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. chairman. i yield. >> sort of like those people who think it might have been a good idea to let puerto rico be independent, mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been pondering american history with europe while we've been listening to your testimony and q&a back and forth. and it seems after world war ii for 47 years when there was not

a european community our relationship with europe was good. then we had -- the eu created seven years worth of phase in and the euro currency comes into play in roughly 1999 and now 16 years thereafter and our relationship has been good. so either way, america's relationship with europe has done well with and without the euro. so to me, the european union issue is more of a focal point for the european nations and they should be the deciders of their fate. and i'm curious about a comment that was made that the european union is better for the usa, quote/end quote. and my question is, why? what can you share for us that would help convince me that it is in america's best interest to have a european union as opposed to not having one in as much as our relationship with europe was

good in both contexts. >> i'll take a swing at it. first of all, the eu, whatever the current problems may be, is a major economic bloc in the world and a major trading partner. >> is that good for us or bad for us? >> a prosperous european and american economy one that more can send products to and americans can make money investing. >> do you have any data that europe was growing slower before the eu than after? >> in the 1990s it grew quite well, as did we. it's had problems since 2008. we've recovered more quickly than europe. >> outside the framework of this hearing but do you have any data that backs that up? since 1945? so that would be in the neighborhood of 70 years.

>> the lowering of trade barriers throughout europe clearly helped stimulate economic growth. it allowed for free trade within europe and allowed their economies to grow. the second thing the european union has been a source of stability within europe and the community was instrumental in helping the transition from communism. it's been a part of the world we didn't have to worry as much post the breakup of the soviet union. there are other parts of the world we are concerned with. and if europe spiraled back toward rivalries, american policymakers would have to spend more time worrying about that than worrying about other problems. and europe is a strategic partner of ours for a long time.

if jurp preoccupied and increasingly occupied, then when we try to deal with other strategic problems in the world we'll get even less help from europe than we do now. >> one of the important aspects of our relationship with europe is our military alliance, particularly nato, and it seems that under the european union, defense spending the collective of european nations has declined as opposed to when they were a part of the european union, making them less able to help america than troubled spots around the globe. i mention that as a concern of mine. i want to focus my remaining time on the greek bailout impact on america. we've had now the third bailout, the first one was in 2010 and then 2012 sand now 2015 and we are hoping this one would stick when the two prior ones did not. what is the monetary exposure to the united states of these

bailouts failing? >> i guess i can take a stab at that. the direct exposure to the united states to the greek bailouts comes through the imf, the 17 percent -- >> 17.9%. >> and that exposure is about 25 -- i believe $25 billion. so 17% or 16% or 17% of that. however, as we're seeing in the agreement this weekend, actually, the europeans made it explicit they are going to pay -- give greece the money so they can repay the imf. which means that -- >> very quickly in my remaining few seconds, is the imf involved in the third bailout? >> i believe it is, yes. >> and so they will supply funds for the third bailout? >> it will not increase it because existing loans will be repaid simultaneously.

>> do you know the net? >> sorry? >> do you know the net? is it going up or down. and we have the old and now the new bailout numbers and payoff of some of the old or new. is it a net up or down? >> i don't know what the request from the europeans will be, and it depends on the size of the greek privatization proceeds, et cetera. but for the next three to four years, it will be about even after which it will begin to decline quite rapidly. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. thank you for the indulgence and the extra 45 seconds. >> so the united states will be paying for the sum of the bailout because we are part of the international monetary fund? no, what is it. >> yeah, we are. we're 17.69% is our quota ownership of international monetary fund so whatever the assets are in the imf and their obligations to greece, since

we're one of the owners, there is an impact on the united states. >> so what is your guess then -- say there is a certain amount of bailout, and how much of that is the united states going to end up paying? >> well, the range that was mentioned -- >> through this -- >> yeah. the range that was mentioned of the agreement over the weekend was 60 -- 82 to 86 billion euros, which is just over $90 billion. >> right. >> and then, however, subtracted from that will be whatever the proceeds, assuming the number of greek government privatization proceeds from state-owned enterprises, et cetera. now how much of that will be unknown, but the target is 50. i certainly don't believe they will reach 50. but let's say it is 20. that takes you down to the

mid-70s -- or $70 billion. so one-third of that would be for the imf to cover. >> and how much of that is us. one-third of that is what -- $25 billion. >> give and take. and then 16% of the 22. >> 16%. now what does that leave? that leaves us about $5 billion, just about. >> something like that. >> so isn't that wonderful that we're getting to bail out greece and our friends over in europe for $5 billion. isn't that wonderful. but we can't find any way to use that money anyway. >> well, it is important to recognize that if the bailout deal were to work, then it is not a handout. it is a loan that gets repaid. all right. so the question is really do you think this is likely to turn greece around, finally allow it to begin to pay off the debts and lead to a restructuring of the debt and we all live happily ever after. >> excuse me -- what about the

date -- excuse me, with a member of the panel here, but the banks, when you talk about we're bailing out the european banks, these people are being bailed out said the banks are actually getting the money. are these privately held banks or are these banks that are owned by the government of france and england and et cetera? >> well, in this instance, the current bailout under discussion is not private banks that own the debt. there was that issue back in 2010 where there were clearly some european banks that benefitted from that. they were mostly private banks in france and elsewhere. but clearly, the european government entered into this process because they were afraid that otherwise they would have to bail out these banks themselves and therefore make them -- >> so we're not bailing out any private -- this money for bailing out greece does not include money that is going to privately owned banks?

>> no. i mean there are -- >> is that right? the other gentleman, is that true? >> i don't think it is entirely true. it depends on what you mean by privately held banks. >> some of the money will help greek banks that have no cash on hand at present. >> it sort of makes it even worse, doesn't it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just wanted to follow up on some of your previous comments about being better for us if the eu stays together. if you could answer the question in the opposite way of talking about how we can measure what the impact on our economy would be if the eu completely dissolved, or if it ends up that the uk ends up exiting the eu, what kind of impact would that have for us? >> purely in economic terms, i think that would be a blow to

the eurozone and the eu in general. as an economic actor and lead to slower economic growth in europe which is already relatively low, but that in turn reduces economic opportunities for the united states because if the euro -- the eu is growing at a half percent a year, then there are far fewer european firms that can sell things or europeans that can buy american products. so we are better off if europe had a vigorous economy and need for american products. >> do we have a specificity on what impact that would be. obviously you are saying there could be some loss. but i'm trying to look for a little bit more? >> i can't give you a figure, a macro economic estimate, i don't have that, of what the actual impact on the u.s. economy will be, but anything that hurts the european economy will also hurt the united states, not perhaps as much, but it has a negative

effect on our economic prospects as well. >> it is difficult to put numbers on this, but the united states is now dealing with one states is now dealing with one economic bloc. so when the u.s. trades with the european union, it is one-on-one. but if the european union, it is one on 28. there 28 sets of separate bilateral agreements the u.s. has to work out with the countries. and access to one market of 506 million people and a u.s. corporation doing business in any one of those 28 countries has access to the entire market. if this breaks down or splinters in some fashion, it adds that much more level of complication in terms of dealing with these entities. >> with regard to what prime minister cameron has before him, what do you assess he will try to renegotiate with regard to britain's commitment to the eu? >> i can take it. what he has -- it is unclear

precisely what he's asking for at this moment from the eu authorities, but what he has mentioned is he would like to have britain exempt from something called the working time directive which is a european regulation that says you cannot work more than 48 hours a week. excuse me. and then there are other specific types of eu regulation or eu law that he would like the uk to be exempt from. he may seek to be exempt from the opening clause of the eu treaty which talks about an ever closer union. which of course would be purely symbolic politics but that is important in a referendum campaign. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so we're going to have to go pretty quickly here, and i just

want to confirm this, so we're talking about, in this bailout, the greek bailout, that about $5 billion -- americans will have $5 billion coming from our pockets. would you like to again go back -- i would like to go back again to who this money is going to. the bailout -- first of all, is it accurate to say that the bankruptcy can be traced back to policies of greek government? >> in my opinion, yes. yes. >> okay, so the greek government had policies that put us in a spot where banks -- now the banks that will be repaid now, because they have been spending this money, to keep the greeks afloat, these banks are -- you're saying they are not private banks, they are german banks, french banks? >> no. no, no, this is in 2010.

today the people going to be repaid are in fact the imf itself and also the euro area and a relatively small amount of total outstanding debt. about 20% of debt is still held by private investors. so there is no direct so to speak. >> so the last bailout we saw private banks being basically being given money bailed out, and they bailed out the greeks but they give it to the private banks. are those private banks are they profit making or government related institutions? >> they are overwhelmingly private profit making institutions. >> how much was the last bailout? >> well, the original -- the total bailout so far is about $240 billion. >> $240 billion. of that $240 billion, how much

went to the private banks? >> i think that is -- i don't have the number off the top of my head, but i would say if you look at the direct exposure that these banks had to the greek debt that was restructured, which should also be known that the banks actually took, as all private debt holders did, a 50% hair cut on this debt in -- >> well, it depends on if the hair cut meant they are still making a profit or whether it means they are going to eat into the resource. if a bank or if any other private institution, at least in our society is supposed to be, if you take a risk -- you are making your money because you are taking a risk in giving your money out. and if the federal government or if the european union simply bails out anybody who has taken a risk and makes up for it with public funds, i don't see why

we're -- why are they making a profit then on this stuff? you're saying those banks didn't make a profit those years? >> well, i mean, i'm saying that they are profit-making private enterprises. i would say they definitely did not make a profit on the greek debt holdings because they were compelled to take a sizable debt restructuring, a 50% hair cut back in 2012. >> well, i'm wondering, i could see why people are skeptical, regular working people, people who own small businesses or whatever whatever. a lot of it going and bailing out really very wealthy people who control the banking inging system. mr. meeks, you have one last -- >> well, i mean -- i'm sorry. it seems as though, from what i'm hearing, that the risk to the united states as far as us,

it is minimal, if anything. it is not substantial. and the likelihood of us having to pay anything, especially with the special fund that the europeans have set up to make sure the imf is paid because the only exposure is through the imf and that seems to be backed up already by though eu in the agreement saying they are going to make sure the imf is paid so that would leave $0 that the united states -- as far as being -- is that not correct? >> yes. it is very important to emphasize the imf is the super senior creditor and this will be a firm political commitment by the creditor to make sure the imf is paid back and the exposure to the united states is close to zero. in fact it is zero. [ inaudible ] >> you had your time already. >> and all of the money through

american banks that never left our shores at all. >> and all i know is we had a financial crisis also in the united states in 2008, and we had to bail out banks to keep our economy afloat. the banks ultimately paid things back. so this is not something that is unusual as far as dealing with a current economy. they aren't doing anything differently than we had to do. we rebounded and now we have to get the reforms that are necessary and it is a vast cost because when you are looking at the eu as a whole, for us we're looking at what is in america's best interest and we have to hope what is in europe's best interest but if you look at what is in america's best interest, it is for us to deal with europe as a whole. for example, one of the next big issues that we have to deal with in congress is going to be another trade agreement. it would be best for the united states if we were negotiating that deal and doing it with the eu as a whole because that then

gives a greater market for our businesses to try to make sure that we get the best deal to create jobs here, et cetera. is that not correct. >> that is correct. >> correct. >> thank you. >> we have skeptics over here. i'm one of them. thank you all, mr. meeks. thank you to our witnesses. we have a vote so we have to run. god bless you. thank you. iran has signed the deal now what is next? our "washington journal," we'll talk with capitol hill workers about that including daryl issa of california. a member of the foreign affairs

subcommittee and north africa. later senator ben carton of maryland, the top democrat on the foreign relations committee. "washington journal" is live every morning on c-span. you can give yours thoughts by phone and on twitter. when congress is in session c-span3 brings more of the access to congress with live action of hearings, news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites. discussions with authors and historian ianians and eyewitness accounts. c-span3, coverage of congress and american history tv. a hearing on the challenges facing the international space station. just last month a rocket on the way to resupply it exploded over cape canaveral, florida. and there were two more

unsuccessful attempts to deliver supplies to the orbiter over the past year. witnesses include officials from nasa and boeing along with a former nasa restaurant whoastronaut who flew aboard the space shuttle "columbia." this is about 45 minutes. >> the committee on space will come to order. and without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. good morning. welcome to today's hearing titled the international space station, addressing operational challenges. in front of you are packets containing the written testimony biographies and truth in testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening

statement. good morning. i'd like to welcome everyone to our hearing today and thank the witnesses for taking time to appear before our committee. since 2013 the iss program has experienced a number of challenges. as a can-do nation, america has always been committed to identifying challenges. addressing them to and advancing to reach out and reach our goal and destiny. we have that same commitment with the iss. during this time, astronauts have experienced water leaks in their suits three times with one incident hearing during a space walk. on april 26th, 2013 an unmanned cargo damaged the reflector when docking with the iss. on january 14th, 2015 a false alarm of an ammonia leak caused

the crew to retreat into the russian segment. an orbital sciences unmand cargo launch failed just after launch. on april 28th 2015, a separate russian cargo vehicle failed to reach the iss. on june 7th 2015 a planned reboost of the iss using a docked progress vehicle failed. but eventually was successful after trouble shooting. on june 10th 2015 a visiting soyuz vehicle unexpectedly fired its engines without being commanded. on june 28th 2015, a space-x unmanned cargo launch failed as well. all of these incidents highlight the challenges of operating in space and they remind us nasa's contractors, engineers and astronauts must be ever

diligent. these events have challenged iss operations but the fact the program was able to effectively respond to these setbacks is a testament to nas athe iss partners and the contractors. we do not know the root causes of some of the accidents yet, but once we have more information we'll be better suited to review those individual events. this hear allows us to evaluate the operational status of the iss, review efforts to assess the prospects for future operations. the iss is one of the most complex and expensive manmade objects ever built. the american taxpayers currently invest approximately $3 billion per year in this laboratory. we must ensure that every dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. the iss offers a unique

microgravity for scientists and engineers to utilize. nasa released its publication detailing the many benefits iss provides back to our lives on earth. from our advances in human health and performance, to our use of new materials to robotics and satellites, the benefits we receive from iss are many and diverse and remarkable. in addition to the benefits here on earth, the iss offers the conditions necessary to prepare and develop critical technologies for deep space and long duration human space flight missions. successive nasa authorizations direct the administration to utilize the iss for this purpose. the human research program and advance exploration systems program at nasa are on the cutting edge of developing the systems we need to send humans

ever deeper into the solar system than before. right now captain scott kelly is on day 104 of his year-long mission to study the effects of long duration human space flight. in addition to utilization efforts of nasa's research programs, the nasa authorization act of 2005 designated part of the iss as a national lab of the nasa authorization act of 2010 directed the administration to sign a cooperative agreement with a non-profit to manage it. nasa's selected the center for the advancement of science and space are cases to lead this effort. the government accountablility office noted in a recent report that acasis had made great strides but more work needed to be done to see that measurable progress was being made in a

quantifiable manner. i hope to hear from nasa they are making progress toward answering this recommendation from gao. as we keep an eye on the present operation and utilization of the iss, we must also look to the future. last year the administration announced support for the extension of the iss program from 2020 to 2024. at present, federal law limits the life of the iss to 2020. absent action from congress to extend it the administration would be required to begin closeout of the program. there are many questions about the request for this extension. the bipartisan house passed nasa authorization act of 2015 requires the administration to provide a report to congress on efforts by the administration to utilize the iss and how to quantify benefits back to the nation for the required

investment for this extension. it also requires the administration to develop a government wide utilization plan for the iss to ensure every minute the facility is in orbit we are doing what we can to get the most out of it. these reports are critical for congress to understand the issues that inform whether to extend the iss. this committee has a responsibility to ensure the american taxpayers are getting all they can from every dollar they send to the federal government. i believe this investment is worth while and that the benefits far outweigh the cost. support for the iss and its operations and utilization is not a partisan issue. it is an american issue and i look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle and my partners in the space industry to understand how we can all meet the operational

challenges facing the iss program. i now recognize the ranking member the gentle lady from maryland, for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and good morning and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. i appreciate holding this hearing now the international space station addressing operational challenges. and as i listen to the chairman, i'm reminded that the challenges that nasa faces and the agency faces in operating the international space station, i would be more concerned if we weren't able to overcome some of those challenges. i think it's a credit to the crew and the partners that that is true. about a year ago, i and members of our committee sat in this screen room and looked on that screen and were able to communicate

with those aboard the space station, including rick wiseman from maryland. i promised him crab cakes and one of those accidents the chairman referred to destroyed my crab cake delivery but rick wiseman visited with me in my office a couple of weeks ago and we made okay on that. what happens when you connect realtime with our astronauts living and working and carrying out research in they mazing laboratory that's orbiting 250 miles above us every 90 minutes is quite an inspiration. thanks to nas athe yous aboard the iss and so many schoolchildren have had the opportunity to ask questions and learn about human space flight through similar down link events we experienced in this room. yet in the thrill of seeing and hearing those who inhabit the on-orbit laboratory we can

sometimes forget how difficult, demanding and risky it is to operate the space station. sometimes we think it's just ordinary and it turns out it's rather extraordinary. human health hazards pose significant risks to the iss facility and crew. the unfortunate loss of the spax-x 7 cargo less than two weeks ago, along with the earlier losses of the russian progress and orbital etk cargo missions over the past eight months are stark reminders of the risk and challenges that's nasa and its partners have to face. the successful management of these risks for more than 15 years is a testament to nasa and its industry and to international partners. i'm confident that space-x orbital atk in collaboration with the faa and nasa will identify and resolve the problems that led to the launch

failures, the cargo resume to the iss as soon as it's safe to do so. the iss has been resupplied through its partners. mr. chairman we don't have any type to spare. the iss is a temporary facility authorized for operations as you described through 2020. given the operations cost about $3 billion in taxpayer dollars every year, the cost that's projected to increase coupled with the challenges involved in sustaining operations we need to ensure our vision is clear and our goals and objectives for using this facility are aligned with that vision. i'm pleased at the number of iss users has grown. we've had concerns about that raised here in this committee. in addition to nasa researchers and nasa support academic researchers, the iss laboratory management has drawn new commercial users, including pharmaceutical companies to the