the international relationships regulation, like the united nations. this is a good platform. it is universal. and we work in the framework of g-8 anti- 20 and we will continue this work. -- and g-20 and will continue this work in overcoming the effects of the global economic crisis as well because we do not know what the outlook is. but there are various scenarios and soon they will be meeting each other in the format of g eight-g-eight, and g-20. i would like to draw everyone's attention to the initiative which we came up with after i was elected, the american-

european security treaty. this is an important thing. it is not aimed at any organization. this was not the reason behind it. this is not a track made by russians against nato or o s c. the we were just trying to add a better tool to the security system. . quite extensively and we discussed it, maybe you will have some questions on that, the iranian nuclear issue. now a lot is being said about the need to impose sanctions on iran and the reasons for those sanctions are totally clear. iran still hasn't responded to the compromised suggestions. we are discussing these suggestions on sanctions with our colleagues in the six-party talks. last time we discussed this with last time we discussed this with gue when we saw each other to sign the new start treaty. it doesn't mean that sanctions

are just a good and healthy thing and they don't always bring about the necessary results and certainly they should not punish the people. they should only prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. in that case, they can be efficient. we are assisting afghanistan in their transition towards a stable and sustainable developing state. we are trying to assist them in assuring a peaceful life. we work together in the political area trying to ensure a political settlement. we are enforcing the local authorities assisting the police. we are working together on transit issues. i believe that all these is eventually contributing to a common result. so far, little is being done to stop the drug trafficking original naturing from

afghanistan. maybe because america is less affected by these problems and russia and europe are suffering more. this is the drugs that go to our countries. and we should achieve a greater progress on that. we have similar approaches on the meast settlement. we need to create necessary conditions to -- for the creation of an independent palestinian state. so far, we are facing a lot of difficulties. until then, we cannot expect a durable and sustainable peace in the middle east. so far, the united states is taking vigorous efforts to recover the constructive process , including through proximity talks. we totally support this idea and this year, i have met with almost all of the middle east leaders. i supported indirect faux. we hosted the meeting in moscow and i hope eventually it will

lead to direct negotiations. any stop in the development always brings about lagging behind. that is why our country started modernizing its economy and started the technological innovation introduction. so far, frankly, speaking, we haven't done that much. and frankly speaking, here, we would like to count on the partnership with leading economies throughout the world, including the u.s. economy and i was very happy with our discussion with president obama when we started discussing our agenda, not with the middle east and not with iran and not with the problem with start treaty, but we started our discussion with cooperation between our two countries and i believe that the truth be told, it is the area that most failed in our relationship. now we have recovered a dynamic development in these area.

we have established a constructive relationship in a personal level between the presidents, but there are no economic result. so i would like to reiterate that it would be a very useful thing, though business is business and it is governed by its own rules and cannot impose things on it, but we could create conditions conducive to its development. i have quoted a saying by the founder of this institution, mr. brookings, and it would be wrong should i not quote about the incumbent u.s. president when he was addressing a meeting in russia. he said that america needs a powerful peaceful and prosperous russia. those are good words. but russia, in turn, also needs a responsible peaceful, recognized and din

milk-developing america, america that enjoys the respect of the entire international community that develops partnership with other countries on an equal footing and that develops its position towards the development of a new system of international relations. that would be a great thing to achieve. at this point, i would like to finish my remarks. and now we can start the more interesting part of this meeting in the question and answer session. if you don't mind, i will stay here to take your questions. >> thank you so much. we will in a few minutes open the conversation to include our friends here in the audience. but perhaps i could get the conversation going a little bit between the two of us by asking you to follow up a bit on two

issues, and they both boil down to one question, which is what next? what next for the negotiations between russian federation and the united states on nuclear and other arms now that you have the new start treaty done, awaiting ratification, of course, on both sides? and what next by way of follow up on what you have described as a very successful nuclear safety summit here in washington? [russian translator] >> frankly speaking, i really hope that more work will be done, more work will follow. speaking about the outcomes of the summit, i hope we will not just go home feeling happy. as for the start treaty, i would like to see one legal effect after that, the ratification of the treaty and if it does take

place, it means that president obama and i did not work in vain. and should there be no ratification, it will mean we have gone back to some soviet times when these treaties were not ratified. but on the other hand, it would be very important in my mind that our relationship should not be reduced to nuclear cooperation or choose the limitation of strategic arms, although it is something that people expect of us. and in this regard, we have assumed a great responsibility towards the international community. i would like us to have a much broader cooperation on all the other areas. as to the future of the treaty and our further steps, i would like us to undertake all the necessary procedures provided for in the treaty. i would like the treaty to be

transparent. i would like it to be acceptable to both societies in russia and the united states. i hope it will not cause any tensions. and i hope it will help us to build on our future cooperation, though, frankly speaking, besides strategic arms, there are other arms that are quite dangerous as well that also require an agreement between us, that require a discussion between us, because there are conventional forces that can cause a traumatic damage. and on such systems, we haven't yet coordinated our position as to what to do next. there are issues on which we should formulate a common position, like nuclear terrorism, like nonproliferation, like control overstates that are threshold countries and that are trying to

use all the ways to sneak into the nuclear club. this is our joint responsibility and i would like us to work on that together. >> thank you very much. i suspect maybe some of our colleagues will want to return to these issues, but if i could ask you one question about russia and the global economy, and that is, what you see as the prospects for russia being part of the world trade organization. [russian translator] >> being honest, i think that we should have be in the w.t.o. long time ago, because we have been on the threshold longer than any other country ever since big countries, china. and being honest, i think russia's is publicized highly.

it has become a carrot before us. they keep saying, behave well and we will accept you to the w.t.o. but this is not correct, because if we assess the organization, everyone will benefit, not only russia. it is a very important part of international economy. whatever people say, we have a lot of things to offer and harmo niization of the rules we use. we would like to have the ability w.t.o. and we should make this procedure not humiliating for us. and i will be frank, i know that barack obama will not be offended. he said that russia should join w.t.o. we started the process in 2006

when our relationship was just evolving. but there is nol result yet and we count very much on a favorable position of the new administration to force the joining of russia to the w.t.o. this does not run counter to our commitments like our customs union with belarussia. all the processes can be harmonized and benefit from it. >> i'm going to invite the audience to put some questions top president medvedev. and i would ask you to be sure that they are questions and that you identify yourself when you stand up to ask. we have microphones around the room. i'll start with ambassador rick burke.

>> i listened to the answer you gave about what's next and you outlined a number of areas that the united states and the russian federation could work on , european security, conventional forces, proliferation. does that suggest -- does your answer suggest that a new round of further reductions in nuclear forces is not a russian priority, a new round of negotiations following the start treaty and hopefully its ratification is not a russian priority or would you support a followup negotiation to achieve deeper cuts? [russian translator]

>> i would like to say that this is an important priority for russia as well as for the united states. ratification is a process that should be addressed by all of us together by each country and we have agreed with mr. obama that ratification will be simultaneous. not to make everyone -- not to put anyone in an awkward situation talking about further reduction of strategic potential. this is our aim in general. there is no doubt about this. and today at the summit, i said that the idea of global zero to date is not an illusion, but we should be honest with each other talking about responsibility about the situation on the planet. this is not only russia and america's responsibility, though

we have biggest part of armaments. if people will arrive at global zero, that should be a collective effort and i will not point the finger at anyone. but we have partners who are less willing to cut their potentials than russia /r@@@@@@" today we have made it threshold and this is enough now. if there is a need, then we will discuss the new level, but these 10 years will be peaceful for russ. -- for us.

the preamble will not happen if there is not all linked between ibm and strategic arms. this is a hard issue. we have been discussing it for long and we've created this formula of that acknowledges this link. lso we have worked out a principle or a statement that the treaty will be in effect as long as the development of a.b.m. or other arms development will not contradict the principles of this treaty. and this is a sensitive moment, as president obama, i'm optimistic about this and we hope we will not stop the treaty or withdraw from it. having some problems about a.b.m. or other issues. but everything depends on us and

other politicians who will treat this issue later on. >> you have your delegation and perhaps he could coordinate with his america counterpart, senator kerry, on the two ratification processes. [russian translator] >> would you like to make a question? now you have this opportunity. >> would you -- you have been invited by your president to -- [russian translator] >> thank you. mr. president, next week we will be discussing with the senate this simultaneous issue and the thing that is being asked by all counterparts, when will the

russian president submit this document to the russian parallelment? when will the american president do it? the first week of may? then we will do the same thing right then. we can do that as a package deal, like two packages. in the morning, i make a call to mr. obama and ask him, are you doing it. and i do the same thing. i sign the package right there. >> perhaps you could give him some advice on how to synchronize our own legislative branch. >> we have a problem. it's called the united states senate. but if i could -- >> congressman delahunt.

>> congratulations on signing the treaty and many of us hope that the senate proceed to ratification. i do have a question and you referenced the economic relationship between the united states and russia. and recently, we had a visit from the state duma delegation. and that issue did arise. and we all agree that the level of commerce between the united states and russia is unacceptable. it is abysmally low. we have ideas on the house side as to how we would like the russians to make some adjustments. but if you had a wish list of what you would like to see coming sfr the administration -- from the administration and congress in terms of initiatives economically, what would they

be? [russian translator] >> well, the question is how many wishes can be fulfilled? for example, there are wishes that are never to come true. that we aren't even mentioning anymore, because they are impossible ones. they are wishes impossible toll fulfill, such as the withdrawal of the amendment. it is such a complicated thing that even in terms of this audience, i'm not speaking about it. well, seriously speaking, we need to review our current economic relationship. before the crisis, our bilateral trade was around $25 billion, 30 billion. that isn't that much taken the size of the american and russian

economy. frankly speaking, the volume of trade between russia and the e.u. is $250 billion. the trade between the russian federation and peoples republic of china is smaller now, but still, it is 2 1/2 times bigger than that of the united states. but it is not only about the volume of trade, but about the investment as well. as far as the investment is concerned, the situation is not that good, but at least it's a parity situation. we often use this word. the volume of the u.s. investment in the russian economy is around $7 billion. this is nothing. it's a zero. the volume of the russians' investments in the u.s. economy is $6 billion. this is a little bigger than with other countries. but after all, it's not that

much. anyways, the volume of the dutch investment in the u.s. economy is $150 billion. this is the difference in the balances. it doesn't mean that we will be able to bridge this gap very soon, but anyway, mutual investments bring countries much closer together and they fulfill development. most importantly, there should be understanding between investors and the state should see these investments positively as well. it is about creating favorable regimes for such investments and internal -- about a favorable treatment to such foreign investment. in our country, the development climate is not the best possible and we should do everything to make it more attractive. it doesn't mean that things are

so perfect in the united states, but there are things we need to do in order to improve the climate and its elements, including some economic regimes that could be used, including the situation with the legal system. we can improve the functioning of our courts. we could combat corruption. those are the barriers to trade and investment, and not only from the united states. we see these problems. and most importantly, our partners should see their own problems as well, including those problems that impede russian investments or the implementation of joint projects in third countries. >> i want to ask if it's true what i call the retirement of jackson-vanik is an impossible wish? >> i do not believe it is impossible and i think there is sentiment in congress today to

address the issue. you are probably unaware, but there has been the formation in the house of a russian caucus and it's an issue that is being discussed and discussed seriously. >> toby? >> there was a great outpouring in the united states of unity after the terrible terrorist acts and this is due to the contacts that has been made between the americans and russians in the past 20 years. in your first comments about this attack, you said that russia had to deal with terrorism very harshly, but also respect human rights and the rule of law. but we have heard about the first and very little about the latter. and there was a tightening up in the political system. you have talked for many months

about the reform of the security structures and the judicial system and maybe it's even more necessary now. my question is, how do you convince society and other people in your government that part of the fight against terrorism is respect for human rights and for all of russian citizens? and how do you hope to avoid the overreactions that have taken place in other societies after terrorist acts? [russian translator] >> well, you have touched upon a hard issue. it's not always that this society requires that human rights be respected in the wake of a terrorist attack. as a rule, the society requires that criminals be punished and in a most serious way especially for terrorists and only some

secondary voices speak to the human rights. and this is something typical, not only for russia. this is not only a tradeoff of the civil society in russia, this happens in all the countries in the wake of terrorist attacks. the people demand retall yation. but in the -- retaliation. and in the 21st century, we understand in case of such attacks, a full flidged investigation should take place and should involve all the parties concerned that are in charge of such issues in a country and the final decision, the final ruling should be made by the court. but there is a gap between the public sentiment and position of law enforcement and judicial system. and this is an actual problem that we cannot turn a blind eye on. besides, it is necessary to establish a climate of

understanding not only inside our society, but also understanding between the russian society and american society, between the russian political establishment and the u.s. political establishment. i'm referring to the following. we need to use the same scale to each other after the perptration of the latest savage terrorist attacks on the russian metro. the reaction of the entire world was son -- consolidated and correct. nevertheless, in some cases, we still see old stereotypes are used that are insulting to russia, including these cases are seen in the united states. i reviewed the press after the attacks and terrorists were still called rebels. we cannot accept that.

it is unacceptable to us. i believe it is insult the memory of those who died in the subway station. this is a small detail that is quite indicative on such issues. we should be much closer together. we should hear each other better and then we will be more successful in overcoming the consequences of such terrorist attacks, speaking about the great solid dart of the russian people towards the u.s. people in 2001. this was quite high and we should learn to use the same scale while evaluating each other's situations. and we should be show it to each other in many events, even such tragic ones as the death of president kaczynski and a great

part of the polish political elite. >> thank you, director of norn policy at brookings. -- foreign policy at brookings. and thank you for your wise and constructive leadership of russia. my question is about iran. i wonder if you could describe for us describe how you view russia's nuclear program as a threat to russian national security interests, and are you worried about triggering a nuclear arms race in the middle east, and are you and president obama on the same page when he says that forces an option that should be kept on the table? -- that force is an option that

should be kept on the table? >> [speaking russian] >> the talks with my colleagues are a part of our agenda. we do that regularly and on a full basis, which means that iran is a problem. to some extent. important that we find evidence of what their nuclear program is, as any society. they do have the right to develop the civilian nuclear program. but the problem is how they convince us of the community that it is and lately we did not bring any improvement to the situation. it has aggravated.

and iran ignores the questions addressed to it. they keep saying small phrases and make small suggestions. so we deal this together, talking about the future. i would not favor sanctions because sanctions is impeasing of some actions. but if nothing happens, we will have to deal with sanctions. the question is what kind of sanction are these. many times i have answered this question, what kind of sanctions we need. i do not favor penalizing crippling sanctions. make people suffer in a humanitarian sense. this is immoral and it creates negative results, negative feedback and i have grounds to

believe that some people need right this. they are waiting for a real clash of positions. but sanctions must be intelligent. and the question is how we understand this word, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. sanctions must be universal. they must be discussed with the main participants of the international process on this question. and the sanctions must be aimed at one result. that's why the position upon the sanction depends not only on the united states, europe, russia, but also on china, latin america. in this case only, these decisions, if it is needed are able to get results. and talking about middle east and what can happen over there

if the nuclear program is implemented. and a nuclear conflict arises. well, that would be a gigantic catastrophe. we all can't imagine what could happen in the middle east if just one terrorist act happens there or nuclear arms is used. middle east is called middle east because it is so small it is enough for bombings to happen in one place, for it to start spreading all over the world. and that would trigger a humanitarian catastrophe and exodus of people from different countries. and the most bad thing is it will trigger the nuclear arms race. many colleagues from iran will

-- arabic world that if iran gets nuclear arms, they will have no scrupeles without having it as well. and this will enlarge the nuclear club and then no summit will help if all of those countries have nuclear arms. that will open a new page in the history of humankind, which will be very sad. and i hope we will be able to agree and will manage to solve this issue by political -- >> mr. president, i really want to thank you for being here. i come from that generation of american people that were involved in the second world war and we certainly had great pride

when we went into great britain and france. but i don't think we really thanked the russians enough for the fact being on the east coast and having 25 divisions and i think it made a lot of difference. what i want to do is thank you and the russian people for that. the question i'm going to ask you is the same question i wanted to ask general petraeus today when he spoke at lunch time. and that was asked, the military decided that we had to go into afghanistan. what would have happened if we, the military, had said to the russians, will you join us, because after all, you had a big battle there and you still have problems there. [russian translator for president medvedev] >> if i understood you rightly, you are talking about military

presence of russia in such operations, do i get you right? >> joining the united states in military and its allies in the military operations in afghanistan. [russian translator for president medvedev] >> every country has their own history and times it is very sad. our country has a history of work in afghanistan back in soviet times and that was a very hard page of our history. and i'm not sure that our society is ready to once again open the page. but that doesn't mean that we would like to stay on the side lines and agree upon all questions of cooperation in afghanistan, starting with

military, transit, military, social and economic projects, restoring of its economy. we should cooperate in this realm, but what is more today is given an opportunity to the afghanistan political system develop because we understand that america cannot be there all the time. it cannot be lasting forever. it's a very hard burden. but if america leaves afghanistan and the alliance leaves, then how will the political system live in afghanistan? . .

this is the thing which they failed to do. no matter what the values we brought there, our country tried to create a political system -- and we failed to do that. afghanistan rejected this political status bridget system and standard -- this political system and standard. it would be created and an effective government would appear there, and then they say that our aim has been done. >> a question about curiousness which has the connection to the

effectiveness of our allied coalition effectiveness. what is your assessment of the current such question? -- the current situation? >> [speaking russian] >> the situation in kurdistan is difficult. once again. it's living through a stage of a legitimate development and unfortunately, i believe that responsibility for that is borne by the authorities in kyrgyzstan themselves who hadn't taken effort earlier to consolidate the civil society to agree with the opposition to

settle the numerous conflicts under way and to organize normal economic development once the former president was outcast by the opposition and he was forced to leave the country and one of the reproaches he received was economic crimes, corruption, a couple of years later we see the same thing slow -- the same slogans and same people there only they switched places. which is quite sad because kyrgyzstan is a close neighbor of ours and least of all we would like to see kyrgyzstan turning into a failed state. the risk of kyrgyzstan falling into two parts, the northern and the southern part, is still

there and it is important to prevent bloodshed. around 100 people have been killed already and now the question is not about who started the whole thing, though certainly an investigation should be held to see who triggered all those problems. the most important thing is to prevent a civil war now and i believe kyrgyzstan is on the verge of a civil war now and all the forces in kyrgyzstan should realize their responsibility toward the nation and the people in kyrgyzstan and to the future of that state. we ourselves understand perfectly what a civil war means today if, god forbid, it is started. it will immediately attract terrorists and extremists of all tinds because in the course of such conflicts, the best possible conditions are created

for radical movements and in this people, instead of kyrgyzstan, and afghanistan, of some years ago can emerge a different afghanistan before the military operations there. our task is to help our partners there to find the calmest possible way to overcome this situation. how can we do that? we need to soothe down the people, we should form a government that would be viable , and some political leaders will need to assume important decisions as to their future. a decision that should be motivated by the interest of the people of kyrgyzstan, not by their personal political ambitions.

>> mr. president, i'm darrell west, vice president of government study here's at brookings. i was interested in your talk in the section about technology and how that broadens your source of information and i'm just curious how technology has changed our leadership style, and when you go online, what are you looking for and also do you and president obama ever email one another? >> we don't email each other with president obama, but it is a good idea. indeed that would be the fastest possible way to talk to each other because until we coordinate our communications with our assistants, then we get communications in writing, it takes a lot of time. in this case, we could just have a couple of iphones and just exchange text messages or emails.

i am quite familiar with that as well as president obama, as far as i understand. but speaking about the changes that occurred in my life through this new information environment, i should say that a lot of things have changed. it's not a figure of speech. this is about our habits and habits are the things we're made of. if some time ago i started my morning with reading a newspaper or a digest or just watching the tv, i don't do that anymore. i go online and i find all the things there, newspapers, tv channels, russian media, foreign media. media that are favorable to the russian president, media that hate the russian president and they certainly speak whatever they think, which is very 2áag,@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @"

the guilt -- this gives us off of it -- and opposite effect. i often review requests of desperate people who write about corruption, law violations, and other problems. i cannot answer all of those comments. but through the internet, that can trigger support from people , and then open letters are written by a people at the same time. this is a reason for feedback from the and then i am struck by agency and military and government to attend to this.

-- and then i instructed my agencies and military and government to attend to this. moreover, i have started a blog that is run at my presidential website. now governors have started doing this as well. for somebody is a totally formal thing. others, really communicate with people and if earlier officials were threatened by some addresses to their bosses, to the kremlin, now they are threatened by such comments that people can write on the president's website, this is becoming a part of our life. it cannot help us in all the thing in all the problems, but it is certainly helpful and in our society in russia, it is probably even more important than anywhere else. in our society, this

bureaucratic traditions have ages-long history and always authorities have been too far from the people and probably it originated some political traditions as well and this type of communications helps us redress this kind of bad traditions. and i like this. >> i don't know if it's going to be possible to have simultaneous ratification of the new star treaty in our senate and your parliament, but i'm sure your opening proposal about how you and president obama are going to communicate is going to cause a simultaneous nervous breakdown in the white house and the kremlin. but i'm sure you're up to handling that. >> no problem. >> antoine fanachwal, i would

like to switch to the economy. two questions, looking back and looking forward. looking back, after the global crisis, russia was hit by a -- quite a steep and fast economic recession. did that surprise you? also, how fast russia bounced out of it. second question, russia is well known to be -- to have the largest reserves of gas in the world. is that changing now that so much gas, i mean, huge quantities of gas are being found in the united states, hungary, all over the world, how will that change relations with europe and even china? >> speaking about the global recession, if i was surprised, i will be frank. well, i was surprised.

every one of us have their own stereotypes, their own understanding of what are the weak places of economy and what are not. so the thing that happened after the crisis, the beginning of the crisis in our country, was a surprise because the extent to which it fell was more than i could have expected. i'm not talking about other economies. i talked to my european counterparts and american counterparts. all of them were surprise. but that was outrageous -- were surprised. but that was outrageous for me. how our economy depends on raw materials. i never understood that we are so much dependent on raw materials and this made me talk about the modernization, about

technology. but for the crisis, probably we would live by our eninertia and living with the high prices on oil and gas. i'm happy that this crisis happened. the economy has fallen down, but it is bad that this crisis made people suffer, many people lost their jobs, it hit people very hard. but this crisis should change our mindset, our economic approach and thus far it hasn't changed much. many businesspeople and ordinary people are waiting for

high oil prices, it's $85 a barrel now. it's ok now. maybe it will be $140 someday, then we can rest easy doing nothing, but the problem is that this is top-down development and one day, the price will fall and the prices will harr monoize somehow and being -- arm onize somehow and bling -- harm onize somehow. -- harmonize somehow. the major challenge is how fast we can do that, we would like to do it as fast as possible, but this is difficult. we have outlined five priorities of economic reforms not because they are universal but because they are important and if we are successful in these ones, like space, atomic

energy, pharmaceutical drugs, energy efficiency, new technologies in energy, we will have some advancement in these realms, then it will be very good. though high prices for energy carriers is good, why not go and lower them. it gives us some advantage. the main thing is not to rely on gas and oil only. and the fact that they have found new gas opportunities, this is not bad. that will help us be more attentive toward our possibilities. our opportunities. and whatever we say, once 50 years and energy revolution happens, first coal, then oil,

then gas, then nuclear power and i believe that in 30 to 50 years from now the situation in both our countries will be different. i don't know if we'll use hydrogenic power, but being complacent with gas and oil is not good today. >> i want to tie this question onto that one. you mentioned the brick countries in your opening remarks and you meet from time to time and are going to be meeting shortly with your fellow leaders in that grouping. when you get together with them cork you talk about these issues and compare perspectives and plans? and what do you see as the future of that grouping? >> i not only speak to them, after this meeting, i'm going to latin america where the

brick summit will be held in brazil and this group, this community of countries today, is formed already. this doesn't mean that this is full-fledged organization, but that doesn't mean these are four countries developing at a fast pace and if we are able to find consolidated approaches, we can do that on many questions, not on all of them, but the things we discuss like economy and politics is very important and today, brick has become a factor of economic development. does that mean that this is a community having an eternal shape and it is rigid?

i don't think. so but in order to change it, we have to reach common approach. we have to agree. last year, when we met each other and discussed these issues in russia, with all of the statesmen of brick we discussed national measures and economic development. this is very good for us and the outlook of our society is positive and we're going to develop this structure. >> this will be the last question. >> this is probably the first brookings event at which two questions about kyrgyzstan have been asked.

this is number two. since the -- >> the dirg stan nation will be happy. >> some analysts, including in russia have noted how critical russia was of him. and said that russia was angry that kyrgyzstan had not kicked the americans out of the base. can you clarify this? can you say that russia has no objection to american access to the base in kyrgyzstan, to support our operations in afghanistan? >> how can russia even object against sovereign decisions made by other states? this is their decision, we can either like it or not, but it's

a decision made by the leadership in kyrgyzstan. the president there is a coherent person he first said he was going to make a decision to eliminate the american base in kyrgyzstan and then he made the very same coherent decision to maintain the center for transit movement. i believe that coherency and consistency is always the best characteristic of a politician. the more coherent a person is, the better his results are and we can see the results of the incumbent president of kyrgyzstan now. it doesn't mean, though, that we in some way are trying to impede that. on the contrary, when i met the president, i always told him it is necessary to assist our u.s.

partners in addressing the tasks in afghanistan. the other question is, how effective this assistance is. therefore, all the possibilities were there. >> mr. president, before i say a few words of thanks to you, i want to ask our friends in the audience to please remain seated after we have concluded the program so that i can escort president medvedev out of the building. to you, sir, i would just like to express particular appreciation not just for the substance of what you have said, which was remarkable in its breadth and depth and in its candor. but also the spirit that you brought to this discussion. you opened your remarks, first of all by quoting our founder,

robert s. brookings he would be very proud indeed to have his name associated with this event today. you also said some kind words about the summit that president obama hosted, i'm sure you've had a chance to express those to him. obviously that meeting set a very high standard a very unusual standard. but you've cone the same thing here with this discussion. and i can sense, i know enough people around the room, i know the body english and the body russian, to have a pretty high degree of confidence that we all are in your debt for spending this much time with us and covering as much ground as and covering as much ground as you did we hope you have safe travel. >> all like to say a few words more. first of all, i would like to

thank you for being so patient to listen to my long answers. secondly, two questions about the rigs than -- that country were asked which is unusual. i appreciate that the question of our political system, the development of our media, the relationship with mr. putin, i have heard none of those questions today. i think will have to come back and discuss again our domestic and political life as well. they do. -- thank you. >> i have a very simple proposal. since you have already given nervous breakdowns your staff,

give them another. stick around for another hour and we will discuss all of those issues. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

later, a look at the economy and unemployment rate with robert reich. tomorrow morning, more about the administration's nuclear policy which a member of the armed services committee. the democratic senator of alaska discusses a legislative agenda. the chairman of the tarp oversight panel focuses on home foreclosures, and we heard joined by rick. "washington journal" is every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about on c-span .

3 the joya economic committee will hear from ben bernanke -- the joint economic committee will hear from ben bernanke. at 2:30 p.m., the senate commerce committee listened to the plan released by the federal communications commission. members will talk to the chairman about the plan and their role of the sec -- fcc of overseeing the internet. >> see the winners of c-span's student documentarycam petition. students ltd. entries on one of the country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. meet the students who made them, and for a preview of all winners, visit studentcam.org.

>> not timothy gardner at a conference of news editors. his comments on the economy and other issues are about 20 minutes.

>> i would like to add what downey is a real giant in the profession and someone i owe a great deal of gratitude to everyday. i am incredibly fortunate to find myself working for him. with him. i would like to give a note of congratulations to milton, who i guess becomes the president, and we are proud that asne has selected him. his knowledge of big bureaucracies will sur-- serve asne well. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce your lunch time entertainment. i have known tim geithner for about 20 years and had the pleasure of working with steve

since coming to the post two years ago. if i was any kind of journalist at all, i would tell you about secretary geithner. i don't, which is a self-indictment. tim was the assistant treasury attache when we met. i was at the "wall street journal" covering economics. and i did some reporting over the weekend and called a bunch of friends who worked with secretary geithner and the only thing anybody can remember about him was he had a laugh so loud some claimed that he had to shut their doors and his tennis game was so good and was used as a ringer when they played dignitaries. it was an assign minute -- assignment, there was a real estate financial bubble that broke about a crash that resulted in some big institutions collapsing others

being taken over by the government and liquidity being injected, followed by worries, temperature pid bank regulation. and there is an international parallel. in those days, g-2 referred to the u.s. and japan, the country that was buying up the u.s. treasuries was japan and the manufacturing sector was japan. americans were worried about asian currency. and i think that experience must have shaped the secretary's understanding of what has happened here in the u.s. and i could make the argument it was probably a good thing that he knew all that he knew from japan. i know when he was running the new york fed he was one of the few officials who was appropriately and deeply concerned about the dangers of derivatives and exotic instruments. he knew how bad a financial

crisis would be and that informationsight is what he shares with steve. when they said we didn't look at the financial signals, i refer to steve's work of the previous year which he won a pull its zer prize. steve declared it the worst mess since 1929 and described the real estate bubble, the stock market, failure of credit and risk controls, all of it a year before the implosion. his column in the "post" is a look into the realistic mind and moderates our sight about leadership. i will now hand it over to him for him to interview secretary geithner. [applause] >> good afternoon. welcome. thank you for joining us. i want to start by talking about

the geithner rally. if you were a a stock and the buyers of stock were limited to journalists, it's been quite a year for you. a year ago, the bailout was a disaster. the market was in the tank. deficit was going to explode. there was this little unpleasantness with a.i.g. you got a bit false start on regulatory reform and only with the intervention of rahm and larry summers that you were able to keep in your jobs. that's what we would have thought at the time reading the press. today, the bailout is a success. make us money. the markets are at 11,000. the deficit we learned deficit is going to be less than

everybody thought it was. reg reform is about to pass. larry and rahm are on their way out and you're the kingpin. >> just proves, steve, you guys are doing a heck of a job. [laughter] >> my question is, were we right then or are we right now? >> steve, i just try to focus, try to make sure we fix what is broken, doing the right thing, not to worry about the politics or the all the other stuff and we are in a much better position today. this was a terrible mess. still is a terrible mess. still really hard economy. we face really difficult challenge on the economic side. there are going to be risks for some time but in a much stronger position because the decisions the president made early on. a lot of what the president decided was shaped by having watched a bunch of countries mismanage and go through similar

crises and failed to get it right early. and by deciding as he did to do politically difficult, hard, forceful things early on, we have kind of growing faster and more quickly than people thought and the markets much more stable. it's very tough out there. and the memory of this crisis is going to long period of time and again, just to remind you of what was said, look what happened, look what happened to the u.s. economy in the 1990's, after that experience of looking at how the rest of the world was doing and acting to deal with it, fiscal problem, make sure we are investing. you had a long record of very strong plant investment growth, productivity growth, gains shared much more broadly across the country, produced by a president making hard choices

and i think we have a chance now to come out of this much stronger, much more resilient and a much stronger position because i think the president did some hard, early, tough things at the beginning of what was a terrible storm. >> senator mcconnell, the republican leader of the senate said today, somewhat surprisingly that he would ask republicans to vote against financial reform, this was against the new conventional wisdom, this week's conventional wisdom, that the bill is going to pass, republicans wouldn't dare be on the wrong side of this one and be perceived as defending wall street. what's your prognosis and what changed thingsf it has changed for the better politically? >> well, you have to start with the following basic observation. look at the devastation caused by this financial crisis.

look at the damage it did to the lives of millions and millions of americans. look at what it did to businesses. look at how much damage it cost to american credibility. i don't think there is a tenable position that says that we don't need to fix the former system. i don't believe it's a viable position and that's why i'm confident we will have congress enact a strong sweeping set of reforms, largely frankly on the model that we put out there, that we set out there initially and that the house has adopted and the senate is close to considering today. remember this system, think of what's at stake. this is a system in which people could take all the upside and be exposed to not so much of the downside. you had large swaggets operating in the dark. institutions operating without any risk-taking.

made it easy for people to you have this spectacle of the united states of america coming into the worst financial crisis since the great depression. they have basically no tools to online, to put into bankruptcy large institutions. it was either let the system collapse or put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, and i think that is going to drive us to unnecessary set of sweeping reforms, and the work you have done to bring a spot like to the choices we face in this debate have been helpful. if you listen careful, it is no longer about are we going to

have consumer protection? now the debate is about a much more complicated but equally important issue, which is how to make sure you are designing a system where you can prevent crises from spreading, and if a major institution manages to go into the abyss, they were able to put them through an effective bankruptcy regime, dismember them without the taxpayer being exposed to losses. it is a simple basic choice, and i believe it is time to fix what is broken and fix the stuff that makes us so vulnerable. us so vulnerable still. >> is the danger in this final phase of these negotiations that you will have got the consumer protection, but that in exchange for that, they will be start to writing in the loopholes and exceptions that will be so

complicated. it's a risk, but preventable risk, because again, the efforts ahead still that people are going to try and undertake to slow it down will be conspicuous , the loopholes will be conspicuous. and one of the great things about our country is that our process should make that difficult, because you can expose it to the light of day and hard for people to defend it. but i don't think, i'm much more optimistic in our cast it as a country and in this political system to deliver a strong set of reforms that is not vulnerable because how you can look the american people in the eye and say we are going to leave in place a system that caused so much damage. and as you said, steve, the initial strategy was toedly delay until -- memories are going to fade eventually. that was an untenable strategy. the strategy will be to weaken

it with exceptions that are hard to understand, hard to see. and great strength of our country that is hard to do and we'll expose it. >> last week, a former colleague and a mentor, robert ruben gave some testimony before the commission looking into the causes of the financial crisis. i don't want to oversimplify what his sort of response to questions was, basically, look, no one saw it coming. this was a perfect storm. not the rating agencies, not the regulators, not lots of people in the business who know a lot more than i, said mr. ruben. by the way, that's a common explanation. is that -- do you accept that explanation from those who were in charge of these large institutions? should we accept that as an explanation?

>> i think it is fair to say that not enough people saw this coming and certainly fair to say that people acted preempttively to prevent this from happening. you can't build a system that relies on either the self-interests of people running major financial institutions to save the economy from financial risk. you can't run a system that relies on the wisdom of regulators, frankly torks always act preempttively, and you can't build a system that depends on the ability of people in washington to act with perfect foresight, it's not tenable because we will never know with confidence what the next source of risk is, what the -- what new innovation will bring the system to collapse. you have to build a system that

recognizes the -- much more conservative shock absorbers because you won't be able to have people sitting in this town act with perfect foresight in the future. the basic theory of reform should be based on the skeptical view of what firms will do in their self-interests and what regulators will ultimately do with discretion in this case. the basic strategy that the president adopted is for the system to run more conservatively, so there are much thicker curb ons against risks in the future. >> can we change the culture of wall street or the culture of the regulatory agencies? >> i think you can change the culture of the regulatory agencies. we can and should demand much higher standards.

you need to give them more authority, clear accountability. you can demand higher standards over time. and i think we should. i don't know extent to which you can change what drives people who are attracted to the rule of finance. you have to frankly constrain the choices they make and make sure the incentives are right. again, i don't want to run a system that bets on the hope that again people running private financial institutions are going to do anything but act in what they perceive to be in the interest of their shareholders and employees. if you get the incentives better and constraints better, it will be a safer system. >> as was mentioned in the beginning, we go back to our troubles when we had them with japan. now we have similar troubles with large trading partner, runs large surpluses and the view

that also is running and undervalued currency. those are all part of the same story. we went through a long dance with the japanese on this. we didn't want to push them too hard. it was said, we can't lose face, we have to do this quietly, be patient, they have a different time horizon and we never got that right. we waited until they imploded, but we never got it right. it looks like a rerun of the same movie with the chinese. and again you and the treasury are saying, hey, let's not declare them manipulateors, let's be patient, they are coming around, but looks like they are playing us again, different country is playing us again. what would you say to that criticism or concern? >> i don't agree with your characterization of the strategy then or now and let me begin with the optimistic side of this basic debate. think about how that broad story

turned out for the u.s. and japan. remember, at a similar moment of national concern, in the wake of a very deep recession, america confronted by what they saw happening had a moment of doubt and concern about whether our weaknesses were japan's strengths. and nobody would look at the economies today even with the challenges we have been through and say that that concern was -- it was just overstated. now, i think i believe we have an enormously productive beneficial economic relationship with china. it's hugely important to companies large and small across the country. and i think we benefit hugely from that relationship today. we have a bunch of challenges with china. it is very important to us that they are changing the way they grow. so growth relies less on the u.s. consumer, financing

unsustainable spending by borrowing, very important to us they are growing more from domestic command, ress reliance on exports. but that is in their interests, too. they don't want to be vulnerable to the kind of collapses they saw in global demand. it is important to u.s. companies. if there is a level playing field, it's basically fair rules of the game and we are going to be as always and you should expect any administration will be forceful and aggressive in making sure we are promoting changes that offer a level playing field in those markets. and of course, it's important, as everybody understands. it's very important that they move over time to a more flexible exchange system. it's in their interest to do it, china's choice to do it. but i believe they will decide. it's in their interest to move. and one way to explain this, china wants to be a strong

independent country and as a strong large independent growing economy. doesn't make sense for that country to run a monetary policy exchange regime that lets the reserve set interest rates. it's good for them over time, that's why i'm confident they will move. >> you just got back from china and even here you have spoken with the president of china. is there anything in those conversations that leads you to be confident that if we give them time and hold our tongues, that they will move in the direction that we would like them to move? >> our strategy is going to be guided by doing what is in our interests and it's in our interests to make it more likely that they decide it's in their interest to move and that's the strategy we are adopting in this case. [laughter] >> ok. >> i think that was a yes.

>> let's go on an equally obtuse issue and that is mortgage modification. the industry essentially has dragged its feet for actually before you became treasury secretary for two years on the issue of reducing principal of these mortgages. they tried everything other than reducing principal. it's not worked as effectively as anyone would like. and i'm wondering, is there any greater use of sticks and carrots to finally get them to do it? to reduce the principal on these loans permanently. >> this is a very difficult challenge. i think it's important to step back and look at the basic strategy we adopted. we have been actually quite

successful in bringing a measure of stability to a housing market that was still falling off the cliff when the president took office. a year ago, when you looked at broad expectations, most people thought house prices might fall 20%, 30% further. what you saw relatively quickly on average across the country, even with the enormous trauma, you saw a measure of stability. and that happened not just because of the broad actions we took in the recovery act in the financial sector, but because we act todd bring down mortgage interest rates to historic lows. that was a very important, very powerful, very broad-based strategy that benefited all american homeowners because it reduced the cost of home ownership in a very substantial, meaningful way. now, the program that we embraced for loan modifications, it's important to recognize is reaching more than one million americans and they are

benefiting on average from $500 to $600 billion a month. that is a substantial amount of direct financial relieve, financially financed by banks. >> $500 billion to $600 billion? >> right. this is a substantial powerful program. it is targeted, though, at people we think you can really justify trying to help. it won't reach the people who are speculating in housing. doesn't reach people who bought a second home. it doesn't reach people who already can afford their mortgage payments. it doesn't reach people -- you know, just by luck or choice, because they are unlucky or choice got themselves so far extended, they just couldn't reasonably afford the house. so it won't reach a substantial number of americans who are caught up in this crisis, many

of them victims, but it is a very powerful program. over the last several of weeks, we announced changes to the program to make it more likely to make sure that relief reaches more people and in principal reductions over time. you have to judge this by the alternative program. as you hinted at, we don't have the ability to compel generalized principal reduction across the american financial system. we don't have the ability to do it. and to try and achieve that without that authority would be enormously expensive and hard to justify on public policy grounds, because you have to explain to americans that it makes sense to take their money on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars potentially and devote it to releaving them

of a substantial part of the principal and their house. and explaining that like you in your lives, we have to make choices among these alternatives. the housing market is still under a lot of stress. there are a lot of foreclosures still. it is going to be very difficult to work through, but this is the best mix of alternatives we have been able to identify, given the limits and given recognition we do not have unlimited resources. >> one of the reasons the housing crisis has not gotten a lot worse is that fannie mae and freddie mac, which are essentially instruments of the treasury, are buying 95% of the

mortgages in the united states, and also the federal reserve has been buying as well. >> the basic strategy we adopted was designed to bring down mortgages. the required reading mortgage interest rates. that required bringing down fannie and freddie. if they rise another percentage point, is that going to be ok? >> what i would say is, i think you see and generally having now -- would you see generally happening now is recurring signs of more confidence in the strength of the recovery. i think you see that in many parts of the world, and that is an encouraging thing. it does not take away from the fact that this is still a tough the economy.

most americans have never ike this in their ng like lifetime, had no memory of it. this is a deeper, more damaging economic crisis than we have seen in generations and the effects of that are going to belonglasting. generally, i think you are seeing in most measures in confidence, a growl improvement in confidence that the american economy is starting to come back. >> rising interest rates is on balance a positive thing as long as it's not too much and not too fast. >> that is one of the things that happens when people get confident. >> going back to freddie mac and fannie mae, i know you are a determined position, we are studying this and not going to make our decision yet. could you step back from that a little bit and take a little bit of kennedy school type of thing and tell us the pluses and minuses of going to be a public utility model, basically making

fannie mae and freddie mac doing the same thing under a tougher regulatory regime in one of the things that are regulated. you like the utility model? >> i do. >> a simple basic proposition that we can agree on is you can't run a system where you have a mix with companies with private shareholders, boards responsible for maximizing shareholder profit, benefit from this mix of implicit-explicit from the government that allowed them to borrow at low rates and generate profit to the shareholders. it went to the shareholder and not the homeowner, not whose purpose it was to serve and support. we won't recommend that will sustain that system. the other thing that went wrong, that mistake was magnified by the fact that we did not set a

constraints on how much risk they took. and we allowed them to build up this huge portfolio of mortgage securities on the expectations they could earn a lot of money to their shareholders and left them with way too much risk relative to capital and caused the risk of catastrophic damage to our system. that is a preventable mistake as well. there are lots of utility models but if that's what you call it, i would be in a favor. and we are doing reform in two stages. i think it's the right strategy. first stage was a comprehensive set of reforms across the broad financial sector. we thought freddie mac and fannie mae would be good to do stage two because we are still in a challenging stage, and we want to look at the broad mix of institutions and policies that the u.s. has built up over time.

>> coming to the end of time. i want to get some questions. so i'll ask one last question. the latest data out from the hedge funds is that 25 top hedge fund managers earned $1 billion each. everyone didn't earn $1 billion, some earned $3 billion. some earned less. the poor ones. >> you're against this? >> no. what is your reaction about when you read that sort of thing and is that in your mind a signal that markets, i suppose you might call them labor markets, are working or financial markets, are they working or is it an indication there is something wrong with the markets and imperfection there and maybe we want to think about why that

is so and fixing those? >> i think there is a lot that is obviously wrong in financial markets both what we got wrong and generally. and we have learned painfully over time, financial markets need to operate reasonably well for the economy as a whole and need constraints on risk taking and a significant cause of this crisis, wasn't the only cause, but a significant cause was as i said in the beginning, you had compensation practices across the financial system designed in a way that people were able to benefit from the upside without being exposed to sufficient risk of loss on the downside. that is an untenable balance and it's something that has to change over time. and it's a hard thing to change. we have had a lot of experience as a country to regulate compensation practices that had unfortunate effects but we are trying to change it by doing two things. one is to force public companies

to submit to their shareholders their compensation plans for approval. put them in the light of day. let people see them and let shareholders vote on them. that's necessary, but not sufficient. we are proposing to make sure that supervising these institutions enforce standards on compensation practice that end this basic dynamic where you could get the upside without being exposed to the downside. and i think those are achievable things. but what you pointed out, not just one example of what can happen in the financial markets without that basic feature, but we have three decades of steady, quite substantial rise in economic equality in this country. for many americans it's a symptom of an economy that is not providing the same basic sense of fairness and opportunity as it used to as a

country. and it's something that is very important for us to work to change because it goes to the core of credibility and confidence in how the system works for people. and so i think that financial reform is part of that, but it requires a substantial broad-based investment and the things that the president is committed to carry out, education reform, regulatory reform and make things better for the average american. >> why is it sophisticated fund managers keep signing up for hedge funds where the price is 2% fee plus 20% of all the upside. that's how you get to $1 million. >> that's a good question. they are asking themselves that. >> so, some of you must have better questions than i. so i can see one hand there. and i'm not so good because of

the lights. yes, sir. >> good afternoon, mr. secretary. i'm from the hispanic daily newspaper in miami. i was very moved by your comments about the amount of suffering that's gone on in the united states because of errors of the past, but there is also suffering that has gone on all around the world because of this debacle. could you clear something up for me that i don't understand very well. the mistakes that were made here and the signals that we didn't see, we talked about many, many times. outside the united states, some people point the finger exclusively at washington and at the united states for the cause of the world recession. but i also read in newspapers that some central banks of other

countries and some private investment banks of other countries bought into the same mortgage-backed securities and derivatives without taking a look at what it was they were buying and not having a clear sense of what the value of what they were buying was. is it accurate to strictly point the finger at the united states and say this is a u.s. problem that sunk the world into a massive recession? >> you are absolutely right. this crisis was so damaging both here and around the world because it was a global crisis in many ways. the causes were global in many ways. we messed up a lot of things here but the crisis wouldn't have been as severe if it hadn't been accompanied by a set of policy choices outside the united states that made many countries very vulnerable. just to give you an example. so even with all the mistakes we made in our financial system, our system still was relatively small with respect to the share

of our economy. the best example, if you look at for the small and large major european economies, their banks as a share of their economies are dramatically larger. our banker -- banking system is 1% times. in switzerland, it's eight times. continental europe, three to five times. the losses are much larger with respect to the share of their economy and made them much vulnerable. you are also right in pointing out and that leverage out there, you say that leverage was in the form of buying a bunch of the worst part of the u.s. mortgage assets. but this crisis fell a long period where monetary policy around the world produced very low interest rates. and those factors made the crisis a global crisis on a much

more acute scale. if this was just about errors in the united states, it would have been a deep recession for us and milder recession for the rest of the world. but much more damaging because of those causes. our job is to fix what is broken here and we are going to try to make sure as we try to reform our system here we do so with the rest of the world so they are putting in place more conservative standards at the same time. not at a disadvantage, competing against them, but because we want the world to be more stable in the future as well. >> it is true our banking system is relatively smaller compared to our economy. but if you add the shadow banking system, maybe not. >> i thought you would make that point. but in fact, even with the fact that we call them banks today, if you include that broader measure of our financial system, even your civs, our system was

much more smaller and less leveraged overall. and because of that, i think more importantly because we did act much more forcefully to recapitalize the system with private money, i think our system is going to emerge much more strongly and quickly. >> was it unhealthy that 1.40% of s&p profits was coming from financial companies? >> that long period created a large level of profits in the industry and obviously, it was too high because it wasn't real and did yourable. it rested on a shifting sands of risk. >> i'm from "usa today."

mr. secretary, many of our readers and some of the people in this room will spend the next couple of days struggling to fill out their tax returns. and in the quarter century since the last major tax reform effort i.r.s. has weld to hundreds of pages of instructions and they are working to fill out returns that they don't understand. what ideas do you have for tax simplification -- >> you're on the right track. you made the case. it was a good case for reform. >> if you could tell us what is the administration prepared to make april 15 less onerous? >> the president set up this fiscal commission to recommend ways to bring our deficits back

down to earth, to get us back to us living within our means. we have to take a comprehensive look at the entire framework of policy in the united states and in that context that will give us the opportunity to do what i think all americans would support and make it easier for people to pay their obligations as americans and meet their obligations. and it will be forced by the imperatives of our long-term imperatives of our long-term fiscal problems to bui i think we are coming to the point where that is going to be possible, and i know we are going to benefit from lots of advice. >> you got into a problem from a few years back. did you do your own taxes this year, or did you get professional help? >> thank you for raising that

issue. [laughter] i have been doing it slightly differently. i have an excellent accountant. i like my accountant now. >> thank you very much for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, a lot of smart people have thought about how to prevent a repeat of the kind of financial thought about how to prevent a repeat of the kind of financial crisis that we saw in the fall we've heard plenty of ideas.

but if there's one thing americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it's that it's absolutely certain they agree on this: never again -- never again should taxpayers be expected to bail out wall street from its own mistakes. we cannot allow endless taxpayer funded bailouts for big wall street banks. that's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor. the fact is this bill wouldn't solve the problems that led to the financial crisis. it would make them worse. the american people have been telling us for nearly two years, any solution must do one thing -- one thing, it must put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks. put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks. this bill not only allows for taxpayer funded bailouts for

wall street banks, it is institutionalizes them. let me say that again. this bill not only allows -- not only allows for taxpayer funded bailouts for wall street banks, it actually institutionalizes them. the bill gives the federal reserve enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse. it also gives the federal deposit insurance corporation and the treasury broad authority over troubled financial institutions without requiring them to assume real responsibility for their mistakes. in other words, it gives the government a backdoor mechanism for propping up failing or failed institutions. a new $50 billion fund would also be setup as a backstop for financial emergencies. but no one honestly thinks -- no one honestly thinks $50 billion would be enough to cover the kind of crises we're talking

about. during the last crisis, a.i.g. alone received more than three times that from the taxpayers. three times that. moreover the mere existence of this fund will ensure that it gets used. the mere existence of the fund will make sure that it gets use. and once it's used up taxpayers will be asked to cover the balance. this is precisely -- reprice sigh -- precisely the wrong approach. far from protecting consumers frl wall street excess, this bill would provide endless protection -- endless protection for the biggest banks on wall street. this bill would provide endless protection for the biggest banks on wall street. it also directs the fed to oversee 35 to 50 of the biggest firms, replicating on an even larger scale the same distortions that plague the housing market and helped trigger a massive bubble we'll

be suffering from for years. so imagine this: if you thought freddie and fannie were dangerous, how about 35 to 50 of them? everyone agrees on the need to protect taxpayers from being on the hook for future wall street bailouts, but this bill would all but guarantee that the pattern continues. we need to end the worst abuses on wall street without forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab. in the worst abuses on wall street without forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab. that's what republicans will be fighting for in this debate. the taxpayers have paid enough already. the taxpayers have paid enough already. we're not going to expose them to even more pain down the road. the way to solve this problem is

to let the people who made the mistakes pay for them. the way to solve the problem is to let the people who made the mistakes pay for them. we won't solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail. madam president, i yield the floor. >> in a few moments, president obama news conference at the nuclear security summit. in a little more than a half- hour, russian president medvedev on relations between his country in the u.s.. after that, a look at the economy and the employment rate with former labor secretary robert reich. and off for rahm on how all the media is being used by the political opposition in iran.

-- and a forum on how the media is being used by the political opposition in iran. on "washington journal" tomorrow, trent francs, a member of the senate armed services committee. mark baggage discusses some of the legislative agenda. the chairman of the tarp oversight panel, elizabeth warren, the causes of -- focuses on preventing foreclosure. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. that economic committee will hear from ben bernanke at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that is also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the senate

commerce committee looks into the national brought burton plan proposed by the federal communications commission. julius genachowski will talk about the role of fcc in supervising the internet. >> this weekend, the first of three british election debates. for the first time, prime minister gordon brown, david cameron, and nick clegg will face off in a u.s.-style debate. watch it in their entirety for three consecutive weekends, with the first one courtesy of itv on c-span. >> when the nuclear sooner -- nuclear security summit was over today, president obama spoke with reporters for little over half an hour. leaders met in washington to discuss the security of nuclear material.

>> this evening i can report that we have seized this opportunity, and because of the steps we have taken as individual nations and as an international community, the american people will be safer and the world will be more secure. i want to thank all who participated in this historic summoned, -- summit, 49 leaders from every region of the world. today's progress was possible because these leaders came not simply to talk, not -- but to

take action. not simply to make vague pledges of future action, but to commit to meaningful steps that they are prepared to implement right now. i also want to thank my colleagues for the candor and cooperative spirit that they brought to the discussions. this was not a day of long speeches or lectures on what other nations must do. we listen to each other with mutual respect. we recognize that while different countries face different challenges, we have a mutual interest in securing these dangerous materials. today is a testament to what is possible when natures -- nations come together in a spirit of partnership to embrace our shared responsibility and confront a shared challenge. this is how we will solve problems and advance the security of our people in the 21st century, and this is reflected in the communique that we have unanimously agreed to today. first, we agreed on the urgency and seriousness of the threat. coming into this summit, there were a range of views on this danger. but at our dinner last night,

and throughout the day we developed a shared understanding of the risk. today we are declaring that nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international peer -- security. we also agreed that the most effective way to prevent terrorists and criminals from acquiring nuclear materials is through strong nuclear security -- protecting nuclear materials and preventing nuclear smuggling. i am very pleased that all the nations represented here have endorsed the goal that i outlined in prague one year ago -- to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years' time. this is an ambitious goal and we are under no in look -- allusions that it will be easy. but the urgency of the threat and the catastrophic consequences of even a single act of nuclear terrorism demand an effort that is at once bold and pragmatic. and this is a goal that can be achieved. third, we reaffirmed that is the

fundamental responsibility of nations, consistent with their international obligations to maintain effective security of the nuclear materials and facilities under our control. this includes strengthening national laws and policies and fully implementing the commitments we have agreed to. and fourth, we recognized that even as we fulfill our national responsibilities, this threat cannot be addressed by countries working in isolation. so we have committed ourselves to a sustained, effective program of international cooperation on national security and we call on other nations to join us. it became clear in our discussions that we do not need lots of new institutions and layers of bureaucracy. we need to strengthen the institutions and partnerships that we already have and make them even more effective. this includes the united nations, the international atomic energy agency, the multilateral partnership that strengthens nuclear security,

prevent nuclear trafficking and assist nations in building their capacity to secure their nuclear materials. but as i said, today was about taking tangible steps to protect our people. so we have also agreed to a detailed work plan to guide our efforts going forward -- the specific actions we will take. i want to commend my partners for the very important commitments that they made in conjunction with this summit. let me give you some examples. canada agreed to give up a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium. chile has given up its entire stockpile. ukraine and mexico announced that they will do the same. other nations such as argentina and pakistan announced new steps to strengthen port security and prevent nuclear smuggling. more nations including argentina, the philippines, thailand, and viet nam agreed to join, and thus strengthen, the

treaties and international partnerships that are at the core of our global efforts. a number of countries including italy, japan, india, and china will create new centers to promote nuclear security technologies and training. nations pledged new resources to help the iaea meet its responsibilities. in a major and welcomed development, russia announced that it will close its last web trends -- weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. after many years of effort, i am pleased that the united states and russia agreed today to eliminate 68 tons of plutonium for weapons program, putin them that what had been enough for about 17,000 nuclear weapons. instead will use this material to help generate electricity for our people. these are exactly the kinds of commitments called for in the work plan that we adopted today, so we have made real progress in building a safer world. i would also note that the

united states has made its own commitments. we are strengthening security at our own nuclear facilities and will invite the iaea to review the security at our neutron research center. this reflects our commitment to share in the best practices that are needed in our global effort. we're seeking significant funding increases for programs to prevent nuclear proliferation and trafficking. and today the united states is joining with our canadian partners and calling on nations to commit $10 billion to extending our highly successful global partnership to strengthen nuclear security around the world. so this is been a day of great progress. but as i said this morning, this cannot be a fleeting moment. securing nuclear materials must be a serious and sustained global effort. we agreed to have our experts meet on a regular basis to measure progress, to ensure we are mean -- we are meeting our commitments, and to plan our next deaths. and i again want to thank

president lee and the republic of korea for agreeing to host the next nuclear security summit in two years. let me say that while this summit is focused on securing nuclear materials, this is part of a larger effort, the comprehensive agenda that i outlined in prague last year to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. in recent days we've made progress on every element of this agenda. to reduce nuclear arsenals, president medvedev and i signed the historic new start treaty, not only committing our two nations to significant reductions in deployed nuclear weapons but also setting the stage for further cuts and cooperation between our countries. to move beyond outdated cold war thinking and to focus on the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, our new nuclear posture review reduces the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. and for the first time, preventing nuclear blow

reparation and nuclear terrorism is at the top of america's nuclear agenda, which reaffirms the central importance of the nuclear non corp. treaty. and next month in new york, we would join with nations from around the world to strengthen the npt as the cornerstone of our global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons even as we pursue greater civil nuclear cooperation. because for nations that uphold their responsibilities, peaceful nuclear energy can unlock new advances in medicine, in agriculture, and economic development. all of these efforts are connected. leadership and progress in one area reinforces progress in another. when the united states improves its -- our own nuclear security and transparency, it encourages others to do the same as we have seen today. when the united states fulfills our responsibilities as a nuclear power committed to the

npt, we strengthen our global efforts to ensure that other nations fulfill their responsibilities. so again, i want to thank my colleagues for making this unprecedented gathering a day of unprecedented progress in confronting one of the greatest their debts to our note -- our global security. our work today not only advances the security of the united states but all all mankind and preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism will remain one of my highest priorities as president of the united states. with that, i am going to take a few questions. i'm going to start with bill plante from cbs. >> the communique states in no uncertain terms that all of the unprecedented cooperation for which are calling will be done on a voluntary basis, not a binding commitment. what is the likelihood that countries which have been at odds over these issues for a number of years are now going to

cooperate? how can this be enforced? >> let's take a specific example, bill. for about 10 years, we have been encouraging ukraine to either ship out its highly enriched uranium or transform to lower grade -- a lower enriched uranium. and in part because of this conference, ukraine took that step -- announced that it would complete this step over the next couple of years. so all the commitments that we talked about are ones that we have already booked, even before the communique and the work plan gets put into place. and that indicates the degree to which i think that there is actually strong unanimity about the importance of this issue as a threat to the global and international community. now keep in mind that we also have a number of international conventions that have been put

into place. not all of them have been ratified. in fact the united states needs to work on a couple of these conventions dealing with the issues of nuclear terrorism and trafficking. but what this does is it sets out a bold plan. and what i am encouraged about is the fact that we have already seen efforts that had been delayed for years, in some cases, since the end of the cold war, actually finally coming to fruition here at this summit. [inaudible] bill, the point is that we have got world leaders who have just announced that in fact this is a commitment that they are making. i believe they take their commitments very seriously. if what you are asking is, is do we have an international "won world" law enforcement mechanism -- we do not.

we never have. so in all of our efforts internationally, in every treaty that we sign, we are relying on goodwill on the part of those who are signatories to those efforts. that's the nature of international relations. jay tepper, abc. -- jake tapper, abc. >> the chinese born near -- chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said today that pressure and sanctions -- speaking of iran's nuclear program -- pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the problem. i was wondering if you clarify exactly what you believe president hu jintao has agreed to, what do you think there will actually be economic sanctions with teeth that the chinese will sign off on, and what you've told the chinese in terms of their concern about how much fuel they get from iran, what the u.s. can help them with in that regard. thank you, sir.

>> here is what i know. the chinese have sent official representatives to negotiations in new york to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution. that is part of the p5-plus-1 effort. in the united states is not moving this process alone. we have got the participation of the russians as well as the other members of the p5-plus-1, all of whom believe that it is important for us to send a strong signal to iran that their consistent violation of united nations security council resolutions as well as their obligations under the npt have consequences, and that they have got a better path to take. now you are exactly right, jake, that the chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on

the economy generally. iran is an oil-producing state. i think that a lot of countries around the world have trade relations with iran. and we are mindful of that. but what i said to president hu and what i said to every world leader that i talk to is that words have to mean something, there have to be some consequences. and if we are saying that the npt is important, if we are saying that non-proliferation is important, then when those obligations are repeatedly flouted, then it is important for the international community to come together. and what i would say is that if you consider where we were, say, a year ago, with respect to the prospect of sanctions, the fact that we have got russia and

china as well as the other p5- plus-1 members having a serious discussion around a sanctions regime, following up on a serious sanctions regime that was passed when north korea flouted its obligations towards the npt, it is a sign of degree to which international diplomacy is making it more possible for us to isolate those countries that are breaking their international obligations. and as i said, i think a couple weeks ago, my interest is not having a long, drawn-out process for months. i want to see us move forward boldly and quickly to send the kind of message that will ron -- that will allow or ron to make a different kind of calculation. i've said repeatedly that under

the npt, iran has the right to develop peaceful civilian nuclear energy, as do all signatories to the npt. but given the repeated violations that we've seen on the part of iran, i think understandably the world community questions their commitment toward a peaceful civilian energy program. they have a way of restoring that trust. for example, we put before them -- i am saying the p5-plus-1, now, as well as the iaea -- put before them a very reasonable approach that would allow them to continue their civilian peaceful nuclear energy needs, but would have allayed many of the current -- the concerns around their nuclear weapons. they have rejected that so far. and that's why it is important -- and i have said from the start that we're going to move

on a dual track, and part of that is making sure that its agents regime is in place. last point i will make about sanctions. sometimes i hear the argument that, well, sanctions are not really going to necessarily work. sanctions are not magic wand. what sanctions do accomplish is hopefully to change the calculus of a country like iran so that they see that there are more costs and fewer benefits to pursuing a nuclear weapons program. and in that process, but we hope is, is that if those costs get high enough and the benefits are low enough, that in time they make the right decision not just for the security and prosperity of the world but also for their own people. scott wilson, "washington post."

barry scott? there we go. >> thank you, mr. president review of spoken often about the need to bring u.s. policy in line with its treaty obligations internationally to eliminate the perception of hypocrisy that some of the world sees toward the united states and its allies. in that spirit and the new, when you call on israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the non-proliferation treaty? and if not, why wouldn't other countries see that as an incentive not to sign on to the treaty did you say is important to strengthen? >> scott, initially you were talking about u.s. behavior and then suddenly we were talking about israel. let me talk about the united states. i do think that part of the nea -- as part of the npt our obligation as the largest nuclear power in the world is to take steps to reducing our nuclear stockpile. and that is what the start treaty was about -- sending a message that we are going to

meet our obligations. as far as israel goes, i am not going to comment on their program. what i am going to point to is the fact that consistently we have urged all countries to become members of the npt. so there is no contradiction there. we think it is important that we have an international approach that is universal and that rests on three pillars -- that those of us who have nuclear weapons are making serious efforts to reduce those stockpiles that we all are working against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons make the decision not to pursue nuclear weapons. in that all countries have access to peaceful nuclear energy.

and so whether we are talking about israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the npt is important. and that, by the way, is not in the position. that has been a consistent position of the united states government even prior to my administration. let me call on stephen collins cent of afp. -- stephen collinson of afp. >> in your meeting with president hu, did he give you any indication he would heed your call for more market- oriented exchange rate for the you wauan? if there is going to be a change, when would you envisage that taking place? and what happened in the last few weeks to help you move on from a period -- quite a stormy period of public disagreements with china? >> the fact is, actually, that

the relationship between my administration in the chinese government has been very productive during the course of the last year-and-a-half. we started off working together at various multilateral fora -- the first one in london with a g-20. i've been in, out of the bilateral meetings that we had, worked with president hu to set up a strategic and economic dialogue that looks at a whole range of areas in which the united states and china can cooperate. i made a visit to china that both of us considered very successful. now there are some areas where we have got disagreement. and those disagreements are not new, and i have to say that the amount of turbulence, as you put it, that occurred was actually relatively modest when you look

at the overall trajectory of u.s.-china relations. at no point was there ever a suggestion that is not in the interest of both our countries to cooperate, and that we have not only important bilateral business to do but also we are two very important countries in multilateral settings that have to deal with issues like climate change and the world economy in concert. with respect to the currency issue, president hu and die have had a number of frank conversations -- and i have had a number of frank conversations. as part of the g-20 process, we all signed on to the notion that a rebalancing of the world economy would be important for sustained economic growth and the prevention of future crises. and china, like united states,

agreed to that framework. we believe that part of that rebalancing involves making sure that currencies are tracking roughly the market and not giving any one country an advantage over the other. and i have been very clear of the fact that it is my estimation that the rmb is undervalued and that china's own decision in previous years to begin to move toward a more market-oriented approach is the right one. and i communicated that once again to president to. i think china rightly sees the issue of currency as a sovereign issue. i think that they are resistant to international pressure when it comes to them making decisions about their currency policy and monetary policy. but it is my belief that it is

actually in china's interests to achieve this rebalancing, because over time china is going to have to shift away from an economy that is solely oriented on exports and is going to have to start shifting toward an economy that is emphasizing domestic consumption and production, and is preventing bubbles from building up within the economy. and all that will be facilitated with a more market-oriented currency approach. so i do not have a timetable, but it is my hope that china will make a decision that ultimately will be in their best interest. bob burns of ap. >> mr. president, a few minutes ago when you're explaining the purpose of sanctions against iran, he said the point is to

change iranian government calculations leading to altered behavior. why has that not happened in the case of north korea, which unlike iran actually does have nuclear weapons? >> i am not going to give you a full dissertation on north korean behavior. i think it is fair to say that north korea has chosen a path of severe isolation that has been extraordinarily damaging to its people, and that it is our hope that as pressure builds for north korea to improve its economic performance, for example, to break out of that isolation, that we will see a return to the six-party talks and that we will see a change in behavior. as i said, sanctions are not a

magic wand. unfortunately nothing in international relations is. but i do think that the approach that we have taken with respect to north korea makes it more likely for them to alter their behavior than had there been no consequences whatsoever to them testing a nuclear weapon. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. given the goals of this conference and the goals of your ministration on nuclear policy, why does it appear as if pakistan is playing by different set of rules? i know that they have not signed on to this nuclear non- proliferation treaty, but it expense of their expanding their nuclear program and the proximity to al qaeda. should there be more pressure internationally on pakistan, not just coming from the united states, but the world? >> i do not think pakistan had

been playing by a different set our rules. i think we've been very clear to pakistan as we have been to every country, that we think they should join the npt. i have actually seen progress over the last several years with respect to pakistan's nuclear security issues. i want to lower tensions throughout south asia when it comes to nuclear programs. and i think the fact that president gillani came here, signed on to communicate, and made a range of commitments that will make it more likely that we do not see proliferation activities or trafficking occurring out of pakistan is a positive thing. do we have a lot more work to do? absolutely. but i think that president -- prime minister gillani's presence here was an important step in assuring that we do not see a nuclear crisis anywhere in

south asia. ok? all right, jeff mason. >> thank you, mr. president. all follow-up brought -- a follow-up question on two that have been asked. first, how realistic do you believe it is that countries will agree on sanctions in the coming weeks, which is the deadline that you are looking for? and a follow-up on pakistan -- is the united states confident that pakistan's nuclear materials are protected and will not be vulnerable to terrorists like al qaeda? >> to take the second question first, just as part of a follow- up on chuck question, i think confident about pakistan security around its nuclear weapons programs. but that does not mean that there is not improvement to make in all of our nuclear security programs. you will recall that we had a low incidence of while back where we have nuclear-test new

-- missiles on a bomber flying across the united states and nobody knew about it. and secretary gates took exactly the right step, which was to hold those in charge accountable and to significantly alter our practices to make sure something like that did not happen again. so i think it is important to note that every nuclear power, every country that has a civilian nuclear energy program, has to take better steps to secure these materials. pakistan is not exempt from that but we are not either. and i think that is the goal of the summit and that was the goal of the communique and the work plan that we put forward. with respect to sanctions, i think that we have a strong number of countries on the security council who believe this is the right thing to do. but i think these negotiations can be difficult.

and i am going to push as hard as i can to make sure that we get strong sanctions that have consequences for iran as it is making calculations about its nuclear program and that those are done on a timely basis. i am not one to speculate beyond that in terms of where we are. last question, ed chen of bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. given the progress you have cited in recent days on your farm policy agenda, to what extent you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the international stage for the rest of this year, to perhaps rejuvenate some initiatives in trouble spots such as the middle east and elsewhere? >> well, i think the work that

we have done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good. they are good just in and of themselves. and so we're very pleased with the progress that we have made, and we could not have done this without extraordinary cooperation first from president medvedev when it came to the start treaty, and then to my colleagues who are here today when it came to this nuclear summit. what i think it signifies is the fact that so many of the challenges that we face internationally cannot be solved by one nation alone. but i do think that america's leadership is important in order to get issues on the international agenda and to move in concert with other countries to have an effective response.

there are a host of other issues that have to be addressed, and one of the points that was made during the communique is we're talking here about the instruments of potential war or terrorism, but obviously there are also the reasons, the rationales, the excuses for conflict that have to be addressed as well. and i remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world, and in particular hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. and the middle east would be a prime example. i think that the need for peace between israelis and palestinians and the arab states remains as critical as ever. it is a very hard thing to do. and i know that even if we are applying all of our political

couple to that issue -- political capital to that issue, the israeli people through their government and the palestinian people through the palestinian authority as well as other arab states may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the united states brings to bear. and the truth is, in some of these conflicts the united states cannot impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. i think it was former said terry of state jim baker who said, in the context of middle east peace, we cannot want it more than they do. but what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only

is it in the interest of each party to resolve these conflicts but it is also in the interest of the united states. it is of vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. so i am going to keep on at it. but i think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. it is going to take time.

and progress will be halting. sometimes we will take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. and so it is not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. but if we are persistent, and we have got the right approach, then over time i think we can make progress. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> in a few moments, russian president medvedev on relations between his country in the u.s.

in a little more than an hour, a look at the end "-- the economy and the employment rate with former labor secretary robert reich. after that, all four on how the new media is being used by the political opposition in iran. and then treasury secretary tim geithner . on "washington journal", more about the administration's nuclear policy from republican representative trent francs, a manner -- a member of the armed services committee. mark they ditch begich -- mark begich on the legislative agenda, elizabeth warren on preventing foreclosures. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on a companion network, c-span3. the joint economic committee will hear from federal reserve president -- chairman ben bernanke. that is also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the senate commerce committee looks at the national broadband plan released by the federal communications commission. members will question fcc chairman joe is genachowski about the plan and the role of the fcc in overseeing the internet. c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> in a few moments, a look at the economy and the employment rate with former labor secretary

robert reich. and about 45 minutes, all forum on how new media is being used by the political opposition. >> as you know, president medvedev is here to discuss nuclear safety. these two leaders have also in their personal interactions over the past year given a new start to u.s.-russian relations.

before turning the program over to him, i would be remiss if i did not convey on behalf all of us are defense condolences president medvedev and his fellow citizens on the tragedy that they suffered as a result of a terrorist outrage two weeks ago on march 29. i happen to be writing as a passenger on the moscow metro just a few days ago. it was a powerful and moving experience. the reminder of the courage and fortitude of a great people. i might add that we all served at a distance with admiration and compassion another recent event in moscow. while russians were still grieving for the wrong compatriots, president medvedev

met a throng of muscovites laying flowers at the gate of the polish embassy in moscow this weekend. the russian people are fortunate to have our guest of honor today, a leader working so hard to modernize their economies and also working with mr. obama to build for all of us a safer world. mr. president, the podium is yours. [applause] >> [speaking russian] >> i'll let to say a few words -- i would like to say a few words. i want to thank you for the invitation to speak.

the not a states is our right considered to be a stronghold of liberal thought. it is high time that i talked to robert brokering some about the a stack -- the institute that he establishes based upon the belief that there is impartial and presumption without any kind of ideology. on the first phase of their work, this principle helped find solutions for the most difficult problems of the global politics and internal problems as well. to date the world is going for a period of profound

transformation and faces serious challenges in the search for a new model of development. although this can be applied to any development in the period of humankind. there is concordance of interest and interdependence of our approaches, and the world will be harmonious only when those to make it up will not collide but in iraq. and -- but in to act -- interact, and a market economy makes up the basis of not only national development but a common set of international allow use the dialogue between russia and the united states makes up an important part of that. i am sincerely happy that our

cooperation is starting to yield concrete results. moreover, i would say that i am glad that over the last year we manage to change the relationship. it does not mean that our relationship has become clouded and everything is perfect, but the environment has been changed and there are direct results, and i would say that i am glad to be a part of that. this meeting taking place right after the washington summit of the nuclear security, it has been a complete success. i don't believe -- remember such a clear summoned when all the participants would be unanimous in their assessments of the situation. this is not economy are global crisis, this is the topic

crucial for every state, and it is a real threat and challenge for all those three i would like to say once again president obama and be signed a new treaty in the elimination of strategic arms. we made real progress. they keep saying that it is changing and it can be advantageous for some of us, but nevertheless this is a real success. russia and america cannot have an easy history of relationship. do not have -- do not have an easy history of relationship.

at times this was dividing us. we should not try to find differences. we should build a long-term, pragmatic relationship for the future based upon democracy, values, and economic freedom. and common goals to counter global threats. sure, we have differences, and people see things in different ways. the usa has a developed market and economy for two center is already, while our country has gone to a sequence of economic and political experiments. so was i strongly believe, several decades of gradually

building up efficient political and economical systems. and this is the only way all disputes will be left in the past. to make this happen, there's no need to teach each other how to live well. we shall communicate on a regular basis in an honest manner, effortlessly, frank. the problems that our country are well known to us, corruption, on healthy lifestyles. but we have begun to change our system 20 years ago, and this system, i like to highlight this, this system does have its own traditions and a trace of

all time traditions. it has become a habit. sometimes they are an obstacle but to a certain extent they provide protection to society. they prevented from falling apart. we know how to deal with these problems using the experience of our friends which builds a partnership on a whole range of matters. on parts we are ready to provide assistance to the united states if it is needed. and sometimes it is needed in resolving some problems. declaring the principles of democracy is not what is needed. a lot of countries do that and not even changing laws, although improvement to legislation is a necessary part, this is not enough. what is important is that we exercise the principle of democracy.

practice the criterion of truth and legal practice indicates all the best and worst parts in the system. that is real important. when we fight successfully corruption and discharge people who are unqualified for their service. what is important today is receiving feedback from the citizens, and i think that they should be done by every official, every statesman whatever level they have they should use in technology. i have tried to do that and i believe others can do that as well. today we have a lot of opportunities to do that. sometimes i think that very

often states people have become slaves to their aides, who sort the materials, make the files, and present them to read. sometimes they define what can be shown to the leader and what cannot be shown. because they want to present their country and their work in a positive light. but the times have changed. whatever i read for president obama reads, we have the possibility to go online and see what is happening in reality. it does not mean the internet is the final source of truth, but this is an alternative source of information. we do not need our aids that much today. we can immerse ourselves in information. this is an important advance

that we don't some time realized the full extent. we will cooperate with united states on the most important issues like countering terrorism, crime and piracy. we regulate regional conflicts. we are trying to counter the climate change affects, and we pay special attention to the international relationship regulation like the united nations, which is a good universal platform. we work in the framework of the g-8 and the g-20 and we will continue that work. we're going to overcome the effects of global economic crisis as well, because we do not know what is the a look --

the outlook, but there are various scenarios and soon we will be meeting each other in the format of the g-8 and in the format of d-20. we are dealing with regional security issues and i would like to draw everyone's attention to the initiative which we came up with, the european security treaty. this is an important thing. it is not aimed against any organization. this was not the reason behind it. this is not a trip made by russians against nato, we are just trying to add a better tool to the security system. another issue on which we quite extensively and we discuss it, maybe you will have some questions about it, the iranian

nuclear issue. not all what is being said about the need to impose sanctions on iran. we're totally clear. iran still has not compromised to the suggestion that have been made to it. we've been discussing this with our colleagues at the six-party talks. we talk this with president obama in prague when we signed the new start treaty. it does not mean that sanctions are such a good and healthy thing. they do not always bring about the result, and they certainly should not punish the people. they should only prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. we are assisting afghanistan in their transformation toward a stable and sustainable state. we're trying to assist them in assuring a peaceful life. we work together in the

political area of, trying to ensure a political settlement. we are reinforcing the global authorities assisting the police. we are working together on transit issues. i believe that all of this is leading to a common result. so far little is being done to contract the drug trafficking originating from afghanistan. maybe because america is less affected by this trouble and russia and europe are suffering more. these are the drugs they go to all countries, and we should achieve greater progress on that. we need more approach on a middle east settlement. we need to create more progress toward a palestinian state. we're facing a lot of

difficulties. until then, we cannot see a sustainable peace. and so far at the united states is taking efforts to recover the constructive process, including the talks. we support this idea and i have met almost all the middle east leaders. i supported in direct talks and i hope that eventually it will lead to direct negotiations. any stop in developments always brings about liking behind. that is why our country started modernizing its economy and started our technological innovation introductions. so far we have not done that much, frankly speaking, and frankly speaking, here we like to count on the leading

economies around the world, including the u.s. economy, and i was very happy with our discussion with president obama when we started discussing reaching out to the middle east in iran, and not what the trouble of our start treaty. but we started our discussion with the economy -- common appreciation between our two countries, and is the area that most failed in our relationship. now we have recovered a dynamic development in this area. we have established a constructive relationship at a personal level between the president, but there are no economic results to that so far. i would like to rephrase that it would be a very little thing, though business s business, and if governed by its own rules, we are not imposing on it. we need to create relations conducive to these developments.

i have quoted as saying by the founder of this institution and it would be wrong should i not quote u.s. president when he was addressing a meeting with russia. he said that america needs a powerful, peaceful, and prosperous russia. those are good words but russia intern's also needs a responsible, peaceful, and dynamic developing america. an america that enjoys the respect of the entire international community, in partnership with other countries on an equal footing, and that develops its position toward the development of a new system of international cooperation. that would be a great thing to achieve. at this point, i like to finish my remarks and now we can start

the more interesting part of this meeting -- the question and answer session. if you do not mind, i will stay here to answer questions. >> mr. president, thank you so much. in a few moments, we will open the conversation to include our friends in the audit. but perhaps i can get the conversation going a little bit between the two of us by calling up a bit 1 two issues. and a boil down to one question, which is what next? what next for the negotiations between the russian federation and the united states on nuclear issues, now that you have the new start treaty done -- awaiting ratification on both sides? and not follow up on what you have described as a very successful nuclear safety summit here in washington?

>> [speaking russian] >> i hope that more work will be done and more work will follow. speaking about the outcome of the summit, i think that we will not just go home. with the start treaty, i would like to see at least one little fact after the ratification of the treaty. if it does take place, it means that we did not work in vain. and should be -- should there be no ratification, it means that we have gone back to some kind of soviet time when these types of trees were not ratified. -- treaties were not ratified. but it would be very important in my mind that our relationship should not be reduced to nuclear cooperation or to the limitation

of strategic arms, though certainly it is something that people expect of us, and in this regard, we have a great responsibility toward the international community. i would like to have a much broader cooperation on all the other areas. as to the future of the treaty and our further steps, i would like us to undertake all the necessary procedures provided for in the treaty. i would like the treaty to be transparent and acceptable to both our society is in russia and the united states. i hope it will not cause any attention. and i hope it will help us to build on our future cooperation. though, frankly speaking, there are other types of farms that are quite dangerous as well that also require an agreement between us, that requires a

discussion between is, because there are conventional forces that can cause a dramatic damage, and on such systems, we have not yet coordinated our positions as to what to do next. there are issues on which we should formulate a common position, like nuclear terrorism, like nonpolar operation, like control -- like non-proliferation, like cooperation, on countries that are using waste to sneak into the nuclear club. this is our joint responsibility and i would like us to work on that together. >> thank you very much. i suspect may be some of our colleagues will want to return to these issues, so if i could ask you one question about russia and the global economy, and that is -- what do you see as the prospects for russia

being part of the world trade organization? >> being honest, i think that we should have -- we should be in the wto long time ago because we have been on this threshold war than any other countries. being honest, i think the issue is russia's accession to wto has become a carrot before us. they keep saying behave well and we will accept you to the wto. but this is not correct, because if we come to the organization, everyone will benefit. not only russia. it is an important part of the international economy. whatever people say, we have a lot of things to offer a and from an organization, it is

important for talking about my personal position, we would like to assess to the wto, and we should make this procedure not be waiting for us. i will be frank. i know that barack obama said the rush of -- that russia should join the wto fast. that was in 2006 when our relationship was just evolving. we count very much on a favored position of the new administration to voice that joining of russia to the wto. this does not run counter to our commitments like a customs union with, all of this can be

harmonized and help us benefit from it. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i am going to invite the audience to ask questions as succinctly as possible to president medvedev, and be sure that they are questions and that you identify yourself when you stand up to ask. we have microphones around the room. i'll start with ambassador robert -- rick burke. >> i am with the global zero initiative. i listen very carefully to the answer you gave about what next, and you outlined a number of areas that united states and the russian federation have worked on, european security, conventional forces, proliferation.

does that suggest -- does your answer suggests that a new round of further reductions in nuclear forces is not a russian priority? a new round of negotiations following the start treaty and hopefully its ratification, it is not a russian priority? or would you support of all of negotiation to achieve deeper cuts? >> [speaking russian] >> i like to see that this is an important priority for russia as well as the united states. negotiation is a process that should be addressed by all of us together, by each country, and we agreed with mr. obama that ratification will be simultaneous, not to make everybody -- not to put anyone

in an all or position, talking about further reductions of strategic potential. this is our aim in general, there is no doubt about this. and today at the summit i said that the idea of this is not an illusion. but we should be honest with the other, talking about responsibility for the situation on the climate. this is not only russia and america's responsibility. we have the biggest part of armament. if one day people will arrive at global 0 come up out will be made not only by russia and america but a collective effort. i will not point the finger at anyone but we have partners who are less willing to cut their potential in russia for america. we have to convince them to go that way. but talking about further talks,

we are ready for that and we're going to engage in them. this is natural, that to date we have made a threshold for the next 10 years, and this is enough now. if there is a need, then we will discuss the new levels, but these 10 years will be peaceful for ross. -- for us. and the preamble would not say, the links between abm and strategic arms, this is a hard issue that we have been discussing for long. we have created this for mellon -- this formula that acquires this link, and we of worked out a principle or statement that the treaty will be in effect