gave them a week they put the hammer and sickle on and told their people it was russian wheat, not u.s. wheat. and then reagan took a different tact. every president has that ability. general hayden, let me go through some factual ones. ten years ago, you were in the administration, correct? >> right. >> ten years ago is it true, without disclosing any classified information that iran was behind weapon enhancements in iraq that led to americans dieing on the fields in iraq ten years ago? >> i actually told national security adviser hadley it was a policy of the iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate killing of american and other coalition soldiers. >> 20 years ago, without disclosing any classified information, to your understanding, is it true that iran played a critical part to the u.s. airmen who were killed in saudi arabia? >> that is my understanding. >> 30 years ago -- 32 years ago is it true, that iran through

its precursor to hezbollah took an active hand in the killing of the marines in the barracks in beirut? or had a participation in support of. >> i think that's true, mr. chairman, but i don't have the personal knowledge to give that answer to you with knowledge. >> i chose those questions and i'll summarize, mr. chairman because 308 years ago, they -- iran clearly was promoting activities on the streets of beirut, including kidnapping and so on. this is when they were a five-year-old government. 20 years ago americans died for sure, no small part because of iran's hand. ten years ago, americans were dying. so, when we look at ten years before they get an outright go under this, and their ability to have the materials and the -- to suit their ambition, my only question to all of you, and general hayden, if there's only time for one it would be you, if they were doing this 30 years

ago, including kidnapping on the streets of lebanon, 20 years ago they were killing americans in saudi arabia, 10 years ago americans were dying on the battlefield of iraq, why do we believe that 10 years from now anything will really be different, based on your history and intelligence, general? >> and to bring it only slightly more up to date, chairman, three years ago they were ready to explode an ied in a restaurant in georgetown to kill the saudi ambassador. so, i have faith in behavior change of the government. let me put another way, i have hope, all right? but i don't know we can base policy on that expectation. >> hope is not a strategy. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman issa. we now progress to congresswoman grace ming of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all of our esteemed panelists for being here today. i'll say at the outset that while i'll reserve final judgment on the deal until i am able to read it through completely, i'm deeply concerned and disappointed by what appears

to be in its terms. for the last couple months, i've advocated that we provide the 30,000-pound bunker buster bomb to israel and the planes to deliver them. now we have a deal that neglects in any way to address iran's providing arms and support to terrorists. furthermore, we have a deal to our surprise that will allow for the lifting of the arms embargo against iran. in light of all of this, and the significant deter republicans that would be created by providing israel these weapons, do you support the administration's unwillingness to provide israel with the 30,000-pound bunker buster capability, which is totally outside the four corners of the deal? i would like to hear from anyone. >> i actually support the administration's position on this. obviously, i suspect the security of israel, but i think

in this instance if force has to be used against iran, it should be by the united states. we're much more capable. we would have much more greater legitimacy internationally, given the fact we're leading this coalition and been at the negotiating table. if israel used force against iran, i don't think it would be as effective military and politically it would be difficult for israelis and for us. i would rather see the united states, if we have to use force, to be the one that does it. >> i'm kind of in the same place, congresswoman. if the -- if we empower israelis to do that and if they do that, i think we have given another nation the ability to put us at war. and so i agree with mr. burns. i can draw down one additional layer? a question i genuinely have, and i'll be a little oblique here and not suggest anything behind the screen, it is obviously against our policy that israel conduct an overt strike against the iranian nuclear system.

what are our views and what are we prepared to do if israel attempts covert action against the iranian nuclear program? and what will be our policy prescription and our relationship with israel with regard to that question? >> congresswoman thanks for your statement and your question. i have a different point of view. i think particularly if this agreement announced today is not rejected by congress and goes into effect the willingness of the united states to provide israel with the so-called m.o.p., the big bunker buster, will be part of a necessary strategy to regain the confident of the israelis. frankly, i think it will have -- even though i agree that if military action has to be taken against iran because it's taken a nuclear breakout it's much

more preferable for many reasons that the united states take that action. but i do think if this agreement is not rejected by congress and goes into effect, the willingness of the united states to give the big bunker buster bombs to israel will have a deterrent effect on iran. it will encourage iran to keep the agreement because i think frankly, iran has less confidence that the israelis won't take military action against them than they do that we won't take military action against them. >> one thing to that. if you're looking at this as the safety and security of the region last thing is -- to me, transferring such munitions in aftermath of an agreement that is so deficient, you have to transfer such weaponry is attempting to mitigate the consequences of a deficient

deal. >> thank you congresswoman ming. we now proceed to congressman randy webber of texas. >> thank you. i hope to have some pretty simple questions for you all. do y'all agree that if this agreement goes into effect, that money will ultimately find its way to hezbollah? yes or no? >> yes. >> pretty much all agree that will happen. so, how much of that money is acceptable? $1 million? $5 million? how much? any -- would anybody give us a value? >> well, of course, i'd say none. >> ambassador, you'd say none as well? okay. doctor? okay good. so, ambassador burns, you said that you wished obama's war of

words with israel would stop and that they would make up to use your words. in your estimation which is worse, obama's war of words with israel or iran's hateful rhetoric towards the united states and israel? >> obviously what iranance have done in threatens israel is the problem here. obama is not the problem. >> okay. >> and the difficulties between president obama and prime minister netanyahu are two-sided and they both -- >> i just want to get you on record saying the iranian's rhetoric spewing of hate needs to stop. >> it does. >> there's been talk about if the veto is sustained what would happen. would y'all agree with me if the president said in his remarks this morning that we negotiated from positions strength and power, something to that effect, but would you agree with me that had we gone in there with these seven tenet number one, release our hostages number two, halt enrichment and do away with

centrifuges, give the iaea unfettered 24/7 access no matter time 24/7/365, number four, stop exporting terrorism, make shirr hezbollah doesn't get any of that money number five stop rhetoric toward israel and united states, and number six prove their sincerity of wanting to rejoin the world community by exhibiting this behavior for one or two years or more. would that have been a position of strength for us to negotiate from, senator? >> well, sure. i mean, i think -- again i wasn't there. it's too easy to say this from this perspective, but it felt to me -- look we're a great power. militarily, economically, culturally, every way -- >> let me move on to general hayden. pardon the interruption. general, would that have been a position of strength? >> it would have been a position of strength but the premise of our negotiation was to narrowly focus on the nuclear question. >> ambassador, position of

strength f we required those six items,? >> i'm confident president bush and president obama started there, but that's not how negotiations -- >> they -- john kerry told me himself -- i asked him about the hostage release. they were not going to make that part and parcel of this agreement. >> i was talking about something different. >> okay. i'm talking about all six of these. >> in our conversations with iranians, i am -- all those issues are important. but you can't just insist on what you want. >> well, they -- >> in negotiation -- >> forgive me ambassador, they came to us wanting relief. we didn't go to them wanting relief. doctor, would that have been a position of strength? >> general hayden suggested the premise of these negotiations which resolve the nuclear issue, i do think both president bush and president obama share those concerns regarding iranian sponsorship of terrorism, regarding detaining of the american hostages, regarding other activities. i do think that that is a shared

bipartisan concern. and i think president obama as with president bush actually have fined iranian treatment of our citizens -- >> they're all important. we've heard the saying, talk is cheap. apparently it's not because iranians are getting hundreds of billions of dollars because of their talk. we want action. we want them to demonstrate their willingness. so, here's my question, when we -- if we do override the president's veto, can we come back then and negotiate from a position of strength? >> i would say that i -- i think as general hayden and i think ambassador burns suggested, going back is going to be tough. i'm not suggesting it shouldn't happen under some extraordinary circumstances, deficient agreements should be renegotiating but i don't think we should minimize the impact. i think it can be done but i don't think we should discount the difficulty of it of actually achieving that. >> well, i agree with my colleague, grace ming, that we need to provide israel with a

bunker-buster bomb because that may be the one threat that iran relates to and it may also put us to pressure to help. i'm you the of time. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman webber. we now proceed to congressman of louisiana. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, panel. we know it's getting to ab a long day. i think it's been reiterated a number of times today that we feel this is a much better deal for iran than it is the united states. and really on paper we should have the upper hand in these negotiations. you know, therefore, if it is our goal to truly ensure peace in the region and prevent iran from developing nuclear capabilities, why have we conceded to their demands especially in regard to domestic uranium enrichment? general? >> i asked the same question.

we wanted a deal far more than the iranians did. we have -- i think it's fair to say, and, look i work with nick in the same administration. this is really hard. there were no easy answers. but it does appear to me that we've had a series of concessions in order to keep the iranians still interested in the talks. >> this may be an easy question for you all to answer, but for people listening and watching this hearing why have we not stood our ground and insisted that iran import enriched uranium just as other countries do such as south korea italy, spain, and many other countries? >> i think we moved away from that particular parameter. i suspect quite a while back. maybe even during the bush years. i don't know. the parameter i think we should not have moved from is the position of the united states and the russian federation and people's republic of china in 2013 was that iran should have an enrichment program but only a

symbolic one that would essentially satiate their public diplomacy and public demands but not misused. i don't know why that position was changed in 2013. >> i think it's obvious to most fin anyone, if iran is serious about not obtaining nuclear weapons, that's the claim they're trying to make in exchange for all this money, then they should be able to join 20 or 24 nations that are doing the same thing, importing their enriched uranium. i think we dropped the ball there. it clearly shows iran's intentions aren't peaceful. ambassador burns, do you agree with the president's assessment from april, and to quote him, what is more relevant fear would be that in years 13 14, 15 they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly and the breakout times would be shrunk down to almost zero. can you please clarify that point for me? do you or do you not support the arbitrary sunset in the

agreement? >> i think -- i understood the president saying when he spoke in april about the interim agreement, that when the agreement lapsed in the 10 to 15-year period, naets when the iranians could reconstitute. i think he was talking about beyond the freeze of the first ten years. >> do you think it's a good idea -- do you think they be it's a good idea for iran to have an industrial sized nuclear program? >> no, i don't think it's a good idea. our president and our secretary of state have to operate in the real world of what's possible and not possible. i think this is the best deal that they could have achieved. i suspect it on that basis. but obviously it's going to take a lot to make it work. we've talked a lot about that this morning. >> ambassador, with all due respect, you're probably the only member on the panel that's openly expressing your support for obama's deal. yet in your opening statement, i don't want to put words in your

mouth, but you basically conceded you expect iran to cheat. is that correct? >> i think it's likely that iran will try to cheat at some point. i think that's just an objective statement. but, you know, i support it because i know how having worked on this issue in the bush administration, how difficult and complex it is. i think our national security will be -- will be met and be improved by locking them up in a box, freezing them for ten years. and then, of course any american president, if iran tried to break out towards a nuclear weapon, would have the right and have the capability to stop them through military force. so, i think the president and secretary kerry are to be commended. >> i mean, it looks like to me a case of obama legacy building here, because from all the discussion we've had today, this is not a good deal. you're basically taking a hope and a prayer hoping the next president will be like reagan and be able to do something to stop what this deal sets up. you think they're going to cheat. and, you know, right now chairman royce started this hearing, saying they're going to

take billions of unfrozen assets and immediately use them to build tunnels into israel and give them smart weapons to further endanger israel. do you think that's cheating? >> i think that we're going to have a very tough time implementing this agreement but i also think it's the best for our national security interests. to contain them. i worry that if congress disapproves, votes to disapprove, and then votes to override the president's veto, which the president threatened, it will weaken the united states and weaken our position in the middle east. i worry about that. >> i respectfully disagree. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. we now proceed to congressman of florida. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, gentlemen. i don't know where to start. there are so many conflicting things here. i want to pick up with scott. if the goal of peace -- you

know, if we start from the very beginning when this all started i remember president obama saying, iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, period. 28 times he said that. they will not have it but again we see another red line and disappearing ink. now we're delaying it for ten years. don't think it will be ten years. sitting on this panel over and over again, i've heard experts say iran has enough material to have a nuclear bomb within five six months to a year. that was a year and a half ago. so, i think we've crossed the point of what we tried to negotiate. and then eisenhower said, if the goal is peace -- is a peaceful nuclear program, a civilian nuclear program flourishes only through cooperation and openness secrecy and isolation are typically signs of a nuclear weapons program. and a pessimist who -- this is something i read the other day. a pessimist who doesn't think peace will occur in the middle east is an optimist that has studied middle east history. i think it's pretty obvious what's going on there.

ambassador burns, you were saying that we can't see into the future but you know and it's maybe the iranian people will rise and change this regime. they tried that in 2009. we didn't assist them as senator lieberman said. we have in the past. we let -- do you think if iran gets a nuclear weapon, my estimation is it will be ten years from now we know they detonated a nuclear trigger device, do you think they'll be more allowing their citizens to rise up and have regime change or change their politics? >> well i just answered -- it's a good question. i'd answer it in two points. one is i think it's not at all probable that iran will achieve a nuclear weapon in the next ten years. after that, then i think the calculations change. i think regime change is

desirable. i would like to see a change in the regime to a democratic -- >> it doesn't matter what we think. it's what the iranian -- >> i don't think we have the capacity to produce that change on our own. >> not now we don't. >> there's an old pro verb i read a long time ago. if you want to see one's past, look at their present situation. it tells you what their past efforts were what they invested in, what their habits were. and you were saying we can't predict what's going to go on in iran in the future. if you want to see one's future, look at what they presently will doing, what their investing and their habits. and i see a country that's promoting terrorism shouting death to israel death to america, propping up the syrian regime. i can see their future. and it's not a healthy one. they're going to be more embolden with the nuclear weapons. let's see. i agree with senator lieberman in that you are stating that,

you know this is a bad deal. i said last week, you know being a veterinarian, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. in is a bad deal. we need to walk away from the table and then -- and the reason i say that and correct me if i'm wrong because if we wait and other countries invest into that -- into iran, you know the economic development they're seeking, other countries that go in there the p5, if we wait two or three or four or five years and they have that economic development, what's the likelihood of the snap-back, which is fictitious condition of doing something if we wait five years versus if we walk away from the deal now, saying the sanctions are back in place, we can't sell it to the american people. senator? >> it's going to be harder in three, four five years. of course, i hope that what you've described happens. we walk away. it's clear that the administration's not going to walk away voluntarily.

therefore, the only way that the u.s. walks away is if congress exercises its authority to reject this agreement and then overrides a veto.

for over 30 years. and what i see is an administration that's incompetent on this agreement. and i think iran has done a great job. that prepare for the day they do have a nuclear arm because they're going to have one. we should prepare our allies with that. and we shouldn't delay. >> thank you. congressman deutsche. >> thank you, mr. congress i ask representative luberman ask questions after all members have had an opportunity to participate. >> we have a dilemma that congressman zeldin just came and, is such a gentleman i know he would want to proceed with congressman lee of texas. >> congressman, i would be very

happy to yield to the gentle lady, ms. sheila jackson lee for her remarks and questioning. >> i think our witnesses are going to see the ultimate politeness and courtesy. i'd only say to the chair and ranking member, thank you for your courtesies. if it is appropriate for this member of the committee to go forward, please tell me how i should proceed. i'm more than happy to follow protocol. if given the time, i'll handle it in the appropriate matter. >> congresswoman, the time is yours. >> you are all extremely courteous. so have these patriotic witnesses who come today. serve on the homeland security committee and judiciary committee but i'm adopted daughter of this committee and they have been very kind when i've had the opportunity to come, having worked a lot in the mideast and work with congressman deutch, congressman wilson as well as the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member. let me thank them for their courtesies. let me start both with -- before

i go to senator lieberman who i'm so delighted to see a fellow alum, start with general hayden and mr. burns -- secretary burns, thanking them for their leadership. the first thing we heard as we woke to, for many was a breakthrough, exciting news, but appropriately cautioned because of the many friends we have in the mideast was that this would begin an arms race for our allies sunnis in particular saudi arabia, and i'm going to end and just ask, would you respond to that. the second question is that as we were negotiating i was leaning toward the spontaneous inspection that would come about. i now hear that it's regulated and you're either going to be able to go to bases or not go to bases, which gives me a concern.

but if you would ask -- answer those two questions i guess i want them abbreviated only because i have others and i just didn't want to go on with my questions. and i have other questions. thank you very much. >> with regard to how the sunnis will respond, it is -- i probably don't have the confidence to say, it is inevitable that they will race in the direction of the nuclear infrastructure and nuclear weapon, but it's rather more likely. >> senator burns. and thank you for your engagement of this long process. i understand as i've been here 13 years plus. go ahead secretary. >> i think secretary obama's agreement diminishes the chance that the saudis will try to attain a nuclear weapon. it will give them some reassurance over the next ten years that a iranians won't be a

nuclear power. >> can i follow up with you, secretary burns. i understand the agreement lays out under 15-year scenario, is that too short a period of time before we might see them -- airan moving toward that concept of a nuclear weapon? >> i think i would have preferred an entirely different set of parameters for this negotiation. an entirely different framework. butter it is the framework we just now negotiated. i want to see our country succeed. we all do. and i think there's a chance for success here but it does worry me. i would have seen 20 years, 30 years, rather than 10,fy ask me. >> let me follow up with you. the collective body politic of those who sat around the table having benin gauged directly when secretary clinton was the secretary of state and you were

dispatched to begin these discussions with a period of years, do you take comfort in the individual negotiations that join the united states to be part of the enforcement of this agreement and giving it more strength for peace for all of us? >> congressman, there are a couple people named burns in washington -- >> take the credit. >>. >> he deserves all the credit. >> i saw you looking. i said, it's not the same burns, but i've worked with you for so long -- >> i worked with president clinton and president bush. >> thank you, bill burns. >> we should thank bill burns. >> i do think the choice we had was, and the choice we still have depending on what congress does, is we want to go it alone or do we want to lead a coalition? i think in this respect we're -- in this case we're stronger leading a coalition, keeping the

coalition together using leverage of that coalition to get what we want and to see this deal implemented. i fear congressional disapproval would put us out on our own. we're very powerful but iranians would profit from a breakout of this anti-iran coalition that united states over two administrations has been able to lead. >> as i asked senator lieberman i do not want the iranians to profit. i have worked for a long period of time on camp ashford camp liberty, i think we've seen each other and continue to want to raise this question of protecting my friends who believe in liberty and peace. so, senator lieberman, how would you fix this if you are not seeing this agreement as the way it should be? >> you mean the specific question of iranians as camp liberty? >> no. i am concerned that i don't give iran too much happiness until

they ultimately fix that issue. >> right. >> but on this nonnuclear agreement, how would you move it to a position where you would want it to be? >> well, i -- the most disappointing -- there are two parts of this that bother me. the first part is clear from the framework agreement in april in loezen, is that we were not going to achieve what we originally wanted, the end of the iranian nuclear program in return for the end of sanctions against them. they were going to be -- they were going to promise to freeze for ten years if they keep the promise and then after that we basically legalize their path to being a nuclear power. as i looked at the agreement this morning, with things i hadn't seen before, the most disappointing part of it is the inspection part. it's not anywhere, any time, it's nothing remotely like that. it allows the iranians to object, negotiation goes on with international atomic energy

agency. that takes 14 days. there can be an appeal for seven days. it's not clear there's a real enforcement mechanism. this is the real hole in this agreement. if i had my druthers, that's the part i would dramatically change. >> i'm going to conclude my remarks because this committee has been very courteous to me and simply thank them for extending me this time and say in conclusion that i want congress to take its task seriously and to immerse itself in many different committees judiciary, homeland security, foreign affairs and others in the importance of this agreement and peace in the mideast. i'd finally say i want to thank this committee for its concern of my friends in camp liberty and camp ashford if they're still not where they need to be treated with dignity allowed to get medical care and as we proceed, i think it would be appropriate to continuously

raise these issues with iran, who seems to want legitimacy, world legitimacy and they cannot get world legitimacy by the inhumane treatment, putting aside the nuclear efforts this administration has worked so extensively on. and i want to congratulate president obama for his extensive efforts. if they're going to get world notice for being a country that is in the world arena with dignity for all of its persons then they are not at that place right now, in my mind, because of the horrific treatment of some of their own citizens. particularly those that are fighting for justice and equality and freedom over in camp ashrap and, of course, camp liberty. i thank you for your time. i yield back my time. >> thank you, congresswoman. we now proceed to congressman lee zeldin of new york. >> thank you, congressman. i appreciate you being here and

your service to this country. i know you've been here for a few hours. it's now afternoon and i just want to say thank you as well for being so generous with your time on the committee on such a timely important appearance. i don't need to wait 30 days or 60 days to decide this is a bad deal that's unacceptable deal. it's okay to be open-minded. it doesn't mean a rimplt to be open-minded means we're naive. it's a bad deal. i think about -- i have an important question for you. you worked for presidents. just a tremendous amount of generations of administrations over the course of your course in government. the next president comes in. republican, democrat, doesn't matter. that person decides that something that wasn't even part of these negotiations they are motivated to tackle. briefly recapping some of the stuff that weren't even part of the negotiations.

iran overthrowing foreign governments, sponsoring terror developing icbms unjustly imprisoning united states citizen, including a pastor, a reporter, a united states marine, developing -- well pledging to wipe israel off the map, chanting death to americans on the streets. we're not giving it to them with strings attached they can't use the money to continue to finance terror. i mean, these people have blood on their hands from u.s. service members who have been killed in iraq and afghanistan. all this wasn't even part of the negotiations. so president comes into office, january 2017 god forbid any of these u.s. citizens are still being imprisoned, or they decide we need to stop allowing them to overthrow governments, cut off hezbollah, whatever the scenario the next president is motivated f we give away all of niecethese

sanctions right now tactically what are the options left? what is the impact of this deal on that motivation to tackle all of the other actions we have an issue with? >> couldn't actually mix it up with them and really get in there and work with them and try to move them and leverage them. we've got that now. now, the obama administration made a tactical decision is that for the life of these nuclear talks, they didn't want to introduce any other issues. you can argue pro or con whether that was the right issue. we do have the capacity to talk to them now. secretary kerry is in a relationship of sorts, professional relationship with the prime minister. i wouldn't wait until the next president. i think the obama administration should take on the hostage issue and terrorism issue and the

regional issue and try to do what we can to -- >> what's the -- >> -- to motivate the iran yas to change their position. it's going to be tough. >> iranians they aren't negotiating with us because they're good actor, good world citizens. these are bad people blowing up mock u.s. warships. fighting with houty and yemen and others against us. what is the leverage to actually -- other than to say, you know, for obama to, you know, to go back, you know, a few months from now or secretary kerry to go over and say, you know, pretty please, can you stop overthrow foreign governments, what's the actual leverage that's left other than asking nicely? >> i'm not sure i'd ask nicely. but i think the actual leverage is to strengthen our military relationship with the gcc countries, saudis and others, to contain iranian power in the gulf, to close ranks with israel, strengthen that relationship, and make it difficult for the iranians to do

what they're doing in the middle east. >> why would the iranians do anything that i just said if what they want, we're just giving them right now with this deal? in my opinion, the president of the united states should be sitting down at the table with a strong hand inheriting all that good will of generations of americans who have fought and died for this country to keep us free and safe and with that good will and american exceptionalism say, this is everything that we want in exchange for $50 billion plus of sanctions relief, but all this stuff was left out. i guess, what do we have to give the iranians now that the sanction relief -- if the sanction relief was met, what do we have to give the iranians as leverage to give them what they want out of us? >> the decision the obama administration made was to focus on the nuclear issue as the greatest ask immediate danger. i think that was a correct decision. now that that is under way and you have an agreement that hopefully will be implemented

we're going to have to build up our power and our coalitions against iran. it's not about giving them something they want. it's about outmuscling them and outpowering them through containment regimes. that's what the united states has traditionally done going back to the carter administration. when we said the persian gulf is of vital concern to the united states, we should say it again to warn the iranians about military activities, for instance, in that area. >> and my time running short here. i appreciate that. i think that for the life of the obama administration or at least this particular moment in time, no one in the entire world, whether it is within the united states or the middle east or elsewhere believe, if the president says that the military option is on the table that he would actually do it. we saw what happened with syria, consequences for using chemical warfare. they used chemical weapons and nothing ended up happening. the president says the only alternative to whatever he agreed was war. the irony is this deal will

result in more instability in the middle east and cause, you know, a nuclear arms race to some degree in that region as well. i'm just concerned that the president has negotiated away that leverage that brought the iranians to the table in the first place. america got played. and the president was complacent party to it. now, the american congress should have the final say. not the president with a stroke of a pen. the announcement this more than made it the white house that was -- it was filled with falsehoods like 24/7, any time anywhere inspections that aren't real. i really do appreciate all of you being here. i'm just concerned about the future of our relations and i'm sorry, general hayden -- >> one additional thought. maybe a little more aggressive than what nick just suggested. you know live by executive order, die by executive order. you are not going to lift these sanctions. the president is going to use his authority within your legislation to lift sanctions based upon his executive decision. a future executive can reverse those decisions.

>> i'm just concerned that when you get rid of sanctions that take eight years to put into place and then you talk about snap-back sanctions when you're working with foreign governments and foreign entities it's very difficult to just snap them back into place. >> no, it is. but with regard to our national sanctions, you're not going to repeal the law. that's -- i think that's very clear. and so we will ease those sanctions based upon the will of the executive, which can be changed. >> and i appreciate the general's remarks. and i would encourage my colleagues, in the spirit of that discussion of what power congress has or hasn't or what power the american public has or hasn't, that we do not accept defeat, that we do not accept a bad deal with iran because of the consequences. but i absolutely appreciate the general's remarks and the ambassador and everyone else for being here. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, chairman, for being generous. >> thank you congressman zeldin, and thank you for your military service for our country, too. god bless you. we proceed with congressman ron

de santos of florida. >> thank you, chairman. thank you to the witnesses. we kind of puff, take hearings, take meaningless votes about frivolous issues. this is a big vote and big issue and congress neetdz to stand up and dot right thing for the american people. in my judgment, that's stop this deal. i think it's bad for the country. i think it's bad for national security. when i was in iraq back in '07-'08, the number one cause of death was not even al qaeda and iraq at time. it was iran. the quds forces and shiite militia they funded. i'm looking through this deal and i notice they're actually relieving sanctions on quds forces and on request sam soleimani. is the regime going to change? well, i just looked on friday july 10th. the regime sponsoring the protest death to america death to israel, on quds day. i think that the agreement

really enhances iran's power in the region. i think they're going to emerge from this unquestionably the dominant actor in the middle east. and we've seen their authority grow over the course of this administration, i think it's actually good for isis because in a place like al anbar province, wri served if the choice is between an iraqi government that's backed by a shiite power and shiite militias or isis which is at least a sunni arab group a lot of those folks who aren't bad people, they're more apt to side with isis than to side with the central government of iraq. so, the fear is is that with u.s. policy tilting so far in the direction of this dominant shiite power, that i think you're going to see more recruits now flood into isis. so, we may be killing some of them. there's going to be folks who are going to replenish it. the verification, as i read it, is a joke pipts not any time we want to go in. there's a committee. they do this -- by the sometime you actually wanted to see things, the offending conduct could be concealed.

and i think this really turns our back on israel, our most trusted ally in the region. this is a country is that iran boasts as a one-bomb country. they bomb -- they boast that they want to wipe them off the map. and i think the relationship that this administration's had with the israeli government has been a disaster. and i don't think this is the way you treat an ally. let me ask you this ambassador burns, i think you did as good a job -- as anyone i've heard of justifying your position. what would be the reason to remove sanctions off of qassem soleimani and the iranian revolutionary guard force? >> it's an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, isn't it? >> i don't understand -- >> it's because of how the negotiations were constructed. >> so it's just a concession really having nothing do with the nuke program, or does it have -- because on the one hand we're told iran never had military uses for this but yet

we're removing sanctions off folks who are very key players in iran's military complex. so the question is is there a relationship there or is this a totally unrelated concession about relieving sanctions off people who are involved in terrorism? we have been told from administration witness after administration witness sitting right where you are, that they didn't want to discuss terrorism. they only wanted to focus on the nuclear negotiations. so it's very, very odd to me that that would be in there, and particularly just so because of the blood that they have -- the american blood that they have on their hands. >> right. and i think the agreement announced this morning is framed such that all the sanctions that were passed against iran and the security council and in other places, executive orders are going to be lifted. whether nair about directly the nuclear program or not. so, is it a problem that the iranian revolutionary guard's corps might have more money available to them? yes, it's a problem. it's part of -- when i testified earlier, congressman, i just said i support this. i think on balance it's the

right decision for the united states. but there are risks here and there are tradeoffs. some of them are very difficult to digest. that's one of them. >> senator lieberman, this influx of cash to the regime, is there any doubt in your mind that some of those proceeds are going to be used to fund the iranian terror network? >> none at all. it would be -- it's hard to conceive of a situation where that doesn't happen. how much is spent is up to, obviously, the iranian authorities. the other thing i mentioned briefly before you were here congressman, is that a lot of the rest of the money may go for domestic purposes, but it will be used to strengthen the position of the current radical regime in tehran and to essentially undercut the popular opposition that is there. >> and getting the cash, is that going to cause the regime to change their militant islamic ideology in your judgment? >> getting -- >> the fact they're getting

these concessions. i guess the hope is maybe they'll chapg. will there be any chance -- are you willing to bet they're change their islamic ideology? >> i would bet they're not, and the agreement strengthens their hand. as you've said, and as ambassador burns said, tough choices in the negotiation, but basically the negotiation did focus on the nuclear program that they have. and it's -- and it's not that we accepted all the terrible things that they do but implicitly it was off the table. now, congress does have a troll play here in the months ahead which is to come back. and the administration, too, really, to strengthen sanctions based on human rights, support of terrorism -- their treatment of the people in camp liberty which is horrendous, so that right now, i think, this message is not only did they get a good deal on the nuclear agreement,

but their basically free to do whatever they to want do in every other part of their radical program. >> thanks. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. thank you, too, for your military service. we have one final follow-up from congressman deutch for ambassador purnz. >> thank you, chairman. ambassador burns, i want to follow up on that last point. since there's -- it's a very big agreement we're going to be sorting through. but your assessment is that all of the sanctions on the irgc are being lifted as part of this. i just want to make sure i understood correctly what you said. >> and my response to mr. de san tis' question i said the framework of this agreement is many of the sanctions passed under varying authorities security council, are being lifted as part of the overall agreement. it's a lot of -- it's a -- there are multiple types of sanctions in here. that was my answer. >> okay. i appreciate that. i yield back. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as we conclude, i want to thank each of you for being here

today. your insight has been very helpful. we're certainly concerned for the security of the american families. and you have expressed that. and you can see it's bipartisan the level of concern and participation. i'm very, very grateful for everyone participating today. i know that many of us are just so hopeful for democratic change, actually in iran. with that, we are now adjourned.

. . .

president obama announced the nuclear agreement with iran this morning at the white house. here's what he had to say to congress. >> i welcome a robust debate in congress on this issue, and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control agreements with the soviet union when that nation was committed to our destruction.

and those agreements ultimately made us safer. i am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies. so i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. we do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict. and we certainly shouldn't seek it. and precisely because the stakes are so high this is not the time for politics or posturing. tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-nose diplomacy, leadership that has united the world's major powers offers a more effective way to verify that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. >> house speaker john boehner issued a statement today on the iran nuclear agreement saying, quote, president obama's deal will hand iran billions in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a

breakout threshold to produce a nuclear bomb all without cheating. and from house minority leader nancy pelosi, quote, aggressive restrictions and inspections offer the best long-term plan to stop iran from building a nuclear weapon. congress will closely review the details of this agreement. and later today here on c-span 3, the house foreign affairs subcommittee on europe with a hearing on the future of the european union and its relationship with the united states. that starts at 2:00 eastern. we'll have it live here on c-span 3. >> when congress is in session, c-span 3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings, news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend, it's american history tv traveling to historic sites discussions with authors and historians. and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span 3, coverage of congress, and american history tv.

>> i guess representative mike pompeio. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> when it comes to this deal you put out a tweet which essentially or basically says the iran deal was a historic mistake, it's time for congress to step up. why is it a mistake? >> this is a surrender. this isn't foreign policy. while we don't know the exact details of what is in the deal, we know that the iranians will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium. we know that the restrictions on the capacity continue to build up. missile development are temporary. and i'm confident when we see the details of the verification regime, we'll find that's a joke. this is serious business. the iranians are the world's largest state sponsor of terror. and our president struck a deal that will allow them to have $50 million or $100 billion of

signing bonus. we our president just handed them $50 billion to $100 billion. this is a historic mistake and time for congress to take the appropriate role and respond by killing this deal and voting disapproval here in the coming 60 days. >> our previous guests talked about the verification regime said it was a very intense one. you don't agree with it. why not? >> there's a long history of verification failing. when you have a determined foe. a foe that says every day, i want to destroy the great satan kill israel. these are people intent on the destruction of the west. to think that they wouldn't be capable of hiding something from us, history has shown that they will. and it's not enough to say we're going to work really hard. i've heard the administration say, gosh, we've worked on this deal for a long time. and now they say, we're going to do these deep inspections. it's not enough to work hard. it's about outcomes. and the outcome, if the iranians are as determined as they indicate they are. and there's no reason to believe they're joshing us, we will find that the verification regime fails to do what this president

has told and promised the american people it will do. >> the sanctions relief that will happen if certain -- if certain qualifications are met. what do you think about that? do you think iran could hold up to those qualifications? >> they have been avoiding the rules of the game for decades. they took american hostages in 1979. they killed friends of mine in iraq. just years ago. by building ieds. these are people intent on the destruction of the west who think they're going to play by a set of rules that the west imposes on them is ludicrous. and so i'm confident that congress will take a good look at this agreement make good decisions. we won't fall prey to the straw man argument that the administration is pushing that there are just two options, a deal or war. that's a fallacy. lots of options besides those two. and we'll get it right. we'll disapprove this deal. we'll do a good turn for the israeli people, the american people. and, frankly, i will tell you, the iranian people will benefit

greatly, too, if we kill this deal. today, the regime the ayatollah will gain power, the quds force will gain power and the iranian people will be harmed. >> and if it's not a deal or war, what are the other options, then, that could be considered? >> oh, scores of options. we had great sanctions. in fact, we put in great sanctions over the opposition of president obama and former secretary clinton. they didn't want these sanctions. we put these sanctions in place, and they were on death's doorstep in the iranian economy. we had them exactly where we needed them. and then we let our foot off the pedal. we entered into a set of discussions releasing the sanctions, allowing the economy to limp along for the last 20 months, and now we're going to give them the fuel and power to continue to extend the terror network throughout the world. there are lots of options besides just this deal. a good deal was possible to be had had we not decided that the iranians were going to be our friends and that we could do business with a regime that continues to this day to shout

death to america. >> questions for our guests. you can call in one of three lines for democrats, 202-748-8000. and for independents 202-748-8002. where is house leadership on this deal? >> i haven't seen anything this morning. but over the last months, speaker boehner mr. mccarthy, have all made clear that a deal that had what apeers peerappears to be the outlines of this deal. >> as a member of the intelligence committee, will you have a hearing on this deal? >> multiple hearings. we've already had a number as in the ramp-up. and it's where -- it's what we're seeing. we've seen this administration continually refuse to acknowledge that the iranians continue to spread terror throughout the world and think they can deal with these folks. that somehow sitting down at a table and spending months is victory. they measured not outcomes, but hard work and simply wasn't enough. they didn't get what america needed in this deal. >> first call is from steve in indiana.

go ahead, please. you're on with our guest, mike pompeyo. >> caller: good morning gentlemen. can you hear me? >> yeah. go ahead. >> caller: okay. yeah. the gentleman here made his opinion. he already admitted his opinion for the president and come out this morning and said, what's going on. he's a republican. he's got no answers. we made deals, talked about negotiations with the russians in the '80s. i mean you've got to deal with your enemies. i can't believe you're risking a big thing like this because of the political. that's all this is. it's political. and you're a part of the intelligence? we're in bad shape. >> sir, this isn't political at all. this is about your safety, the safety of your children. i'm sure you have friends, cousins, family members who are serving in america's armed forces today. they will be less safe as a result of this deal. this isn't about who's the

president or which party. this is about good decision making for america. we're now going to hand $100 billion to the world's largest state-sponsored terror and expect they're not going to use it to kill americans. we can do better than this. i don't think i've heard a single person in the months that this negotiation's been going on talk about going to war with iran. i've heard folks say we have a solution to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists. and folks who chant "death to america. we can do that. and i'm confident that congress will get it right and help this by the way democrats and republicans will get this right. and we will convince this president to go back and get a deal that makes sense for america. >> pittsburgh, pennsylvania. herman, you are next. democrats' line. hello. >> yes. good morning. >> good morning, sir. >> i like to know if this isn't a good deal, what is a good deal? what would you suggest? and what is the alternative?

>> yes, sir. great question. there's half dozen thing a good deal would contain. the first thing it would contain is prevent iran from enriching uranium. and i've heard some folks say -- >> and we're going to break away from the rest of this "washington journal" segment. you can watch it on c-span.org. take you live to capitol hill to the house foreign affairs subcommittee on europe. holding a hearing on the future of the european union and its relationship with the united states. congressman, backer of california, chairing the hearing. you can see the congressman there. live coverage now on c-span 3. >> 5 1/2 decades on, the european union has expanded to include 28 national governments, and represents over 500 million people. taken together, the gdp of the eu is over $18 trillion, one of the largest global economies. the historical forces, which promoted the european

integration after world war ii helped to make that continent more peaceful and more prosperous. the european union and the liberal values it embodies helped numerous post communist, eastern european countries make the transition from their socialist communist economies to a market economy. the fact that new countries continue to seek membership shows that the fundamental values of the eu are the right ones and continue to be attractive. despite this, however, the future of the european union and the entire project of european integration has arguably never seemed so much in doubt. the eu has expanded to include economies of all sizes, countries and different cultures, and sometimes conflicting national interests. this has led many to rightfully ask, has the eu become too large

to manage? must more authority continue to be seated to brussels in order to prevent dysfunction? while the negotiable agreement reached by the greek government yesterday appears to keep greece in the eurozone for the time being the crisis there is far from over. greece's economy has shrunk by a quarter, and youth unemployment is 50%. and i hope the implementation of this latest agreement, which we saw yesterday will set greece on a better path. but, given the experiences of the past five years i am certainly less than optimistic. so let me just note in 1953, germany received a massive debt relief from its creditors. i can't help but wonder if

greece received the same treatment two or three or four years ago. would we still be in this crisis moment that we see in greece today? if questions about the integrity of the eurozone weren't enough the authority and legitimacy of the eu is also being challenged from within. the popularity of the -- of basically euro skeptic political parties has increased, and they are pushing back against the centralized power in brussels. and last year's european parliamentary election, over a quarter of the seats were claimed by euro skeptics and euro skeptic parties. in 2016, 2017. great britain, will hold an in or out referendum over the question of remaining in the european union.

in the face of a major fiscal question and increasing doubts among the citizens of europe what then is the future of the eu? have the influences which historically drove integration now, are they driving people apart rather than bringing them together? or is the answer to these difficulties to double down and to deepen the union to an even greater degree? before we go on, let me just note, i think, the greek crisis has an important lesson for our own country. a government can live beyond its means and live well on deficit spending. but not forever. and i hope lawmakers here in washington not just in the european capitals have taken note of that fact. so with that said, i'm looking forward to our witnesses.

and i will turn now to the ranking member, mr. meeks. and then i will introduce the witnesses. mr. meeks you may proceed. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you for working with -- and putting this hearing together. to provide us with an opportunity to openly examine current events in europe and how they will shape european union's future. the future, it seems, is becoming the present quickly. for many of us who work on europe and related events, events have come into sharp focus. the issues being sorted out are not new, however. the united kingdom has always had a special relationship with the continental europe. the greek economy did not begin to show troubling signs yesterday, and the rise of extremist parties is not something new to europe. the question therefore, is this. are we seeing a restructuring of the political system?

or is this simply a necessary crack along the path to a more peaceful and united europe? a prime example in the situation in greece. this process is a reminder that the union is, indeed a process and a club that demands cooperation, solidarity and compromise. it is moments like what we have witnessed over this past weekend and into the early morning of yesterday that tests the union. i'm encouraged by the fact that the parties came to an agreement for now and wish to see that the greek parliament make the necessary decisions in the upcoming days. hopefully in the future, such crises can be stemmed earlier in the game and not lead to brink manship involving high stakes. you know, i just returned from a

trip from latvia where i discussed these issues with political leaders, their foreign minister citizens and as well as with members of the european parliament. they clearly see the benefits of a successful european union and an american presence on the continent. during the cold war, they lived on the other side under a regime that did not allow them the freedoms and prosperity they have today. in latvia, i also shared a meal with a young -- with young american soldiers. some who happen to come from my state of new york, that represent our friendship and common values with europe. on the ground in people's lives, the future of europe depends upon our friends across the atlantic. a united europe represents american ideals along with european ideals and commerce and liberty and security that can lift standards all over the world.

i believe by working together, we can ensure success. we understand the difficulties in a more perfect union and still trying to move that direction. but let us take a step back to define our important relationship with europe and the european union. it's a peace project firmly aligned with american interests and designed to promote liberal, democratic ideals while working for the global common good. such a project may seem lofty. but in practice, it sets a framework to facilitate the free movement of people, commercial goods, finance and ideas. this consists of allies and, of course, no road map for constructing the eu. whether or not these mistakes could have been avoided is irrelevant at this time. as we work together to iron out

the remaining wrinkles and the -- in the european union working with them. in our country we are still perfecting our system of government and cooperation between the state and federal levels. despite the difficulties of such an ambitious european union, the will to do that is there. despite the pain of reforms, the overwhelming majority of greek citizens want to remain in the european union. we'll find out what citizens of the united kingdom think of their membership soon also. the internal affairs of the eu must be resolved so the integrity of the union can continue to sustain its purposes. with that, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses as we talk more because we have all kinds of scenarios, we talk about isis in china, we've got to work together with our allies across the atlantic. i think that's tremendously important. there's plenty to do.

>> thank you very much, mr. meeks, and do you have a an opening statement? zbl >> i want to hear what the witnesses have to say. >> how about you, colonel? >> i just have a brief statement, since there's so much talk about greece. some of my questions -- my big concern. and russia, which has been using oil and gas to control europe. this is something that is not new. and, of course, if you look at the history and the cultural and historical ties, the byzantine

empire, if you will, going back many years, that relationship kind of scares me. particularly with the offer to help out the greek economy. and that could drive a wedge between greece, of course, and everything that's going on. and they might reorient themselves to russia. and so my questions when we do get there will be oriented towards that as i've said. i'm very, very concerned about that. and as not just the eu but it's going to dwell into, of course, nato. so, thank you very much for being here today. i'm glad you had this hearing. >> thank you very much, colonel. and we have three witnesses with us today. i'm asking -- would ask each of them to try to sort of put it all down in about five minutes

if you could. and the rest, you can submit for the record. but try to pick out the points that you really think are the most important for us to discuss. and then we will have as i say, a dialogue afterwards. our friend from alabama, mr. brooks, do you have an opening statement at all you'd like to make? all right. with that said, let me introduce our witnesses, dr. john mccormick is the professor of european union politics at indianapolis campus of indiana university. and he has authored over a dozen books and numerous journal articles. he was educated rhode island university in south africa. and the university of college in london. all right. and we have with us steven walt the robert and renee ballfour

professor at harvard's john f. kennedy school of government. and he's a contributing editor to foreign policy magazine and has authored four books on the international affairs including the "new york times" best seller. and finally, we have with us dr. jacob, and is a senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics. previously, he worked with the danish ministry of defense, and the united nations in iraq. he studied at columbia university received a ph.d. from john hopkins university. so we have three very prominent witnesses and people who are not only respected in the education but in the foreign affairs, as well. so we would be very appreciative of hearing what you have to say. dr. mccormick, you may begin. >> well, good afternoon.

and thank you very much for inviting me to this very topical hearing. my name is john mccormick, i'm a professor of political science at the indianapolis campus of indiana university. and i've been studying teaching and writing about the european union and its precursors for about 25 years. in that time, the last decade without question has been the most challenging and the most troubled. beginning with the rejection of the constitutional treaty in 2005 moving through the global financial crisis that began in 2007. the eurozone crisis that began in 2009. the background of a growing popular reaction against european integration. the cynicism about the european union and the capacity to play a meaningful role in the world. regardless of all of this, i remain the eternal optimist and believe in the longer term achievements of the european union. for example, the european single

market, and the many benefits. the role of integration and helping keep europe at peace. the slow building of a paneuropean identity the promotion of democracy and free markets both at home and abroad. and everything from a cleaner environment to greater mobility for college students to cross border police cooperation, common policies on trade and competition. so we're here today to talk about the future of the european union. but doing so is particularly difficult because of the nature of the raw material that we have to work with. and there were two particular problems that present themselves. first of all, we cannot agree on the political identity and personality of the european union. it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation about the future prospects when we don't know what it is. nobody has offered a definition that can help us sort through these complexities. and when i'm asked to answer the question, what is the european

union, my answer is the confederal system with federal entities. and unfortunately that always dpands subsidiary conversation about what exactly i mean. and it's not one in which many of my peers would any way agree. much about the effects of the integration is diverted by misunderstandings about the power and the reach of the european union. its powers are -- critics routinely overstate the powers of the institutions. they routinely overstate the extent to which the laws of the member states are driven by the requirements of the european union law. and they often choose to focus more on -- i was asked to comment specifically on three

matters. and while i've done so in my written statement, i will provide a brief summary here. with the design and implementation of the euro, and how best to respond to the crisis. and yet. i do believe that the crisis will be resolved and all parties will adapt to the outcome and we will learn and move on. both politically and economically. membership of the eu and here i am on firmer ground. i predict firmly that the british people will vote to remain part of the european union. why? because the majority in favor of staying has been growing.

pledged to negotiate reforms of the european union that may result in a further reduction in support for leaving. and we should also remember that the referendum is ultimately an effort to resolve a disagreement within the governing conservative party. and we should assess it as such. finally, there's the question of the electoral success of political parties. it is true they are attracting more support, but this is as much because of criticism because of the political establishment in europe as also much about concerns about immigration as it is because of criticism of the european union. some of the adherence wish to see them leave the european union, many seek reform of the european union. in conclusion, i would argue that the successes of the eu far

outweigh its failures that the governments of the member states will continue to work hard in the interests of european integration and that the eu will weather the current storms and emerge bruised but wiser. thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to speak to you. >> thank you, dr. mccormick. >> mr. chairman ranking member meeks and members of the committee, it's an honor to speak with you today at this uncertain moment in european history. and given europe's importance to the united states, trying to anticipate its future path is a critical task. it's hard to be optimistic however, about the eu's prospects. it has been a positive force in world politics for many years. but it suffers from growing tensions and self-inflicted wounds. it's likely to experience repeated crises and growing divisions and we cannot rule out a gradual decline. because a prosperous and tranquil europe is in our interest, this is not good news for the united states. as we've just heard, the

european union is in many ways a remarkable political achievement. despite the past accomplishments, it faces five fundamental challenges, none easy to overcome. first, it's a victim of its past success. what began as a limited arrangement among six countries has become an elaborate super national organization of 28 members. germany's gdp is 300 times larger the per capita income is eight times higher than latvia's, five times higher than greece. the size population and economic resources of these states varies enormously as do their cultures and national histories. the expansion has made the eu more cumbersome and less popular. two years ago more than 70% of eu citizens believed, quote, their voices do not count in eu decision making. nearly 2/3 believed quote, the eu does not understand the needs of its citizens.

second, although the disappearance of the soviet union was a welcome development, it removed one of the main motivations for european unity. since then, eu members have repeatedly pledged to develop a common foreign and security policy, but they have never done so. today, the incoherent european response to events in ukraine highlights the lack of consensus on basic security issues. the third problem facing the eu today, of course, is the eurocrisis. seven years have past since the crisis hit and the eu lacks needed to sustain a genuine currency union. if greece eventually exits its departure will demonstrate the euro is not irreversible. if greece stays in another crisis is probably inevitable. even worse, the crisis has shown deep divisions within the continent with debtors and creditors exhibiting a level of resentment and hostility not seen for many years.

needless to say, this is not what the euro's creators had in mind when they took that fateful step. fourth, the eu is now buffeted by serious regional turmoil. state failures in africa and the middle east have produced a flood of refugees. extremist movements like al qaeda have had worrisome repercussions among some of the population. the conflict in ukraine raises new concerns about the eastern frontier. the eu has been unable to agree on new measures to address any of these challenges, further underscoring its dysfunctional decision making. the final challenge is the persistence of nationalism. the elites who built the eu hoped it would transcend existing loyalties. this has not occurred. indeed, the united kingdom may vote to leave the eu next year, scotland may exit the united kingdom and continue to simmer in cath lone ya and elsewhere. economic hardship and rising concerns about immigration are

reenforcing the emergence of skeptic parties that reject the basic ideas on which the eu is built. and you add to that mix europe's unfavorable demography. the population is declining and the median age is rising rapidly and you have a recipe for continued economic stagnation which will of course, encourage the prospects of some of these nationalist parties. looking ahead you can imagine at least three possible futures for the eu. first, in theory bold leadership could build the institutions needed to support the euro. that's unlikely no european leaders today have the vision and stature serious reforms would take years to implement given the eu's elaborate machinery. instead of a union, therefore, the eu is more likely to simply muddle through. it will try to contain the fallout from the euro crisis hope new trade deals with the united states and china will

provide an economic boost. in this scenario, the eu survives but its global influence declines. but there's a third possibility, the entire experiment could begin to unravel. a greek exit would set a dangerous precedent nationalist sediments could deepen greece or hungary might draw closer to moscow. and once that process begins the only question would be how far and how fast will it go? lastly, both muddling through or a gradual unraveling would be bad news for the united states, slow growth in europe means slow growth here in the united states. weaker erer europe will be useful as the united states tries to deal with a rising china or turbulent middle east. since the end of world war ii stability and prosperity in europe have been a great benefit to the united states. and the eu has been a key ingredient in a world order that was very favorable for the united states. but if the eu's best days are

behind it, americans will have to prepare for a world that is less stable, less secure less prosperous than the one to which we've become accustomed. i hope that is not the case but that is the most likely outcome given where we are today. thank you very much. >> well, we've heard from the optimist and the pessimist. and now, do you have a fusion position for us, doctor? >> ranking member meeks members of the committee. it's a pleasure to testify before you today. in my oral testimony, i will address three impacts on the european union's future. first, from the greek sovereign debt crisis, and then from the united -- just coming referendum on eu membership. and finally, on the growing electoral success of euro skeptic parties. the greek sovereign debt crisis is first and foremost a crisis for the euro area. relative to existing pan eu institution, recent developments have essentially cemented the existence of a multi-speed

europe where countries have undertaken dramatic new integration while other member states remaining outside the common currency are only affected to a limited degree. recalling, however that this multi-speed situation has been de facto present in the eu for many decades, there's no obvious reason to fear that the existing eu institutions cannot continue to cope with this situation or so going forward. recent events over the weekend saw a dramatic escalation in the confrontation between the greek government and the rest of the euro area. negotiations took place with a major taboo in the euro area politics the possible exit of a member state from the common currency broken and for the first time faced this political calamity for greece. he subsequently in my opinion quite understandably folded his position. the decision, however, by the euro area to make the possibility of exit from the common currency and explicit and

obviously very effective negotiating tool will have changed the nature of the euro currency itself. given the willingness of top euro area political leaders to use this exit threat, the irreversibility of the common currency in all member states is today less certain and subject to a higher degree of political uncertainty. this will have significantly increased the political and financial onus to agree to integration of the euro area in the short to medium term. recent events in greece, therefore, can be expected to lead to an accelerated further accelerated integration of the euro area it's highly unlikely to lead to material and institutional changes for the simple reason that the referendum is overwhelmingly likely to be fought with all the

opposition parties all campaigning successfully for the uk to remain in the eu. david cameron and the uk government will campaign in my opinion to avoid severing the ties between the conservative party and the traditional funding base in the british business as well as to avoid the resulting economic uncertainty and damage to the uk economy from a no vote. similarly, the referendum will take place in a favorably economic context of a projected growth between 2% and 2.5% between now and 2016, which is the most likely year for the referendum. most importantly, however, the political necessary changes to eu law will be possible for david cameron to achieve. in principle, eu law is valid throughout the 28-member states. yet, in a number of cases, states have secured so-called legal doubts for specific elements of the eu treaty exempting them from having to implement some policies at home.

in short, the eu legal framework is a highly flexible animal when eu leaders require such flexibility and legal finessing to overcome a particular political problem. given how germany and many other eu members have already expressed their clear political interest in seeing the uk remain a member of the eu, there can in my mind be no doubt that the full arsenal of legal eu flexibility around the eu treaty will be made available to david cameron. there will consequently, in my opinion, be ample opportunities if for the prime minister to secure important and legally binding as part of the now ongoing negotiation. all of which are points to a yes vote in the referendum and largely maintaining the institutional status quo within the eu. in recent years, many eu countries have witnessed the growth of new parties that can be classified as broadly

anti-establishment and euro skeptic in their political outlook. at the same time, however, it's important to recognize that european parliamentary systems have historically operated very successfully with very large antiestablishment representations at national and european levels. this was often seen with a representation of national legislatures. represent a historically unprecedented and impossible situation. there's no further no immediate reason to believe that parties are going to continue to grow beyond their historical political range the stronger

political voices of these parties very significantly raised the political hurdles for further revisions of the eu treaty. this means that -- for the foreseeable future will have to continue to function within the broad legal framework laid down in the twine lisbon treaty. and some, therefore, the recent re reemergence will not materially affect the eu policies but will greatly slow down the adaptability of the eu's existing institutional design to future challenges. in summary, therefore, the overall state of the eu is challenged, but nonetheless

remain more stable than is often believed. thank you very much. >> well thank all of you for your testimony today. i'll start with a few questions. then we will proceed to our other members, as well. so you're saying that british are going to vote to stay in the eu. you're more pessimistic about that. correct? >> actually, no. i think if i had to bet, i would bet remaining as well. >> so all three of you thinking the uk will stay in there. all right. i was interested in this talk about eu being flexible. and i think one of the things that -- one of the things i believe is being visit siszed is that brussels is actually trying to manage things from a central location, and that's creating a

lot of resentment among people. just as here in the united states, some people are a little bit concerned about the fact that washington, d.c. is coopting political decisions that used to belong to the states. none of you are convinced this in and of itself this resentment about the centralization of power will lead to the demise of the eu or at least some crisis for the eu. however, what about the -- what you just touched on. the immigration, the effective immigration into this countries. and, quite frankly there's a lot of people in our country that don't believe people who have come here illegally should be receiving government benefits and the benefits of our society, even jobs. is the immigration that's going

on the eu now to the point that these were different countries then that joined the eu, 30, 40 years ago. going to change that, maybe a little bit on that? >> yes, it is there's a lot of similarities between the kind of problems we face here or the kind of problems the europeans are facing, as well. the issue is more complicated for them because a religious factor and there's a racial factor involved. part of the consent about immigration is motivated by religious and racial extremism. but the number of immigrants in europe is a percentage of the population is less than the number of immigrants in this country. >> of course, we have, we are a nation of immigrants. so every -- i mean, we represent every race, religion ethnic group. we're proud of that. it wouldn't have that much of an

impact as opposed to a homogenous society. what do you think about -- >> done a poorer job of assimilating immigrants than the united states has. and it's been one of our great successes throughout our history. and second this has to be understood in a context of a continent, really, that has experienced very slow economic growth ever since the financial crisis. so, in addition to having significant problems of immigration, some degree of violence stemming from that. you have the concerns of unemployment the concerns that immigrants from eastern europe are taking jobs away, whether that's correct or not. the perception i think, is widespread in parts of europe. and that in turn, reinforces the popularity of some of these right wing nationalists or euro skeptic parties. in a sense, the inability to deal with the immigration problem may make the euro skepticism problem worse, as well. >> i would say that i think the main political impact of immigration in the eu right now

is actually both the scale but the relative novelty of this. because the scale is actually very large. if you look at the number of permanent legal immigrants coming into the eu since in the 21st century. it's actually about twice the level of a green card holders coming into the united states. but sedcondly, happening to countries that historically does not have the tradition that the united states has. this is countries that were traditionally very homogenous, have sort of light couture nationally dominant cultures. these countries have historically done poorer in terms of integrating these immigrant communities. >> so if indeed the eu policy is a more, let's say liberal policy of accepting this immigration into these countries countries, that would work to undercut the nationalists within

those countries would then be more opposed to the eu, is that correct? in other words, if the eu is pushing for a higher level of acceptance of immigration and people of those countries because they're more homogenous do not want them, that would be weakening the eu, is that correct? >> i think it'll depend very much on where you are in the eu. if you're in italy right now. >> if you're in italy right now where the number of illegal immigrants crossing the mediterranean is very, very large, you would actually campaign and be very much in favor of the eu taking charge of the migration and trying to spread it out throughout the entire union there by loosening the burden specifically. whereas, of course, if you're in finland, you would have the opposite opinion of sending this up to be a policy area dictated or governed by the eu. >> very quickly the agreement

with the greek government is thumbs up or thumbs down for the eu. is it positive or negative? long-term? >> thumbs up. >> i think it's largely irrelevant. i think it's -- it's a short-term band-aid, but i don't see in this agreement yet the solution to greek's ultimate economic problems. >> is it going to be a thumbs down then? >> then i believe we'll see a replay of what we have just witnessed at some point in the future. and home times europe can go through this series of brinksmanship before you finally do get a greek exit. but i wouldn't be confident that patients is infinite. >> the political significance of a country that having lost a third or perhaps up to a third of its gdp now still will, i believe, in the coming days will

find a political majority to implement this deal and therefore stay in the euro area. i don't think should be easily dismissed. >> all right. and mr. meeks, you may proceed. >> thank you. let me make sure that and i think i got it right. but i think that dr. mccormick, is it important for the eu to stay together? >> yes. >> dr. walt? >> it would be better for us if it did and better for europe if it did. >> better for us and europe? >> yes. >> for everyone? >> absolutely, better for everyone. >> so let's just talk about dealing with this greek problem for a second. >> because some say to deal with the problem in you listen to the greek prime minister he came in on a mandate of no austerity. and yet, in this agreement, there is austerity. do you see any debt relief in

this agreement? because some will say, and you're the economist here if greece is going to get back on its feet, it's not just austerity. it's austerity with debt relief so it can begin to grow again. can you talk a little bit about that? >> yeah. it mean there's no doubt you need a combination of the two. you need some degree of fiscal rectitude because greece is a country that historically has run very large and persistent government deficits. but given where the debt is now, you clearly also need debt relief. and i actually do believe there is very credible prospects for debt relief included in this agreement. because what it does is that it basically tells the greeks that if you agree to a new bailout program, following the first successful review of that program, we can have a discuss of debt relief. meaning that the debt relief comes only as a reward, so to

speak, for good behavior. and then, the other issue is that we need to be clear about what debt relief entails. i don't believe you will see an actual haircut on the debt. but i certainly do believe that you will see the greek government debt being restructured in a way so they've maybe not -- they may not have to pay any interest or am mortization. so the actual cost of the debt, which incidentally is below the levels of interest paid by the u.s. federal government despite gross debt levels becomes more or less a nonissue in my opinion. for the ability for the greek economy to grow. and then finally, i should note that. and this is where the u.s. influence will be very important. part of the reason that the european union will be compelled, or sorry, the euro area will be compelled to do this probably by the first quarter of next year is that

they're seeking imf co-financing of 1/3 financing for the program starting march next year. that can only happen, in my opinion, that should only happen if they, by that time, have done a restructuring of the greek debt. >> anybody want to add anything or take away anything from that? >> i'll just say i'm not as optimistic for several reasons. greece's debt is now in excess of $300 billion or so. this new relief package is about $80 billion i believe, somewhere. but most of that money is going to get recycled back to european financial institutions of one kind or another. it's not a stimulus program for greece, it just allows them to keep servicing their loans. it does nothing by itself to actually get the greek economy to be more productive at all. there is no debt relief in this package yet. it's promised out there. and what the europeans are now asking greece to do is suffer a little bit more in fact suffer a lot more with the prospect

that then things will improve at some point down the road. it -- what i am i guess, still baffled by is if the greek reform was so easy, why hasn't it happened already? it has been, you know, five or six years where they've had multiple opportunities. it is clearly politically extremely difficult for the greeks to do this. and to expect them to do it having inflicted even more pain on them. i think we are as likely to see essentially sharper political divisions within greece as opposed to suddenly all linking arms and beginning a serious reform program. so, again i hope this package works, but i'm not confident it will. >> one line of thought that is not often explored in discussing the greek debt crisis is the responsibility that greece itself holds for getting itself into this current mess. greece should've never been let into the euro in the first place. that was a mistake. it had mismanaged the economy before it was allowed into the euro. being allowed into the euro made

matters worse. it was allowed to borrow money at a lower interest rate than it had been before. it then went off on a debt spending spree. my optimism is based on the fact i think that the greek people and the greek government are going to get to the point they realize they have to clean house, they have to manage their economy effectively, as effectively as some of the other european neighbors have. and whatever the terms of the bailout or the debt relief or the terms of some of these deals that are done i think what we're seeing here is a very hard learning experience for the greek people about how to manage a modern economy. and i'm a bit nervous about saying this because i'm not sure it's a very popular idea. but i think the european union the eurozone, attract more and the germans attract more criticism. and i think they deserve. and i think we have to look at what the greeks have done to bring this upon themselves. >> out of time. >> colonel cook?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i talked to my opening statement that i was going to ask you about the russian situation. and the fact that not just in terms of the eu, but nato having that economic olive branch out there. hey, we've got the money we can help you out. can you comment on that possibility? somebody mentioned i think, the doctor talked about that in hungary. and you can include that and other countries because their economic situation might be interested in that handout. >> i think given the conflict we have now with russia over ukraine ukraine, russia has understandably used its various assets, including offers of money to try and diminish european unity and to some degree nato unity to prevent sanctions to try to weaken

western resolve. and as i indicated in my initial statement, one of the problems here is that there isn't really a consensus in europe today on just how serious the russian threat really is. everyone acknowledges it's a problem, there's no support for russia's behavior in ukraine. but whether it's a new cold war or whether it's the return of the battle soviet union there's certainly no agreement there. and i think most europeans actually don't see it as nearly as serious a problem. perhaps the baltic states do, but hardly anybody else in europe. i think you'll see russia attempt to dangle various blandishments in front of some european countries including greece, and that's a way they can exploit it. i don't think it's going to, you know, cause the eu to dissolve tomorrow, but it is an additional source of centrifugal force within the union as a whole. >> i guess i would be slightly less optimistic or pessimistic

depending on it, but i don't basically think that russia has much to offer greece in the real world. the reality is that greece needs so much money that vladimir putin doesn't have that. just to give you an example. if there had been no agreement over this weekend, the european central bank would have pulled out $89 billion euros from the greek banking system. which, and you will probably in fact, need considerably more than that to keep these banks afloat. and vladimir putin in my opinion doesn't have that much money in liquid reserves. and even if he did, i'm highly skeptical that he would be willing to take that much, put that much cash into greece. so vladimir putin, therefore, in terms of, shall we say, offering a material difference to the acute economic crisis that greeks face right now really doesn't have much to offer. and i think you can see that in

the fact that at the end of the day when the negotiations and the european union about extending the current sanctions on russia was up for debate where unanimity is required the greek government required, the union government posted basically no objection. >> in my opening statement i said one of the great benefits or achievements of the union unan was the expansion of democracy in and out side of oourp. greece joined the european union after having spent some time under military government sand with its democratic credentials in question. i think the benefits that greece has seen over the last 30 40 kbleers have been part of the european economic the european union, it would be difficult to imagine russia or putin could be offer better than what greek has right now, despite the fact they are going through terrible times

at the moment. the political and economic benefits are part of this enormous partnership are so great than having anything like putin's conference. >> thank you. i'm going to a fail conference this week and we'll see whether the same optimism -- i want to talk about borders and terrorism. and if x amount of terrorists get in one country particularly one that is easier to get into that they all share the same logo of being able to enter another country is that -- the e.u. going to strengthen that or continue that policy as a whole particularly in light of increased terrorism and i'm looking at isis and some of the other elements? >> as i mentioned, one of the concerns i have is the degree to

which external events events around the european con innocent are beginning to impinge on europe in new ways and you've just referred to them. the shangan principles allow restrictions without border controls in the european union is a major achievement and has been a economic benefit but i also think has contributed to a general sense of being a european community. and there have been calls in recent months for tightening those various restrictions to reimposing some of the border controls to deal precisely with this problem. i personally think that would be a mistake because i believe don't the problem or the threat that europe faces from various forms of extremism is so great as to warrant that decision. but politics is not always rational and i can easily see that if there were one or two more incidents in europe, even if they were of a rather small scale, you might see more momentum up to start reimposing

the border controls and that would be a step back from the achievements that the community made in recent years. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. series. >> change you mr. chairman. you know, the more i read and the more i try to learn about greece, it is just mind boggling. and then you have all of these rumors out there that i don't know what is true or what is not true about the percentage of tax collection that they have about supposedly it is cheaper to take a cab across greece than to take a train because the train -- the way they are run, the transit system. i mean, it is just -- and then you talk to other people and they tell you that the und ground economy in greece is thriving. now is that accurate, the underground economy? >> yes, that would celebritily

be my opinion, correct. it is very large and has grown bigger in the last five years. >> and this is just a recent -- to avoid paying taxes? >> yeah, this is to avoid paying taxes but also to avoid being subject to a whole other host of range of social and labor market regulations. >> would you agree with that? >> the most recent figure for 2009 the oecd said 25% of the gdp was based on the gray market. and they are difficult to measure but the lecd 25%. >> but this is something going on in greece for a very long time? so this is like the old expression you have an old dog, how can you teach him new tricks, how are you going to do that? >> in brief i think the costs of reorganizing the economy in a

sensible modern fashion -- i'm sorry, the benefits are much greater than the cost of continuing to do what they can do now. they can see the costs now. the terrible things that the greeks are having to go through, the cost they are having to pay for years of this kind of activity, are abundantly clear to most greek people. >> do you agree with that? >> yes, i would absolutely agree with that. and the way to look at greece is not through the lenses of thinking of it as an economic crisis but i think a closer comparison is sort of 1989. the collapse of communism. because what has happened in greece in the last number of years is the existing economic and political system i would argue put in place after the end of the military regime in the 1970s has collapsed and so you need a extent of fundamental

ground building for this country to emerge as a modern functioning market economy. >> and when i hear the word nation building is makes me nervous because we know that is a difficult, time-consuming and unpredictablent prize and if you consider the scale of reform that has to take place in greece for this to work complete reform and deregulation of the industries and revision of the pension system and this has to happen in a period where there is no slack and where the economy has been in free fall for quite sometime now. you need both political will and a lot of competent people to pull that off and we're expecting greece to do that in very rapid order right. this is a very large demand that essentially the rest of the european union is making. it may be necessary, it may be the right prescription but you can't be confident they'll pull it off, even if they try hard. >> as i listen to you, to me,

why would i throw money in there? why would i even invest in trying to did -- >> well i think that -- >> well i know what you said, it is important and all of that. but they don't seem capable of doing it. portugal and island they got some money and they seem to be getting their act straightened out pretty much. but i don't see anything going on in greece where that gives me the confidence if i were a european country to go in there and say, well you know, they're throwing in another $95 billion. and hope in the next 50 years it will get better. >> it does seem like throwing good money off the bat but my question is what is the alternative. >> let them go on their own. >> then you're going to have more disruption on the border of

the europe union and unstable country on the border. it is bet her to investment and work with the greek government. they are meeting with the 27 piers all of the time at meetings. their talking about common issues. so they've been brought into the family of negotiations, new style of negotiations. surely better to bring them into the room than to talk to them than to throw them out and say good luck. >> there is a significant degrees of political self- self-preservation in this as well. if you do not give a third bailout, they will default on the existing loans that the euro zone has made to them which is 240 billion euros which means the germs and others would have to admit to voters this was not a loan that might be repaid, but a gift. >> greece existed before the

euro zone, right? >> right. >> and one thing i think we would agree on the panel it was a mistake to allow greece into the euro zone and it may be political to make a common occurrence work. and what you are hearing on the panel is inside of europe itself, those who think it would be better for the rest of the e.u. to allow greece to leave the common currency despite the consequences just referred to and those who thinks that the consequences are so severe they have to be avoided and that the disagreement between france and germany over the last several months. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield. >> sort of like those people who think it might have been a good idea to let puerto rico be independent, mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i've been pondering american history with europe while we've been listening to your testimony and q&a back and forth. and it seems after world war ii for 47 years when there was not a european community our relationship with europe was good. then we had the e.u. created seven years worth of phase in and the euro currency comes into play in roughly 1999 and 16 years after and our relationship has been good. so either way america's relationship with europe has done well with and without the euro. so to me the european union issue is more of a focal point for the european nations and they should be the deciders of their fate. and i'm curious about a comment that was made that the european union is better for the usa, quote, end quote. and my question is why? what can you share for us that would help convince me that it is in