bit after that and then 9/11 changed everything. how to legislate in the capitol by nonetheless ensure their safety. i don't have anything more to tell you until we hear what the investigation will yield and we'll go from there. i'm sure we'll be doing it in the most non-partisan way. >> yes, sir. i thought it was you. >> i heard a voice but i didn't see a mouth. then you'll be next and you can speak for him. >> you mentioned the deficit of the tax bills today. you're critical of that. your democrats almost to a man or woman supported the sgr, 10 year sgr fix which adds $140

million dollar. what's the difference between those two and is that hypocrisy? >> it's completely different. the sgr is an expense that we have. it's not going to go away. the longer we prolong it the more expensive it is. it is an investment in people in that bill. we not only have the doc fix, i call it a remedy for our seniors. we all invest in the health of our children. one of the first bills we sent to president obama's desk we had been passing it but couldn't get it signed until we had a democratic president and president obama signed it in this legislation. we extend that and investing in the health of our children is a very positive investment.

some of it is paid for. we have an initiative to help poor seniors, very low income seniors. that's paid for by increasing calls to the very top well to do seniors. some of it is paid for. some of it is not. all of it is an investment. that's an expense with no value. >> do you see any issues in which the example of the sgr episode may be replicated?

we had a seat at the table, your to legislatures were all working cooperatively with republicans and you managed to get a big vote. do you see another issue over the next 18 months in which you might be able to replicate that cooperation? >> i'll juts remind you i appreciate what you said about the sgr. except for homeland security piece of the appropriations bill, our members had worked together on a number of aproep appropriators.

you want to bring it up on the floor, have a debate see what you can do, but it doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. there's a record of working together as appropriators. that will continue. i think transportation offers an opportunity for us to work together. it is urgent for us to do. the trust fund has run out. there was a bipartisan bill today to index the gas tax and

other considerations. i haven't read it fully. that being the revenue piece of it. i look forward to examining it. i believe that the committee infrastructure, transportation infrastructure is a committee that is tradition has been to act in a bipartisan way. that's a very big deal. i would hope that before too long because we have to really address, we have to have tax reform. we want to increase revenue. there's many possibilities that can happen just going to the table, what works what is a good investment. what is a good tax credit. what just increases the deficit and put money in the possible of

special interest making those judgments. you can't take $600 billion out of pot and then there's more on the way. they'll probably try to get up to about a trillion dollars in these kinds of bills that are special interests for the super wealthy and the special interests. we can sustain a veto for the president on them should they go to his desk which i hope they don't. the fact is they're not only, well, they're great differentiat differentiation for us.

tax reform. hopefully not undermine by this silliness that they're going through right now for whatever purpose except it helps us in our differentiation. i think that would be two big ones. building infrastructure of our country is a very big deal. and you relate it to infrastructure, that's to say investment in some infrastructure bank with that money is leveraged. infrastructure's a big tall order. these things are all related.

again, the repatriatoin is important to america. they understand and that was some of them yesterday. they understand it has to relate to job creation. i think that can all be done. in terms of the three areas that we do things in terms of policy, that would be transportation. in terms of appropriations, that would be our passing appropriations wills in terms of how we invest in the future. there's three areas. policy appropriating and taxization.

in they're losing by such big margins in communities that are concerned about immigration that's most communities. they don't have to be a minority to be concerned about immigration. as the senate passed a bill -- the house republicans in order for that they have to do better. taxes, spending helps. >> lincoln chaffey considering running as a democrat for president. >> why did i not think that would be the first name out of

your mouth. >> earlier this week that any democrat who voted for the iraq war should be disqualified as being your party's nominee. he was applying that hillary clinton should not be the nominee. if you don't agree with lincoln chaffey, why not? >> for relitigating the iraq war, let me say that in the house of representatives we saw things differently in a majority of house democrats voting against the iraq war. i was at the time, self-serving, self-serving see that light go on, self-serving. i was top democrat on the intelligence committee at the time. as such i was required to receive all of the intelligence.

i said at the time the intelligence does not support the threat. i had better access than everybody. they said are you calling the president a liar. i said i'm stating fact, the intelligence does not support the threat. my members had confidence this me. on the strength of that many of them voted against. some of them were never going to vote for the war any way. they did thank me afterward. i was very, was a few leaders. i wasn't a leader then but i was few of the persons that had all these years of experience on intelligence and national

security. they trusted my judgment. i can say of that a message was given to the american people by the white house that was not true, misrepresented the concern that was out there and created an atmosphere where unless you really studied this carefully and i'm not saying everybody had access to that material and they didn't. i was in a special place. i don't think a vote on a war 13 years ago, 14 years ago the vote was '02, right now. hostility into iraq.

we haven't done our due diligence. we haven't done our inspections. this was wrong all around. having said it, that was then. this is now. we go forward. again, hillary clinton has been a strong -- she comes to this yes, as a woman. that happens to be that she's a woman. she's so qualified. she has had great national security experience as a member of the armed services committee and secretary of state. for these and so many reasons she'll be strongest, best prepared people to enter the oval office in a long time.

there's some others but she will be among the best prepared to serve as president. a war vote is a vote that everybody makes on the basis of what think know, what they believe, who they trust. there's large number of people who supported the war. the consequences have been terrible in terms of what it meant to our veterans and the rest of that, but no. the answer is no. i don't think it should disqualify her. yes, ma'am. [ inaudible question ] >> that's not important. what's important is what it would mean to elect a woman president of the united states. it's a very mayorjor consideration. a very qualified woman to be

president of the united states. when i became even whip, the response was so overwhelming from people saying how encouraged they were that we had broken not the glass ceiling, that's smog. we're talk about marble ceiling. especially encouraging was notes of dads, fathers, saying i have so much confidence in my daughter. imagine if that was the response then what it mean to have a woman president not only to the

american people and women in our country and families but to the world to see that. i think it would mean a lot. elections are about the future. they're not about what happened 13 years ago. they're about the future and that's really what people want to hear. what is this mean to my life in the future. this is happening when the world is changing so many ways,

economically, digitally. countries are going digital just like that. we're dealing in a different way of communicating and conducting our economies and the rest. it is going to be an interesting conversation about how any one of these can understands can take us into the future. thank you all very much because i went beyond the next question. i do put value on executive. i do put it.

size of city and the direction they're doing or even if they want to be speaker of the house or leader, as a legislature and this is what i read when i was in college about john f. kennedy. you have hearings and hearings and your one vote and persuade somebody else to join you and that is a deductive reasoning. executives have to act in an intuitive way. they have to know on the spot. something happens. they have to act. they have to have enough knowledge.

you have to really trust your judgment and your advisors and the rest of that. if you have been an executive that's an experience that is valued. i believe being secretary of state is an executive position in that regard as i think being reeder speaker is even though it's not an executive branch position. if you act 99% of the time that will be okay. maybe sometimes it won't work but because you act immediately i don't mean hastily but quickly, you will prevent everybody who wants to destroy your options from weighing in.

you hesitate and it gets parcelled out. that's why i think having some managerial experience that's useful and probably why we elected a large number of governors othto the white house. our present president not included but he's a great president. thank you.

archdiocesefter a break you'll hear from his greek counterpart on his country's efforts to restructure its debt in the imf in greece's future. this got under way about ten minutes ago. >> economic outlook of economic research institutions in germany. they have given the recommendation not to increase our expenses but reduce our

taxization. we have said we will spend in our government any where. we have additional available for increasing infrastructure investment. we have other problems in infrastructure. we have federal government. we have state level. since it has become better in 2005 she has very much relied on strengthening the part of

federal budget, increasing federal budget for research and education. state responsibility but federal spending for states to strengthen, to support states to raise money for education has never been increased in so high numbers.

it's in any members, any even germany. i was always have to be careful most change in task for he. i have mentioned institutional frame work. a lot of economists telling the most important thing. i could tell you in some the weakness of institutions main reason of not sufficient even in germany, if you look at how long it takes time until you get administration license to maybe to build a new airport.

it's institutional frame work. you have to make some sense from the normal way of the licenses of investments to with implemented only for infrastructure in the so-called lenders. when we asked parliament especially second champion in germany not to be compared the same way but even more difficult for any government. i don't know. we could use this good

experience. no, no. not at all. institutional frame work. it's very difficult to get reforms in relation to labor market. public reforms in labor market need it. it's very successful. france would be happy if someone could first, but it's difficult

to get. any democratic system. this my long experience tends to take some more comfortable decision and you have only take you will only get them toughened long term needed decision. if no comfortable alternative. i'm thinking we must give them. >> great follow up on that. germany has a large turn account surplus despite the investment program that you have outlined and despite your calls for higher wage increases, imf predicts it will be 8.4% of gdp this year. your output far exceeds the

domestic spending. what responsibility, what opportunity does germany have to address that imbalance in ways that would benefit german consumers and workers and make it balanced. >> i want to add one thing to this question. the savings are indirectly invested. german savings are indirectly invested, about 25% in liquid assets including with target balance at central bank to bring a negative return.

>> until the last couple of months when we have two very specific reasons for common concept, the fall down and the weakening of the exchange. . we wouldn't have a deficit. our common accounts surplus has been reduced the last couple of

years and two exceptional course us. i never recommend monetary decision because it's longer distance that we strongly support support. if we work to get by monetary policy not only by monetary policy decisions weakening of exchange. without any doubt there will be an increasing of surplus. it's unavoidable.

we are spending a lot, a huge part of our concept. i know in line with the rules of the europeans since the surplus has been increased the last couple of months the commission has taken a procedure due to exam what is going on. we are concerned by the way.

we increased it and gdp is growing. the highest increase. germany can increase higher than other european members. don't underestimate. we have been at the beginning of this new government after general election in late 2013 there was a lot of criticism including european commission including imf that we have with some decisions agreements.

we have been too complacent and we should care on our long term medium term competitiveness. we should not be too we have to have in mind it to be complex. we have said okay we will have in mind be yielding. even this germany we have strong position but it's medium turf competitiveness. last remark if you ask my european colleagues what do you prefer in economic weaker, germany. even in the imf we will get

european on behalf of germany. it's a driver for injury peen growth. it's difficult to do everything right. >> speaking of doing everything right, yesterday you said there had been very little contagion in the bond market. did you mean to suggest that europe is to lose that can't do its homework? >> no. i have been asked it would be a danger for global economy. i've felt myself ask do you know your responsibility. not only economically but

politically. do you have any mind that would like to tell all the ends and please believe we know. we have a responsibility. we don't care. i'm quite sure whatever it will happen we will not take the risk to endanger the stability of global economy. he's very experienced economist. you can listen to him, what he's saying.

the second program we agreed to increase has been an anomaly. we have extended this program twice. greece is trying to get pending disbursement disbursement. broadly not 100%. we never ask for 100%. his programs have always been,

the key of the program is that we have to decide that we want to help any members lost access to financial markets to buy time. we did it for italy and ireland spain. cypress. they can get access through financial markets. if you may ask madame lagart, what is in the rules of imf,

it's very difficult to get answer. it's not my invention. you need the primary surplus if you have to chief 160, 170%. any greek government has to deal what do you think, when will you get access to financial markets. if you don't have access to

financial markets you need someone who lend you money. the europeans have said, we are ready to do it until 2020. supposed you'll be 2020. if you find someone else who lend you money we will be happy. amounts by 200 million. sometimes it's much more than $200 billion. it's not as simple. we are saying please if you don't, we can't disburse it.

it's a great debt. the great debt is financed for 30 years. therefore, restructuring of debt is not in the given situation. the problem is regaining competitiveness to get primary surplus. >> what should we ask? >> oh, no i will not take you as ancient. as european finance ministers

meet so often, i met my european colleagues sometimes more often than my colleagues in my own government. i don't need any intermediary. >> i thought i'd offer. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. >> one more question before we might turn to the audience. you are i've had the honor to follow your career for quite a while. you are a great european. you believe in europe more perhaps than any others will be and i've had one meeting with you where you begin reaffirm that strong belief.

it seems to have run out of steam. the participation rates are disappointing and falling. i'm not a member but i also still have is very fragile. you have a situation where he's close to 25% with a program of wanting to get out of the euro zone with taking credits from moscow. 25% over large european countries is quite a figure. you have the fact that the greek government has 70% support of its electorate.

how can this pre-union, you told us how the debate took place. i have feeling that most people, i don't want to speak for you, but something has to happen for the union to survive on the political sphere. how do you do that as a great european you are? >> do we have another two hours? it's a question of all the best democracy.

i wouldn't can only react beginning assumption all at once. whatever you have is not as wealthy as what you want to have. if we could, wonderful, what's this in this part of germany used to be the gdr and the soviet union system until 1990. the first free democratic elections, the participation rate was by far above 90%.

since people are sure that they have the right to elect the free and not manipulate democratic election participation is going down. on local communities when we elect mayors, it's often the case. it's the participation rate. it's below the participation rate of european elections. it's a problem of people saying democracy is grounded. we must not care. it's wrong.

democracy result is a little bit risky. therefore, it's my first. what can we do? we have to care. we have to think about it. i think we have, i'm asking again and again if we do it in an american in a westerner common discussion how do the how can we end this change of communication by the i.t. which is not really understood what it means for our society, for our democratic system, for the procedure of our communication.

find a way to make the modern communication system, this modern technologies and fast speed is fit with our best of democracy. i'm quite sure that democracy will only work on the -- it doesn't make result. we know it and we have to find the link between democracy and the rule of law and separation of power. relations between the different legislation, executive power.

i'm quite sure most people not only in the best but all over the world if they have to choose, they want to choose for our values. it's our responsibility not to forget it's not granted but it's worth it. i'm quite optimistic. as soon as it's questioned, it becomes better by the way. if you look at the elections, it was result was too high but it was not as high as expected. if you look at finland, general

elections on sunday. uk doesn't play in the general election. l not place a role, it's most expected. even if austria, it was in late '90s, only concern with heritage must not care. not as pessimistic. the world is moving in trial and error. take advantage of a free society so it can learn.

coming to europe even in europe, if european integrate will be majorities, all over europe, to defend european integration. european integration, at the basis, it's not disputed. even to so-called euro skeptics, if you ask, do you want -- are you not in favor of your opinion? oh, yeah we're in favor. it's standard to actually -- not completely. there's no huge dangers that we really face in nationalism, in the part of europe it's the european union. russia is moving -- the putin government is relying on provoking nationalist sentiments which is the short

term successful but not the long term. quite then we have to care what we've been doing in europe. you can't understand how decision making works. strong government is in favor. someday, we'll get it. to make it more sufficient, transparent, european parliament. not every member ahead of state and government liked it. i won't quote one, but you may have followed it. the role of the european parliament has been strengthened after the last election. then we have to -- if you tell people whatever they agree, it's not worth it because they will not stick to what they have agreed. even if the german finance minister is a stupid guy, is

asking to stick to what has been agreed or implement, it's defending europe. tell people, now we can trust it. we have -- germany has, by far actually it's the most advantage of the economic integration in terms of european european. therefore, tells this to my fellow man it's in our own interest to defend our european monarch, so we have to grant solidarity. how community works. solidarity is never one way. it's a double way, two way. otherwise, it will not work. therefore, you have -- as long as we don't have institutions, we have to work for confidence

of agreements or rules. >> thank you. i think we have time for some questions. bill here to start. please, tell us who you are. wait for the mic and remember questions end with a question mark. >> bill. administer, nice to see you again. i have a question about the long-term competitiveness about the german economy. a lot of major german companies are saying they're leaving germany because of the high costs of energy there. some of them are stepping up their capital investment here in the united states. in your view, unless there is a radical change in the policy of your government, is there a risk that there will be a hollowing out of germany's industrial base? >> i know that energy is really a problem in germany. it's not to be disputed. for some energy it's on behalf

of the energy prices. it's difficult to stay in germany and to remain competitive. but government has -- does care. i think we are moving in this direction. we have taken the decision that we -- after the disaster of fukushima, we made a very short shortchange in our nuclear energy policy. actually we have too much renewable energy. it's one of the reasons energy is so expensive. it is not easy to be corrected, but it will be. i think we will not see in the coming years a -- process in germany. you must not believe any major

companies. they have to take the interest -- no no. we care about the energy. we have another problem. not only germany, but all europeans are riskers. one of them, most disappointing news i get in my time as finance minister, the beginning of i think, 2011, that basf the major company all over the world, in greens and technology moved all its research capacity from europe, from germany, to u.s. not on behalf of german regulations but on behalf of european regulation. it is one of the key problems.

we have a different view on being manipulated -- i am not the best expert on this. we are risk givers. we have to discuss how can we link the needed innovation capacity to speed up innovation? if you look at the new technology we all know that the digitization of the country is a must. last sunday, it's the industry 4.0 was opened. industrial. i think we have taken this to be successful. the government is very engaged in this. if it comes to data protection, you know the discussions in --

it's what i meant. i said we should start to discuss how we can find a good relation between the -- use in communication systems and our values. of course, privacy and not to be manipulated without any limits. to control and so on it's a huge challenge. not only for europe but also for u.s. sometimes, normally, the u.s. is far ahead in development of europe, and europe is following. sometimes, we are ahead, and you have to follow in some discussion. i bet protection has been increasing. but actually we have european legislation that's a little bit in my view strange but now i have to ask.

you can have the feelings in europe and european legislations, in principle, in data collecting. -- is forbidden. i think it must be questioned. in my reading of the history of freedom, is that normally, it's allowed what is not forbidden. if you make it the opposite, you have to have in mind what will happen at the outcome. you can see it. it's not easy. really, why we are, i think -- we speed up the digitization is wait and see. you have made a lot of people, including uk, have relied sometimes too much only on services. financial services and so on. we have always tried to have a

balanced way between the production and modern digitization and services. we will still compete. >> i'm from brookings. let us assume for a moment that the greek government does everything you want it to do, broadly speaking in terms of fiscal reforms, in terms of structural reforms. yet, there is a debt burden they face, 175% of gdp. assuming that greece does everything you want it to do, do you see a viable part that greek can survive and prosper in the euro zone without restructuring? what would it look like? >> yes. i do not want anything from greece. but europe does want that -- for

everybody to stoic what theyick to what they agreed, the memorandum of understanding. the greek program, including this debt to gdp, whatever you said -- i don't know the actual number -- but it's about 170%. in this program, assumption has been that until 2020 ratio will be below 120%. in the years since this program, memorandum of understanding had been agreed, numbers have since been ahead of the program. far ahead of the program. growth has developed faster than expected. using the deficit it's developed faster than expected. earlier surplus, so greece has been on a very promising rate.

since then, we have a new government and they wanted to change it. is that okay? democratic elected government. tell us how you imagine, how you can get, someday access to financial markets. maybe you will ask mr. noon is var -- yanis varoufakis. i don't know how long he'll serve as finance minister. let's say he'll serve the next six years. in the next six years, his main concern will not be the debt recon struk reconstructuring. it may be a problem in the

future decades. today, the greek government has different challenges huge changes. i'd never change my job with him. much better position by far. as long as they are telling the problem is debt restructuring, today, since they have to move in ways that greek economy is becoming a little bit more effective. that greek economy can deliver increasing part of what greek people want to enjoy. and you have to know maybe you can ask how he will explain that the minimum wage increase, by law, is still higher than in some member states. the ratio of people occupied in

administration is still -- before the government has hired again, people who have been reduced in the last couple of years. ratio of people occupied in public administration is higher than, i think, every other member state of the yout the eurozone. it is difficult, not to mention the difficult challenge of building up the framework increase. what is not to be criticized by this government. all the problems are inherited, by sure. then as a real challenge of things and not to blame the europeans, not to be -- not to understand how economy works, even yanis varoufakis, a famous economist, was not the first economist in history.

>> thank you very much. obviously, most of the questions and your presentation has been about europe and the eurozone. but you're here against the background of global meetings for the imf. i'm wondering if you might make observations about germany and europe as a global economic player. we've just had this rather unfortunate, apparent rift between the united states and many of its european partners on the new asian investment and development bank set up by china. you mentioned the uk just a few moments ago. the uk and other european countries have been very quick to join in with this institution. there's a lot of questions now about the implications of this. i just wondered if you could give us some of your observations and thoughts on this general set of issues. thank you. >> i think, of course, we

europeans have always had meetings to explain what we're doing in europe. i think as the chinese has to explain what they're doing in china, everyone prefers to explain what others should do. but it's better to explain what you're doing. therefore, we are speaking, of course, of what we're doing in europe. i am strongly in favor the german government is in favor that we strengthen our partners as well. we are very much in favor, even to use the umbrella and instrument, to make it efficient. in this very specific case of china, i would say -- first, my

insight, we all would be very heavy if it would be possible someday to convince u.s. congress to implement quarter reform of imf. it's always difficult. we try not to blame u.s., but it things makes difficult. because you can't lead economically and politically in this globalized world, only by, to quote joseph nye, by self-power. you need self-power in some regard. i could mention, as a strong pro-europe, pro-atlantic man of government, widely mentioned, i could give you a lot of examples. this aiib -- much favorable

position. we didn't achieve it. what we managed to do is we did it in a closed context. we had a lot of -- actually the finance minister we had a lot of concrete and open discussions. how we can manage what we've joined. always leading in europe, they've been ahead. france italy germany have decided that together, now we have common position for negotiations on the governance and the conditions and all this. but we also communicate -- and we will do it even by this meeting today and tomorrow -- not only to discuss under this

the members which have decided to join, but also our american -- best friends and most important partners -- and also japan and canada. we will try to have common position with australia, to avoid this issue will cause any additional problems in the transatlantic relations. because we have had too much problems. none of the problem has been needed. i didn't see any necessity for any of this problem. but we had too many problems. now, we europeans as well only on the basis of a close corporation. we have kmopcommon values. if we want to work for our common values and want to do it

in the globalized way, 80% of the 7 billion people prefer to live in line with democracy, rule of law, coherence, economic sustainability. all dictators are very nervous. they have much more confidence in our values than themselves sometimes. therefore, i'm quite optimistic it should work with this in mind. what i said, motivation of european people for european integration integration, we must never think what we have achieved is granted for future. that is yet to do. >> the last question i think. >> thank you very much.

mr. german minister i respect a center station of greece, native greek journalist. >> hold the microphone closer. >> yes. i have two questions for you, mr. minister. you know that it can lead to greek media and international greek reports. a lot of the members of the greek government especially in the pre-electoral process, have dehumanized you, as just a representative. you've tried to impose measures in greece. how do you perceive that? what's your reaction? arguments? also, i think the greek people needs a clear answer from you about the potential collectionrrection. do you think it is something which is on the table, if greek government and lenders that does

not reach any agreement in the deal june 30. thank you very much. >> if you are -- if you want to stay in politics and i do it by enthuse enthusiasm for a long time already, you have to know you'll be criticized. if you don't stand by the heat, don't stay in the kitchen. that is quite clear. by the way it's not a privilege of greece, that media writes a lot of nonsense. it's not a privilege of greece. i have -- there are protocols of meetings in germany. as a journalist, you can read all these things. i have said since 2010 on greece, i have always said, in any speech, please, please my fellow countrymen don't make

greek passing. people in greece suffer such more than most people in germany. we have to be -- and we should -- i could tell you even in german media, i wouldn't be pleased. i have not been pleased as a german citizen, and i wouldn't as a greek setcitizen. i have not learned greek language, therefore i can't read greek newspapers. >> [ inaudible statement ]. >> look, i am 27 -- 72 years old. i will not learn a new language. impossible. having said this, i have a personal good relationship with varoufakis. i have never -- and even he didn't ever make a personal offense to me.

not at all. we have different political opinions by sure. but i have a lot of people in germany, even good friends, that have very different political to opinions. so i think -- and i know in campaigning -- political parties, political leaders including myself, tend to say things that if asked later on "i didn't say this really." so no no. of course, therefore, i am not personally in any regard there. the raeleal story is, in the last couple of years, not only in my

own party, for a long time i was seen as a very dangerous man who will be too generous in spending too much money of germany for other people. i have often been recommended by people from the imf that i should be -- as soon as i have friendly discussion with a greek colleague, it will be misunderstood that germany will not support. so that's a normal political view. it doesn't change anything and the problems themselves. once again i have to be very careful. always, media tends to make -- there is no news on the situation on greece. greece, if it wants to get more

money, and in the given broken, you may know the greek prime minister said, we don't want another broker. that's fine. nobody will ask greek to take a program. it's different as a situation. if we will continue to have negative interest rates banks will have to advertise who will take my money? i'll pay something if you'll take my money. that's not the case with greece. we don't want everyone to ask for our money. but if greek wants to get the disbursement of the $1.8 $1.9 million in the given program greece has to deliver what's agreed. if not it's fine. it's up to greece what will happen. if my greek colleague would ask my advice i have a gift. but not publicly. not in this forum. not at all.

it's the decision of the greek government and the elected parliament also to decide what will happen. therefore, you have to ask yanis varoufakis what will happen, not me. >> about the exit from the euro, what's your message to the greek people on that question? >> it's only a decision of greece. >> thank you. our time is up. if i can ask you all please to stay in your seats while the -- so the minister can leave we'd appreciate that. as you know, we have a quick turn around time toian ianyanis varoufakis. if you have a sticker, you have a seat and i recommend you keep it. if not you can go out. if you don't, we'll personally escort you from your seat. thank the minister for his time.

[ applause ] remarks at the brookings institution by the german finance minister, coming up in a half hour, a different view of european monetary policy from the finance minister of greece. expected at 2:45 p.m. eastern time. that'll be live on c-span3. join us later today for remarks by united nations secretary general ban ki-moon. he's expected to speak at the national press club. he will be the sixth u.n. leader to speak at the npc. that'll be live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. that'll be over on our companion network, c-span. we'll head back to the brookings institution to hear from the greek finance minister at 2:45.

while we wait, a conversation about the proposed nuclear agreement with iran and the role of congress. this is from today's "washington journal." >> we want to welcome chris smith, republican from new jersey. he's a member of the foreign house committee and subcommittee focused on human rights in africa. good morning. >> thanks for having me on. >> let's begin with the comments washi of the romanian president and the story from inside the tiatin "washington post," saying he is s. not negotiating with congress. he is negotiating with major powers. >> well -- s ar >> those are hisatin g.words.wh >> there's no doubt thaten obviously, the major powers have been negotiating. when it comes to implementation, the lifting of sanctions, while the president can waive the sanctions, i think bob corker did a tremendous job with limited options on the table. the president has construed this to be an executive agreement and a series of other protocols then fall into place. usually, cuts congress out of

the equation. well, he has ensured senator iew corker that congress will have a role. it will review, as you know, - we we'll have 30 days. he wanted 60 and that's the law that goes back decades, would have prescribed. he got 30 days.the plus, additional days for a total of 52 if the president were to veto a resolution of eople disapproval. it's about the lifting of the sanctions. that's the only piece of this congress will have. secti i think many people forget that when we pass sanctions of every is a stripe, whether it be for human rights, human trafficking, whenever there is a sanctions sident m regime, the president author republican or democrat, almost always has waiver authority. the iranian sanctions that we have imposed, that congress tooksan, the lead on that, republicans in congress but it was bipartisan, have a waiverable or -- they can be waiverd by the president. that's our concern.

that's the achilles heel. if the president -- and we hope he doesn't -- buys into a bad the deal, you might recall that the security council resolutions it that were passed, including he security council resolution 1929, made it very clear there would be no enrichment. f under the framework, enrichment is allowed.ors. unfettered access to inspectors like the iaea inspectors. it's unclear especially with the supreme atoll's statement, that o have they won't be open to instruction. the agreement if one is to be biliti had, has to have unfettered instantaneous capabilities for inspectors to go ascertain rtain whether or not enrichment or in the case of turning a plutonium based bomb in one of the that a reactors that has thatll capability, heavy water reactory. that all of these things are inspected without delay.the

we haven't learned, i don't think, from the 1994 clinton deal. where now we know north korea the st has nuclearat weapons. all the statements were made. they'll never have them we'll never allow a nuclear korean peninsula, and now they have them. the other thing that was left out, or so far is left out, and unlikely to be included in this agreement, it's not in the framework, are ballistic missiles. we know iran is on atererer terror and are working with the north koreans to get the delivery means of a nuclear weapon.be put over times, that means that washington, new york london, name the city could be at risk of a nuclear explosion sent there by the iranians. this is a very serious -- as you just read, congress does have a role, has a profound role to ss. play. the sanctions again, were crafted by congress signed in some cases reluctantly by the i would

president. the sanctions is the only thing that got them to the negotiatingill have table. i would have argued they should have stayed in place longer. and they'll have, by june 30th when this final agreement is rking supposed to be concluded, almost two years to be enhancing and working toward a nuclear ays have capability. time has not been our friend. all of these delays have allowed the zarif -- i actually met with the foreign minister. i said, you're tell me -- the last caller couldn't remember the name -- he called about destroying israel. that it would wipe israel off the face of the map. i don't think that has changed. matter of fact, the supreme ayatollah has said, death to america. we dismiss those rantings. i think they're more than rantings. they show an ugliness of spirit. i said to the foreign minister,

if you really want to your demonstrate to the world that things have changed in iran, cease your ceaseless -- unceasing, i should say, human rights atrocities, the torture, hea the executions, and they're holding americans. i've had two hearings on abedini abedini. frank wolf also had a b hearing when he was a chairman in the er. house. >> he's been held 1,300 days. >> exactly.he their children cry for their he father. he was ad to christian setting up anan orphanage, and he's beenar subjected to torture by the iranians. that's like thenot canary in the coal mine. if you can't treat your people, americans, with herespect and i asked secretary kerry why isn't that part of the negotiation? get the americans out, but also provide relief for the iranians from the faiths that are being just decimated and crushed by the regime.

it's an insight into their soul, as ari country, the leadership not the people. the people are suffering at the hands of their leadership.an >> pick upth on that in a moment.ca let get toll phone calls. anthony is joining us from st. some paul, minnesota. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to make some comments and ask a question of the senator. we have to look back a few years ago when we went into -- and we did saddam. he was bluffing about his nuclear program. s now, the thing about it is that nucle if iran gets a nuclear program, who is going to do the fighting? we've already got young men that have done five, six tours in war zones. you can't allow israel to do it because then you start a bigger problem with all the different arab groups over there. so what, do we have another or tha space for --t what is it -- isil to grow? >> thank you for that question.

let's not forget that saddam hussein deployed chemical weapons. there are different weapons of cal weap destruction. while there were noth nuclear weapons, he used chemical weapons against the kurds and the iranians themselves.means is i think the point, diplomatic means is absolutely preferable t than all others. the sanctions regime, if given more time, again it got the iranians to the negotiating table. i think they have been gaming is the system. again, they will have brought almost two years when the june 30th deadline is reached, to spend the centrifuges to create a capability.onnel in a february report, it was are clear that they did not have access to personnel in certain areas s areas. where they hadth access they said thumbs up.ns that's the game that's often hey played. it was the game playedw byce the

north koreans, where they would allow certain on-site e inspections, but that kind of preclearance ensured that nothing would be ascertained or observed by the inspectors.y' so i'm very concerned. the fact that the russians have already said they're going to sell, you know, now that the framework agreement has been advanced advanced surface-to-air missiles to the iranians. where do you think the surface-to-air missiles are going to be deployed? say then when you have the supreme ayatollah saying -- and the new york times had a story on this, it was everywhere in the news in, no early april -- that the e sanctions have to be lifted immediately upon signing. not whether or not they live up to the agreement. when did that ever happen? secondly -- and that's where senator bob corker's very important legislation will

ensure we get a time frame that is now factored into the final ronal negotiations -- we want to make sure they mean what they're saying. if they mean what they're saying, it'd be great. as ronald reagan said trust and verify. the verify suggests a lack of te trust, of course, but the idea and t is, we want unfettered immediate access, and then the ayatollah says you will not have access to military installations. he is broadcasting to the world, and then a dispute resolution board created by this framework, and ultimately, i believe, if it is, it'll be in the document that might be signed, we'll have a resolution process. more time to delay. more time to hem and hawn, while they're creating a ballistic missile capability like north korea and potential for a bomb. >> we sat down with bob corker ary

of tuesday afternoon for c-span radio, and he said by late morning, the white house and still secretary state kerry tion. threatening to veto the legislation that the senate was working on. by 1:00, the president said he'd sign it.as unani what changed?the abil >> the fact that it was bipartisan and unanimous. the ability to override a is pre presidential veto is there. this president, you know can tally the numbers as can his people, and certainly secretary kerry, former chairman of the foreign relations committee himself, and distinguished have bee center can count. but it should have been an embrace of congressional input. i mean the hearings, the oversightover oversighting that congress does is indispensable to try to improve the deal and hopefully avoid an egrajegiously flawed

deal. rather than a treaty or congressional executive agreement, where we're on board, working side by side with the president -- and i say we, house senate, democrats and republicans alike -- to ensure that there is an existential threat to israel. that's why prime minister ore th netanyahu at the invitation of the speaker, speaker boehner came and presented his case before the congress. of th this is very serious stuff. this country has said they will wipe israel off the face of the earth. now, when they have a nuclear ning t capability, that becomes more achievable by the dictatorship and it is a dictatorship. why are we not listening to what they're saying to their own people? again, death to america from the supreme leader of iran can't be dismissed as, well, he's he d placating a domestic audience. what domestic audience? he doesn't get elected. the hard liners and he are in lock step. they've gamed the system. the

ballistic missiles, part of the security council resolutions 2010 made it clear they needed to be on the table, and they're not in the agreement. enrichment, and that is so frastruc important. th e infrastructure for creating shed a a nuclear bomb remains in tact. maybe frozen, diminished in how much enhancement can take place.ons, w when you justxtapose that can the ayatollah saying you can't look at military installations, where do you think they'll do it?administ wendy sherman was part of the mber a agreement in ll1994 during the clinton administration. i remember all the hearings we ad. had. we said, you know, they're going to get a nuclear bomb unless un there is an enhanced ability to have unfettered access. now, we're getting the same -- it's like a recrisis.lf sta this parallels north korea. existential threat to israel,

but also to the gulf states.nt to >> we have a lot of people who want to talk to you.hele fro i apologize. michelle has been waiting from wisconsin. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my concern is, yes, i am concerned that iraq will get i nuclear power. i don't think that's a good thing. it only -- not only does it threaten the gulf regions over there and everything, but it can also be a threat to us also. i don't think any of those countries over there should have shoul any nucleard powers. it's just too threatening for everyone around and it's just not a good idea. i trust the president, as far as everything else and what he stands for and what he's trying to accomplish but i don't -- i hate to say this, but i don't

think he quite sees the whole picture. as we go back to, again to 9/11 -- >> thank you, michelle. >> she made reference to iraq but meant iran.ng to pr >> she makes a good point.hia/su this is going to ferment an arms race. because of the shia/sunni divide, and obviously the fights that are occurring, not just in . iraq and syria but also now yemen, where there's pitch battles. people are being slaughtered on both sides with christians caught in the middle simply because they're christians. but this arms race with now thetent b saudis, now egypt, as a matter of protection -- remember what ld war kept the peace to some extent between ourselves and the soviet union during the cold war years was the mad theory. mutual assured destruction. if one side attacks the other side or retaliate in kind, nobody wins.

i'm fearful that iran might not it co have theme same inhibitions when it comes to first strike and the use of nuclear weapons, especially given past er, a statements. and iat think i the point about nuclear power, a country that's ons exporting oil in part of the lifting of -- or waiving of some of the sanctions regime was they could export more oil. they've been exporting to countries like china, which i thought was a life net safety hest net, to the iranian regime, even during the toughest imposition of the sanctions. they were selling oil but now selling more.htface an oil-producing country like that, it doesn't pass the straight face test, to say oh they need nuclear energy to power tehran and other cities throughout iran. they have fossil fuels in excess that they export. the ability to divert a ar

peaceful allegedly peaceful pr nuclear program into a weapons to procuring program it's what's led to the world being aghast as what is in the process of ocess happening.ofg. that's why we have negotiations. i think, again, and i can't stress this enough, unfettered e are inspections regime. if we don't have that, we are d perh sowing the seeds of an ominous future for the region and smith perhaps for the united states and europe. >> our. guest is congressman chris smith.d, new 18th term in new jersey. nat from concord new hampshire c good morning. >> caller: hello, representative smith. i followed your career for numerous years last five or sixoes fo terms. i have a brother in the sandbox.tary that's how i want to say it. because of what he does for the military, i don't want to get into that any further. our president asked for a new aim two yoreears ago when he gave af speech at a military academy.rother

p the constitution states that congress has the power of war. my brother puts his life on the ess sh line every day of the ouweek.. i think our government i think our congress should vote on on a thisnd matter. i'm sick of the delays. it should be voted on and should be revoted on every year. i'm with the iran situation.our we listen to rhetoric coming out of our enemies for years. china was our enemy. we shipped all our jobs there. had no problem with that. you know diplomacy will work. as far as israel under an ex existential threatx i realize sentia there are certain things youl can't say in public. threat i'm fully aware of those clauses. israel has a better defense system than aud arabiasaudi arabia. they have a great military. we sold it to them. egypt, israel has a great military.

we've sold and given and i mean given, and given. pr as far as interob continental ballistic missiles we had that problem in the '70s. we spent billions a year on blizicblizgu ic -- baallistic missiles. >> he has a lot of issues on the table. >> thank you very much.re and that i appreciate your well thought out questions and concerns. i would take exception that we have the ability to target and k to destroy incoming icbms. we know when hamas was firing missiles at israel our ability to -- the iron dome the ability to intercept the missiles was very, very effective. but icbms are in a league of their own, in terms of mitigating that threat and the ability to shoot it down. i remember during the reagan administration, when he

announced the brilliant pebbles and ways of trying to mitigate of the threat, and to our defensive non-nuclear ways of shooting such a thing down.e that would include when there is the capability of one missile with multiple re-entry vehicles. bombs going all over the place knowl to different targets. we do to the best of my any kin knowledge, have the ability to stop those incoming in a way that would give any kind of ntries assurance that cities, countries, are safe from baa ballistic missiles. that's why, again, the fact that t even though u.n. skurtecurity council resolutions made clear that baa lizllistic missiles needed to be on the table, they are not in the framework. in terms of china real quick i ti would also -- in 1993 -- i went to china several times. been there on human rights trips

many times.g on c i've held -- i will be holding my 50th congressional hearing on chi ma inna in a couple weeks.ude as the abuse of human rights in in china is almost without magnitude, as well as intensity. without comparison anywhere in the world. xi jinping, the leader of the country, is a dictator. he was not elected by the people. i his ruling clique use executions of christians, buddhists, anyone who gets out of hands labor huma activists. now, when president clinton delinked human rights from most favored nation status on may 26th 1994, if you go to the c-span archives, he did it on a friday afternoon. i had a press conference and c-span covered that press conference. i wasn't the only one, but lity

predicted that we put profits above humanhip rights and the rule of law and the ability of this dictatorship to project power is e all over thexa world which is now what they're doing now, all over africa latin america, and it's a bad governance model of ould h dictatorship and secret police that they're promoting all over the world.- they n what we should have done and can still do because they need , is t united stateo s markets for their ri products, is to ensure that there is linkage to human the rights. how you treat youryou own people isambition how you'll treat other nations. that's the argument, in addition to their nuclear weapons ambition for iran. if they discard the rights of pect a their own people and use torture as a means of state craft domestically, why do we expect any other view when it comes to nations in proximity to them, and the hatred of israel has no

bounds. i israel does notra reciprocate.ce in they don't hate iran.world. they want to live in peace in a difficult neighborhood of the ection world. but we really don't have the capability or the protection. it's a false sense of protections to b that some americans and europeans and others have when it comes to ballistic miss ls. >> boko haram, and the photograph of michelle obama, bring back our girls, over 300 a of kidnapped and boko haram killed over 6,000. controls an area of the country that is of concern. i 1.5 million nigerians have fled their homes. r >> it's a refugee and internally displaced person nightmare. i've been to nigeria twice in i the last 18s th months.ugh? >> is the u.s. doing enough? >> no. for three years, i held several

hearings on this and introduced legislation, on the day we were going to mark it up they changed their position at the tried state department. we tried to get boko haram as a foreign terrorist organization, and it was dismissed that they weren't such a thing. they are now designated. the biggest issue of cooperation with the nigerian government that and we had good luck jonathan ersonnel before is training human rights vetted service personnel in the best tactics. unfortunately, that was zen suspended last december. rather than one battalion, thereo give t ought to be a dozen. i don't know the exact number itary but there needs to be a robust who effort to give the tools to the nigerian military who have been outstanding all over the world. whether it be in the balkans. and i met them during the youwar.

capabilityeable capable, but they need the skill set to take it to boko haram, because they're exploding like al shabaab and the other islamic groups who -- boko haram is now th identified with isis and have expressed solidarity with them. so this is a global islamist effort. the nigerians need our o abc assistance in a big way. >> according to abc news, 8,000 square miles in northern nigeria nigeria, and of the 276 girls kidnapped one year ago, 219 remain in captivity. >> i missed some of the girls i met that escaped while i was there, o as well as here in the united states, the jubilee campaign sold a brought a few of the girls in. they've beenwe traumatized. their friends have been sold as slaves, we believe. nobody knows for sure. young the kidnapping of girls and the slaughter of young men, ols th particularly inat schools particularly schools that teach basic values, like western

education as they call it, are targeted. joini that's why the school ongf girls was targeted. not enough has been done. >> more than 6,000 killed. let's go to jane.ean. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i met mr. smith a few years ago. in arizona with congressman rick. it was in darizona.is i don't know if you remember it. >> i do.76 very well.i >> caller: i'm a disabled vet, try 76 years old. i think the president is trying to do the right thing and keep us out of war. militar god bless america. my son has been in the military 26 years.e he'll be retiring in november. but i think that we need to do something. i think the president is tryingil

to do the right thing. hopefully things will work out. god bless america. thank you, mr. smith.ss >> thank you so much for your service. it's nice to talk to you again. i think, not just the president but the congress, both parties r. absolutely want to keep us out ake di of war.pl we also want to take those diplomatic and sanctions-related efforts and initiatives that een in make that likelihood more that i probable. i have argued -- i've been in r congress now 35 years -- that if you get the human rights piece right in a nation, that country is far less likely to, a, be a dictatorship. they'll have rule of law balance of power, they'll have independent judicial system. their their -- the president in czech

that's what we want to encourage. a matriculation from dictatorship to robustaccommodateing everyone who wanted to listen to you. thank you for coming that share perspectives. you're a well-known phd in economics. many books 15 books. i don't know all of them, but i know the two in particular. the future of the world economy two years ago. a modest proposal for solving the euro crisis. two years ago. you were elected to the parliament in january 2015. i welcome you, very deeply, on the part of brookings, the whole brookings community, the various programs that are hosting you today. it's really all of us, the brookings family. i welcome the minister -- mr.

ambassador. not yet. also personal ipersonally. i can't help saying that i also welcome yanis as a neighbor. okay, it's your floor. then we'll have a discussion. >> thank you. it's with the deepest gratitude that we should thank you for this honor and brifprivilege, to be addressing a fine institution. at the crucial moment when our government is shouldering a momentum task, that of completing successfully, and as soon as humanly possible the current negotiations with our partners, both european and international. the reason i shall be focusing on these negotiations is their global significance. not so because of the risk of

contagious through the circuits that frightened between in 2010 and 2012. but because the outcome of our negotiations, the greek government's negotiations with the institutions, would influs influence influence, i believe, europe's attitude toward a larger problem. located in the fiber of our democracies and within the foundations of our real economies. after all, lest we forget the greek debt drama of 2010 was followed by large sways of europe. its resolution, one way or another, in 2015 now, will surely prove equally influential at the global level. one may be excused to think,

influence by the dominant narrative, that europe is on the mend. it's overcome its crisis. that the combination of large bailout loans and stringent austereity has worked. and only greece has failed to jump on this band wagon towards recovery. for reasons that have to do with our own greek, peculiar failures. the sectors have been complete with malignancies which require extensive and intensive treatment. indeed, the greeks themselves were so incensed by lack of reform, that they even went as far as to elect us, the party of the radical left to lead the

country. nevertheless, greece's chronic malignancies cannot explain the depth and stubbornness of our current crisis. of what has become, sadly, greece's great depression. our seven-year-old and long winter of discontent. to explain this, one needs to cast a critical gaze upon our monetary unions design folds and how they went. they design folds of the uro eurozone went into an unholy alliance with the greek nation's failings to produce the crisis in greek. one that has degenerated into a humanitarian energymergency. and one that has global significance. as i was saying before. now, take a look at the rest of europe. even in nations portrayed as the shining lights the beacons on

the hill what you will find is investment productivity growth and improvement in living standards. they can only be described as dismal even when compared to the american recovery of the last few years. europe's powerhouses, forget greece for a moment europe's power houses, the economies of northern europe, countries turning the corner rely almost exclusively for doing so on building up. either in relation to other eurozone member states this is an intra-european, neighbor. or against the rest of the global economy. a global neighbor, zero-sum game. of the kind that we thought was confined to the distant past

around the conference. the combination of savings in europe, of high public and private debts, of low investment investment, of low interest rates and generalized austerity it's causing europe to address its crisis by exporting it to the rest of the globe. while undermining further the real economy of its own peripheries. periphery of the eurozone and peripheries within the states. quite simply, the current policy is increasingly turning europe into a force that behaves as an exporter of savings, an exporter of deflation. even more simply if china's balance was a problem a few years back think of europe as a graver concern for the global economy. neither of these work well

either for europe or the global economy. and likely as it may sound at first, i submit to you ladies and gentlemen, that the outcome of greece's negotiations with the imf, the europe l central bank the european commission our fellow europeans, the outcome of this negotiation will play a major role in determining whether europe aids or impedes the rest of the world'sests efforts and united states' efforts to put behind them the crash of 2008 and its stubborn repercussions. within this context, context of the global significance of greece's negotiations with european institutions and the imf, our global partners. let me turn to a couple pertinent questions. i'm often asked why are you being so difficult with these negotiations? why can't you just settle it quickly? rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, that our government

is keener than anyone to bring these negotiations to a successful and quick conclusion. and that we certainly do not believe that we have any kind of monopoly on good ideas regarding the kind of reform program which is necessary in our country, and in the rest of the eurozone. the longer these negotiations go on the greater the asphyxiation of our economy and greater the delay of essential reforms. so certainly more eager than anyone else to conclude them. however, the operative words here, a successful conclusion. not yet another version of expanding and pretending. for five years now has been turning a drama into a crisis of global significance. of the extending and pretending that gives greece's debt deflationary spiral yet another.

now, let me share a thought with you. nothing would be easier for me personally, nothing would be easier for my prime minister. knoll would be nothing would be easier for our government than to sign on the dotted line of the existing memorandum of understanding of the existing program. nothing would be -- pledging to do as it says. like previous governments who did, always pledged everything that was asked of them. and in that way to collect $7 billion very quickly, and immediately answer the questions that the good people of the financial press are posing for banks, for us regarding our liquidity situation. except that it would be the wrong thing to do. it would be the wrong thing to do by our creditors, wrong by our partners, wrong by our people. when i say our people, i mean

not just the people of greece, but equally every citizen of every member state of the eurozone. we are one people. why would it have been wrong to add our signature to the logic to the philosophy of the existing pre-existing program? because, ladies and gentlemen, this program constitutes a recipe a treatment that no reasonable person can consider to have been successful. the insistence that we should continue with its logic, philosophy and policies is bound in the medium term to reinforce an image that we need to expand. the image of greece as a bottomless pit. an image that causes much frustration on my fellow global partners while it engulfs our nation in unbearable hopelessness. now, track records matter. and the track record of this program that we inherited from the previous government is a

sorry one. to better phrase, economic consequences of the peace, we're not going to sign up to targets we know our economy cannot meet by means or policies that our partners should not wish to impose upon us. not just for our sake, but for the common european and global interest. ladies and gentlemen, in 2010 the greek state was able to service its debt, while nominal gdp was falling. europe's banking system had become more or less insolvent. the growth prospects of our trading partners were abysmal. the global credit crunch ensured the interest rates would be going up. and how did we deal with this problem as europeans? by means of the largest loan ever of condition. and a program that was bound to

shrink violently incomes to which the old debts would have to be repaid. now, those loans were naturally extended to the greek government in the context of an ability analysis. i don't have a diagram to show to you. i had one but in the end it turned out that we don't have the facility to project it. but if you look at projections of nominal gdp in 2010 made by the imf, again in 2011 again in 2012, and the reality you realize that we're talking about a passive political failure. in any sense and these are heavy words that i'm going to use, greece went from a period before 2008 of abundant growth, of growth fueled by unsustainable borrowing to a period of austerity which is

what i call serious austerity funded by unsustainable borrowing. i'm asked also these days, why did other countries on which the same policy was tried not experience a catastrophic collapse like greece's? the reason ladies and gentlemen, is very simple. they suffered significantly less. we had -- we are the champions of fiscal consolidation. we had more than 11% of a reduction in the debt. this is unprecedented in peacetime. and if you blocked a diagram with fiscal con solidarity and what happened to nominal gdp on the other, you'll find that greece is following a pattern, but a negative pattern.

ourself was so much more than anybody else's. the collapse of national income and all the repercussions that come with that was much greater. in this sense, greece is a classic outlier, having been the first to be bailed out in the eurozone in which, let me remind you in 2010, bailouts were banned. our country ended up an experimental lab in which much improvization occurred. greece took a hit. our own economic failures, i'm insistent on that we took a hit on europe's behalf because of our economic and social failures that made sure we were the first domino to fall, and of course, due to the eurozone's design faults. our particular failures were exacerbated by the hit we took for the team. history will tell the story of how insolvencies in the greek private and public sectors were

pushed under the carpet. portrayed as cases of illiquid illiquidity. history will register this was an abuse of the notion of solidarity. greece was never really bailed out. only 9% of the bailouts, loans that we took over the last few years went to the greek state. the rest went to the banking sector. finally, the historical record will show that the reform program that accompanies the loans was precisely wrong. if one is to rank all the cases of ma liglignancy in greece, from the worst case to the least offensive one, you'll find that the reform program over the last five years started from the bottom, not from the top. and the rest of interest that lurks at the top where they once backing, the government that was pointing moralizing fingers at majority of greeks