something wrong with the markets and imperfection there and maybe we want to think about why that is so and fixing >> i think there is a lot that is obviously wrong in financial markets, both what we get wrong and it is wrong generally and i think we have all learned painfully over time that financial markets are going to need to operate reasonably well for the economy as a whole need risk taking and a significant cause of this crisis, was, as i said at the beginning you had compensation practice across the financial system designed in way that people were able to benefit from the upside without being exposed to risk on the upside. that is an untenable balance and something that has to change over time. it is a hard thing to change. we've had a lot of experience as a country trying to figure out conference saying practices

that had perverse and unfortunate effects. we're trying to change it by doing two simple things. one is to force public companies to give shareholders their plans for approval. let shareholders vote on them. that's necessary but not sufficient. we're also proposing to make sure that the regulators responsible for supervising the institutions enforce standards on compensation practice that end this basic dynamic where you could get the upside without being exposed to the downside. i think those are achievable things but you know, what you pointed out is not just one example of, you know, what can happen in financial markets without a basic feature but we have three decades of steady, quite substantial rise in income and equality in this country. . .

symptom of 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

>> 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 fiscal problems to build support for comprehensive reforms that include simplification. i think we're coming to the point where that will be possible for us to do and will be able to benefit from lots of advice on how best to do that. >> you got into a problem a few years back when you did your own thing. i assume did you do your own

taxes this year or did you get professional help? [laughter] >> thank you for raising that issue. [laughter] >> i do it slightly differently, i have an excellent accountant who i have enormous confidence in. i had an account fant then, too. but i like my accountant. >> thank you for joining us. >> nice to see you all. [applause]8 [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> republican senators are criticizing and financial regulation bill that may, this month. kentucky senator mitch mcconnell spoke about the bill for a few minutes on the senate floor. republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, a lot of smart people have

thought about how to prevent a repeat of the kind of financial crisis that we saw in the fall of 2008. 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's news conference yesterday paulo -- following the nuclear summit in -- nuclear summit yesterday. "washington journal" is live with segments on government transparency and preventing home foreclosures.

a couple of live event to tell you about today on cspan 3. the 20 economic committee will hear from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that is also on cspan radio and online at c-span.org. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the senate commerce committee looks into the national broadbent plan released last month by the federal communications commission. they will talk about the role of the fcc and the internet. >> this weekend, the first of three british election debates. for the first time, the three candidates will face off in u.s.-style the base.

watch them in their entirety for three consecutive weekends with the first debate sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> when the nuclear security summit was over yesterday, president obama spoke with reporters for a little more than half an hour. leaders from more than 40 countries met in washington to discuss securing nuclear materials. >> this evening, i can report that we have seized this

opportunity and because of the steps we have taken as individual missions and 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 summit, 49 leaders from every region of the world. the progress today was important because these letters came not simply to talk but to take action. not simply to make pledges of a 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 brought to the discussions. this was not a day of long speeches and lectures on what other nations must do. we listened to to each other with mutual respect. we recognized that while the three countries face different challenges, we have a mutual interest in securing these dangerous materials.

today is a testament to what is possible when nations come together in the spirit of partnership to embrace our shared responsibilities and confront a shared challenge. this is how we will solve problems in the 21st century. this is reflected in the week released today. coming into this summit, there were a range of views at our dinner last night and throughout the day we developed a shared understanding of the rest. today, we are declaring that nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security. we also agreed that the most effective way to prevent criminals from requiring the glory 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 goals i outlined in prague one year ago. we want to secure all materials within one year's time. this is an ambitious goal and we are under no illusions it will be easy. the urgency of the threat and the catastrophic consequences of even a single act of nuclear terrorism the mandan effort that is bold and pragmatic. this is a goal that can be achieved. we reaffirm that it is the fundamental responsibility of nations consistent with their international obligations to maintain effected security of the nuclear material facilities under our control. this includes strengthening national laws and policies and fully implementing the commitments we have agreed to. we recognize that even as we fulfill our national responsibilities, this threat cannot be addressed by countries working in isolation. we have committed ourselves through a sustained program of

international cooperation on national security and we call on other nations to join us. it became clear in our discussion that we do not need lairs of bureaucracy. we need to strengthen the institutions and partnerships we already have and make them more affected. this includes the united nations, the international atomic energy agency, the multilateral partnership to strengthen the clear security and prevent nuclear traffic and assist nations in developing their capacity to protect nuclear materials. today was about taking tangible steps to protect our people. we have also agreed to a detailed work plan to guide our efforts going forward with this of the actions we will take. i want to commend my partners for the very important commitments 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. the ukraine and mexico announced 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 vietnam agreed to join and 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 ieae to meet its responsibilities. russia announced it will close weapons grade production reactor.

i am pleased that the united states and russia agreed today to eliminate 68 tons of plutonium for weapons programs. this is plutonium that would have been enough for a 17,000 nuclear weapons. instead, we will use this material to generate electricity for our people. these are exactly the kinds of commitments called for in the work plan we adopted today. we have made real progress in building a safer world. i would also note that the unit -- that the united states has met its own commitments. we are strengthening security at our own nuclear facilities and we invite the iaea to inspect these facilities. we are seeking significant funding increases for programs to prevent nuclear proliferation and trafficking. the united states is joining with our canadian partners in calling on nations to commit $10

billion to strengthen nuclear security around the world. this has been a day of great progress but this can 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, insure we are meeting our commitments, and to plan the next steps. i want to l thank wantee and republic -- i wanted to thank presidentsm le lee of korea. securing nuclear materials is part of a larger effort that i outlined in prague last year to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. in recent days, we made progress on every element of this agenda. we are real -- president

medvedev and i signed the historic new start treaty committing our two nations to significant reductions in deployed nuclear weapons but also setting the stage for further cuts and cooperation between our countries. we will be on outdated cold war thinking and focus on the nuclear dangers of the 21st century. our new review reduces the role and nuclear-weapons in our national security strategy. for the first time, it will prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism at the top of america's nuclear agenda. next month in new york, will join with nations from around the world to strengthen the cornerstone of our global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons even as we pursue greater civil nuclear cooperation. for nations that toppled their responsibilities, peaceful

nuclear energy can unlocked new medicines in agriculture and health developments. these are all connected. leadership and progress in one area reinforces progress in another. when the united states improves 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 mpt, we strengthen our global efforts to ensure that other nations fulfill their responsibilities i want to thank my colleagues for making this unprecedented gathering today of unprecedented progress in confronting one of the greatest threats to our global security. this work advances the security of united states and all mankind. this prevents nuclear proliferation and terrorism and that will remain one of my highest priorities as president of the united states.

with that, i will take a few questions. >> it was stated that all of the unprecedented cooperation will be done under a voluntary basis, not a binding commitment what is the likelihood that countries that have been at odds over these issues for a number of years will cooperate? how can this be enforced? >> lipstick is this of example. for about 10 years, we have been encouraging ukraine to either ship out its highly enriched uranium or transformi it to a lower enriched uranium. because of this conference, in part, ukraine took that step. they announced they would

complete this step over the next couple of years. all the commitments we talked about are ones that we have already booked even before communique has taken place. there is strong unanimity about the importance of this issue as a threat to the global and international community. we also have a number of international conventions that have been put in place. not all of them have been ratified. the united states needs to work on a couple of these conventions dealing with the issues of nuclear terrorism and trafficking. what this does is it sets out a whole plan and what i encouraged about is the fact that we have already seen efforts that had been delayed for years and in some cases since the end of the cold war, actually coming to

fruition here at this summit. the point is, we have world leaders who have just announced that in fact this is a commitment they are making. i believe they take their commitments seriously. if you are asking if we have an international one world law enforcement agency, we don't. we never have. in all of our efforts internationally, in every tree we sign, we are relying on good will on the part of those who are signatories to those efforts. that is the nature of international relations. >> the chinese foreign ministry said today that pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally

solve the problem of iran. could you clarify exactly what you believe president whose intel has committed to and whether -- presidents hu jintao thinks and what you have told the chinese about how much fuel they get from iran and how the u.s. can help them in that regard? >> here is what i know. the chinese have sent official negotiators to your to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution. that is part of the p5 +1 effort. the united states is not moving this process along. we have the participation of the russians as well as the other members of the p5 +1, all the

home believe it is important to send a strong signal to iran that there consistent violations as well as their obligations under the mpt have consequences. they have a better path to take. you are right of that the chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy generally. iran as an oil-producing state. -- is an oil-producing state. many countries around the world have trade agreements with iran. we are mindful of that. what i said to the president of china and a world leader i talked to is that words have to mean something. there has to be some consequences. if we are saying that the mpt is

important and nonproliferation is important, then when those obligations are repeatedly flouted is important for the international community to come together. if you consider where we were one year ago with respect to the prospect of sanctions, the fact that we have got russia and china as well as the other p5 +1 members having a serious discussion of around the sanctions regime, following up but a serious sanctions regime that was passed when north korea flouted its obligations to thempt, it is a sign to the great that international diplomacy is making it more possible for us to isolate those

countries that are breaking their international obligations. my interest is not having a long and drawn-out process for months. i want to see us move forward boldly and quickly to send the kind of message that will allow iran to make a different calculation. i have said repeatedly that under the mpt, iran has the right to develop peaceful civilian nuclear energy as all signatories do. given the repeated violations that we have seen on the part of iran, understandably, the world community questions their commitment toward a peaceful civilian energy program. they have a way of restoring that trust. we put before them, the p5 +1

and the ieaea, a very reasonable approach that would have allowed them to continue their civilian peaceful nuclear energy needs but would have added many of the concerns around our nuclear weapons program. they have rejected that so far. that is what it is important that we will move on a dual track and part of that dual track is making sure that the sanctions regime is in place. the last point about sanctions is that sometimes i hear the argument that sanctions do not necessarily work. sanctions are not a magic wand. what sanctions to accomplish is hopefully to change the calculations of a country like iran so they see there are more costs than pure benefits to

pursuing a nuclear weapons program. in that process, if those cost of high enough and the benefits are low enough, we hope they make the right decision, not just for the security and prosperity of the world but also for their own people. >> you have spoken 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 the united states and its ally. will you call on israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the nonproliferation treaty and if not, why would not other countries see that as an incentive not to sign not to the

treaty that you say is important? >> initially, you were talking about u.s. behavior and suddenly we are talking about israel. let me talk about the united states. as part of the mpt, our obligation that the largest nuclear power and the world needs to take steps to reduce our nuclear stockpile and that is what the start treaty was about, sending a message that we will meet our obligations. as far as israel, i will not and come and on their programent on. we have urged all countries to become a member of the mpt. we think it is important that we have an international approach that is universal. there is no contradiction there.

those of us who have nuclear weapons are making serious efforts to reduce those stockpiles and that we all are working against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and those countries that do not have currently have no clear weapons make the decision not to pursue nuclear weapons and that all countries have access to peaceful nuclear energy. whether we talk about israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the mpt is important. that is not a new position, by the way. that has been and are consistent position of the united states prior to my administration. >> in your meeting with president hu, did he give you any indication that he would heed your call for an exchange

rate for the the yuan? what happened in the last few weeks to help you move on from a stormy period of disagreements with china? >> the relationship between my administration and the chinese government has been very productive during the last year- and-a-half. we started off working together at various multilateral fora. the first one was in london with the g-20. out of the bilateral meetings we had, work with president h boatu to set up a dialogue that looks

at a whole range of areas where the united states and china can cooperate. i made a visit to china that both of us considered very successful the are some areas where we have disagreements. those disagreements are not new and i have to say that the amount of turbulence, as you put it, that occurred was actually a relatively modest when you look at the overall trajectory of the u.s.-china relations. at no point was there a suggestion that it 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 that have to deal with issues like climate change and the world economy in concert with respect to the currency issue,

president hu 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 re-balancing of the world economy would be good for sustained economic growth and the prevention of the future crises. china, like the united states, agreed to that framework. we believe that part of that re-balancing includes making sure that currencies are tracking roughly the market and not giving any one country an advantage over the other. i have been very clear that it is my estimation that the r &b is undervalued and that china's own decision in previous years to begin to move towards a more

market-oriented approach is the right one. i communicated that once again to president hu. i think china rightly sees the issue of currency as a sovereign issue. i think they are resistant to international pressure when it comes to them making decisions about their currency and monetary policy. it is my belief that it is in china's interest to achieve this rebalancing because over time, china will have to shift away from an economy that is solely or ranted on exports and it will have to start shifting toward an economy that is emphasizing domestic consumption and production and is preventing bubbles from building up within the economy.

all that will be facilitated with a more market-oriented currency approach. 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. >> a few minutes ago when you were exploiting the purpose of sanctions against iran, you said that the. was toe point was to change the calculations of the country. why has that not happen with north korea? >> i will not 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. 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 seek a return to the six-party talks and we will see a change in behavior. sanctions are not a magic wand, as i said. unfortunately, nothing in international relations is. i think that the approach we have taken with respect to north korea makes it more likely for them to alter their behavior. had there been no consequence whatsoever to them testing nuclear weapons, it would not be the same. >> given the goals of this

conference and your administration, why did -- why does it appear as if pakistan is playing by different set of rules. they have not signed on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. should there be more pressure internationally on pakistan not just coming from the united states but the world's? >> i don't think they are saying by a different set of rules. we have been clear to pakistan that we think they should join the mpt. i have actually seen progress of 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. the fact that the president of pakistan sought came here and signed onto a communique will

make it more likely that we do not see more proliferation and trafficking of pakistan is a positive thing. do we have more work to do? absolutely, but i think the prime minister's presence here was an important step in assuring that we do not see a nuclear crisis anywhere in south asia. >> how realistic do you believe it is that countries will agree on sanctions in the coming weeks which is the deadline you're looking for? is the united states confident that pakistan's nuclear materials are protected and will not be vulnerable to terrorists? >> to take the second question

first -- i feel confident about the pakistan's security around their nuclear weapons program. that does not mean that there is not improvement to make and all our nuclear security programs. you will recall that we had an incident a while back where we had nuclear-tipped missiles on a bomber flying across the united states and nobody knew about it. secretary gates took 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. it is important to note that every nuclear power, every country that has a civilian nuclear energy program, have to take better steps to secure

these materials. pakistan is not exempt from that but we are not either. that is the goal of this summit and that was the goal of the work plan we put forward. with respect to sanctions, i think we have a say strong number of countries on the security council that believe this is the right thing to do. 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 that makes its calculations about its nuclear program and those are done on a timely basis. i will not speculate beyond that in terms of where we are. last question questi --

>> given the progress you have cited in recent days i your foreign policy agenda, to what extent you feel 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? >> the work that we have done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good. they are good in and of themselves. we are pleased with the progress we have made and we could not have done thus without extraordinary cooperation from president medvedev on the start treaty and my colleagues here today when it came to this

nuclear security summit. i think it signifies the fact that so many of the challenges we face internationally cannot be solved by one nation alone. 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, obviously, that have to be addressed. one of the points that was made during this communique is that we're talking about the venture as a potential war or terrorism but obviously there are excuses for conflict that have to be addressed, as well. i remain committed to being a partner with countries around

the world and in particular hot spots around the world to make sure that we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. the middle east would be a prime example. the need for peace between israelis and palestinians and the arab states remain as critical as ever. it is a hard thing to do. even if we are applying all our 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 that they are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the united states brings. in some of these conflicts, the united states cannot impose solutions on less the participants in these complex

are willing -- these conflicts are willing to break old patterns of antagonism. i think it was former secretary of state jim baker about the middle east that we cannot want more than they do. what we can make sure of is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged in setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is this in the interest of each party to resolve these complex, but it is in the interest of the united states. it is a vital national security interest of the united states to reduce these complex 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. that ends up costing us

significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. i will keep added. t it. and all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peace, progress will be measured not in the days or weeks but it will take time. progress will be halting. sometimes we will stick one step forward and the two steps back and there will be frustration. it will not run under a typical cable knows 24-7 news cycle. if we are persistent and have the right approach them over time we can make progress. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this year's cspan student cam competition asked students to create a video dealing with our country's greatest strength or challenges. there is one of the third-place winners. >> vote no. no one has to go. >> this identifies with that particular set of creeds or believes about how we govern ourselves and live together.

>> partisanship as a challenge and the strength. as a challenge because people do not understand the strength of partisanship. if you belong to a party, they have a platform. that platform will pretty well laid out their basic beliefs. that is a good starting point for the voter to know if you believe in the platform presented by the republican party or the democratic party. then, you get to know the candidates and more than likely, those candidates will be able to say why they support the platform. the challenge is, in my view, making people understand that just because you take the party out of it, you don't necessarily have the voter. the party and it helps the body because it gives them a starting point as to what the belief system is. >> today we are having a prescription for america rally. the purpose of the rally is to demonstrate that there is

widespread support among oklahomans to pass health care reform including a robust public option. but is important to rally today because quite obviously our state representatives have no interest in having health care reform so we are trying to generate public support option and employee our representatives in washington. -- and influence our representatives in washington. >> health care for all. >> i think partisanship is a strength of america. it has happened in a democracy where we have two parties. the partisanship keeps the party that is not in power questioning

and challenging the decisions of those that are in power. >> partisanship probably is affected by where you live. oklahoma is a very red state, a very conservative state. probably new york and california would be considered liberal state. i believe regions affected and i think it is probably historical and someplace. -- in some places. >> this will become a megaphone for politics as far as credibility is concerned. it is of the is the fox is a publicity arm of the republican national committee. >> i believe the remote late nonpartisan channel f as aox and they are not completely non- partisan. the rest of them are completely partisan and very much liberal, slanted toward the democrats.

anybody that watches the news will see that. you simply do not get the other side most of the time. >> cspan is neutral. if it is on c-span, there is no political bias. they tell it like it is. if they are televising a representative from south carolina during the president's speech to the joint session of congress and he shouts out at the present, it shows up on c- span but they do not comment on it. there it is. >> i believe -- i believe the internet has only eight of the division in america because you have -- has only aided the division in america because the fact that they are on the internet is not conducive to get a dialogue going between the two sides.

moveon is a partisan group. the tea bag crowd is a partisan group. we have our own issues that we support and are against. obviously, we will support those issues and be against those we do not agree with. >> i believe because of the divisive nature of what is going on today that partisanship will get stronger. i think the parties will get stronger. i think the parties will stand more firmly on what they say they believe. i believe there is also a possibility that the republican party strays further from its base, you will see the emergence of a third party. that party will be a conservative constitutional party. i hope that does not happen. >> the concept of the two-party system and people with different ideas about how we should govern

ourselves goes all the way back past our founding fathers. our nation would not be what it is without it. >> to see all the winning entries in this year's competition, visit studentscam.org. -- stillcam.org. >> your calls and today's had lined "washington journal on." the house is back in session at 10:00 a.m. eastern. . .