else says that we should do this. and one reason that we in -- we were against the invasion in iraq, we felt at the time that this would be vindicated by all the information that would come to light. but this is more about court in brown and tony blair doing the bidding of the united states. this is wrong. even with the closest allies, let me say, i have spent some very happy time in the united states and i was feeling that cultural affinity, the strong partnership as strong as anyone else. but the friendship has to be balanced. differences have to be able to be expressed, not automatic

deferring an older partner. . >> and i also think in the stomach or the european leaders have decided what their approach would be, far too much time has

been spent creating new institutions and mechanisms. this is not a time for institution building. this is not a time for institutional rivalries and jealousies. this is the time for the imf and the european union to act in concert with each other and not allow vanity to disturb and what needs to be a well coordinated, thorough, and rigorous brecker -- approach to the problems in greece. i think reece is taking grave and difficult steps in order to try to regain confidence in the markets in the state of their finances. it would be a betrayal of those efforts if the european union and the imf were to start playing institutional games with each other rather than focusing

on the job at hand. as i said earlier, the bigger trend in british politics is from a duopoly -- it is a bit like the arguments i was making earlier about the old cold war ideology. the world has become much more diverse and unpredictable. that is reflected in british politics. 40, 50 years ago, pretty much every body, voted for either left or right. the duopoly was complete. it was a perfectly divided country politically. in the 1951 general election, only 2% of people who voted did not vote for the labor and conservative parties. in local elections last year, 40% of the people did not vote for the labor and conservative

parties. the one thing better will -- the one thing that they will never be able to do is turn the clock back to just two parties were only they felt they can speak on behalf of the nation. that is gone. whatever the outcome of this general election, we are moving, inexorably, unalterably to a world of greater choice. from the meals they eat to the mobile phones they use and the holidays they go on, people want choice. and they do not want to be told they have a choice between the red team and the blue team. it is very unpredictable, but the shift from duopoly to pluralism is now irreversible in british politics. when i have talked about

mandate, i simply have made the obvious observation that if there is a party this election day, may 6, a party that does not have more seats than any of a party, that the -- that it seems that party has the normal right to govern. and indeed of the question is, but what happens if you have this hair splitting differences? it is not my job to speculate endlessly about the unusual statistical outcomes. if that happens, clearly, politicians will need to speak to each other. if that happens, i will be open about what our priorities are and tax reform and education reform and cleaning up politics. i still happen to think that even if a party has an absolute majority regardless of the

outcome, there are bigger issues where politicians can talk to each other. given the enormity of the problem of the fiscal crisis we have in this country, if for be a good thing to have a chancellor and a shadow chancellor and the governor of the bank of england and the head of finances in the same room to stretch out how big the deficit is so that we are honest with the english people end -- the english people and how long it is going to take to pay off. as for my children, i've spent more time campaigning in the last couple of days. but we've got them both to tomorrow, if the flights fly.

otherwise, my brother-in-law has heroically promised to drive them that long way. and he has no idea what it is like to have three children in the back. [laughter] thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in the beginning of the campaign, i think of many people knew nick clegg is. the tv debate change the whole course of the campaign. it gave him momentum. its eyes are focused on nick clayton since then -- and make clegg -- nick clegg since then. and so many are waiting to see

how he is going to fare in the next television debate. >> our the democrats drink in the polls? >> amazing -- how are the liberal democrats doing in the polls? >> amazing, some people say they have pulled ahead of the conservatives. how far is this going to be maintained? that is the big question. i think what nick letty is doing town -- nick clegg is doing ounow is that no party will have the decisive majority.

in my mind, he is driving this prospect very close because of the disarray in the conservative and liberal ranks following is becoming so prominent in the campaign. >> mr. clegg has expressed some differences in view on the relationship between the united kingdom and the united states. if he is to be a major foreign u.k. policy -- politics, -- a major force in the u.k. politics, d.c. that affecting that relationship? >> dorschel do you see that affecting the relationship? >> i do not think it would fall very well in the public relations between the u.k. and

the u.s. there has been an historic love affair between the two. what make clegg is trying to say is that the special relationship between the u.s. and the united kingdom is the driving force in the foreign policy of both countries. i think that the united states does not lose too much sleep on that. but it also finds britain a useful ally. but as henry kissinger once said, if he has a problem, what is the telephone number he would call in europe? that issue is still there, but now there are so many protagonists for that. there is mr. sarkozy, angela merkel.

and mr. blair just followed the american line in a way that just reinforces this relationship. >> the pentagon will update cold war era rules that will determine which u.s. technologies can be exported abroad. we will hear from secretary gates next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal" topics include derivatives regulations and iraq and afghanistan. it begins at the top of the hour. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentcam documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's strength or a challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before

"washington journal" and get a 30 a.m., meet the students who need them. -- and at 8:30 a.m., meet the students who made them. >> defense secretary robert gates said the u.s. will begin updating of -- export control systems to keep sensitive technology out of the hands of terrorists and other adversaries. be unveiled this plan at this event hosted by the group -- he unveiled his plan at this event hosted by the group business executives. >> good afternoon, my name is

monte meigs and i am the president and ceo of menaker at -- of an organization called business executives for security. 400 very patriotic businessmen and women who do everything we can to do bring best business practices to homeland security. and where we are asked, we do the work at no cost to the government. we are us this afternoon to honor secretary of defense robert gates to speak about issues he has supported, as well as weak, since the early 1990's. -- as well as we, sincerely 1990's. because over the last few decades many businesses have struggled with the complexities of the current system, many in the industry welcome this announcement.

the process one important factor is different this time. the secretary himself has emerged as one of the most enthusiastic voices calling for fundamental reform of this important system. some of you will be pleased to learn secretary gates includes a common sense approach that proposes the new transparent predictable export control system. when finally focused on controlling those two critical items and technologies that fundamentally ensure the forces continue to maintain their technological edge over any likely adversary. secretary gates is keenly aware of the importance of export control to the national security as well as first how the u.s. might not be controlling the most critical technologies or conversely that we may be controlling too much. second how the current controls may cooperate with partners and allies more difficult and last how the system may not be supporting the defense industry

and asset upon which national-security fundamentally depends. with that the liberal the secret rebates to discuss the administration's plan for reforming the export control system. [applause] >> sprick thank you for that kind introduction. i also would like to thank mccaul the undersecretary of state tauscher to read your efforts over the last few years saved the lives and limbs of countless men and women in uniform. my thanks as well to business executives for national security for hosting this event in areas

like accounting, procurement, privatization and access based structure we identify problems and proposed solutions that have saved the taxpayers billions of dollars and made our military more effective fighting force. as many of you know for the better part of three years now i've spoken out at various times about the need to at bat and reform america's national security apparatus to deal with the realities of the post cold war world. some of those misses or ships include enhancing america's civil and instruments of national power above all the policy and development and better integrating them with our military. rebalancing the defense establishment to reflect the lessons learned and capabilities and from recent conflicts is specially counter insurgency, stability and reconstruction operations. most recently reforming the way we build the capacity of allies and partners to better fight alongside us and secure their

own territory. all of these institutional shifts are to 1 degree or another aimed at improving the way the united states works with and through other countries to confront shared security challenges so as the matter i want to discuss today the need to reform the u.s. government's regulations and procedures for exporting weapons and the so-called dual use equipment and technology. earlier this year the president announced he would speak to further enhance national security through substantial changes to our export control regime. he did so with unanimous support of his entire national security team. this afternoon i will focus on what i believe are the compelling security arguments for the changes recommended by the president. i want to state from the outset how critically important it is to have a vigorous comprehensive export control system that prevents adversaries from getting access to technology or equipment that could be used against us.

the problem we face is that the current system which has not been significantly altered since the end of the cold war originated and evolved in a very different era with a very different a ray of concerns in mind. as a result, its rules, organizations and process is not set up to deal effectively with the situations i could do the most harm at 21st century. a terrorist group of tannin critical components for a weapon of mass destruction or a rogue state seeking advanced ballistic missile parts. most importantly, the current arrangement feels the critical past the the task of preventing harmful exports while facilitating useful ones. the united states is thought to have one of the most stringent export regimes in the world. but stringent is not the same as effective. and number of lapses in the recent years from highly sensitive materials being exported to the vital homeland

security capabilities being delayed have underscored the flaw of the current approach. several factors contribute to this kind of scenarios which at worst could lead to the wrong technology falling into the wrong hands. one major culprit is an overly broad definition of what should be subject to export classification and control. the real-world effect is to make a more difficult focus on those items and technologies that true we need to stay in this country. frederick the great's famous maxim that he who defends everything descends nothing certainly applies to export control. this problem goes back a long way and was evident well before the collapse of the soviet union. in 1982 when i became deputy director for intelligence at dia -- cia i transferred u.s. technology. it soon became apparent that the length of the list of controlled

technologies outstripped our finite intelligence monitoring capabilities and resources. it had the effect of undercutting our efforts to control the critical items. we were wasting our time and resources tracking technologies you could buy at radio shack. today the government refuse tens of thousands of license applications for export to the european union and nato countries. and well over 95% of these cases we say yes to the export. additionally many parts and components of major pieces of equipment such as a combat vehicle or aircraft require their own export licenses. it makes little sense to use the same lengthy process to control the export of every latch, why are and look not for a piece of equipment like the f-16 when we've already approved the export of the entire aircraft. in short, the time for change is long overdue. the application of control on

key items and technologies is to have any meaning. we need a system that dispenses with the 95% easy cases and lets us concentrate our resources on the remaining 5%. by doing so, we will be better able to monitor and enforce controls on technology transfers with real security implications while helping speed the provision of equipment to allies and partners who fight alongside in coalition operations. a second major obstacle we face is a bureaucratic apparatus that has grown apart on the export control and byzantine amalgam of of 40 schools and missions scattered around different parts of the federal government. it is. this provides checks and balances, the idea being security concerns customarily represented by defense would check economic interests represented by commerce and balance out domestic and diplomatic relationship building eckert is presented by the

states. in every now become of this diffusion of authority for separate export control lists are maintained by different agencies results in confusion about jurisdiction and approval on the part of companies and a government officials alike. it creates more opportunities for mistakes and enforcement lapses and circumvention strategies such as forum shopping or exporters with problematic license applications tried different agencies looking for the best result. in one instance and individuals caught intentionally exporting a cultural item without a license but he escaped prosecution by presenting to conflict in determinations from two different government agencies. the item in question was a carbon composite material used in icbm cones. as a result of this dispersed arrangement the u.s. government spends an enormous amount of time and energy on the what are essentially process questions trying to decide which agency has jurisdiction as opposed to

the more important issue with a given technology can be safely exported. the central squabbles' can have real-world consequences. a fight between agencies over jurisdiction for the simple delay the program to place new screening equipment in the u.s. and overseas airports. correspondingly many companies face a frustrating situation where an exporter with a single purchase order to have to seek licenses from two separate agencies and could be approved by one but denied by the other. additionally because it is so difficult to modify or update the kunkel list potential item might never be considered for a lower level of restriction even if it becomes much less sensitive and important over time. the system has the effect of discouraging exporters from approaching the process as intended. multinational companies can move production offshore e routing the defense industrial base of

undermining our controlled regimes and the process and not to mention losing american jobs. some of the european satellite manufacturers even market their products as not being subject to u.s. export control thus jogging overseas moly potential customers but some of the best scientists and engineers as well. at the same time, onerous and complicated restrictions too often fail to prevent weapons and technologies from going places they shouldn't. the only incentivize more creative circumvention strategy on the part of the foreign countries companies as well as countries that do not have our best interest at heart. concurrently we have not updated our system to deal with the u.s. military's transition to off the shelf procurement. more and more of the military's taking advantage of commercially manager items presenting challenges when determining whether or not a given technology is acceptable for export. the electronic components used

in many third generation cellular devices there also important components of sophisticated self-defeating radar systems. we need to update our export control system to reflect these realities. finally the current export control regime impedes the effective status of closest allies tests their patience and good will and hinders their ability to operate with u.s. forces and this at a time we cannot on allies and partners to fight with us in places like afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. not long ago a british c-17 spent hours disabled on the ground in australia not because the needed part wasn't available but because u.s. law required the australians to seek u.s. permission before during the repair. these are very strong allies for the united states. similarly closed have bought

u.s. aircraft only to encounter difficulties and delays in getting spare parts. nothing that weakens our bilateral relationships, our credibility and ultimately american security. as one of the reasons why several u.s. secretaries of defense representing multiple administrations of both political parties have voiced frustration over the export control system. as defense secretary is we have all at one time or another had to sit across the table from defense ministers from important allies or new partners and explain why the u.s. government is unable to follow through expeditiously on its commitment to provide the weapons, equipment and support they've been promised and paid for. it's not an edifying experience. all the while other countries that do not suffer from our incumbrances are taking the opportunity to sell weapons, build relationships and improve their strategic positions and economic standing. some obstacles to having a

strategically sound defense tried relationship can be addressed through bilateral agreements with their closest allies and partners. in 2007 the united states signed a trade cooperation treaty with both the united kingdom and australia. the treaties that still await ratification by the samet. through streamlined export control arrangements and enhanced security technology measures these agreements would substantially improve ability to a quick and support u.s. u.k. and australian forces deploying in combat operations. they contain provisions allowing the establishment of export all the guys to groups of u.s., u.k. and petroleum companies exit for a short list of truly critical equipment and technologies distrusted companies could largely avoid individual export licenses. and i remain hopeful the senate will give advice and consent to both of these treaties prior to the summer recess. the kind common sense changes contained in the u.k. and

australia treaties are a step in the right direction at least with these key allies. but international agreements on a substitute for the kind of fundamental systematic reform of the export control that this country urgently needs. the fact is for all of the reasons i described earlier america's a decades-old bureaucratically system does not serve our 21st century security needs or our economic interests. it is clear our current limitations in this area undermined our ability to work with and approved partners threats and challenges from terrorism to rogue states to rising power. our security interest would be far better served by a more agile transparent predictable and efficient regime. tinkering and around the edges of the current system will not do. for these reasons and more in

august of last year the president directed a broad based review of the u.s. export control regime. it's called for reforms that focus control on key technologies and items that pose the greatest national security threat. these include items in technology relating to global terrorism, proliferation and delivery systems of weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional weapons. in short, a system where higher walls are pleased about fewer and more critical items. following this directive informed by a recent intelligence council was as the deputy national security considerations i've worked closely with my counterparts of the department of state, commerce, homeland security as well as with the director of national intelligence and the national security adviser to develop a blueprint for such a system. our plan relies on four key reforms. a single export control list, all licensing agency, single

enforcement coordination agency and simple information technology system. first, a single export control list will make it clear the u.s. companies which items require licenses for exports which donato. this single list combined with a simple licensing agency would allow us to concentrate on controlling those critical technologies and items the crown jewels of you will for the basis of obtaining the advantage a specially technologies and items that no foreign company or government can duplicate. all items that have no significant military impact or that use widely available technology could be approved for export quickly. we envision a moreeredontrol syn item or technology would be cascaded from a half year to a lower-level of control as it sensitivity decreases. second, singled licensing entity which would have jurisdiction

over both missions and a dual items and technologies will streamline the review process and ensure export decisions are consistent and made on the real capabilities of the technology. the single entity would reduce exporters' current confusion over where and how to submit export to sissons applications as well as which technologies and items are likely to be approved. the administration is preparing options for the agencies location and i anticipate a presidential decision later this spring. third, the coronation of currently dispersed enforcement resources by one agency will do a great deal to strengthen the enforcement particularly abroad as well as coordination with the intelligence community. those who endanger the troops on compromising the national security will not be able to hide behind a jurisdictional uncertainties or game the system. violators will be subject to federal investigation, prosecution and punishment severe enough to detour

lawbreaking. fourth, the single unified information technology infrastructure will reduce the redundancy and compatibility is and waste of taxpayers' money that the current system of multiple databases produces. for example, a single online location database would receive, process and help screen new license applications and end users. of course the question of which end users are eligible to receive our technology is a critical national security concern and a central component of the reform system as the list of enemies terrorist organizations, both state and others that cannot be allowed access to sensitive items. this would deny them technology or force them to acquire it through a more difficult route. in order to facilitate compliance and tracking we propose to consolidate current list of banned in users into one single frequently updated list that will be easy for those

performing transfers to consult. entities can be added at any time there is reasonable cause to believe they are involved in activities contrary to the u.s. national security interests. these fundamental reforms if enacted together will improve america's ability to work with and fight alongside allies and partners by setting a clear transparent standards that will make it possible to share technology more free especially items needed and used by all of us to counter the common threats. i would like to emphasize the new system will be in full compliance with all of our existing multilateral treaties and obligations. the prospect of more defense trade with the u.s. ally incentivize other nations to strengthen their own export regime. given how quickly and how easily goods and information now can float around the world export controls are far more effective when they involve multiple

partners with shared interests and values. as happens with any major reform to an entrenched longstanding system, there will be resistance and criticisms. some people will be concerned having fewer items subject to the most onerous export restrictions will make it easier for hostile states and groups of teen weaponry and technology that potentially could be used against us. no systems above the current ones is foolproof. but by consolidating most export licensing functions in one agency and creating an enforcement coordination agency we can focus our energy and scrutiny on technology that truly could threaten american security making it far less likely that these critical items will fall into the wrong hands. it is also important to bear in mind that the u.s. government will retain the ability to impose economic sanctions on any foreign country or group to include prohibiting the export

of any equipment, material or technology that could have military use. we will turn these principles and proposals and actions in a three phase process that will unfold over the course of the next year. in the first phase the executive branch will begin the transition towards the single list and licensing agency by making significant improvements to the current system. these efforts will include establishing criteria for the tiered controlled standing up in the integrated enforcement center. the second phase would complete the transition to a single i.t. structure implementing the tiered controlled list and make substantial progress toward a single licensing system. these changes which can be made through executive action represent substantial progress and momentum toward reform, but they are by themselves insufficient to meet the challenge at hand. we need a final third phase, a thorough overhaul of the system

along the lines are described today most notably the single the licensing agency in a single law enforcement coordination agency. these fundamental changes will require congressional action. i greatly appreciate the chance to meet earlier with a number of senior members of congress this year to discuss these topics. i tell you the feedback end of the suggestions they provided at the time and look forward to further dialogue. it's the president's hope that as national security team can continue to work closely with congressional leaders and all of the key committees to turn these proposals into legislation that the president can sign sometime this year. i know better than most that earlier attempts at reform have floundered in the face of resistance. the proposition that a more focused and streamline the system actually helps our national security can go against conventional wisdom. for the reasons i've described today, i believe it is the right

approach and it is urgently needed given the harmful effect of continuing with the existing staff was outdated processes, institutions, and assumptions. indeed, america's ability to engage effectively with the rest of the world and keep our most sensitive technology away from those who would do us harm depends critically on our ability to get this right. i look forward to working with congress and my inner agency colleagues to achieve the kind of systematic reform that will benefit both thought security and prosperity of the american people. thank you. [applause] >> stupak the secretary agreed to take a few questions. you, right down front. >> mr. secretary, first of all, thanks for spending this time with us on this very interesting

and critical topic. would you expect the new export control approach that you are advocating would have a affect on our ability to limit iran's raced toward nuclear weapons capability specifically things like the gas component? >> first of all the likelihood of the iranians being given to get that from us is self of zero. but the -- unless someone games the system i think what's important here one of the things that has happened since the collapse of the soviet union has a real impact on technology transfer to people we don't want to have technologies is that the international consensus that stood behind us for decades in dealing with the soviet union

and preventing the transfer of technology is working to prevent the transfer of technology to the soviet union that consensus has completely collapsed and i hope and the hope of my colleagues is that by reforming our system making it more transparent, making it simpler and easier to understand that we can then gain back some of those partners in terms of working better with us to prevent the export of things like as you just described to the iranians and others. right now it requires u.n. security council resolution or significant government election by an individual government to prevent those transfers, and that is at the current time that is a high-level political decision. we hope that through this type of process we can begin the working level relationships we had in the cocom days where it doesn't take a decision by the

prime minister of the country but rather can be done as part of the regular ongoing security cooperation between us. part of this is to begin to get some allies back on this subject because we are pretty much alone right now. >> right here. please wait for the mic. >> nigel from raytheon. thank you for your insight for words. my question is regarding the disclosure process. it wasn't really mentioned but i am assuming that part of the phased approach that you were going to take, mr. secretary, will that be addressed as a part of your reform? >> yes. right here. >> hello. i'm from the canadian embassy and the chairman of the four men four minn group and we are delighted with your announcement

and supporting working with your officials to try to provide our perspective. we are very pleased to hear you say over and over again the importance of working with allies. my question is do you have any idea of concrete steps or process or approach to do this consultation with allies? >> the first step, they're have been informal consultations of those obviously will continue. i think that the next major step for us is to engage in a major way with congress and to begin working with them in terms of not only informing them better afford phases one and to comply is and what the executive branch is doing but what we need them to do and why we need them to do it. i think before there would be any kind of a formal structure consultation with the allies that the consultation with congress has to come first.

>> right over here. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you identified a couple of impediments as to the prior approach to streamline export control. can you speak to your time lines in the interagency process to make sure that this go around everybody lines abandoned doors is not only the changes you are recommending but how the agency would be created? >> that is one of the things we need to pursue. as i mentioned in my remarks we are developing the options for that i hope the president will be able to make a decision on this spring. the impediments are mostly i would say for us entrenched bureaucracies. this is a process that in this administration is being driven from the top down and let's just

say my building has not overflowed in the past with enthusiasts or this kind of change. i would say that is also true of other buildings in town. [laughter] life felt very strongly about this for a long time and so do my colleagues at senior levels of other agencies such as undersecretary tauscher come psychiatry clinton, secretary locke and so on providing we are going to be driving this process from the top down and out or who is we can get most phases one and two donner over a proposed text number of months and we would love to deal to get legislation before the end of the year. >> [inaudible] -- national association of manufacturers. we look forward to working with

you as this moves forward. i wonder if you could touch upon the near medium-term reforms that were discussed by the interagency early on in the review process and whether or not any of those ideas such as the intracompany transfer program licensing and some of the other areas of the address toward a single agency. spec well, i am happy to say that you have just exhausted my knowledge of the subject. [laughter] frankly i'm not smart enough or well enough informed to talk about the proposals that have been discussed earlier in the review process or in terms of the inner agency on some of the specific things like you're talking about. >> right over here.

>> i serve on a committee between commerce that has been looking at the index force. that is one of the biggest. thank you for your leadership in this area that i'm truly hopeful will be reinforced and protect our competitiveness. i am particularly interested since the exports is one of the main ways we differ in enforcement of the we are considerably more stringent than other nations. what role do you see for that continued enforcement of the index in the new streamlined system? >> well, i would tell you that at the principal level of discussion of this issue deemed exports really has not, except in passing. however, having in my earlier life served on that commerce sponsored experts committee as president of texas a&m i can tell you that the exports in my view our i think the challenge for this country in terms of our

ability to attract and keep scientists and engineers from all over the world to come to our universities and to come to the company's and work and frankly in a university setting the notion that you could have a graduate student from a foreign country working for an american professor and that in a university laboratory setting have that student singled out and denied access to that laboratory is on a day-to-day basis not workable so i don't know quite where the deemed export has come out since i had to leave it prematurely. but as a matter of principle, that is my concern would be in exports and what the consequences are. i get it.

we used to have this joke back in the cold war that the soviets would send 40-year-old nuclear physicists to study in u.s. universities and we would send a 21-year-old college seniors to study in their universities. so there is an issue here of its real but we've got to figure out a better way to deal with it. >> time for one more question right back here. >> secretary gates, from the rate on company. i want to ask two things. one, you're talking about going forward to congress with proposals to change the law to enforce or implement this new system which is commendable. one of the issues the industry struggled with is the legislative branches execution of the export control system taking longer than the rest of the system that you talked about to gain approval from congress. will that be part of the administration proposal reform of the congress' handling of

these things? and secondly, will things like the industrial base be considered in the administration's legislation, the effective export controls decisions on that base? >> well, i think from my standpoint that fought defense industrial base is one of the reasons for supporting this effort quite frankly. chongging to reform the defense department and on this issue reform the executive branch really pretty much takes up most of my day. [laughter] taking on the reform of the congress -- [laughter] my hope is there are some congressional leaders who are supportive of this effort. chairman howard berman the house foreign affairs committee, i talked to senator dodd this morning. so there are a number of people

who have expressed interest and they understand the congressional piece of its is something they have to take on as well. but i think -- i think what's handle this in. let them get to the legislation changed second and then my co-pays as we streamline the process that the executive branch is responsible for that there will be those in the congress who can lead efforts to streamline the effort up there but that initiative as everybody here knows has to come out of the legislative branch.

>> friday, three democratic candidates running for an arkansas since he take part in the first of three debates. the incumbent is being challenged by the lieutenant governor bill halter and businessman d c morrison. the primary is may 18. the debate comes courtesy of abc7 in little rock. it's watch it live at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span and c- span.org. british parliamentary elections are may 6, and for the first time, the leaders of the largest political parties are facing off in television debates. this week is the second of three.

the topic is international affairs. gordon brown and david cameron and nick clegg are all vying to be prime minister. see that sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> the c-span, are a public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line. and you can also connect with those on twitter, facebook and youtube, and sign up for scheduled alert e-mails @ c- span.org. >> this year studentcam competition as a middle school and high-school students to make a five minute video dealing with what our country's strengths or a challenge the country is facing. here is one of our second place winners. ♪ >> this is margaret. she is your average american senior citizen. she along with millions of others are greatly concerned about health care today. we must understand how our

health care affects her form -- to make for a better tomorrow. >> if we do nothing to slow the skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on medicare and medicaid then every other government program combined. >> during the presidential address to congress, president obama spoke about the increasing cost of medicare. it is a serious issue and raises numerous questions. >> what cuts will seniors see in this bill? no one knows. >> hospices, accountable health care organizations, 800 million out of the wheelchair is out of that, and the list goes on. >> seniors have also raise many questions and concerns regarding the medicare doughnut hole. >> medicare says, we will pay

your prescription benefit up to the point of view have spent $2,500. after that, everything you spend is "in a dawn of whole." it is the patients -- in a doughnut hole. it is the patient's expenditure. >> we will secure the solvency of medicare for years to come. we will provide guaranteed access to doctors and legislation -- and with this legislation we will immediately begin to close the doughnut hole. >> i cannot count him out of patience i see on a daily basis to say they cannot pay for their medication. -- i cannot count the amount of patients i see on a daily basis who say they cannot pay for their medication. the crux we live on social security -- >> we live on social security and after the bills are

paid, we have less than $100 each week for food and gas and everything else. i am proud that my states representative is helping to make prescription drugs more affordable and by closing the medicated doughnut hole. >> the topic has a large impact on senior citizens of our nation. margaret, my grandmother and lie introduced earlier, gives us her perspective. >> they will take some money out of our pension for health care. as far as the pros, i'm not sure what they would be for us. i would prefer that they would stay where they were. >to me, the best part of it woud be if we get a little bit more money. right now, will be losing a tremendous amount.

but the future will have to pay for it and that part we do not like. >> some medical associates also have information regarding how this affected their patients. >> if you could say anything to the people in washington about health care for senior citizens and the reason medicare benefits, what would you say? >> i think they are trying to attack too much of it at a time. let's do one piece of it at a time. >> be careful what you do because whatever you do will impact their health care. >> bhatia a lot of doctors are not even accepting medicare patients -- a lot of doctors are not even accepting medicare patients. >> elderly patients are scared to death. they perceive that there will be a form of russian to care. >> former vermont governor -- a form of rationed care.

>> former vermont gov. howard dean gave us his perspective. >> drug companies are going to be the ones paying for this. and what congress calls waste, fraud and abuse is not being taken away from seniors. it is being taken away from the people who provide equipment and insurance. everybody can understand it and it works pretty well. how do you pay for it? you have got to do things that are tough to do. you have to make sure that you cut $1 trillion out of wasted money. and you have got to start either raising premiums or cutting down service. >> senate majority leader bill frisk gave his opinion. >> medicare serves almost 15

million seniors today, so it is very important in terms of health care security. unless you reform the system in terms of the way health care is delivered. that means you pay nurses less and of -- and doctors are a lot less and you would pay hospitals was. i am very concerned about proposal. i think the american people have a moral obligation to fulfill. the cuts that occur under this administration will not be so severe that you will be denied health care. the cost of of terror has grown three times faster than what people's wages do. in order to bring the uninsured into the market, it will cost you more. unless we can slow that cost over time. that means taxes will go up. that means health care premiums. the health bill mean -- those two things. -- the health bill does two

things. it gets about half of the uninsured people into the market. what it does not do is slow down the health care costs. in fact, it increases the cost to your family and the taxpayer out there today. i'm very hopeful that the u.s. senate will be able to do something different, that is, slow down the health care -- slow down the growth in health care costs. >> on christmas eve 2009, the u.s. senate passed health care bill 1639. a conference bill is being set to begin meeting this month to revoke a compromise bill between the senate and house versions with -- which both chambers will vote on. >> i think the main people they need to address are the elderly. it will be the ones to suffer the most. >> health care is a big challenge in this country and there are many different opinions about their -- out

there about how you take care of it. no one has the one best answer. all of these people are trying to attack each other rather than the problem. i encourage people to keep an open mind. it does not mean you cannot disagree, but keep an open mind and work your hardest to tackle this problem. if we -- we can tackle it together if we work together. >> i'm very hopeful that the american people can come together in a bipartisan way to address those two issues. it can be done. >> to see all of the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition visit studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" is next. we will take your calls. the house is in this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern for legislative work. they will debate increasing pu