on income equality have pointed to the same thing. the principle problem is first and foremost the breakdown of the nuclear family. you can say well you still talk about those things. i talk about those things because they're relevant to the debate on how we get our -- a more vibrant middle of america and how we create more opportunities for children to be successful. so i think they're important -- it's important to understand that none of these things are sort of issues unto themselves but they interrelate. national security, if we don't have a vibrant middle of america, the desire of america to engage in the world is -- you saw this during the recession. you saw republicans sort of pulling back saying we don't -- can't afford to do this anymore. we have to cut the military.

that became a popular thing in the republican party because people were hurting. when people are hurting at home the last thing they'll say we have to go around the world and do things. to me the fundamental element is to make sure we have strong families. we have strong families that are together and raising children. i think it was putnam in his book said it's more important for parents to read to their children the first four years of their life to pay for four years of college. i don't think that message is out there. that the message from either party about how important this public policy issue is of reknitting the american family. >> we're going to go to nicole from roll call. [ inaudible question ]

>> well, obviously, i talk about the importance of targeting voters who have been left behind by this economy in the last ten years. that's why i announced on the factory floor. you look at stagnant wages and median income has declined. part of that is the recession but it hasn't recovered. you see the stagnation that is really made this a much more important issue that i think republicans are -- have been and continue -- many not all -- many continue to ignore at our peril. this idea of laying out a vision for how progrowth economics can translate into improved job opportunities for the 74% of

americans who don't have a college degree. and that they're going to provide a pathway for a more stable optimistic future for them. that's a -- that is an issue that was not as clearly as important ten years ago as it is today and going forward. because the prospects don't look a whole lot brighter. the focus on that for me is nothing new. if you look at my track record when i was in the senate. we were always interested in these issues. but it now becomes more front and center. obviously, the cultural issues i talked about, we've seen big changed in the culture in the last ten years. to me it's a continuation of what we've seen for the last 30 years. we've seen a continual breakdown of the understanding of marriage and family. it doesn't start with the current marriage debate.

it started 40, 50 years ago. we've seen the impact of that with ever increasing out of wed lock birth rates. ever increasing absentee fathers. ever increasing levels of poverty. as you read putnam's book it's pretty jarring to see the changes in communities and opportunities are available for young people growing up in broken families and in poor communities. there just isn't the network of support there. and so all of those things are big cultural shifts that require the republican party to begun to address them. i think we're stuck. i think there republican party is stuck. i wrote this book last year and one of the chapters of the book is a chapter saying the rising tide lifts all boats unless your boat has a hole in it. i think republicans still use the rising tide lifts all boats, which is a john f kennedy line.

the tide is risen and i'm in deeper water and i'm bailing faster. i'm feeling like i'm sinking as the tide's going on. and we have to have specific policies oriented toward how we're going to help those who are sinking. we don't. we talk -- still talk in macro economic terms. we are still unwilling to carve out public policy that addresses particular microeconomic categories or people. because that's tinkering with the -- it's not purest. i would just make the argument that that's a losing strategy on economics. and from my perspective, if we're going to win this election and create a win for the american public who are hurting, we have to have a different message than what we've been

saying for the past 20 years. >> we'll go to john from the bbc and todd gilman, and miles penson. >> you welcome the spotlight that's been shown on immigration by donald trump and the manner in which he's done it? >> i welcome the spotlight. the way he's done it is donald trump, not rick santorum. there will be a differentiation between the way we talk about this issue and the substance of what we talk about. because, i mean, i saw donald over the weekend talking about how he wants more and easier legal immigration. he wants more people coming in and wants to make it easier for people to come in. i have a very different approach to that. it's important he's focused the issue of immigration which i do believe is important particularly for the workers i've been talking about. i said in my announcement, we have seen 35 million people come to this country in the last 20

years. that's over 10% of the population of this country have come to this country combined legal and illegal to live here. we have more people living in this country that weren't born here that at any time in our history. we're approaching the highest percentage of people not born in this country living here. that can all be good. that's not necessarily bad. let me just put it that way. we have to analyze what the impact is on the very people i was just talking about. what the impact on those that are struggling the most in america. to do that is not jinglistic, zeen phobic it's a policy discussion we should be able to have without being called various names that are not particularly appetizing in the public. i always refer back to the last immigration commission that was

consnuted under president clinton. she said immigration policy is in the national intres. we need to be a discussion of what's in the national interest. part of that is how american workers are doing under the system. i make the argument that when you look at flat lined wages now for those 74% of american workers who don't have a college degree. you look at what they're wages have been and their incomes over the last 20 years of this record immigration. it's not even close to any 20 year period. that includes the great wave. so i think it's rational for public policy -- a public policy discussion to the people that are most affected. i would make the argument the people most affected are those workers i talked about and they're not doing well under this. we have an obligation to take a

step back and say what is in the best interest of the american workers, by the way both native born and those who came into this country legally over the last 20 years and before that, and see what policy going forward will address those issues. that's why i've suggested, not just, you know what most republicans talk about, which is, you know border security and tracking our visa overstays and talking about everify and the important of evarietyerify and using everify to find those who are here illegally. i use this number again age 25-65. if you look at since 2000 there's been 6.5 million net new jobs created in this country. what

what percentage is held by people who are in this country that were not born in this country. the answer is all of them. there are fewernative born americans working today than there was in the year 2000. and there's 17 million more native americans in the work force. and so you can make the argument that while immigration is a good thing for america. if you look at stagnant wages, if you look at the fact that immigrants primarily are taking all the net new jobs and what the impact is on those wages and benefits i think it's pretty clear what's happening. and so to suggest, as i have that we have to make some changes to that, i think is simply a topic that needs to be front and center and talked about. i think most americans would like to have this conversation without being made to feel by many that they're somehow anti-immigrant. i don't think you're anti-immigrant if you, as i have suggested, still are after the

proposal that i've laid out there, and i did a couple of months ago calling for a 25% reduction of legal immigrants in this country. we would still be at the highest level we've ever been at prior to this 20 year period. >> how about a transportation question. the tunnel at amtrak uses under the hudson river is more than 100 years old. within 20 years it will bail because of damage from hurricane sandy. the existing car tanlunnels and bridges are at capacity. that will have a major impact in the northeast. so far not addressed. if you were president would you support build agnew tunnel. >> i've taken the approach on transportation that the federal government should do less not more on transportation. in fact, i supported proposals that would dramatically reduce the gas tax and put the federal government back in the position of simply doing what we should

be doing which is dealing with interstate commerce and movement of, which of course, includes movement of people from an interstate capacity. it doesn't necessarily mean just interstates with the classic definition, it could be u.s. highways and other major interstate movers of goods and people. and that we reduce the gas tax to the level that can maintain and in fact improve that system. and then cap the tax at that amount and then send the rest back to basically credit and let the states then deal with all these other issues that are more local in nature. you know we have not traditionally, obviously, with passenger trains we supported amtrak very generously over the years. but as you know the federal government has traditionally not gotten involved with rail construction. certainly freight rail construction we have stayed away

from. we've done some passenger rail construction. so i guess my gut reaction would be that getting involved with a project like that would be one of those gray areas that i would look at because it is interstate movement. but it would have a high bar in order to cross to do that kind of project. >> jonathan from the hill. >> you said at the outset this in some ways a more satisfying campaign for you. but is it also frustrating at all? it doesn't appear the base you had in 2012 has transferred to support in 2016. is it frustrating to be in some ways starting from scratch and trying to make the debate stage? >> i remind everybody that prior to the the iowa caucuses we were at 2% 4%. a lot of support we got came

late. and it was after looking at all the candidates they made the decision. that's one of the things i certainly know about iowans as we call around and we're talking to our supporters. we're getting a fair number of them to say, yeah, they're still with us. which is actually pretty encouraging. al a lot of them are saying, you know what? we really like you, but as there's a lot of new models on the showroom. and we're taking a look at everybody. i'm not surprised at that at all. there are a lot of new models and there are as i've said publicly, a lot of good people out there that people are going to take a look at. i've always felt confident that four years ago i felt this way when i was starting from scratch. i feel very much the same way this time in spite of all the new models. i think this model is a pretty good reliable model that people are going to come back to and say you know what? all that glitters is not gold.

and, you know i use the example of donald trump. everybody's talking about trump's the best guy in immigration. then you read, he may be tough on the border but a lot of other immigration issues he's not considered a conservative on those things. that just takes time. my -- one of my concerns and i complained about this -- i didn't comment it on the time -- the lack of debates means that most americans have -- most primary voters have no idea where most candidates stand on the issues. they just don't. it's all just -- i always wish these national surveys would start without saying who you are going to vote for and list the candidates to say who are you going to vote for. just, you know -- can you name all the candidates running for president. i guarantee you, that most people couldn't name more than two or three candidates.

and so it's just -- all these questions are not relevant. and because it is so early and people aren't paying that much attention. and clearly in iowa, what i do know about iowa is they make their decision the last month or so. that's not to say they won't be for someone today. as i find out because they're for someone today doesn't mean they're going to be voting for someone later on. i'd rather not be their favorite now. i'd rather be their favorite when it matters. >> i have a two part question on the supreme court. going back to 2005 when you were in the senate, knowing everything we know now would you still vote for john obtsroberts? do you define marriage on a federal level or let states do it. >> would i confirm job roberts? look i confirmed john roberts

because he had a good strong track record of someone who paid attention to what the constitution said and followed it. everyone's intieltentitled to a mistake every now and then and he's made one mistake twice. that's disappointing. but he's also written a lot of really good and strong opinions. i wish i could say that every -- that everybody i ever voted for on anything not just judges, but for elections didn't disappoint me at some point in time. that's just not the world. i think by and large he's been a pretty solid supreme court justice. and, you know looking at the best case scenario, if you will, of his opinions, the opinion was one that was differential to the congress, which even though i'm running for president, i look presidents and courts that defer to congress. because that's the body that our

constitution wanted to rest most of the power in washington, d.c. on. again, i'm not happy with his decision, but, again, looking at it sort of the other way, i can get myself to not be as upset about it as i otherwise would be. as far as a constitutional amendment, i co-authored and pushed for the vote on that amendment way back in 2004. i believe we need a national standard for emergency.marriage. i don't think you can have one state to another what marriage is. i would continue to support an effort to define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history. [ inaudible question ] >> i think that's a mistake. i think -- i argued that ten years ago when others wanted to

do that ten years ago. you can't have a hodgepodge of marriage. the reason -- one of the reasons the court decided the way they decided. they recognize you can't have different marriage laws in different states. it just creates too much confusion out there for -- on a variety of different levels. >> todd gilman from dallas morning news. >> there are a number of contenders that are within the top ten, then all are those that are on the other side of the cusp. do you see any evidence -- you said you're going to run some ads more than you might otherwise -- >> i'm not going to run ads, i'm going to do media appearances. i don't spend money this far out in a campaign. >> do you see evidence that anyone in the field is gaming the system to try to get into the top ten? is there way to juice your numbers, you or any of the

other -- >> the people who set the game up have the biggest influence on who gets in. it's who they're going to put on their network and give air time to. in a sense they control in some respects the ability to put their thumb on the scale to give someone -- not that they're doing it. i'm -- i don't watch a lot of television. i have no idea who -- what they're doing. but they certainly have the ability to do that by if they decided, for example, they wanted rick santorum to be in the debates. and it would be helpful to them for some reason to -- they can easily say we'll put santorum on every single day and have our anchors talk about this guy we're going to do stories on him. the point is they can. i'm not saying they are or will. but they certainly can have an impact because what's driving national numbers is -- it's news coverage. that's what drives national numbers. if you folks hadn't written --

if you folks have written as many stories about jeb bush as you did lindsey graham my guess is jeb bush's numbers wouldn't be near what it is today. >> is it a death spiral if you don't make the debate, you or anybody else you're probably not going to make the next debate or the next one after that. >> here's what i found go back and look at -- look at every election cycle. people go up people go down. and that debate could be a very interesting time. and could prove to be a wonderful opportunity for some and as we saw in the past, it could be a disaster for others. it could shoot their campaign right between the eyes. and so you just -- the idea that being in the debate or not,

there were debates i wasn't in last time and it had no impact on the campaigns. again, i think something this early on with all the things that are going to happen between now and caucus day i just don't think it's going to be that important. >> dana millbank from the post. >> yes senator on the trump effect, you've got this widely fragmented field. it appears in order to break out you've got to say something outrageous. and you're here very nicely talking about robert putnam which i think is terrific but it's not outrageous. do you think you can do basically what you did last time plodding along or you know, are the rules just going to be fundamentally different this time and it will be all that money and being provocative to get the media attention? can you be plodding and get to the finish line? >> i hope so. i mean, because that's -- we

haven't really changed how -- who i am as a candidate and what i believe in. and i don't think iowa has changed. and i know everybody likes to look at all the things that are going on in the national media, in the end, iowa is going to cut this field down dramatically much more than whether you attend a debate or not. if you can go there and connect as we did in the past and be successful, you know, we're going to be one of a handful of guys or gals i should say are going to be the nominee of the republican party. so i always say you know, i'm the tortoise and hare. i don't see any real opportunities for us in the next six months to break out. i didn't see it six years ago we

were going to break out. what i believe is when people get down to the serious business of judging who they want to be their president, not who they're enjoying for the moment, not who gets them excited and gets them to cheer for something that they feel frustrated that number is speaking for emthe. in the end, who they want to sit behind the desk is a different calculation. we went through was it 20 debates, 18 debates, can you think of a memorable line that rick santorum said? no. i give good solid answers that are knowledgeable that show a clear vision for what i want to accomplish. and what's best for this country. and on a variety of different topics, and eventually people came around and said i think that guy can be president. and it coalesced. we have a lot of really wonderful people. you may say, well, they're just better folks out there.

and they're stronger. that may be the case. but one of the things i learned is you don't know that this far out. what i do know is is we passed that test before and i think we can pass that test again even in the light of this field. >> miles penson. >> you began this session talking about income inequality and you believe that -- what you read about it being primarily caused by breakdown of the family. >> i said that's what the studies have shown is the principle reason. there are, obviously others education, problem with education. i mentioned the manufacturing sector of the economy has been dramatically reduced in this country and, therefore, opportunities for a lot of non-college educated people to get good paying jobs has been compromised. there's a lot of factors. i don't want to -- but that is certainly one of them.

>> is a conservative view of limited government -- can government do anything about reestablishing the american family and income inequality or are those things not the business of the government? >> i would say the answer is yes and no. when i say yes and no there are things that the political system and public policy can do to affect the family. on a policy side, i use the example of when i was campaigning in wisconsin four years ago now a congressman shared me with a study he had done when he was a senator if you were a single mother with two kids and you were making $15,000 a year in the state of wisconsin you were eligible for

$38,500.00 benefits. if you got married you would lose the benefits. what government had done all with the intent of trying to help people, was create a barrier for marriage among lower income single moms. and that's why you see for the first time in the history of our country a majority of kids are going to be raised without a father in the home at some point in their life. number one. number two, the majority of kids born in america out of wed lock are born with fathers living in the home but not married. there's several reasons for that. the marriage debate i would make the argument has now separated the idea of children from marriage. marriage is not -- no longer about children. i think that's part of it. part of it is because of government programs that -- particularly for low income individuals, government programs make it economically not viable to get married. because you'd have to be making

50,000 to $60,000 a year which is above median income in america to net $38,000 in tax free benefits. so the government has done things all with the intent -- i don't describe ill intent -- with the intent of trying to help. but what they've done is create a barrier to marriage in america among lower income individuals. we have to look at public policy changes to stop that disincentive. it's damaging for mothers and children in particular. that's one idea of public policy. let me shift over to what is an important area which is the power of the government to -- well the bully pulpit. using the power of the presidency or of the government to convene a discussion and a movement to actually try to do something in america about this problem. you know, the president uses his bully pulpit power for many

things, but no more than climate change. he just is constantly out there. have we passed a bill on chiemt change? no. but if things happen in this country in the last six years on climate change. yes because the president has been out there talking to the business community and churches and schools and all of these institutions out there that have a huge impact on what goes on in america. the president has driven this issue so they have taken up this cause. and implemented and done things to try to promote this idea. imagine a president who said really the most important issue right now is restoring the nuclear family in america. is what can we do in your business to help. i was at a business in chattanooga, tennessee. the reason i mention chattanooga, is in my book ten years ago i wrote about chattanooga and a program there called first things first. it's the first time a community

at large came together because they had very high rates of divorce, single morththerhood and they decided to do something about it. the government didn't pass a law. the churches and schools and businesses and the civic and community organizations came together in this group and implemented a variety of different things to try to get the community to bring families together. i was at a business there a couple of months ago and i just said just curious because you're in chattanooga do you guys do anything for your families? and i didn't have to explain oh, yeah. what do you do? for example everything that we have in our company we give them a free dave ramsey course. we give one of our benefits is marriage counseling. so they went through all these things that they do to support the nuclear family in

chattanooga. why? because they made a conscious effort that the schools talk about marriage and the oimportance of marriage and to have children. i would suspect most schools don't do that. they'll talk about, you know condoms but they won't talk about what it means to be a responsible father and a responsible family. all of those things can be done without any government programs. because if we identify -- you know, dana was talking about the putnam book. i don't know how many have read that book. you read that book you've got to walk away saying we can't let this continue in america. we just can't. and, yet, there's no effort on part of the government to do anything. the president has a poverty summit. you want to talk about using the power of the presidency to try change and start a debate in this country of what we can do so the situations that are occurring every single day in america because children are

abandoned by a system that is not focused on kids, i think we can make some real changes. >> we've got about ten minutes left. we'll try to get in three more questions. paul allen, and phil. paul? >> senator can i filibuster? okay. i got that. senator, four years ago your family played a big role in your campaign. you're a dad of seven. how have things changed in four years? is it easier, or hardier? how do you stay dad? >> yeah it's hard. i mean it's seven kids, going through those teenage years and everything. there's challenges out there. let's be honest with you. but, you know i feel -- first off, the biggest issue if you recall four years ago was our daughter bella. and the health problems that she had.

i'm just -- we're just real excited she is doing better than she's ever done and has for about three years. after the campaign we realized we had to look at some things. because she was just getting -- there was a pattern of her getting sick very seriously sick, and she had had that pattern but it was getting worse. and so anyway, we dug into some things and we actually found a therapy that's just -- we wrote bout it in our book. it's not like it's not public. she takes something to boost her immune system. it's changed her life. she's doing great. and so if she was in the same position as she was four years ago, i wouldn't be sitting here. but she is doing great. we feel very, very comfortable on that front. we have six other kids, as i said they're going through their teenage and college years. and i don't need to say anymore than that.

it's a -- last time around, it was a family enterprise. and in spite of the travel and other things, it actually in many respects brought the family even closer together. everybody is excited about it. you know our kids are -- it's fighting them off as to who goes on what trip everybody wants to go and be out on the trail and do things. it's like the family business in some respects. you want to go to the store and participate. but -- so i feel very good our family is well-prepared to do it. not to say that we don't have our issues like every other family. if we didn't, then you should worry about us, right? >> takeing a pay cut if you win? >> yes, i guess i would. but that's okay it's a pretty good job. >> would you talk about your

experience taking on the clinton machine as you put it and hillary clinton being a less formidable candidate than president obama? >> we took on the machine in 1994 when i ran against harris wafforg. wafford. we were up against another candidate and bill and hillary clinton came to pennsylvania with great frequency. pennsylvania is not the reddest of states. we went up against their best and brightest. this was the race they wanted to win because healthcare was the big issue back in 1994. and the guy i was running against was the senate sponsor. you look at your political history, his race in 1991 ushered bill clinton into the '92 campaign because cargo and

begala ran his race in '91 and made healthcare the special of the election and went down to little rock and applied to the race in '92 and the rest is history. so they had a lot riding on pennsylvania in '94. let me assure you,b they threw the kitchen sink at us. we were able to survive. i remind people that in 2000 we won by five points in 2000 in a state that bush lost by four. we were the only conservative to win in a state that bush lost. so i think we have a good track record of being able to overcome big election odds. i mean y beat two income bnts. i represented a 60 and 70% democratic seat. i think we have a good track record. we can get pretty effective in a general election. i feel like hillary clinton is in some respects tougher than

barack obama. and in some ways. in some ways easier. i think hillary histories's going to have a harder time galvanizing her base. i think she has more of an opportunity to appeal outside her base. the president last time lost independents and moderates. and that would have been an opportunity for me, at least i believe we could have done better there. but i think she'll have pluses and minuses. but, again, we have a track record. i mean i've not just gone up against the political team but also went up against her on the united states senate on more than one occasion. if you're looking at the debate importances performances and how well you can stack up and be effective. we have good evidence that we'll do very well. >> phil elliott, last question. >> i can't trying to think of other things to say.

>> you talk about the family trying to get out there h. are we going to see more of mrs. santorum this time? last time she had a rough go of it. i'm just curious what her role in the campaign on santorum 2.0 might be. >> one of the things i try to do with the family is the least disruptive model possible. particularly with our daughter, who is doing well but she's still 24/7 care. if karen is not there, then we've got to hire someone to be there. that becomes economically challenging. let's just put it that way. so i'll be honest with you, a big part of it is family economics for us to have nursing care when karen's not home 24 hours a day gets expensive. it's not covered by insurance or anything like that. part of it is driven by just the family realities of having a disabled child that required 24/7 care.

and the other reality is we have six other kids. and they're going through teenage years and sort of be good to have a parent around. that's happening. we've had some experiences about that in the last year or so. so karen and i is a division of labor, if you will. i think karen does an amazing job on the campaign trail. she's a huge asset. the most important asset that we have is our family. and while she may be a great asset on the campaign, she is the indispensable asset at home. that's the way we're going to view all sorts of opportunities on the campaign. >> thanks for doing this recollect sir, sir, appreciate it. >> thank you. somewhat painless. >> i'm glad. >> somewhat.

this weekend on c span's road to the white house, two major political events from iowa and we're the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entirely. friday night at 8:00 we'll be live in cedar rapids for the hiwuhall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time that all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. at 11:00 a.m. on saturday we'll be live in ames where nine republican candidates are

scheduled to speak. c span's road to the white house, 2016, we take you there. rachel ozwald joins us. she's a foreign policy reporter and she's going to give us some insight on the iran nuclear agreement that was reached earlier this morning. thanks for joining us rachel. now that the nuclear agreement's been reached what's the current process for congressional review and whether or not they're going to approve or disapprove of this deal? >> i think we can first expect that the senate armed services foreign relations and they're counterparts in the house and intelligence committees will hold a series of meetings. we can anticipate classified briefings for lawmakers to hear from the administration officials about the deal. and then i think we can see three things happen in the 60 days that congress has to review the deal. they could let the 60 days go by

and do nothing. they could take up a resolution approving the deal, which is unlikely considering that republicans hold both houses of congress and have come out against the deal. the third option is that the congress would take up a resolution of disapproval and pass it. at that time the obama administration, president obama would have 12 days to veto the resolution sending it back to congress and congress would have ten days to try and override that veto. we're not going to see this fully resolved until the fall. >> what are some of the key points that we can kind of focus on in this deal? >> i think one thing that's becoming of increasing importance in the announcement that un security council conventional sanctions on iran on banning the export of weapons to iran would be lifted within five years in the deal. and that sanctions on the export of ballistic missile technology to iran would be lifted in eight years.

the president had previously said this deal would only consider nuclear sanctions. some in congress are likely to say that missiles should not be lifted as part of the deal. there could be some controversy with that. it would be interesting to see whether that swayed some democrats who hadn't previously declared their position whether they will then come out against the deal. >> and you wrote about president obama, he says he would veto any legislation that blocked this iran deal. what can you tell us from the white house angle of things? >> well, that veto threat was long assumed. and what it does is, you know, it essentially for the president has always had the upper hand here in foreign policy. what congress did with the iran nuclear deal was they gave themselves more authority to review the deal. in order to actually stop the deal from going forward to stop the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions it's going to require both the house and the senate to have a 2/3 majority to

overcome the veto. that's going to be pretty difficult. we sought that shortly after the april preliminary agreement was announced that about 150 house democrats signed a letter saying that so long as the final deal follows the framework of the april agreement they would stand with the president and helping him to hold a veto. so it's going to be pretty hard for opponents of this deal to actually block it. it's not impossible. but it's going to be pretty hard. >> let's focus in on a couple of lawmakers. chair of the foreign relations communicate, bob corker and the ranking member, ben carden. what are their reactions been and any other democrats or republicans? >> so senator corker came out with a statement earlier today saying that he was deeply skeptical in general that a deal with iran would hold. he didn't completely condemn the deal, but he said he wanted to thoroughly review it and would

hold hearings on the matter. i do not know what benjamin carden said about the deal. >> when will congress actually get to see the text of this deal, and then moving forward, what's the timeframe? >> according to a statement released by the iranians and the european members of the negotiations we should see the full text of the deal released later today. i don't know if that means it will be formally sent to congress. it should be available online, the main text and the technical annexes. >> and rachel, a lot of information here. you're reporting at cq.com. thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. coming up at 8:00 eastern on c span a recap of today's events involving the iranian nuclear deal. we'll start with the president's announcement at the white house this morning. we'll get reaction from iran,

europe and of course capitol hill and we will include your calls, your tweets and your facebook posts. 8:00 eastern on c span. this weekend the c span cities tour travels across the country with time warner cable. to learn more about the literary life of lexington kentucky. >> in the mid 1940's if you had asked who is a bright shining star in american politics, on a national scale someone who is going to be governor, senator perhaps president a lot of people, catherine graham would have said ed pritchard of kentucky. he was one of those people who worked in the white house when he was in his early 20s. he seemed destined for great thing and came back to kentucky in the mid 1940's and was indicted for stuffing a ballot

box. went to prison. and so that incredible promise just flamed out. >> we also visit ashland, the former home of speaker of the house, senator and secretary of state henry clay. >> the mansion at ashland is a unique situation. clay's original home had to be torn down and rebuilt. it fell into disrepair and his son found it could not be saved. he rebuilt on the original foundation. what we have is a home that is essentially a five part federal style home as henry clay had with italian details arctictural elements and an added layer of aesthetic details added by henry clay's grand daughter and great grand daughter and so on. >> see all our programs from lexington saturday evening at 6:30 and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c span 3.

c span covered a number of college commencement speeches you can see them all at c span.org. this happened last month, it's about ten minutes. class mates, thank you very much. chancellor for those incredibly kind words and wonderful intro introduction why don't we give her a round of applause. i can toll you we are delighted as a state to have you here and look forward to the work we'll do together and the contribution to you will continue to make to denver. but also the state of colorado. i want to thank the board of trusties. proud parents and families.

and, of course the brilliant class, my class mates of 2015. i just want to say hi to my wife, susan who is here who runs the rocky mountain land use at the law school. at least she dill run it until i gave this speech. chancellor, i have to confess that i consider this year writing a one sentence graduation speech for this class. and that sentence was how about our men's lacrosse team, 2015 national champions? boom! [ applause ] >> really what more needs to be said? not just about the team itself, but the character and commitment to excellence it represents. it shares with so much of you and today's graduates.

i thought i'd give a one sentence speech, too, because i'm a little sensitive about my speech making anyway. every time i ask one of my three daughters whether they want about my speech making anyway. any time i ask one of my three daughters, 15 14, 10, want to hear me give a talk one of them always asks how boring is it going to be? this relentless mocking has been going on for six years. and i like to take the girls with me to events in colorado in part because as they grow older, it's becoming harder and harder for me to get them on the phone when i'm in washington. true story last week i called from my office phone at a time when i knew our 10-year-old daughter ann would be at home. no answer. i called back on my cell phone, she answered. ann, i asked, why didn't you pick up the house phone?

the caller i.d. said congress, ann replied. do you know anyone else in congress who would be calling you, i asked? no, she said, but i thought i might be arrested. i'm still trying to understand how it is that this fifth grader at bromwell has been listen to go rand paul's floor speeches and i despair at her guilty conscious. in any case, had i stuck to any one-sentence speech we would be done by now and you would have more time to do what you really want to do today, hang out with your friends and family and share this wonderful accomplishment. but i do have a couple of lessons to pass on that i have learned since my graduation things i wished someone had told me when i was wearing my own cap and gown. there are many accomplished

people here today to watch you graduate. leaders in their fields and in their communities, some of you call them parents. many have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. but notwithstanding all that success, i guarantee you most of us are thinking there is nothing we wouldn't trade to be sitting where you are right now. and that's not merely because you're graduating with a degree from du although i'll come to that in a moment. it is because you have the gift of time. with any luck, as individuals and as a generation you have decades to write your own story. decades to make your life count. this graduation may mark the culmination of your college years but really it is the beginning of your emancipated life. but while you have this gift of time, it is not a lot of time. for perspective those mountains

to the west of us, including mount evans named for the founder of du our formed of robs that are at least 1.4 billion years old. if those mountains were one day old, your relative 22 years on this planet would have consumed about a millisecond of that day. literally 300 times less than a blink of an eye. so in the scheme of things it's not a ton of time. depressing, i know. but it does mean that some day we will have forgotten even the kardashians. unless someone named a mountain after a them. [ applause ]. but i'm not out to provoke some sort of existential crisis about the ephemeral nature of human existence. that's not the first lesson i hope to leave you with. quite the opposite. what i want to tell you is that

the longer i've been around the more i've noticed human events move far more quickly than we generally imagine and crucially our opportunity to affect those events is greater than we generally suppose. let me give you an example. it surprises me to tell you that i was born 50 years ago in 1964. the time has gone by very fast. when i was growing up, because my mom and her parents had survived the holocaust in poland world war ii was very present in my young life. world war i, on the other hand seemed to me like ancient history concerning empires that no longer existed in modern times. but failing states in the middle east, states whose borders were created at the end of world war i and the rise of isis in the region between baghdad and damascus made me realize there is nothing ancient about that history.

in fact, the day i was born i was a mere 50 years away from the beginning of world war i. much less than two lifetimes separate the creation of the modern map of the middle east and the air of spring. this perspective matters when we think of the region. when we judge the likelihood of new states being able to overcome ancient tribal sectarian hatreds and what role, if any, the united states should play. my very strong sense is our policy making in the middle east the last 15 years has lacked this essential historical perspective. the sense of proportion that comes with an appreciation of history. my suggestion to you is not to be obsessed with the passage of time but to be aware of it and highly conscious of what you do with it. this is not the moment i suppose, although it is hard as

a parent to refrain, not a moment to suggest a little less talkinging of celebrities on instagram, watching snap chat stories or swiping left or right or left again on tinder. clearly you've overcome those potential barriers to success or you wouldn't be sitting here today. but in your emancipated life you will have more choices to make. and when i think about my own life i realize i've occupied jobs that occupied a considerable amount of conflict. conflict arising from police shootings. conflict arising from school closings, from campaigns, and from divisions on the floor of the united states senate. conflict is essential part of the human condition and often essential if you hope as you should, to make important changes to unjust conditions

that humans face. so you should not shy away from it. i cannot say i regret any of the conflicts of principle in which i have been involved. but, and this is really my second message to you i want to tell you i don't cherish of the memory of the conflicts that i have seen that were merely partisan or simply personal. whether i experienced them in the denver schools or on the floor of the united states senate. i don't think of those conflicts as highlights of my life. i remember them really as moments when somebody tried diminish me or even worse, much worse, moments when i tried to diminish someone else. that's the time that i want back. so by all means please stand up for what you believe, fight for it. but don't engage in conflict for

conflict's sake. embrace principle. fight for sensible solutions. attack bad ideas. but don't waste precious time attacking people who may also mean the best or scaring people who are trying hard to understand what's right, or posturing when you really aren't certain what you deeply believe about an issue. there is enough reckless superficialality and far more than enough cruelty. you won't always be generous and kind. we are all human. but you should try to be. education, especially higher education, particularly from an institution like du brings a responsibility to avoid these kinds of conflicts. it brings with it a responsibility to fight hard but only when the stakes are high. and then only with facts and reason. this fleeting gift you have,

this gift of time makes understanding this all the more important to our world. one concluding thought. du's vision is it will be a great private university dedicated to the public good. as graduates i hope you will consider some period of public service as something you give back to our country for the privilege of having attended this tremendous institution. and i hope you will fight to ensure that many more americans who do not have that privilege today have a similar opportunity in the future. class of 2015, you're graduating from a remarkable institution in a remarkable state in a remarkable country. we admire you. we expect much from you. thank you in advance for your inspired courageous, and creative leadership. congratulations, graduates

class of 2015. thank you. [ applause ]. >> here's what's ahead on c-span3. house hearing on the european union and its future. and then challenges for the international space station after three unsuccessful attempts to deliver supplies the last year. layer, a review of the recent supreme court term that included major decisions on the health care law redistricting and same-sex marriage. and a conversation with congressman paul ryan chair of the house and means committee, the tax writing panel in the house of representatives. members of congress are reacting to the nuclear deal reached between iran, the u.s., and five other powers. congress has 60 days to review the report and vote to accept or reject it or do nothing. the president can veto any disapproval. in making the announcement today, president obama spoke to

capitol hill lawmakers. >> a robust debate on congress on this issue. and i welcome scrutiny of the details on this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control 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 interest 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 shouldn't seek it. this is not the time for posturing. tough talk from washington does

not solve problems. hard-nosed diplomacy leadership that united the worlds of major powers offers a more effective way to verify iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. >> you can see our coverage of the iran deal, including all of president obama's remarks, european officials making the announcement the iranian president addressing his nation about the agreement, and the house foreign affairs on c-span tonight or any time on c-span.org. as foreign affairs subcommittee on europe held a hearing today on the european union, its future and the u.s. relationship with eu members the greek financial crisis, and britain's referendum vote on the european membership in 2017 led to increased speculation on the future of the eu and how its troubles can impact the u.s. economy. this is about an hour and a half.

>> i'm sure he will be joining us momentarily. i'm sure he won't mind if we get some of the formalities out of order. i call to thrd this afternoon's hearing on the future of the european union from a relatively modest idea in the early 1950s for six countries to form a common market for steel and coal production. the super national organization that we now know as the european union was created. five and a half decades on it has expanded to including 28 national governments is and represents over 500 million people. taken together, the gdp of the

eu is over $18 trillion, one of the largest global economies. historical forces which promoted integration after world war ii helped to make that continent more peaceful and prosperous. the european union and the liberal values it embodies helped communist european countries make the transition from their socialist communist economies to a market economies. the fact that new countries continue to seek membership shows 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 seen 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 asked has the eu become too large to manage. 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 opt on pheufbg. 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

one of the largest eu countries, 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 for putting this hearing together to provide us with an opportunity to openly examine current events in europe and how they will shape the european union's future. the future it seems, is becoming the present quickly. for many of us who work on europe and related issues in this house, events within the eu have come into sharp focus. the issues being sorted out are not new. however, the united kingdom 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 european 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 mettle of the union. and i am encouraged by the fact that the parties came to an agreement for now and wish to see that the greek parliament came the necessary decisions in the upcoming days. hopefully in the future such

crises can be stemmed earlier in the game and not lead to man ship involving such stakes. i just returned from latvia where i discussed these issues with foreign ministers, citizens and members of the european parliament. they clearly see the benefit office a successful european union and american presence on the continent. during the cold war, they lived on the other side you under a regime that did not allow the freedoms and prosperities they have today. in latvia, i also shared a meal with young american soldiers some who came 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 us working to partnership, america and 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. though difficult times like these, i think it's time that i believe by working together we can ensure success. from the u.s. congress perspective, we understand creating a european union. but let us take a step back with europe and the european union. it is a peace project, firmly aligned with american interests and promoting 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 unprecedented and evolving union on the other side "the atlantic" consists of allies, our allies. and of course there is 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 in the european union working with them. in our country we are still perfecting our system of government in cooperation through the state and federal levels. i believe that despite the difficulties of such an ambitious european union, the willing 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 contain to stay in its purposes w. that, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses as we talk more. we have all kinds of scenarios.

we'll talk about isis, china. we have to work together with our allies across the atlantic. i think that is tremendously important. so there is plenty to do. and we would love to hear the testimony from our witnesses. >> thank you very much, mr. meeks. mr. series, do you have an opening statement? >> i just want to say thank you for holding this hearing and i want to hear what the witnesses have to say. >> how about you, colonel cook? >> i just have a brief statement since there was so much talk about greece. so my question is my big concerns right now is russia. russia, which has been using oil and gas to control europe. this is something that is not

new. of course if you look at the history and the cultural historical ties, the byzantine empire if you will, going back many years long before i was born, i might add. 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 re-orient themselves to russia. and so my question is when we do get there, we'll be oriented towards that. as i said, i'm very, very concerned about that. and 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. we have three witnesses with us today. i would ask each of them to try to sort of put it down to 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 a dialogue. our friend from alabama, mr. brooks, do you have an opening statement you would like to make? with that said, let me introduce our witnesses. dr. john mccormick is the jean monet at indianapolis campus at indiana university and has authored a dozen books, numerous journal articles. he was educated in south africa and the university college in london. all right.

we have stephen walt, robert and renee balfour professor of international affairs at harvard's john f. kennedy school of government. and he is a contributing editor to foreign policy magazine and has authored four books on international affairs including the "new york times" best seller. finally, we have with us dr. jacob kirk gore senior fellow at 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 education but

in 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 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 institutional treaty in 2005, moving through the global financial crisis that began in 2007, the eurozone crisis that began in 2009, which both involved against this background of a growing popular reaction against european integration deep cynicism about the achievements of the european union and doubts about its capacity to play a meaningful role in the world. regardless of all this i remain

the eternal optimist. i continue to believe very much in the many longer term achievements of the european union. for example, the european single market and its many benefits the roll of integration and helping keep europe at peace, the slow building of a were pan-european identity, promotion of democracy and free markets both at home and abroad. and everything from a cleaner environment to greater ability for college students, to cross-border police operation, common policies on trade and competition. so we are here today to talk about the future of the european union but doing so is difficult because of the nature of the raw material that we have to work with. there were two particular problems that present themselves. first of all, we cannot agree on the political identity personality of the european union. it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation about its successes and failures or future prospects when we don't

know what it is. unfortunately, nobody has yet offered a definition of european union that can help us sort through these complexities. when i'm asked to answer what is the european union sit a con federal system with federal authorities. that always demands subsidiary conversation about what exactly i mean. it's not one with which any of my peers would anyway agree. second, much of the debate about the european union and effects of european integration is diverted by misunderstandings about the power and the reach of the european union. critics routinely overstate the powers of the european union's institutions. they routinely blame the domestic problems with member states on brussels. and they often choose to focus

more on the problems of the european union which make for dramatic headlines than focusing on the successes which don't. so i was asked to comment specifically on three matters. while i have done so in more detail in my written statement, i will just provide a brief summary here. the question of sovereign debt crisis in greece, many bright and creative minds have wrestled with the design and implementation of the euro and how best to respond to the debt crisis. yet we still find ourselves in dire straits. so predicting the future presents an enormous challenge. i do believe though the crisis will be resolved that all parties will adapt to the outcome. and we will learn and move on. why? very briefly because the euro project is too big to the fail both politically and economically. secondly, the question of the uk referendum on the eu. here i am on firmer ground. i predict firmly the british

people will vote to remain part of the european union. why? because the majority in favor of staying has been growing, because the referendum debate has been a learning experience that has drawn more benefits of staying than the costs of leaving. and the cameron government pledged to negotiate reforms of the union that may result in further reduction in support for leaving. 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 skeptic. it is true they are attracting more support. this is much because of criticism of the political establishment in europe and also as much concerns about immigration than criticism of the european union. it is also important to appreciate that euro skepticism comes in many different shades.

while some wish to see their home states leave the european union, many seek only reform of the european union. so in conclusion i would argue that the successes of the eu far outweigh its failures. the governments of the member states will continue to work hard in the interest of european integration and that the eu will weather the storms and emerge bruised budweiser. thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you >> thank you, dr. mccormick. >> mr. chairman, ranking member meeks and committee it is an honor to speak to you in this uncertain moment. sit hard to be optimistic however, about the eu's prospects. it has been a positive force in world politics for many years. it suffers from growing tensions and self-inflicted wounds. it is 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 have just heard, the european union is in many ways a remarkable political achievement. despite past accomplishments it anyways five fundamental challenges, none easy to overcome. first, it is the victim of its past success. what began as a limited arrangement among six countries has become an elaborate 12 members. germany's gdp is 300 times larger than malta's. luxembourg per capita income is five times higher than greece. the size, population and economic resources varies enormously, as do their cultures and national histories. the expansion has made the eu more couple better some and less popular. two years ago, more than 70% of

eu citizens believed "their voices do not count in eu decision making" nearly two-thirds believed the eu does not understand the needs of its citizens. second, although the disappearance of the soviet union was a welcomed development, it removed one of the main motivations for european unity. eu members have pledged to develop a common foreign and security policies but they have never done so. the in coherency response to events in ukraine highlights the last of consensus on basic security issues. the third problem facing the eu today of course is the euro crisis. seven years have passed since the crisis hit. and the eu still lacks the political institutions needed to sustain a genuine currency union. if greece eventually exits its departure will demonstrate it is not irreversible and so new doubts about its future. if greece stays in a new crisis

is likely. and debtors and creditors exhibit 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 step. it is now buffeted by serious regional turmoil. state failures in africa and the middle east have refugees seeking entry. and 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. and nationalism. the elites hopped it would transcend loyalties. this has not occurred. indeed, the united kingdom may vote to leave the eu next year. scotland may exit the united

kingdom. and simmering in cat loan ya and elsewhere. now, economic hardship are reemerging those who reject the basis ideas on examine the eu is built. you add europe's unfavorable demography. the median age is rising rapidly. you have a recipe for economic stagnation, will of course will encourage the prospects of some of these nationalist parties. looking ahead you can imagine three possible futures for the eu. first, in theory, bold leadership could build the institutions needed to support the euro. assimilate new immigrants. producing stronger economic growth. but that's unlikely. no european leaders today have the vision and stature of thatcher adden our. instead of an ever greater

union, therefore, the eu is likely to 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 skin they're the eu survives but its global influence declines. but there's a third possibility the entire experiment could begin to unravel. a greek exit could deepen. now authoritarian leaders could come to power. greece or hungary might draw closer to moscow. the question will be how far and how fast will it go. lastly muddling through or a gradual unraveling would be good for the united states. slow growth in europe means slow growth here in the united states. a weaker europe will be less useful as they try to deal with a rising china or turbulent middle east. to sum it up, stability and

prosperity in europe have been of great benefit to the united states. the eu has been a key ingredient in a world order very favorable for the united states. 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 to the one which we have become a custom onned. i hope that is not the case. that is the most likely outcome given where we are today. thank you very much. >> well we have heard from the optimist and the pessimist. now, do you have a fusion position for us, doctor? >> in my oral testimony i will address three impacts on the european union's future. greek crisis the upcoming referendum on eu membership, and

growing aoe lectoral. relative to existing pan eu institution recent developments have essentially cemented the existence of a multispeed europe where countries have undertaken dramatic new integration while other member states outside the common currency are only affected to a limited degree. recalling, however this multispeed situation has been de facto present in the eu for many decades. there's no obvious reason to fear the existing institutions cannot continue to cope with this situation also going forward. recent events over the weekend saw a dramatic escalation between the greek government and the rest of the area. negotiations took place with a major taboo in the euro area of politics, the possible exit of a member state from the common currency broken and alexis tsipras for the first time faced this political calamity for

greece. he subsequently in my opinion he folded his position. the decision by is the euro area to make an exit from the common currency and explicit and effective negotiating tool will have changed the nature of the euro currency itself. giving the willingness of top euro area political leaders to use this exit threat, the i reversibility 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 own us to agree to more and deeper institutional integration off 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. though not have direct implications for the eu as a whole. the upcoming uk referendum on eu membership is highly unlikely to

leave to material and lasting changes for the simple reason it is likely to be fought with the government, prime minister and all the opposition parties all campaigning successfully for the uk to remain in the eu. by david cameron will campaign in my area for the british business as well as to avoid the result in economic uncertainty and damage to the uk economy from a no vote. the referendum will take place in an economic context of a projected growth between two 2 and 2.5% between now and 2016, which is the most likely year for the referendum. most importantly, however, the politically necessary changes to eu law will be possible for david cameron to achieve. in principle, eu law is valid throughout the 28 member states.

individual member states secured updoubts for the treaty, exempting them from having to implement some policies a the home. in short, the eu legal framework is a highly flexible animal when eu leaders require such flexible and finessing to overcome a particular political problem. given how germany and other eu members have suppressed their clear political interests in seeing them remain a member of the eu there can be no doubt that the full arsenal of legal eu flexibility will be made available to david cameron. all of which are points -- 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-establish and euro skeptic in their political outlook. at the same time, however, it's important to recognize that european parliamentary systems have historically often operated very successfully with very large anti-establishment representation at national and european levels. prior to 1989 this was seen in national legislativers. there is no reason to believe that current levels of representation of these types of parties in eu parliament represent a historically unprecedented and impossible situation. there is no further -- no immediate reason to believe euro skeptic parties will continue to grow beyond their historical political range up to 25% of public support and into effective governing majorities. this is due to the narrowness of

the core shared left and right wing populist message of many of these parties, best described as a welfare chauvinistic platform. this policy mix is generally and successfully targeted the lower skill segments of aoe lector 80s. yet even without the prospects of gaining governor power, the stronger political parties very significantly raise the political hurdles for further revisions of the eu treaty. this means that the eu for the for seeable future will have to continue to function within the broad legal framework laid down in the lisbon treaties. the anti-establishment parties will not materially affect the 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. >> i thank all of you for your testimony today. i'll start with a few questions. and then we will proceed to our other members as well. so you're saying that the british are going to vote to stay in the eu. you're more pessimistic about that, correct? >> actually, no. if i had to bet, i would bet that they will remain in as well. >> okay. so all three of you are 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 i believe is being criticized is brussels is 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 co opting various positions that used to belong to the states. but none of you are convinced that this in and of itself this resentless 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 effect of immigration into these countries, their -- and quite frankly, there's a lot of people in our country who don't believe

that people who have come here illegally should be receiving government benefits and the benefits of our society or even jobs. is the immigration that's going on that you now are changing the fundamental nature of those countries to the point that the eu -- these were different countries then that joined the eu 30 40, years ago. is immigration going to change that? maybe 30 seconds is from each of you on that. >> there is a lot of similarities between the problems we face here and what the europeans are facing as well. immigration is more complicated for them because of a religious factor and racial factor involved. so immigration is affected by religious and racial extremism. but the number of immigrants in europe is less than the number of immigrants in this country.

>> of course we have -- we are a nation of immigrants. so we represent every race religion and ethnic group. we're very proud of that. so it wouldn't have much of an impact, as opposed to a homogenous society. >> a poorer job assimilating immigrants than the united states has. that's been one of our great successes throughout our history. second, this has to be understood in the context of a continent really that 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 concerns of unemployment 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. that in turn reinforces the popularity of some of these right winged nationalist or on

euro skeptic parties. in ability to deal with the problem may make the euro skepticism problem worse as well. >> i would say the main political impact in the eu right now is both the scale but also the relative novelty of this. the scale is actually very large. if you look at the number of permanent legal immigrants comeing into the eu in the 21st century, it's twice the level of green card holders coming into the united states. but secondly this is happening to countries that historically does not have the tradition that the united states has. this is countries traditionally very homogenous, have light couture, nationally dominant cultures. they have historically done poorer in terms of integrating these immigrant communities. >> if indeed the eu policy is a more liberal policy of accepting

this immigration into these countries, that would work to undercut the nationalists within those countries would then be more opposed to eu. is that correct? in other words, if the eu is pushing for a higher level of acceptance of immigration and the people of those countries, because they are more homogenous do not want them, that would actually be weakening the eu. is that correct? >> it would depend very much on where you are in the eu. if you're in italy right now where the number of illegal immigrants crossing the mediterranean, you would try to spread it out throughout the entire union loosening the burden on italy specifically. whereas if you're in fin land, you would probably have the

opposite opinion about sort of sending this up to be a policy area dictated or governed by 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. >> mr. walt? >> i think it's largely irrelevant. i think it's a short-term band-aid but i don't see in this agreement yet the solution to greece's ultimate problems. >> is it going to be a thumbs down? >> i believe we will see a replay of what we just witnessed in the future. and how many times europe can go through this series before you finally do get a greek exit remains to be seen. i wouldn't be confident that patience is infinite. >> thumbs up.

the political significance of a country having lost a third or perhaps up to a third of its gdp now still would i believe in the coming days will find a significant political majority to implement this deal and therefore in the euro area i don't think should be dismissed. >> all right. and mr. meeks, you may proceed. >> thank you. let me make sure. i think i got it right. but i think dr. mccormick, is it important for the eu to stay together? >> yes. >> dr. walt? >> it would be better for us if they did and better for europe if it did. >> so it's better for us and europe? >> yes. >> so it's better 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 if 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 i'll go through the economists here, that if greece is ever going to get back on its feet, it's not just austerity, it is austerity with debt relief so it can begin to grow again. can you talk a little bit about that. >> there's no doubt you need a combination of the two. you need some degree of fiscal rectitude. greece historically has run very large and persistent government deficits. you clearly also need debt relief given where the government is now. i do believe there is 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 discussion 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 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 you will see the greek government debt being structured in a way so they may not have to pay any interest or amortization. the maturity may well be stepped to 60 years or beyond that. so the actual cost of the debt, which incidentally is already below the levels of interest paid by the u.s. federal government despite much higher gross debt levels, becomes more or less a nonissue in my opinion for the ability of the greek economy to grow. and then finally i should note, and this is where the u.s. influence will be very

important. part of the reason that the european union will be -- i'm sorry, the euro area will be compelled to do this probably by the first quarter of next year, is that they are seeking imf co-financing of one-third financing for this 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'm not optimistic for several reason. this new relief package is $80 billion, i believe. but most of that money is simply going to get recycled back to european financial institutions of one kind or another. it is not a stim louse. it does nothing to get the greek

economy to be more productive at all. there is no debt relief promised. it is out there. we are asking for greece to suffer a little bit more in fact, suffer a lot more with the prospect that things will improve at some point down the road. what i am i guess still baffled by, if the greek reform was so easy why hasn't it happened already? it has been five or six years where they have had multiple opportunities. it is clearly politically extremely difficult for the greeks to do this and to expect them to do it having inflicted more pain on them. we are 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 that it will. >> one line of thought that is not often explored is the responsibility to greece itself holds getting into this mess. greece should never have been

allowed in in the first place. it didn't meet the terms of membership. it mismanaged the economy before it was allowed into the euro. being allowed into the euro made matters worse. it borrowed money at a lower interest than before. it then went off on a debt-laden spending spree which made previous habits worse. so my optimism is based on the fact that i think the greek people and the greek government will get to the point where they realize they have to clean house, they have to manage their economy effectively as european neighbors have. whatever the terms of the bailout or the debt relief or the terms of some of the deals that are done, we are seeing a hard learning experience for the greek people about how to manage a modern economy. and i'm a biittner vows about saying in because i'm not sure it's a very popular idea, but i think they attract more

criticism than 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 in my opening statement that i was going to ask 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? i think the doctor talked about that and hungary. you can include that and other countries that because their economic situation might be interested in that handout. >> i think given the conflict we have with russia now over ukraine, russia has quite

cleverly used assets including offers of money to try to diminish european unity and nato unity to prevent extensions to try to weaken western resolve. as i indicated in my initial statement, one of the problems here is that there isn't really a consensus in europe on just how serious the russian threat really is. i think everyone acknowledges that it's a problem. there's no real support for russia's behavior in ukraine. but whether it's a new cold war or whether it's the return of the battle of the soviet union there is no agreement there. most europeans don't see it as nearly as serious a problem. perhaps the baltic states do but hardly anybody else in europe. you will see a dangle of bland issue incidents including greece. that's a way they can exploit it. i don't think it's going to cause the eu to dissolve tomorrow.

but it is a centrifugal force. >> i don't 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 would probably affect considerably more than that to keep these bank afloat. and vladimir putin doesn't have that much money in liquid reserves. and even if he did, i'm highly skeptical he'd be willing to take that much -- put that much cash into greece. vladimir putin, therefore, in terms of shall we say, offering

a material difference to the acute economic crisis that greece faces right now really doesn't have much to offer. you can see that in the fact at the end of the day when the negotiations in the european union about extending the current sanctions was up for debate where unanimity is required the greek government basically posted no objection. >> in my opening statement i said one of the great benefits or achievements of the union union was the expansion of democracy in and out side of europe. greece joined the european union after having spent some time under a military government and with its democratic credentials in question. i think the benefits that greece has seen over the last 30, 40 years 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 greece 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 much greater than having some sort of association with something like putin's russia. >> thank you. i'm going to a nato 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 eu 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 continent 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 much of the european union is a major achievement and has been an 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 don't believe 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 some of 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. >> thank 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 underground economy in greece is thriving. now, is that accurate, the underground economy? >> yes, that would generally be my opinion, correct. it is very large and has grown bigger in the last five years. >> and this is just a reason 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 of greece was based on the gray market. by nature the gray market and black market are very difficult to measure, but the oecd, 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 are doing 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 that was put in place after the end of the military regime in the 1970s has

collapsed. so what you need is a fundamental group of nation 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 unpredictable enterprise 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 freefall 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 -- >> 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 ireland, 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 european union and unstable country on the border. surely it's better to invest and work with the greek government. remember, the greek government is meeting with its 27 peers all of the time at meetings. they're 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-preservation in this as well. if you do not give greece a third bailout, they will default on the existing loans that the eurozone has made to them which is 240 billion euros which means the germans and others would

have to admit to their own voters this was not a loan that might be repaid, but a gift. >> greece existed before the eurozone, right? >> right. >> and one thing i think we would agree on the panel, it was a mistake to allow greece into the eurozone in the first place, and it may be political to make a common occurrence work. and what you are hearing on the panel is replicated inside europe itself. those who think it would be better for the rest of the eu to leave the common currency despite all the consequences just referred to and those who think that the consequence s are so severe they have to be avoided and that the disagreement between france and germany over the last several months. >> thank you, mr. chairm