars it has available. 302-a is the general big number for discretionary spending.

it will be what they will allocate that money to. the president has included much of that money in the security said of the budget, as opposed to the non-tuppence discretionary part of the budget. he has done -- as opposed to the non-security discretionary part of the budget. the appropriations committee, i believe, in the context of the budget enforcement resolution, will have the discretion to apply sums were their best believed to have a positive effect by the administration, and certainly by the congress. with respect to your second point, i do not know whether you had the opportunity to either hear about or read about the statements i made last week. and i talked about revenues. i talked about revenues having to be on the table and that in

any kind of quest for fiscal balance in our country, we had to look at both spending and revenue. i may have neglected it in this speech. i did not mention it. but clearly, what i said last week was that you need to have a balanced approach because you cannot get there from here without one. i have urged the commission itself, which was established by the president and will report some time late november, i hope, and hopefully reach agreement on some proposals. my expectation is that it will include both spending and revenue focuses. >> i have a question about your comment about the fact that the war in afghanistan and other wars are not won only by military means. i wonder how you assess the admiiistration's record on developing what is sometimes referred to as the civilians surge, providing additional assistance to the afghan

government to strengthen rule of law i to deliver other kinds of assistance that will give them the capacity to rule their country more effectively over the long term. how do you assess the progress amidst all the turmoil last week? some of the questions were out there about how well that is going. >> well, i am and hopeful that general petraeus -- just less hopeful that general petraeus it -- that general petraeus will have much more coordination with the civilian sector, as he did in iraq. we need to have a much closer working relationship. obviously, the "rolling stone" interview reflected a schism. that is not helpful. secondly, i believe this administration realizes that aid dollars are essential. i want to say that i am one of those who believes that we very, very severely distracted our focus from afghanistan for the

overwhelming majority of the time we have been involved with afghanistan. a surge early on, and then essentially a focused on iraq. only towards the end of the bush administration, when it was clear that the taliban or reorganizing and reforming, that al qaeda wasn't growing in strength as well -- that al qaeda was growing in strength as well, that the bush and ministration -- the bush administration was confronted with that, and this administration was confronted with an economic collapse. but we also have to focus on these two wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think the administration has made it clear, and i think secretary clinton has made it clear, that civilian -- that is, winning the civilian side of the equation is critically important. i believe that is what counterinsurgency is all about. i think we're in the process,

and i think the ambassadors. was clear, that it is part -- i think that the ambassador's point was clear. going overseas takes away investment from the united states. i think that we will be involved in a vigorous debate about afghanistan generally, but i think part of that to be -- part of that debate will be about the civilian side. complicating that would be what i set about making sure the dollars that are spent overseas are spent in the way we intend them to be. the "washington post" has a story today about corruption. that is not helpful. not only is it not helpful, but it is not warranted to invest money if we're not convinced it will be spent in a way that will be positive. >> thank you. i think we have time for one

more question. >> thank you very much. general counsel for the office of the chief defense counsel in the military commissions. congressmen, i t y for your many. -- i thank you for your comments. i recognize the military issue is hardly a flyspeck in terms of some of the larger issues. but it has symbolic and political value, perhaps especially for the democrats. i am wondering if you can speak to your comments today on the viability of federal court as a venue for prosecuting terrorists? in light of the recent passage in the new nbaa the title cut off of funding for transfer of everyone from the guantanamo to the united states, including

individuals subject to prosecution in federal court -- any to recognize that i am really not here, and our office does not seek a position on the legitimacy of either venue. that is quite genuine, but i think it would be helpful to know where the democrats stand on this and how that particular sausage got made. >> well, that sausage did not get made. it was imposed. i referenced in the course of my speech -- we referred to those amendments as gotcha amendments. it has received it simplistic and superficial engagement in terms of how we reach an and that is necessary, and that is a determination -- how we reach an end that is necessary, and that is a determination of holding those that we hold and what to do about them.

i have been down to guantanamo and spend time there a few months ago. i had opined with a number of people in the white house that there was a possibility, and i do not know that this is politically practical but i will mention it anyway -- my staff is saying to themselves, i wish you would not go there, but i am going to go there. i think there are constitutional problems with allowing a title 3 court to sit at guantanamo. there are obviously some problems with juries. i do not think their problems with the signing a judge. perhaps a number of judges in rotating way. but i think the answer to your question is that this matter has been used in a political way by republicans, frankly, and others to inflame and instill fear in people.

the bush administration did not confront that debate within his party when they pursued the disposition of cases in the civil courts. and in fact, the civil courts have been very successful in disposing of cases. i mentioned the number 300 there about. at the military tribunals have a place, and i think the administration is trying to work on that place now. i am hopeful that we will have to consider discussion and debate about that. not simply a political gotcha environment where if someone indicates that we should dispose of the case in a venue of the united states -- i mention some conservatives, and you had some very conservatives with whom i disagree very substantially but you talked about the times square bomber having rights to

be informed and tried here in this venue. and there, it was the constitution should not be put aside simply because -- and their comments was wish not to the constitution aside simply because it is a terrorist. we need to be, sent -- we need to see this when we determine summit to be possibly a terrorists. for instance, in terms of the immediate threat exception to thgiving the miranda rule as appropriate. but i am hopeful that we will have a rational reason debate about how to do what we have done or how to respond to what we have done. that is it take people into custody who are not prisoners of war in the classic sense. but they are people that we

hold that have not been in adjudicated other than by the military as having committed an offense. i think we need to figure that out. and i do not mean to imply that everybody that is detained in a foreign land, for an venue, is treated as a criminal defendant. i want to make that clear. i am not saying that. i do not want that misinterpreted by anybody, particularly the media and some of my conservative friends. but i am saying that this is a complicated, difficult issue and should be dealt with based upon that promise. >> thank you all very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> a live picture of the flag being flown at half mast over the capitol building for senator robert byrd who passed away this morning at the age of 92. senator byrd was born in november of 1917 and the north carolina before moving to west virginia. he served six years in the u.s. house before becoming a senator in 1959 and was reelected for a record ninth six-year term in 2006. he voted more times and was elected to more leadership positions than any other senator in history. he appeared on c-span more than 1200 times. he had speeches from the senate floor, congressional hearings, and other programs online at the c-span video library. we will bring you an interview

in from 1989 later in our schedule. president obama today said the country has lost a voice of principal and reason with the passing of senator byrd. the president says, senator byrd had a profound passion for the senate and held the deepest respect for members of both parties. the president said the day -- that as a young senator, he apprrciated senator byrd's generosity with advice. senator byrd passed away today at the age of 92 in a va hospital. elsewhere in the washington, confirmation hearings get under way for supreme court nominee l.a. get taken. she will appear before the senate judiciary committee. it will be on our companion network, [captioning performed by national captioning institute] -- it will be on our companion network, c-span3.

tonight, a look at the fcc's efforts to reclassify the internet, which two members of the house communications subcommittee. that is tonight on c-span2. president obama to questions on afghanistan and the global economy at a news conference at the end of the g-20 summit in canada over the weekend. he pledged to cut the u.s. does it in half by the year 2013. >> please, everybody have a seat. good evening. i want to thank our wonderful hosts the first and foremost, my friend and partner, prime minister harper, as well as the canadian people and the people of toronto for their

extraordinary hospitality. the success of these summits, the g-8 and the g-20, is a tribute to canadian leadership. i also want to thank my fellow leaders for the sense of purpose that they brought to this summit. the g-20 is now the premier forum for international economic cooperation. we represent east and west, north and south, advanced economies and those still emerging. our challenges are as diverse as our nations, but together we represent some 85% of the global economy, and we have forged a coordinated response to the worst global economic crisis in our time. in london last year, we took unprecedented action to prevent an even larger economic catastrophe, to put our economy is on the path to recovery, and to begin reforming our financial

systems so that the crisis, like the one we were emerging from, never happened again. in pittsburgh, we went further, moving beyond the old economic cycles of boom and bust, by committing our nations to in new -- to a new framework that is balanced with specific financial reforms. our bold action has succeeded. in the u.s., we're committed above all to leading by example. because of the steps we have taken to get our economy moving, we're growing again, and this growth is beginning to translate into job creation. we're now poised to pass the toughest financial reforms since the aftermath of the great depression. globally, economic contraction has given way to economic growth. we are rebounding. emerging economies, and the particular, are seeing impressive growth. we have pull ourselves back from the brink and begun to move forward with economic recovery. but, as we all know, that is

not good enough. the u.s. and around the world, too many people are still out of work. we have been reminded that financial crisis in one country can have consequences far beyond its borders. history teaches us the growth and prosperity is never guaranteed. it requires constant effort and continued leadership. we came to toronto with three specific goals. to make sure the global recovery is strong and durable, to continue reforming the financial system, and to address the range of global issues that affect our prosperity and security. we have made progress in each of these areas. first, we agreed to continue coordinating our efforts, so we're creating jobs. that is my highest economic

priority as president. this is why we're focused on increasing global demand. every economy is unique, and every country will chart its own unique course. make no mistake, we're moving in the same direction. as i reiterated to my colleagues, after years of taking on too much debt, americans cannot and will not borrow and buy the world's way to a lasting prosperity. no nation should assume its past prosperity is simply paved with exports to the united states. indeed, i have made it clear that the u.s. will compete aggressively for the jobs in industries and markets of the future. that is why i set the goal of doubling our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support millions of jobs in the united states. that is why i have launched a national export in the ship channel to meet this goal. it is what we focused earlier this week and deepening our economic cooperation with russia, which would benefit all of our countries, including

restarted our poultry exports and accelerating our eggs -- efforts into supporting russia's entry into the wto. that is why my administration will work to resolve outstanding issues read -- involving the u.s./peraea free trade agreement by the time i visit korea in november. -- the u.s./korea free trade agreement. a strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage. so we also discussed the need for currencies that are market- driven. as i told president hu yesterday, the u.s. welcomes china's decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces, and we will be watching closely in the months ahead. and because a durable recovery must also include fiscal responsibility, we agreed to balance the need for continued growth in the short term and

fiscal sustainability in the medium term. in the u.s., have said the goal of cutting our deficit in half by 2013. -- i have set the goal of cutting our deficit in half by 2013. we must recognize that our fiscal health tomorrow will rest in no small measure on our ability to create jobs today. the second area we focused on was advancing the goal of financial reform. just as we are on the verge of passing financial reforms in the u.s., our european partners have committed to the process we went through in the united states, a new level of transparency and a stress test for banks to rebuild confidence. here in the toronto, we reaffirmed our commitment for the highest global standards. to maintain momentum, we directed our teams to finalize for our meeting in seoul, a global framework to ensure the bank's old enough capital to withstand the stress of government intervention. rules must be clear. oversi