almost 1000 graveside votes, votes that were illegally given through various means. what is your position on voter registration, voter i.d., [applause] >> it is hard for our friends across the aisle to explain why they do not want to make sure that people who vote are legal citizens of this country. i do not understand their approach. we have it right to one person and one vote. when people cheat and perpetuate fraud, they are taking away from me and you your constitutional right to have one person to 1 vote.

i support efforts and these are going out across the country. i support efforts that say we want people to come in and make sure they are citizens of the united states and they have not voted multiple times or for someone who was passed away. i know a number of states are doing that. we have the attorney general trying to keep that from happening. i just think we should have voter identification so we know who is voting. [applause] and those states working on laws like this are trying to find ways to make sure they do not frighten anyone away by saying -- come into the clerk's office and we will give you an identification. let's make it easy for people to register but we have to have that kind of system. one of my favorite jokes about this -- the former senate president of massachusetts says

comte in cheek that he was being investigated by the fbi because of a voting record -- irregularities in his district. he had across from his home a triple decker -- three apartments on top of each other. they normally hold three families. they said him, all we noted that the triple decker across from your home at 257 votes cast from it. they said to him how to explain that? he said simple, the top floor was still empty. [laughter] mr. senator, and the comments on voter identification? >> the week ago, i bought an exercise bike because my wife said i was looking to senatorial. you know what the cashier asked me for? my id. when i got on their plan this morning -- if you know what they

asked me for? so what is the big deal. [applause] >> here is one behind you. see if it works. there, that works. >> i have an easy one for you. a political favor. it's in november you win the presidential election, i got a baseball signed by five presidents and i would like to add you to it. [applause] here's my phone number and my name. [applause] >> that is a promise i can see today, right. yes, ma'am. >> first of all, i think you look great. >> he does not need a bike, does he? no. >> i have been using it.

>> i am concerned about obamacare. i have a husband who is ending his career on madison, a daughter beginning her career in medicine. i know that the wheels of obamacare have been turning. i know you want to repeal it but what are you going to do about what is already happening? >> those things that have already happened are now in the past and there's not much we can do about that. there are new taxes that will be applied. medical devices and instruments and alike are being taxed not as a percentage of their profit but as of their revenue, of their sales. even businesses that are not profitable will have to pay tax under obamacare. i am convinced that under obamacare, you will see more direction from the federal government as to what kinds of insurance you have to have and

what procedures you will be allowed to have. the american people do not want it. they did something extraordinary in massachusetts -- they elected a republican senator to stop it. yet the president went ahead anyway. if i am elected, i would everything in my power to stop obamacare. number one -- i will grant a waiver from obamacare to each one of the 50 states. the president has been doing that to his friends. he grants waivers to various unions and so forth. i will grant that to all the states. then i will go to work to get it repealed altogether. to get it repealed, the american people will have to know what comes next. there are some features in our health-care system that need to be fixed. for instance, an insurance company should not be able to drop someone because they get sick. if someone is working at a -- [applause] if someone is working at a business like this, for sam, and

the family decides they are going to move to arizona. let's say one of the family members has a serious condition of some kind. they have been continuously insured for 20 years than they moved to phoenix and no insurance company will pick them up. that is not fair. i say if they had been previously covered with insurance, they ought to be able to get covered again. that is another change i would make. [applause] here is something -- have you ever thought about why it is that your employer purchases your insurance for you? notbuy your life insurance or your car insurance. they do not by your home insurance. why do they buy your health insurance? there is history as to why that has begun. but i would like to do something for you that has been done for companies. if companies buy the insurance

for you, they get a tax deduction but if you want to purchase it yourself, you do not get a tax deduction. i want to eliminate that discrimination and allow them -- individuals to purchase their own insurance and take it with them. [applause] we get the best health care in the world. there is just no question. obamacare threatens that. not just for the people who practice medicine are for those receive health care. i will stop obamacare in its tracks. we have to do it. thank you. [applause] there is a gentleman back here. yes, sir? >> thank you, governor. governor and senator, we are honored to have you here. we are so honored. god bless you both. [applause] i am wearing a veteran for mitt romney sticker, navy way back

when. [applause] i have a son who is a doctor but most importantly, i have seven grandchildren. i am terribly afraid that the constitutional republic that existed when i was born and was growing up is in dire straits of being ruined as these -- slipped into socialism under the current administration. [applause] it is so important. this is the most important election in my lifetime. 74 years. i will tell you that we are a nation of immigrants and we did not come to a country like this for entitlement. we came here for the opportunities. to take on responsibility and the opportunities and most unfortunately -- importantly,

the rewards for excellence and achievement an effort. honest effort. that is what we stand for as americans. [applause] our nation has some very serious fiscal problems. we do need tax reform and yet we need to save what has been possible for us as citizens, deductions. we are a very generous nation. we contribute to the needs of others. we are a compassionate people. we need to preserve that but we need to have meaningful fiscal reform and i would be very interested in hearing what your thoughts are on that measure. thank you. got lessee. [applause] -- god bless ou. you. >> your question strikes a chord with me. first of all, let me tell you how honored i am to be here today. it would have been unimaginable

-- [applause] half a century ago, my parents came to the united states. they did not speak english. they did not really have much of an education. they both grew up poor. they did not know anybody here. it was hard for me to imagine what life was like then to read my parents were not rich but i was privileged because i lived in a strong, stable family and had opportunities they did not. if my father were still alive and hopefully my mother is watching, it would not have been imaginable for me to stand here today. why am i here today? why have by the privilege to have opportunities they did not? it is it because i'm smarter work harder. i had something they did not to read the privilege and honor and being born in the single greatest society of all of human history. [applause] in a place where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.

d. no why we are different? i do not remember growing up my parents ever sang to meet you know why we are not better off? because those guys are doing too well. they never said to me if only we took something away from them and they gave it to us, things would be better. i do not ever remember my parents teaching me [applause] what my parents would do is they would point to people who made it and say that as a source of inspiration. if they made it, you can as well. [applause] and now, we now have leaders, a leader in this country that wants to take that from us. he is telling americans the reasons why they are hurting is because other people are doing too well. the way they can climb up the ladder is to pull other people down. if we do that, we become like every other country in the world.

the cannot do that. if we are that, if we become that, that the american inspiration will be gone and there will be nothing the rest of the world can look to hopefully in the hopes that they too can have " we have -- what we have. this is who we must remain. but we will not at barack obama as president and other for years. -- if barack obama is president and another four years. [applause] >> we get one more question with all of you but i want to underscore something. we need to have a president who will stop apologizing for success here at home and stop apologizing for success of brought of this great country. [applause] let's see, who will lead be?

yes, sir? >> thank you so much for coming to pennsylvania. in a month, i would join the united states air force. [applause] my question to you is i am so glad that in your opening remarks you bought of national defence and our veterans. while the economy is very important, without a strong economy, we do not have a strong anything. my question is on an issue that may take a bit of a back burner which is national defense. my question for you and for the center -- are you prepared to assure us today that whatever option is required, you will not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon? [applause] >> i recognize that the american people are very tired of the

conflicts we have been in. we have been in a rack for a long time. afghanistan for a long time. -- in iraq for a long time and afghanistan for a long time. when people hear about an option with iran, they say oh boy. we have to tell america what the consequence would be of iran with a nuclear weapon. if they have fissile material, they sponsored terror throughout the middle east, europe and latin america -- hezbollah. if those groups are able to get fissile material, it could find its way to our shores. there can be a dirty bomb. or any other kind of atomic weapon. it could not only black male

america but could kill hundreds of thousands -- blackmail america but could kill hundreds of thousands. we cannot have a nuclear iran. [applause] one of the president's great failings -- we have a long list of things to talk about that he has failed on of these sums time -- that we sometimes do not get around. he should put crippling sanctions against iran. he should the mood -- moved to indict ahmadinejad. he gave russia their number one foreign-policy objectives and denied get them to agree to sanctions against iran. voices to the streets in tirana. he had nothing to say about that. unthinkable. he has been acting like he is more concerned with israel -- that israel might take action to get rid of nuclear weapons that

he is about having iran develop nuclear weapons. [applause] if i'm president, i will take whatever action necessary to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon and threatening ourselves and our friends. senator. >> national security is the number one obligation of the federal government. what the governor has already outlined is the risks iran poses to the world. we are in a world at a time when global problems require global solutions. that means one nation alone cannot solve problems any longer. but who will put and lead -- to tackle these problems. only the united states can do that. we can put together coalitions that will confront threats like iran. the world is begging for

american leadership. not an america that leads from the side or behind an america willing to take the lead because the world understand that only began and we must. you have outlined the great threat that iran poses, not just to america but to the world. and the idea of a man having a nuclear weapon is so horrifying that literally -- iran having any clear weapon is so horrifying that literally there is no price to large to bear from preventing that from happening. [applause] >> the center -- senator is getting on a train to go back to washington. i appreciate him coming here to be with us today. thank you, center. -- senator. [applause] >> thank you.

but those guys in florida are as their have thhim senator. you're still standing. i will take that as a standing invitation to tell you these few words. you will help get me the support i need tomorrow. this keep -- the key support i need is the work over summertime. get your friends to look at how critical this election is to make sure we maintain the greatness of america which flows from our people, not our government and preserves the principles of the declaration of independence. we are entitled to life and to the party and to the pursuit of happiness as you choose it, not as the government chooses it. we will take back america. thank you some much. great to be with you. [applause] ♪

♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

what we spoke with former vice president dick cheney in his first interview since the heart transplant in a month ago. you can see it tonight on c-span at 8:00 eastern. it has been more than 20 years since los angeles police officers were videotaped beating of rodney king at a traffic stop. the officers were found not guilty of police brutality. sparking the 1992 los angeles riots that killed 53 people. rodney king recently published an autobiography. tomorrow he speaks at the schomburg center for research on black culture in harlem. you can see it live or on the book to be website, booktv.org. charles colson, special counsel to president nixon who went to prison for his role in watergate, later became an elegant -- evangelicals preacher.

he talked about the taping in 2007. >> kissinger had the right although he abused it to enter the office without having to announce it. nixon told him that because of the severity of the foreign policy issues, to feel free to come in and interrupt anything. henry would do it for trivial things. one day nixon was ticked off at henry for a variety of things. we were in the executive office building. the far doors went (i thought it was henry. nixon did not appear to look but i know he knew it was henry. i think it is time we use nuclear weapons. kissinger stood in the doorway

absolutely paralyzed. someone will hear of that on tape and say he really was a madman. he bought out the dockside -- dark side of nixon. hear more about his career online at the c-span video library. a quarter-century of politics and public affairs available on your computer any time. president obama visited the holocaust museum in washington today. with holocaust survivor and nobel peace prize winner elie wiesel at his side, the president let and memorial candle in the hall of remembered. -- remembrance.

>> in a speech at the holocaust museum, president obama announced a new executive order allowing sanctions against foreign governments that used technology like cell phones and the internet to abuse human rights.

[applause] >> mr. president, mr. president ,fellow holocaust survivors and their families, the families of officers steve jones, who was gunned down by a murderer here in the museum, director sara bloomfield, and ladies and gentleman, i stand before you today as a proud american.

the in to -- jew in may is infinite the proud to be with the president of the united states in this museum, together to celebrate jerusalem, the greatest in the world and most important of all. this country, the united states of america, has welcomed the great majority of survivors of what we call the holocaust. it is a place of redemption, a place of unity. presidents of both parties, from jimmy carter to george bush, have spoken to us here, and now we are honored that president barack obama is with us today.

it is also a place of questions. some of them, many of them, disturbing questions which remain challenging. it is about the possibilities of power, suffering for victims, about the massacre of children. these questions, of course, are relevant. why did america open up its doors? why did not the allies bomb the railway going to auschwitz? in those years, hundreds would lose a lifetime. 10,000 were guests every night bombing the allies which would

have at least stopped that process for a while. from the very beginning of this institution, we attempted to confront the already distant past with this terrible tragic truth and the questions that we are compelled to ask. the jewish people's commitment to memory to israel. we had a problem that we did not know how to deal with. so much suffering, so much evil, which meant so much power. never has won people been condemned by another people to total annihilation. what are the questions, who are we to remember? the perpetrators, bystanders, a

multitude of victims? all of them jews? it became clear to us from the beginning that while not all victims were jewish, all jews were victims, young and old, rich and poor, teachers and students, those from the city's and populations. all were targeted. and the children, why the children? and the old people, why the old people? was the enemy it afraid of the future, of the children, for the past, the old? now we know that this tragedy, we know how it was done, but we

do not know why it was done. know why it is metaphysical, but physically, we do not know why did it happen? what are the conclusions? one thing that we do know, it could have been prevented. the greatest tragedy and history could have been prevented, had the civilized world spoken up, taken measures in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942. each time, in berlin, they always wanted to see what would be the reaction in washington and europe? there was no reaction. they felt they could continue. in this place, we may ask, have

we learned anything from it? if so, how is it that assad is still in power? how is it that the holocaust no. 1 denier, mahmoud ahmadinejad, is still in power? he here threatens to friends to use nuclear weapons -- he who threatens to use nuclear weapons. we must know, when the eagle has power, it is almost too late. preventive measures are important. we must use those measures to prevent another catastrophe. whenever communities are threatened by anyone, we must not allow them to do what they

intend to do. of course, one more question to the believer and god in all of this. what does it mean? was god fed up with his creation? however, auschwitz did not come from the heavens. human beings did it. human beings. the killers were human beings. auchwitz was conceived by human beings, implemented by human beings. so what is it about the human psyche, fascination, that could allow human beings to become inhumane?

mr. president, we are in this place of memory. of course, i remember when you and i traveled together. we spoke about all kinds of things. i hope now you understand, in this place, why israel is so important, not only to the jewish people, but to the world. we cannot not remember. and because it remembers, it must be strong, just to defend its own survival and destiny. mr. president, you spoke and

quietly, elegantly gave me the last word. today, the last word is yours. ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct privilege and pleasure to give you my friend, the president of the united states, mr. barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause]

good morning, everyone. it is a great honor to be with you here today. of course, it is a truly humbling moment to be introduced by elie wiesel. along with sara bloomfield, the outstanding director here, we just spent some time among the exhibits, and this is now the second visit i've had here. my daughters have come here.

it is a searing occasion whenever you visit. and as we walked, i was taken back to the visit that elie mentioned, the time that we traveled together to buchenwald. and i recall how he showed me the barbed-wire fences and the guard towers. and we walked the rows where the barracks once stood, where so many left this earth -- including elie's father, shlomo. we stopped at an old photo -- men and boys lying in their wooden bunks, barely more than skeletons. and if you look closely, you can see a 16-year old boy, looking right at the camera, right into your eyes. you can see elie. and at the end of our visit that day, elie spoke of his father. "i thought one day i will come back and speak to him," he said, "of times in which memory

has become a sacred duty of all people of goodwill." elie, you've devoted your life to upholding that sacred duty. you've challenged us all -- as individuals, and as nations -- to do the same, with the power of your example, the eloquence of your words, as you did again just now. and so to you and marion, we are extraordinarily grateful. to sara, to tom bernstein, to josh bolten, members of the united states holocaust memorial council, and everyone who sustains this living memorial -- thank you for welcoming us here today. to the members of congress, members of the diplomatic corps, including ambassador michael oren of israel, we are glad to be with you.

and most of all, we are honored to be in the presence of men and women whose lives are a testament to the endurance and the strength of the human spirit -- the inspiring survivors. it is a privilege to be with you, on a very personal level. as i've told some of you before, i grew up hearing stories about my great uncle -- a soldier in the 89th infantry division who was stunned and shaken by what he saw when he helped to liberate ordruf, part of buchenwald. and i'll never forget what i saw at buchenwald, where so many perished with the words of sh'ma yis'ra'eil on their lips. ine stood with survivors, the old warsaw ghettos, where a monument honors heroes who said we will not go quietly; we will stand up, we will fight back.

and i've walked those sacred grounds at yad vashem, with its lesson for all nations -- the shoah cannot be denied. during my visit to yad vashem i was given a gift, inscribed with those words from the book of joel: "has the like of this happened in your days or in the days of your fathers? tell your children about it, and let your children tell theirs, and their children the next generation." that's why we're here. not simply to remember, but to speak. i say this as a president, and i say it as a father.

we must tell our children about a crime unique in human history. the one and only holocaust -- six million innocent people -- men, women, children, babies -- sent to their deaths just for being different, just for being jewish. we tell them, our children, about the millions of poles and catholics and roma and gay people and so many others who also must never be forgotten. let us tell our children not only how they died, but also how they lived -- as fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters who loved and hoped and dreamed, just like us. we must tell our children about how this evil was allowed to happen -- because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts, and because so many others stood silent.

let us also tell our children about the righteous among the nations. among them was jan karski, a young polish catholic, who witnessed jews being put on cattle cars, who saw the killings, and who told the truth, all the way to president roosevelt himself. jan karski passed away more than a decade ago. but today, i'm proud to announce that this spring i will honor him with america's highest civilian honor -- the presidential medal of freedom. [applause] we must tell our children. but more than that, we must teach them.

because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. awareness without action changes nothing. in this sense, "never again" is a challenge to us all -- to pause and to look within. for the holocaust may have reached its barbaric climax at treblinka and auschwitz and belzec, but it started in the hearts of ordinary men and women. and we have seen it again -- madness that can sweep through peoples, sweep through nations, embed itself. the killings in cambodia, the killings in rwanda, the killings in bosnia, the killings in darfur -- they shock our conscience, but they are the

awful extreme of a spectrum of ignorance and intolerance that we see every day; the bigotry that says another person is less than my equal, less than human. these are the seeds of hate that we cannot let take root in our heart. "never again" is a challenge to reject hatred in all of its forms -- including anti- semitism, which has no place in a civilized world. and today, just steps from where he gave his life protecting this place, we honor the memory of officer stephen tyrone johns, whose family joins us today. "never again" is a challenge to defend the fundamental right of free people and free nations to exist in peace and security -- and that includes the state of israel.

and on my visit to the old warsaw ghetto, a woman looked me in the eye, and she wanted to make sure america stood with israel. she said, "it's the only jewish state we have." and i made her a promise in that solemn place. i said i will always be there for israel. so when efforts are made to equate zionism to racism, we reject them. when international fora single out israel with unfair resolutions, we vote against them. when attempts are made to delegitimize the state of israel, we oppose them. when faced with a regime that threatens global security and denies the holocaust and threatens to destroy israel, the united states will do everything in our power to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. "never again" is a challenge to societies.

we're joined today by communities who've made it your mission to prevent mass atrocities in our time. this museum's committee of conscience, ngos, faith groups, college students, you've harnessed the tools of the digital age -- online maps and satellites and a video and social media campaign seen by millions. you understand that change comes from the bottom up, from the grassroots. you understand -- to quote the task force convened by this museum -- "preventing genocide is an achievable goal." it is an achievable goal. it is one that does not start from the top; it starts from the bottom up. it's remarkable -- as we walked

through this exhibit, elie and i were talking as we looked at the unhappy record of the state department and so many officials here in the united states during those years. and he asked, "what would you do?" but what you all understand is you don't just count on officials, you don't just count on governments. you count on people -- and mobilizing their consciences. and finally, "never again" is a challenge to nations. it's a bitter truth -- too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale. and we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save. three years ago today, i joined

many of you for a ceremony of remembrance at the u.s. capitol. and i said that we had to do "everything we can to prevent and end atrocities." and so i want to report back to some of you today to let you know that as president i've done my utmost to back up those words with deeds. last year, in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge, i made it clear that "preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the united states of america." that does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there's an injustice in the world. we cannot and should not. it does mean we possess many tools -- diplomatic and

political, and economic and financial, and intelligence and law enforcement and our moral suasion -- and using these tools over the past three years, i believe -- i know -- that we have saved countless lives. when the referendum in south sudan was in doubt, it threatened to reignite a conflict that had killed millions. but with determined diplomacy, including by some people in this room, south sudan became the world's newest nation. and our diplomacy continues, because in darfur, in abyei, in southern kordofan and the blue nile, the killing of innocents must come to an end. the presidents of sudan and south sudan must have the courage to negotiate -- because the people of sudan and south sudan deserve peace. that is work that we have done, and it has saved lives. when the incumbent in côte d'ivoire lost an election but

refused to give it up -- give up power, it threatened to unleash untold ethnic and religious killings. but with regional and international diplomacy, and u.n. peacekeepers who stood their ground and protected civilians, the former leader is now in the hague, and côte d'ivoire is governed by its rightful leader -- and lives were saved. when the libyan people demanded their rights and muammar qaddafi's forces bore down on benghazi, a city of 700,000, and threatened to hunt down its people like rats, we forged with allies and partners a coalition that stopped his troops in their tracks. and today, the libyan people are forging their own future, and the world can take pride in the innocent lives that we saved. and when the lord's resistance army led by joseph kony continued its atrocities in central africa, i ordered a

small number of american advisors to help uganda and its neighbors pursue the lra. and when i made that announcement, i directed my national security council to review our progress after 150 days. we have done so, and today i can announce that our advisors will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice, and to save lives. it is part of our regional strategy to end the scourge that [applause] is the lra, and help realize a future where no african child is stolen from their family and no girl is raped and no boy is turned into a child soldier. we've stepped up our efforts in other ways. protecting more to

women and girls from the horror of wartime sexual violence. with the arrest of fugitives like ratko mladic, charged with ethnic cleansing in bosnia, the world sent a message to war criminals everywhere: we will not relent in bringing you to justice. be on notice. and for the first time, we explicitly barred entry into the united states of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. now we're doing something more. we're making sure that the united states government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. so i created the first-ever

white house position dedicated to this task. it's why i created a new atrocities prevention board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. this is not an afterthought. this is not a sideline in our foreign policy. the board will convene for the first time today, at the white house. and i'm pleased that one of its first acts will be to meet with some of your organizations -- citizens and activists who are partners in this work, who have been carrying this torch. going forward, we'll strengthen our tools across the board, and we'll create new ones. the intelligence community will prepare, for example, the first- ever national intelligence estimate on the risk of mass atrocities and genocide. we're going to institutionalize the focus on this issue.

across government, "alert channels" will ensure that information about unfolding crises -- and dissenting opinions -- quickly reach decision-makers, including me. our treasury department will work to more quickly deploy its financial tools to block the flow of money to abusive regimes. our military will take additional steps to incorporate the prevention of atrocities into its doctrine and its planning. and the state department will increase its ability to surge our diplomats and experts in a crisis. usaid will invite people and high-tech companies to help create new technologies to quickly expose violations of human rights. and we'll work with other nations so the burden is better shared -- because this is a global responsibility. in short, we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities -- because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people. [applause]

we recognize that, even as we do all we can, we cannot control every event. and when innocents suffer, it tears at our conscience. elie alluded to what we feel as we see the syrian people subjected to unspeakable violence, simply for demanding their universal rights. and we have to do everything we can. and as we do, we have to remember that despite all the tanks and all the snipers, all the torture and brutality unleashed against them, the syrian people still brave the streets. they still demand to be heard. they still seek their dignity. the syrian people have not given

up, which is why we cannot give up. and so with allies and partners, we will keep increasing the pressure, with a diplomatic effort to further isolate assad and his regime, so that those who stick with assad know that they are making a losing bet. we'll keep increasing sanctions to cut off the regime from the money it needs to survive. we'll sustain a legal effort to document atrocities so killers face justice, and a humanitarian effort to get relief and medicine to the syrian people. and we'll keep working with the "friends of syria" to increase support for the syrian opposition as it grows stronger. indeed, today we're taking another step. orderigned an executive that authorizes new sanctions against the syrian government and iran and those that abet them for using technologies to monitor and track and target citizens for violence. these technologies should not empower -- these technologies

should be in place to empower citizens, not to repress them. and it's one more step that we can take toward the day that we know will come -- the end of the assad regime that has brutalized the syrian people -- and allow the syrian people to chart their own destiny. even with all the efforts i've described today, even with everything that hopefully we have learned, even with the incredible power of museums like this one, even with everything that we do to try to teach our children about our own responsibilities, we know that our work will never be done.

there will be conflicts that are not easily resolved. there will be senseless deaths that aren't prevented. there will be stories of pain and hardship that test our hopes and try our conscience. and in such moments it can be hard to imagine a more just world. it can be tempting to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to man's endless capacity for cruelty. tos tempting sometimes

believe that there is nothing we can do. and all of us have those doubts. all of us have those moments -- perhaps especially those who work most ardently in these fields. so in the end, i come back to something elie said that day we visited buchenwald together. reflecting on all that he had endured, he said, "we had the right to give up." "we had the right to give up on humanity, to give up on culture, to give up on education, to give up on the possibility of living one's life with dignity, in a world that has no place for dignity." they had that right. imagine what they went through. they had the right to give up. nobody would begrudge them that.

who'd question someone giving up in such circumstances? but, elie said, "we rejected that possibility, and we said, no, we must continue believing in a future." to stare into the abyss, to face the darkness and insist there is a future -- to not give up, to say yes to life, to believe in the possibility of justice. to elie and to the survivors who are here today, thank you for not giving up. you show us the way. [applause] you show us the way.

[applause] if you cannot give up, if you can believe, then we can believe. if you can continue to strive and speak, then we can speak and strive for a future where there's a place for dignity for every human being. that has been the cause of your lives. it must be the work of our nation and of all nations. so god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[applause] >> c-span spoke with former vice president dick cheney today.

you can see the interview tonight at c-span at 8:00 eastern. it has been more than 20 years since los angeles police officers work video beating rodney king. they were found not guilty. rodney king recently published an autobiography. tomorrow he speaks at an event website.ooktv's >> charles colson died this past weekend at age 80. he talked about the white house taping system. >> without having somebody

announce him, i was one of the people. kissinger could walk in whenever he wanted. harry would do it for trivial things. one day nixon was ticked off at henry for a variety of things, and i was at the executive office building. nixon did not appear to look, but i know -- he later said to me, i think you are right. i think it is time to use nuclear weapons. everything else has failed. kissinger was absolutely paralyzed. colson did bring up the dark

side of nixon. it was pure humor. >> hear more about his political career and his later work online at the c-span video library, with a quarter-century of politics and public affairs available on your computer in the time. -- any time. >> of the things i remember because my office overlooked the building was there was a daycare center at the plaza, and some of the children were killed. during their recess, they would play out in the plaza and you would hear their voices, so that left a lasting -- lasting impression. a dear friend of my son had just graduated at the social security office, her father was a good friend of mine, and when

i got home that morning, i had three different messages, whining to know what he could find out about his daughter, it did not look good, and the third message was when he was crying. >> watch the local content vehicle's next stop at oklahoma city, which special hearings on may 5 and made six. -- may 6. >> "the washington post" reported that justice department's officials used flawed forensic science. se looked at the issue at thi jouing's "washington

rnal." host: our guest right now for "the washington post." errors. big topic here. lots of copy in recent weeks. here's just one of the headlines. "forensic science not as reliable as you may think." tell us more. guest: for many years the nation's science establishment has had more and more skepticism about forensic science. in the journal of science there was an editorial several years ago saying that a forensic science was an oxymoron, which was crystallized in 2009, when a panel chartered by congress put out a 300 page report about this. they reached the conclusion that the greatest question for the courts is how much science is in forensic science. specifically they talked about disciplines. not like a laboratory disciplines that people think

of, like chemistry or blood, but these subjective pattern- based analogies, fingerprints, marks made by firing pins of guns on bullets, hair, fiber, bite marks, that these were sort of sciences developed by law enforcement, for law enforcement, but they did not have scientific studies on how common matches were. like something developed for medical applications, sometimes it was brought down to experts saying that based on their subjective analysis for a number of characteristics, there it is. host: let's take this to the legal area. one of the other for room -- headlines in the post was about how the defendants were unaware in these cases. host: -- guest: we dealt with hair and fiber analysis, spanning many years, since the

1950's, the cases we were looking at went back to the 1970's and 1980's. what we found was that in cases where clear errors were alleged, or specific agents were identified for misconduct, the justice department and the fbi would review those cases as one agent. but they never told the majority of the men -- there were so concerned that they completed an independent scientific review, but word never reached half of those defendants, including a man in the district, who served 28 years for a rape and murder the dna showed he did not come -- did not commit. he was finally released in 2009 when he could have been released 12 years earlier. the second part is those

identified by a task force. these are the 250 cases from 1996 through 2005. they were finding these errors, even with mounting concerns that other agents were conducting their business in the lab and the court room the same way. issues with overstated testimony, testimony exaggerating the significance of a match. one in 10,000 chases between one in 10 million chances. the odds of someone having the same hair looking alike, they do not know, because they have never done the work on it. furthermore, they have implemented dna testing as a backup or confirming test. they knew enough to change their testing standards to a dna standard. they waited six more years to determine the error rate and found that it was 11% under the

best of circumstances, meaning the agents under the best controlled circumstances, they found it surprising, because it was not with the random public, it was the individuals where there was already evidence about probable cause. host: our phone number is on the bottom of the screen for our viewers. this is a two-part series recently on u.s. forensic errors. the investigative reporter is with us, spencer hsu, of "the washington post." their web site is where you can read this lengthy and interesting piece. as we get more detail from spencer hsu about what they have been reading about, we look forward to hearing from you. we talk about science, the courts.

guest: so, to pick up where we left off, this was an example of the man whose case was handled by the fbi. he was a different agent. it turned out that in 1978 there was a murder of a taxicab driver. he and a friend were identified as suspects. the case was shaky. basically, the childhood friend turned out to be a police informant. the same police had believed that there were murders of taxicab drivers being committed by the same caliber of weapon. other than that, they had a reported confession to the informant that did not jive with the facts of the case, but it was one block from where you

shot. the agent said that this was a match. in court he said it was highly unlikely that it was anyone else's. in other cases, examining it only one in 4000 times, for all the thing you it was one out of 10 million chances. the jury deliberated for two hours and ask one question. the judge said that this was the one that contained his hair. a couple of years ago, they learned of the other exoneration. they were able to get the hair tested.

none of the 13 were his for the co-defendants. one of the hairs was a dog's hair. meaning that the fbi could not determine dog from human error. the defense attorney said the the odds were zero. the errors that the agent made were fairly typical of those that scientists may. host: your reporting has been done. reaction out there? what kind of reaction has been presented? legislatively, what might be happening in the future? guest: each one of these agents, there 10 in the fbi

laboratory. doing the math, that were cut to tens of thousands of examinations per year -- that could work out to tens of thousands of insemination spree year. you're looking potentially at the universe of 100,000 examinations and tens of thousands of potential cases, hundreds, if not thousands of convictions that rely and this method. the district of columbia had decided that the results were strong enough to commission a review in the nation's capital, relying of hair testing for conviction.

the fbi is assisting with the innocence project. question now as if to should be a review in the district of columbia. folks who are calling for the review include the public defender's of criminal the set -- defense lawyers and people think -- seeking post-conviction dna testing. the justice department says that they are reviewing it. right now we have not heard an articulated reason as to why. there were these other cases with a third man. host: we want to get the viewers involved in a conversation. california, cathy, thank you for waiting. your question or comment?

caller: i am aware of this report and i certainly will go -- . i really appreciate your presenting this. i have been very interested in the innocence project. i am wondering if there is anything at all that the average person like myself can do to further the efforts of the innocence project, or this report on forensics. thank you. guest: i am sure that folks can get information on the innocence project online. i think that some of the areas that are up for debate that you might see -- you were from california? california has engaged their state legislature and law- enforcement. the american bar association opposed model ethics rules.

prosecutors having to turn over potentially exculpatory information, those rules are murky. the american bar association has proposed stronger ethics rules from any time the may know of that information. three states have adopted this. another information would be california, because it is a state level commission with a freestanding independent expert agency that is available that would subtract in these situations. researching potential issues, highlighting when they come to bear. others the you can consult with our, keeping in mind the active discussion right now, with state bar association's, opening

their case file, should laboratories have to file reports? finally, there is something like a final review by entities like the national academy of science. science is such a specific issue for these lawyers and journalists, they have a hard time understanding what a match means. one in 1000, 10 thousand, 1 million? this may all sound alike, but to a scientist and, ultimately, for a suspect, such evidence is used and can be critical in definition. host: independent caller, hello.

caller: i have a comment and a question. in a lot of these cases, where people are falsely imprisoned and then released, they're not really care and anything as far as compensation. you can say that they're getting their freedom now, but these people who have been locked up for a decade, three decades, the have pretty much lost their ability to have any kind of american dream. faced of your expertise in this subject matter, do you think it is feasible, or what sort of practical plan could you come up with, based on your knowledge, that would really stop this sort of thing from happening? feels like as far as us having the highest prison population of all the industrialized lent -- nations, how many people are imprisoned falsely?

that is my question. thank you. guest: you raise a lot of good points. let me try to respond. i and our example case, he served 28 of the next 33 years in prison. he was in ninth grade dropout with no work history. the convicted felon of a murder. you can imagine a difficult time of having a job, it is hard for anyone to get a job right now. practically? yes, depending of the ruling of the court, with proof from a clear and convincing standard,

he could seek damages from the government. how practical that is, obviously it would not matter for his children. part of the toll was that his parents died and his sister passed away without ever knowing consequence of this case. as you point out, it is more likely that they will compensate people with reduced conviction in the first place. the error rate, while another the -- not inevitable, they have the lead is extremely low. then there is the same, rather 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted. what is most concerned is that

there has never been a test for a forensic evidence. it cannot be proven wrong, until dna. there have been dna examinations since 1989. rates and murders, the filing material for genetics, it comes from a universe of capital and where they were cowed a wrongful conviction -- where they work out a wrongful conviction, wrongful conviction is an illegal action. next step, anyone who looked at criminal convictions and 1983 to 1988, there is biological evidence in the final period the governor of virginia ordered

a review of these cases and, of them, they found all the cases in which they were able to determine genetic profile. 16% of these profiles did not match, they excluded defendants and suspects. there may be other factors in their. this is another set of numbers that says if you include all of these, for one of a reason, it dropped 5%. whether it is 5% or 16%, it is far higher than anyone believed. host: we have some questions coming in over the twitter for our guest, spencer hsu.

guest: we have not done enough research to be able to answer that. we know that the incarceration rate of minorities, as are the number of crimes committed, we know the area of discipline that we looked at, hair and fiber with different racial characteristics. the hair of an asian might be harder to distinguish, with fewer features. likewise, brunette -- brunette hair. there is a lot of pigmentation

where it cannot be divined and know that one of the issues we found in the lab reports of the defense that we look at, there was no set number of the match in the air. some said 15, or 20. in other words, the of the but it you could verify this was to have another examiner look at it. we could not tell from the notes. the same examiner might come up with -- different examiners might use different terms for the same hair. it is a very subjective, and the process of we're talking about. when describing the hair of the

defendant, they usually use only three or four characteristics. black, ethnic origin, and it is a broad range. people wearing their hair in a short, close cropped way, that is not a very distinguishing feature. host: adam, good morning. you are on with spencer hsu. caller: the governor of texas executed a man a few years back with a suspected had burned his house down with his three children in it. now they believe the man may have been innocent. a panel was convened and quickly dismissed by the governor.

thank you for your time, but we do not need you. these things are just swept under the rug. are you familiar with this case? thank you for c-span. host: he may be referring to the case of kevin todd. i am not an expert. i have heard the accounts of it. the one that i thought was the most revealing was the new yorker magazine article a couple of years ago. what is striking about this case is that critics of the death penalty have looked at this case as a possible example where a person who may have been innocent was executed, but that hasn't happened, because as the column mentioned, there was a panel that stop short of the final conclusion.

from my interests, again, it has to do with forensic science. there was a quotation in the new yorker that had one of the leading experts in the nation saying that it is better than which hunting. in other words, if she thinks she is innocent, it must be the way. arsonists have been examples for decades. handed down from older to the less experienced. what has happened over the last 20 years is that government agencies and the commerce apartment have started to to test earnings under controlled circumstances where they found that much of what was considered to be telltale evidence of arson happened in many different circumstances.

like where the glass shatters and micro-fractures. a fireman's hose of water coming on to a window, window breaking leading to thermal ventilation, things that everyone had thought were caused by excellence. behavioral people, possibly started misfires, with fewer miss attributed work experience. host: why is that? what is the reaction to that? guest: there are two sets.

in the mid-1990's, there was an allegation of misconduct at the fbi lab stealing with high- profile investigations. even the o.j. simpson murder investigation. agents were faulted for lack of qualification and bias, potentially influence in these prosecutions. the laboratory had to start a wholesale reorder in the documentation. including their certification requirements, approving the level of the scientific training. as far as the inspector general report, it triggered a review by the department of homeland

security on all their work and potential information that should be turned over. according to that review, they set out to review 7000 cases with material and evidence that was critical yet problematic. the reason they were not notified was the legal position that needed to be turned over. whether it was legally actionable, whether a bill in the category of bad things happening in the world, they could not answer.

short of a prosecutorial acting out of malice, the best thing you can do is to notify people now. the second was that almost all the cases we look? had many other examiners who, because they lacked the rules of protocol, the note taking practices were the same. the lab was not tracking the testimony. we have seen multiple examples including the two other d.c. agencies given the same misleading testimony, statistics and numbers from their personal experience that were not backed by any scientific research. ultimately, there was an error rate that they had researched by comparing it with the dna test results that leads us to think that the potential

affected cases reached in the thousands. the reason the department had not looked for it is the inspector general report and no one else had supposedly put two and two together. i think another reason is, legally, they had not had to. you always wanted to get to a closer version of the truth. the law, for various reasons, is based on precedent. it was good enough then, it is good enough for the court. that is a practical matter so you do not get people in with small claims that do not have merit. the science proves that the culture is at odds with the legal culture and have a different value. given how rapidly science

advances and given how there are no tools that can be used to answer these questions once and for all and the cost of incarcerating someone wrongly over the years -- would it not be economically feasible as well in the interest of justice to do a review and commission these tests? host: fabio from manhattan. democrat. hello. caller: i have a question for you. i know you are mainly focused on dna evidence, but what about those cases that do not have dna evidence? i'm talking about the case of my son which is close to me. my son was tried, found guilty and we went through appeals twice because it was considered double jeopardy. both appeals was the double jeopardy appeal, we won.

the prosecutor then took it to the supreme court. this is a case going on in connecticut. when he took it to the supreme court and the rest of appeal, they overturned the appellate decision. then we won with a double jeopardy and brought it again to the supreme court in connecticut in which, to paraphrase, they agreed to double jeopardy, of but two justices wanted to hear the case in that is why they did. toer that, they're going lead it stand that it agrees is double jeopardy but because the direct appeal they overturned which is basically a bureaucracy going on. host: do you have a question for our guest?

caller: i have tried to go to reporters and everyone tells me they are not interested because this is not anything that is new. guest: i'm sorry about that situation. it will be hard for me as an outsider not familiar with the case to be able to respond to the specifics. something you started with it is, if there is not dna, that is the game changer here. it is the rise in a specific technology or test that actually is a scientifically proven to be able to determine if a person contributed a particular piece of evidence. i think the other peace to keep in mind is, absent that test, it's very hard to disprove a negative. in the law of defense, it has evolved to handle this over hundreds of years in these kinds of situations. it is the best we have.

however, a person who headed the national academy of sciences panel in 2009, the co- chairman was the judge for circuit court of appeals, the second most influential circuit in the country. his point was that the adversarial system we rely on to work out these disputes that your son is involved in is ill- equipped to deal with scientific disputes. lawyers may not have the scientific training. judges often rely on these cases as they happen and they cannot often refer to scientific manuals. the technology and science are evolving to such a point that is difficult for even experts to keep up with the latest.

the adversarial legal system cannot do this alone. they need higher standards for labs and examiners, standard and control our testimony is processed and how the jury hears information and, most of all, have a commitment to the overall system. host: russell, independent, in florida. good morning. caller: i am involved in a veteran research program and they want to take blood for dna research and they cannot 100% guaranteed that it will not be shared with other federal agencies or the public sector which, pretty much, begs the question that if the informations is available in such a tight steady in the government, is that dna

available in the private sector to anyone? it seems to me that the dna being taken, whether it be for the va or your private physician should be sacred sites and not available for scrutiny by the private sector or the federal government. host: a privacy concern there. guest: i am not aware of this, but that sounds like it is really on the cutting edge. it sounds like you have hit the nail on the head as far as i have had to the question which is the collection of biometric datum in general, fingerprints, i scans, dna -- eye scans, dna, is a priority and is rapidly growing. with the questions i'm sure that the defense bar association has it is -- what are the rules?

how do you apply the tool or the technology? who can apply and under what circumstances? do you only collect for particular universe is? can you only convict from people who are convicted or accused of a crime? does that create a supposition or tilt the field when it is used later? and you are collecting on everybody else, are there any privacy safeguards, or are there adequate safeguards? i remember several years ago in the department of a man security, secretary michael chertoff said he was not sure people should limit data collection to people in the justice system. but someone in a private

scenario wants to know where i have been it, they can take a saliva's wall off of a glass sample -- a saliva swab or what have you. host: if you want to read more, there is a chart here along with spencer hsu's reporting. how accurate is the analysis? dna, handwriting, hair and fiber. it goes on and on. except for dna, known that it has been able to accurately link evidence to a person or a single source. mr. hsu, ky about broadening this inquiry to of the parts of the country. do you see a legislative response in washington to wall of this? >> senator pat leahy of vermont has legislation undergoing revision that would attempt

revisions of the 2009 report. senator jay rockefeller is also interested in the issue and has tried to carve out space for scientific agencies to set standards for law enforcement. the top scientific adviser for president obama has set up a process to see what policy steps could be taken administratively without the need for legislation. i think the progress for legislation is slim because it is an election year. budgets are tight at every level. you could set up an office independent from the fbi to take over research. each of these practice groups, so to speak, have panels of

experts to set standards. for a long time coming practitioners set the standards. the people conducting the operations were also is setting best practices. that is great if they want to convict you. you may want a second opinion. there is some discussion about whether agencies like the national center for technology, a commerce department agency, should be involved. but there the agency that investigated arson and fire. i guess, also, i did not want to leave people with the impression these have worked for a long time. these have worked. just because they have not been validated does not mean that

they do not work well. even with hair, error rates about 11%, and hand writing it may even be much smaller, 2% to 3% when you are not trying to fake their writing. fingerprinting it may be even higher. it is a rare example. before dna, it was the gold standard. they call dna genetic fingerprinting. the fbi has long testified they have a 0% error. in 2004, it was the first time someone convicted with fingerprint evidence was exonerate it. the fbi first publicly

apologized for the train bombing in madrid. they thought they found his fingerprint on a bag of detonators in madrid, but they were completely wrong and had to apologize. this shows the fingerprint identification process is highly subjective. three drug reviewers reached the conclusion that his fingerprint was on the bad. even if it fingerprint turns out to be correct 90% of the time, it has never been steady. both sides are saying we should start with the fingerprinting. there's nothing to worry about, but because this is the best known discipline, other disciplines are likely to be weaker. let's move on from that to the others.

host: last call, charlotte on the republican line from pennsylvania. caller: i was wondering if he did speak to was a little bit about the current status of the federal judge's serving under maritime law and how they are not down to uphold their constitutional rights. how can the citizens protect our constitutional rights and be heard by constitutional lawyers as opposed to maritime judges? host: you can try to tackle that one or wrap up the reporting on forensic errors. guest: i'm not familiar with that issue. i would say the conclusion with the forensic errors is not to challenge it the hard working scientists that have been working on this for a long time nor the men and women who have been using these tools to keep

the public safe and prosecute criminals. what is the best way to incorporate it advancing science in the legal system? can it be used to improve? host: you can read more on washingtonpost.com and reported by spencer hsu on april 17 and 18. thank you for joining us this morning, mr. hsu. >> thank you. >> $1.2 billion of customers' money disappeared. senator richard shelby chairs the banking committee. a hearing gets underway at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow with live coverage

on c-span. >> charles colson died this past weekend. he talked about the white house taping system in 2007. >> kissinger had the right, although he abused it, to come into the oval office without having somebody an ounce it. -- without having somebody an ounce at. nixon said to feel free to come in and interrupt anything. hen rate would do with it for material things, and one day nixon was ticked off at henry for a variety of things, and i was in the executive office

building. it was henry. i caught a glance. nixon did not appear to look, but i knew he knew it was henry. he said, i think it is time to use nuclear weapons. everything else has failed. kissinger stood in the doorway, absolutely paralyzed. he said, somebody is going to hear this on tape and say nixon is a madman. it was pure schumer. nixon loved it. >> hear more about his car rear and his later work in prison reform online at the c-span video library, with a quarter- century of politics and political affairs available on your computer any time. >> one of the things i remember because my office overlooked the building and the plaza was the plaza -- there is a day care

center, and some of the children were killed, others injured. during the recess, they would come and play at the plaza, and you would hear their voices, so that left a lasting impression when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school, she had just graduated and was working in the social security office, her father was a different mind. when i got home, had three different messages. suwannee to know what he could find out about his daughter, it did not look good, and the third message was when he was crying. >> watch the local content vehicle's next stop investing in the oklahoma city, with special airing on may 5 and may 6 . >> the social security and

medicare trustees today released a report saying social security's trust fund will be insolvent in 200033, three years earlier than previously thought. the medicare trust fund will run out of money in 2024. timothy geithner and other social security and medicare trustees spoke about the report today at the treasury department. >> good afternoon, and welcome. i want to take this opportunity to thank the chief actuaries and their staff for their hard work on these reports. every year the social security and medicare and boards of trustees issue reports to congress on the strength of the indispensable programs. we just met to complete this year's financial review. millions of americans rely on

security and medicare for their income and their health care. what these reports reinforce is we must take steps to keep these programs whole for the the airport project that went considering the combined basis, social security and disability have dedicated funds to cover benefits for the next 20 years. in 233, and incoming revenue and trust fund resources will be insufficient to maintain the payment of full benefits. after that time, dedicated funds

will cover three-quarters of full benefits. the trust fund will cover benefits until 20/204. the same year as was projected last year. the projections in this year's report are somewhat more pessimistic than last year's projections. for the combined social security and disability trust funds, the 75-year and -- actual stocks actuary is off. with regard to medicare, the projected actuarial imbalance of the trust fund has increased 5.6 of 1% due to changes in cost projection methods recommended by that 2010-2011 medicare technical review panel.

while uncertainty surrounding the 75-year projections is substantial, these reports emphasize the importance of building consensus of reforms that will put these programs on a sound financial footing for the future. the affordable care act began this process with the most significant entitlement reform in the kids. that lot includes measures to strengthen medicare by reining in health-care cost growth. one of the most important things we can do is to preserve medicare is to implement the affordable care act fully and ornate st. tantric that is why the president has put forth a plan to strengthen medicare. by the beginning of the next decade, his plan achieves the same amount of health care savings as a bipartisan plan proposed by some symbols -- some sen -- simpson bowles.

and asking the very wealthy of seniors to pay more. the president is committed to keeping social security strong for future generations, particularly as more private employers move away from bev -- defined benefit plans. last year, the president outlawed -- outlined a set of principles for reform. emphasizing the importance of finding a bipartisan solution that strengthen social security and does not hurt current recipients, does not cut benefits for future retirees, or tie the program to the stock market. as we work to strengthen social security medicare, it is critical reforms are phased in over time so that current beneficiaries are not affected and so the future beneficiaries do not experience precipitous changes. at the same time, adjustments to

social security and medicare must be balanced and evenhanded. we will not support proposals that so the seeds of their destruction in the name of reform or shift the cost of health care to seniors in order to sustain tax cuts for the morse -- most fortunate americans. social security and medicare are the twin pillars of retirement security. they are as president obama has said in expressions of the fact we are one nation. these programs which are rooted in a basic american sense of fairness and responsibility have been supported by both political parties in democratic and republican administrations. i will turn the floor over to my colleague and fellow trustee kathleen sebelius. >> thank you, secretary geithner. today's trustee report confirms medicare is in a stronger position than it was a few years ago thanks to the affordable care act. without the health care law,

hospital insurance trust fund would be exhausted in 2016 for years from now. as a result of a lot we have added another eight years to its life, putting medicare on much more solid ground. the law does this through a range of reforms from cracking down on fraud to helping providers prevent costly medical errors, reducing excess payments to medicare advantage plans. as a report our department released today shows, the first wave our reforms will save more than $200 billion by 2016 while lowering costs for americans with traditional medicare by nearly $60 billion. that is real money in people's pockets. in addition, the report describes reforms in the law that can lead to even bigger savings down the road. by addressing the misaligned incentives that are major driver of rising medicare costs. we know that many leading health

systems have reduced costs by improving care. for example, by managing care more effectively for patients with chronic conditions to keep them healthier and out of the hospital. in the past, the medicare payment structure has made it difficult for providers to provide that kind of care. the health care law begins to break down those barriers with your reforms that free doctors and nurses to deliver higher quality, more efficient care. these incentives are just in the beginning phases. we are confident they will improve care and save money. that means it is possible that in the long run, the health care law will do even more to stabilize medicare's finances and the report today indicates. still, as secretary geithner said, more remains to be done. today's report shows that medicare per enrollee spending will continue to grow at a slower pace than the private insurance industry.

again, thanks in part to the health care law. it also shows overall medicare costs will continue to grow because of our aging population. that is why secretary entered notice, the president has put forward a budget that builds on and expands their forms in the affordable ^ to do more to cut waste and fraud, reduce unnecessary payments, and health providers deliver more efficient care. unlike some of the other plans that have been put forward, this is an approach that will put medicare on a stable trajectory without eliminating the guaranteed benefits that beneficiaries have counted on for decades or shifting a tremendous new costs on to seniors. it is an approach that makes sure the strong medicare is there for our children and our grandchildren. today's report shows that this approach can work. it also makes clear how important it is to implement the reforms in health care law and

the president's budget to secure the promise of medicare for generations to come. quex good afternoon, everyone and thanks for joining us today. we have occurred about the long term future of social security and medicare. they serve as a critical lifeline for millions of americans, especially for those experiencing these tough economic times. today closed a $54 million, 38 million retirees, 10 million americans with disabilities, and 6 million survivors of deceased workers. social security also served as a critical role in combating poverty in this country. it is estimated that of social security payments were excluded from income, the number of older people in poverty would increase by 14 million individuals. challenges remain for social security and medicare and vester retirement security of many

americans who depend on the benefits they provide. secretary geithner and secretary sebelius stressed the importance of the actions to address these challenges. costs are continuing to increase due to the end -- continue retirement of the baby boom generation and lower birth rates for younger generations. people are living longer and the cost of health care has continued to rise especially in private health insurance but also for public programs. reducing the long-term costs of medicare will depend largely on provisions of the affordable care act which will take effect in the coming years. that is one big reason why ensuring the successful implementation of this historic health care law is so important. but there are other important steps that strengthens the solvency of the social security and medicare trust fund. critical to this effort is a continued and sustained economic recovery. in the past 25 months, the economy has generated $4 million -- 4 million jobs.

layoffs have decreased to 2006 levels and the on implement rate has decreased from 10% at the height of their recession to 8.2% today. we have made steady progress, but we're not out of the woods. we have more work to do to make every person in every community drive against. putting more people back to work is crucial to the health of the social security and medicare trust funds. when more people are working, our payroll tax base grows answer to the trust funds as people are able to contribute to them. we're taking concrete steps to put people back on the job in a quicker, more effective way. the recent extension of the unemployment insurance an important reforms that come along with that are critical to this effort in providing better services and more flexibility, returning the unemployment system into a re-employment system, making it easier and quicker for people to get back to work. we're finding job-training initiatives that are focused on making sure the skills workers

gain in the classroom matches what employers are looking for in the office or factory floor. over the past two years, we have work to incentivize businesses to put more people back to work. we also continue to support policies and encourage disabled and older workers to stay on the job. this effort also helped to address the solvency of the trust fund. many disabled workers can and do want to work. we have got to help them do just that as quick as we can. we put forth a number of initiatives to speed up medical recovery to get folks off disability insurance, and back on the job. currently, we're collaborating with the social security administration to build on this important work. over the last three years, the department of labor has helped 16 states provide disability insurance claimants with targeted job coaching and training to help them get back to work. last year alone, the number of one-stop career centers engaging with participants of the ssa's

to get to work program increased by 34%. we're hoping that those who can get back to work do so and we're making sure they keep part of their benefits in the can get the need they possibly can get the need the help in transition back to work. it is providing millions in savings, many of whom are low- income and thus depend on these programs for their survival. we must act soon to address the immediate and long-term imbalances between incoming cost to the program. the earlier these reforms can be made, the more options and more time we have to better prepare for those affected and to ease the burden on our most believable communities. thank you. >> i would like to begin by commending the public trustees for their important contributions to this year's report. this report is the first one since 2007 where we have had the benefit of two confirmed public trustees for the full european -- for the work.

we are working in a bipartisan fashion that should be a model for all this in washington. having them on board has made an enormous difference on areas ranging from techniques of economic analysis to plan language. speaking of bipartisan congeniality, it is time for congress to take on the cut -- the task of retooling social security for the long haul. this year's three year movement on the exhaustion died -- a day makes legislation more critical than ever. congress must begin the process of deciding what levels of benefits and taxation best serve the interests of younger americans who are increasingly uncertain as to whether they can count on social security. it is also vital for congress to consider reallocating assets between the trust funds so the disabled americans do not have to fear reductions of benefits in 2016.

finally, as in the past, i want to urge you and the media not to complicate congress's responsibility. please remember that exhaustion is an actuarial term of art and it does not mean that there will be no money left to pay any benefits. after 2033, even if congress does nothing, there will still be sufficient assets to pay about 75% of the current level benefits. it is not acceptable, but still fact that there will be substantial assets there. i want you to know this year's change in the disability trust fund as with last year's is due almost entirely to demographics and the recession. in the past year, there have been reports to the contrary and i urge you not to repeat the reporting period we need the debate to begin and we need it to be civil and fact base. clear and accurate reporting on the complexities of the system is essential to that debate.

and to read about, this is the six trustees report i have signed. more than any other commissioner for -- or robert ball or [unintelligible] it has been a tremendous privilege to serve as a trustee. thank you. >> the social security and medicare programs remain among the more remarkable legislative achievements in american history. these programs have provided critical insurance protections for hundreds of millions of americans. they have done it at low administrative costs and they have done it with financing methods that while they have their critics, they have been generally accepted by most of the american public as equitable, historically. it is important to remember these achievements as we review this year's financing

projections. both so security and medicare finances did take a further turn for the worst this year. as with every year -- bringing these programs to long-term solvency. as we review our options, the continued strength of these programs depends not only upon their finances been restored to balance, but this is done in such a way the public continues to believe is reasonably fair and if time -- as time continues to pass and finances become more strained, this becomes more difficult to achieve. before getting to the specific numbers around social security, i would like to note some general differences between social security projections and medicare projections. social security does not tend to have large swings in its outlook from year to year. this is because the demographics that guide its finances have been relatively well known for some time. medicare faces greater

projection uncertainty because factors like health care, cost inflation are more difficult to predict. my colleague will talk about the medicare cyber we have had some offsetting projection changes in the short term. some positive, some negative. by contrast on the social security side, most of the variables line on the negative side. on the social security side, the short-term and long-term outlook this -- worsened somewhat. that is a term of art but basically that is the program's tax base in worker wages. that is 04.44. this is the largest deficit we have seen since the 1980 reforms and this is the single year duration -- the largest single

year deterioration we've seen. the projected date of combine tests -- trust funds is to be 2033, moved up from 2036. we have lost some ground because of passage of time and legislative inaction but also because program finances are somewhat weaker than we have previously projected. the 2033 date is the earliest projected by the trustees in more than a decade of reports and there were few reports in the mid-1990's that saw trust fund depletion happening earlier but we have to revert it is later in the game. as a result, never since the 1983 reforms have we come close to the point of depletion as we are now. 21 years off my son like a long way but given the magnitude of the financings shortfall, it is not. our window of dealing with it without disruptive consequences

is closing rapidly. in 2033, it has been said we would have enough revenue coming in to pay 75% of scheduled benefits or the payroll tax would have to be raised from 12.4% to 16.7%. one must bear in mind assumes we would willing -- be willing to cut benefits for people on the rolls. people receiving benefits in 2012. if you factor in the desire on the part of many policy makers to shield people receiving benefits from changes to shield low-income recipients from benefit reductions, it is clear we do not have a great deal of time left to resolve them balance in a way that people on both sides of the aisle will find acceptable. our immediate concern, we have the fact that the disability insurance trust fund is projected to be exhausted in 2016. the earliest of the different trust funds will report on. one option is to reallocate the tax rates between the disability and retirement side of social

security. we have to remember that would shore of disability only at the expense of the other social security trust funds. you want to avoid weakening the other side of social security, we will have to make some tough for traces. we would have to decrease disability benefits or increased disability taxes considerably and fairly soon. we would have to find $30 billion of savings annually with and that disability programs in five years to prevent insolvency. why does this year's report show a decline of social security finances? this is because of act -- updated economic data. we had larger than expected c.o.l.a. this year. this affects our projections for 2012, 2013 and beyond. we modified our expectations for long-term changes to worker hours to better fit historical data and the aging of the

population. we have the usual grab bag of changes on the -- side. we have passage of time and we have incorporated some updated birthday data. this year, all the smaller factors lined up on the negative side of the line and that is unusual for social security reports but it is an unfortunate reality this year. by any objective measure, the problems in social security are growing so much more serious. the insolvency date has drawn closer. actuarial and balances larger and accounting for all the sources of trust and income including interest and other enacted transfer revenue from the general fund, it -- the ratio is lower than the peak level in 2008 and projected to further decline. the shortfalls have are much larger than can be corrected at the last minute as was done in 1983. bipartisan action needs to be responsible, decisive, and from to. thank you.

>> that afternoon. being the last of the six trustees to speak, i will be very brief. the prairie responsibility of the public trustees is to assure the american public the financial and actuarial analyses contained in the reports are as objective as possible. they used the best available data, and information, and they employ the most appropriate methodologies. i can speak for others as well as myself. we can provide that assurance with confidence to the american public. once again, we have participated in an open, robust, and vibrant discussion of the numerous issues that must be resolved when these reports are put together. once again, we have been impressed by the expertise and commitment to objectively of the actuaries and their staff. the department of staff, the support of the ex officio

trustees, and the staff of the social security administration. we benefited from the deliberations and recommendations of two technical panels. the medical -- medicare from hhs and the social security technical panel convened by the social security board. we have incorporated some but not all their recommendations in these reports. we intend to continue to draw on these panels' insights as we develop future reports. let me make a few observations now that relate to the content of these reports. i want to add my voice to the chorus that has emphasized that under current law, both these unsustainableron patterns. the senate policy makers to address these, the less destructive the adjustments will be for individuals and the economy and the greater the likelihood that the solutions we

adopt will be balanced and equitable. while the bottom-line message of the 2012 reports are -- differ little than those of previous reports, it is important to realize that the projections contained in these reports, as others have emphasized, include a lot of uncertainty. this is true with respect to the medicare report in which the current law projections that are the basis of this report assume that payments under the physician fee schedule will be cut by 3.9% at the start of 2013 to comply with the sustainable growth rate mechanism. it is almost certain that over -- lawmakers will override this reduction and expenditures will be higher. conceivably as much as 12% higher than is reported in these reports for 2013. the challenge facing medicare will depend critically on our

ability to it here to the discipline contained in the affordable care act, which in turn will require significant transformations of the existing payment and delivery systems, the ability of providers to improve their productivity, and the willingness of employers, unions, and other payers of private policies to join forces with medicare to demand change. even with the unified and concerted effort, for their major legislative changes above and beyond the affordable care act will be required to put medicare on a sustainable path. let me close by saying that as someone who spent an hour yesterday applying for medicare because i have stepped down after 12 years as president of the urban institute, i have not -- i haven't even greater interest in ensuring the sustainability of medicare and social security, both for current and future generations of beneficiaries. thank you.

>> thank you. we would be happy to take a few questions. >> the disability trust fund, what is the plan to deal with that in the near term? to combine the fund or direct money away from the oasi fund? >> congress face this problem in 1994 and they acted with a temporary solution. the best thing to do is to do a long-term solution and we will work toward that with congress. >> a question for secretary sebelius. >> i am curious that there is a question raised by the trustees and rec foster about whether or not the projections will come to pass. did you have any thoughts because you spent so much time defending the law and the significance of these projections? what does it mean if there is a

shadow hanging over as in that report? >> there has been traditionally reluctance among congress to adopt payment reforms and medicare advantage is a great example of that. it was begun with a floor intentionally above medicare fee-for-service. as a way to encourage competition in the marketplace. but 15 years later, we were still paying at the passage of the affordable care act 114% of fee-for-service in spite the fact -- of the fact that people said it needs to be lower. in the last two years, medicare advantage plans are being paid at a rate, 107% higher, not 114% higher. we're on track to get parity with fee-for-service. we're assuming that the payment

reductions included in the affordable care act will be carried out if congress chooses to interrupt those, if congress chooses to add additional funding, then we have to make different assumptions. the skepticism is because often congress has intervened at times where there have been challenges about lowering costs, and kept costs at a higher rate than medpac or others would have seen as advisable. >> [unintelligible] wasting over a billion dollars in taxpayer money. is there any question that hhs has the authority to establish a program? how would you respond? >> the good news is that medicare advantage, in spite of all the allegations that the affordable care act would destroy the program, is stronger than ever before. we have more companies participating in the plan.

consumers are getting information about quality ratings and we have more beneficiaries migrating to four- star programs than ever before. even with the demonstration which is due to expire in 2014, we are on track to reduce the overpayment of medicare advantage. with the demonstration money included, we have dropped from 114% of fee-for-service to now 107% of fee-for-service. the cut in half the overpayment to advantage. it is a basic win-win-win situation. beneficiaries are paying lower rates. you have more plants and consumer information for the first time -- plans and consumer information for the first time. we're reducing payments which will save money in the long haul. >> i am happy to have secretary

gunnar answer that. >> do you plan to let that demo run out and not read to a -- three do it? >> that is our plan. it was designed as a demonstration project. our goal is not only to give consumers information but to put medicare advantage plans on notice we're measuring quality for the first time as opposed to having a proliferation of plans available, often very confusing to beneficiaries about what the benefits are. this is an important staff and we are pleased to see that more beneficiaries are migrating to the higher rated plans and we think at the end of 2014, it will accomplish what the goal was, which is to give financial incentives to those plans for improving quality results. one of the most discouraging factors around medicare advantage, not only were those plans being paid 14% more than

fee-for-service, and 75% of the beneficiaries were picking up that additional cost because the cost was spread. there was no increased health of -- outcome. as a result of that overpayment. we think this demonstration was important to inform consumers. we intend to keep that quality system in place, and not the additional incentives but again, medicare advantage rates are down substantially over where they were when the president, two years ago, the affordable care act. >> thank you for coming. >> c-span spoke with former vice president dick cheney.

he underwent a heart transplant a month ago. it can see that tonight on c- span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. it has been some time since l.a. police officers were videotaped beating rodney king. rodney king published an autobiography, "the riot within. you can see the event live on booktv.org. >> later he became an evangelicals preacher, dying this week at the age of 80. he talked about the white house taping system in 2007. >> kissinger had the right, although he abused it, to come

into the office, the oval office without having someone announce him. i was one of those people but kissinger could walk in whenever he wanted to. nixon told him that because of the severity of the foreign policy issues, feel free to come in and interrupt anything. henry would do it for trivial things. one day, nixon was ticked off at for a variety of things. the fard door swung open and i looked and it was henry. nixon did not appear to look but i knew he knew it was henry. he said, i think it is time we used nuclear weapons. everything else has failed trade and kissinger stood in the doorway, absolutely paralyzed. someone will hear that on the tape and say, nixon was a madman traded -- madmen.

it was pure humor. nixon loved it. >> hear more about his political career, watergate, and his work in prison reform. at the c-span library. available on your computer any time. >> one of the things i always remember because my office overlooked the building in the plaza at was the plaza, there was a day care center in the plaza. some of the children were killed, others injured. during the recess, there would always come play out here in the plaza and you would hear their voices, so that left a lasting impression, of course, when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school, he had graduated and was working in the social security office. their father was a good friend of mine. when i got home, i had three

different messages, first of all, knowing as wanting to know what he could find out about his daughter. that third message was he was crying. >> watch your local content vehicle's next job. exploring oklahoma city with special bearings the week of may 5 and 6 on "book tv" and american history to be on c- span3. >> the senate holds a hearing on the bankruptcy of mf global. $1.2 billion disappeared of customer money. tim johnson is the ranking democrat. the hearing gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern with live coverage here on c-span.

the u.s. and iraq today signed an agreement outlining plans to cooperate in the production and exporting of iraqi oil and natural gas. and the u.s. agreed to help iraq upgrade its electric grid. at the state department today, the u.s. deputy, energy secretary, and iraq's deputy prime minister discuss the agreement. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the state department. today, the u.s. and the government of iraq held the inaugural meeting of the joint coordinating committee on energy at the department of energy. here to talk about that meeting is -- and some of the issues raised there, we have the iraqi deputy prime minister for energy, as well as our special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, and the deputy secretary of the department of energy, so without further ado, i will let the investor takes the microphone.

>> in afternoon trade is a pleasure to see you. on behalf of the state department and department of energy, let me introduce you to the joint coordinating committee on energy. it reflects that relationships between iraq and the u.s. and how we establish those issues to work on them in both countries. it is fundamental to its economic future and ability to generate power for its own people. it is fundamental to the ability to supply international markets. in that context, it is of interest to the united states trade we have been working on efforts to increase oil production and they have reached a level of 3 million barrels a day in production. last year the average was 2.7 million barrels a day. the year before was 2.4 million barrels a day. reflecting an increase over time. one of the issues we discussed

is how to sustain that progress. one of the issues that the prime minister -- to be prime minister focused on was turning energy resources to benefit the iraqi people. we've reviewed how to work together on increasing electricity availability. our commitment to the joint coordinating committee is reflected -- a reflection of the approach we have taken that the department of energy and state have been sharing together, but we have included participants from other agencies including the department of treasury, commerce, and our security agency -- agencies looking at iraq's energy and infrastructure. through this mechanism, with our intent is to reinforce in a consistent, city way of -- the development of iraq's heitor current resources. the environment for international companies to invest and through that, the

u.s. will benefit as well. with that, let me ask my colleague, the integrity -- deputy to say a few words. >> thank you, ambassador. this is a historic moment. a pivotal moment in the transition of the relationship between the u.s. and iraq. rooted in the 2000 a strategic framework agreement. we now see as we have been working for many years in the energy sector that rule front and center. as many of us joined vice- president biden last december when we witnessed the transition from military dominated relationships into much more formally and civilian- relationships. we have been working hard to expand on the corporation that the investor has outlined.

the areas of cooperation are wide, the opportunities that we have discussed and we have identified are vast. we have reached a strong convergence of view with our iraqi partners. it is centered in the oil and gas sector, as you heard the master node. there have been impressive gains in iraqi oil production in recent years and those gains looked set to continue. we have been working hard also in the area of electricity. not only power generation, but discussing such widespread issues as demand site management, energy efficiency, and even the possibility of developing renewable energy resources in iraq. we have also, with great enthusiasm on both sides, talked about the importance of critical infrastructure protection. and our iraqi colleagues will

have a chance further to discuss this as they make their way around the u.s. and talk to other experts in this area. in this connection, i would like to note to that at the next stage of this corporation, i am delighted to join the deputy prime minister and we will revisit lawrence livermore national laboratory where we will continue discussions about infrastructure but on some of the exciting new energy technologies that have so much promise for us all. as the ambassador said, none of this would be possible without tremendous cooperation from the other agencies and the leadership of the president and vice president and secretary of state who have been clear with us on the importance they attach to the burgeoning energy relationship between the u.s. and iraq. it is an area not only of great opportunity but in which we have a clear convergent interests. as we agreed in our extensive

discussions, we have a clear sense on both sides and mutually work we have before us, and we're all very enthusiastic to embrace that work program. with that, i would like to thank our state department posts and the ambassador has been absolutely essential in this effort, but also turn the floor of work to our esteemed colleague and good friend, the deputy prime minister. >> thank you. thank you for coming. iraq is called the [unintelligible] in the couple of years. it is expected the world will be more energy. -- need more energy. and [unintelligible] into three decades. iraq is positioned to provide the world with its energy needs.

that is why we have invited the international oil companies to work with us, to develop the iraqi resources, and the work has started based on the contracts with the signed -- as they go. energy production is already increasing. our exports, we have developed infrastructure to enable us to handle more exports to the world market. as we speak, iraq is producing more than 3 million barrels a day of crude oil. we expect them to come in six years to be able to increase the capacity of production to more than 10 million barrels a day. this is to assure the world markets that there is sufficient

crude for them. it depended -- dependable, long- term supplier. [unintelligible] there should not be concerned are shortages in the supply in the near future. -- oil shortages in the supply in the near future. with happy with our corp. the -- cooperation with the united states to develop energy oil resources and in the agreement, a number of areas. the united states has decided the iraqi people to help them from dictatorship. to rebuild the country and as we are moving into a more strategic corp. -- cooperation in several

areas, the energy sector is one of the most important sectors where the two countries can cooperate to develop and unleash potential in the short term but to look further forward to developing other sources of energy, alternative sources of energy in iraq. gas is also very important resource that many countries in the region and also europe are looking toward iraq to provide them with some of their needs. iraq is very much interested to be a partner and supplier of gas to our neighbors but also to european countries and the world at large. we have also discussed

cooperation and protecting the iraqi energy infrastructure with an onshore or offshore. -- whether onshore or offshore. and move forward to further cooperation. we also have a chance to meet with some american companies who are interested in looking into investment of other arbour jennies. we welcome them and assure them that iraq has no policies and investment is most welcoming to international companies. especially american companies. [unintelligible] not only in the energy sector but all sectors of the financial

sector, the communications sector, and housing. and so on. there is a great potential over the coming years to work in iraq and we hope this corporation and the success we have already had with the oil companies to develop our fields would be incentive to the other companies to come and join us in rebuilding iraq. thank you. >> thank you. we have time for a few questions. if you could give your name and media affiliation. >> i would like to address all three of you if i may. and ask if during your discussions, if the situation with exxon came up and what the current state is with that issue. and to the deputy prime minister, was exxon a decision to free its contacts with the krg enough to get it back on

the qualified list of companies in the next round? >> exxon, being the largest oil company in the world, had been among the large -- the companies to sign a contract. there will continue their work and the progress has been according to plan. we are discussing with them the concerns that were raised when a contract was signed with the krg. they will freeze things as they are. we will be working with the krg, to develop a framework to

enable all companies to be able to work in iraq. >> i would just add, we maintain a continuing dialogue with all u.s. companies doing business or around the world. there have been said, on the particular matters before us between a company and the government, we do not get in the middle of that discussion. our role is to work with the other government to encourage any issue that may be involving sovereigns to be resolved in a manner that is clear and transparent, and any due process that is required for u.s. companies be offered in the same spirit of due process that we call for in companies all across the world. it was not specifically a part of our agenda. >> how will the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement affect the corporation -- the corporation and the iraqis?

>> i think first of all, one of the things which the iraq side has been working on is to find a mechanism to create a hydrocarbon -- so everyone has clear rules of the road. in the meantime, throughout most of the country, mechanisms have been put in place that have allowed companies to make investments and to begin production. we have seen that in the south with a significant production increases that have already read occurred. we have seen the potential for it in the northern parts of the country, including the kurdish region. there have been disputes and the iraqi government has been clear about that. we have heard about it from the krg and iraqi side. the critical issue we have been trying to work on from the perspective of the u.s. government is to play any kind

of facility -- facilitating role that could be helpful and useful to the parties. it has to be fundamentally an issue that the iraqi parties decide trade in the meantime, there is still tremendous potential and opportunity for development of energy resources within iraq. we have seen that consistently over the past 23 years. new investments have been put on line that are allowing for additional export production, capacity, including a single point mechanism and the second one that has been opened up. we look forward to the continued increase of production and export out of iraq. at the same time, we're encouraging parties to do what they cancel the have clear rules of the road going into the future and how they're able to develop their hydrocarbons resources. >> i will add to that.

of course to have a hydrocarbon law that is clear on the issues is important. [unintelligible] pushing for the legislation of such a lot. this has not deterred companies to sign contracts. they have already succeeded to increase production and increase exports. we're trying with the oil companies that contract with us, to increase mariposa production -- iraq's production. then what we're using right now. until the hydrocarbon law is legislative, the prevailing laws in iraq that have been [unintelligible] the energy sector and the oil

sector are in force until the new legislation >. >> you said you had mentioned 10 million barrels a day within six years. if i understand your rights, you talked about reducing your output capacity target for 2017. the 10 million -- is 10 million barrels a day the new chart that you were contemplating? >> we have engaged the ioc's work -- based on that -- best practices to recover oil from these fields. we have engaged international consultants to advise us, what are the best protection -- projection targets for iraq? where are revising -- we are

revising the recommendations that have been made before the end of the year, make a decision and amount are the targets for the coming years. the figure -- 10 million barrels a day, this is a revised figure. the context -- contract has already been signed, the fourth contract for the 12 oil fields. and the gas fields. the total is 12 million barrels. >> any either questions? go ahead. >> i am wondering if you could talk about whether or not energy practice [inaudible] might be tapped.

do you feel that the iran sanctions alone are enough to justify tapping would an additional market destruction be necessary? >> -- and disruption be necessary? >> the president has been clear about this. in reference to the price, i think everyone who, including me, who has been to the gas pump understands the pain all americans are hurting and it is hurting families and companies and we're very focused. the current high state of energy prices, they are too high. we have been watching closely, daily, the energy markets for disruptions. we have as the president has made clear to my kept every tool available to us in a state they can be used. we're continually consulting with our international partners

on this. we're looking at the cluster factors that contribute to this. the production has fallen off the market, the demand in the market both pro and con, and we will keep monitoring those issues. it will not be any single issue. the president has been clear that their regional tensions related to iran's noncompliance are unsettling markets and in that respect, the best thing for iran to do is to return to full compliance with their international obligations. >> question in the back. >> a question about power generation, the electricity. clearly, demand is continuing to grow up. i wonder if you have some projections that, when you anticipate, supply will be able to meet a demand or close to meeting demand. >> we have already signed a

contract to build new power stations with a total capacity of 16 gigawatts. some of these new power stations will be ready this year. some of them during the summer, and others before the end of the year. all this -- the new power generation will expect to be connected to the grid before the end of next year. by then, we should have enough generating capacity, 15,000 in addition to the 9000 we have this year, should meet all the demand including the anticipated increase for this year and the

coming year. we plan to build additional plants with a total generating capacity of 50 gigawatts in the cmioming four to five years. they are based on gas turbines that have been purchased and constructed. the can at another 50% to the generating capacity. these are our projections for our generation. our projection for the increase in demand is wanted what -- one gigawatt per year. when these new power stations are completed. are completed.