tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 1, 2016 3:30pm-5:31pm EDT
it will not remain underappreciated any longer. all this has been done and i have to say in the face of the , we need toit remember that a good university, particularly a good research university, has the potential to lift the entire states in ways that may not have been done in any other way. i think it is really fabulous in so many ways. the tradition is to say a few things to the graduates before they leave. you who don't have a job -- onall of this online c-span.org. we will take you to indiana with
president obama talking about the economy. [applause] obama: hello everybody. [applause] hello, hello. please give kelly a big round of applause for that introduction? [applause] it is good to be back in elkhart. [applause] great to be back at concord high school. go minutemen. i brought a couple of friends with me. your senator, joe donnelly, is here. here --or, two nieces mayor tim, is here. i want to congratulate them for
graduating tomorrow. i met a couple of the phallic the taurean's, who seem like outstanding young ladies. my -- a couple of the valedictorians, who seem like outstanding young ladies. my two young -- my young daughter is graduating this week. i don't want to embarrass her. down, iave a chair, sit have some stuff to say here. doubtt going to talk to -- to talk about the fact that my daughter leaving me is breaking my heart. i'm not here to talk about that. i'm here to talk about the economy. i don't know if you've noticed, but this is an election year.
and as a more colorful election season than most. it has been a little unusual. >> [indiscernible] president obama: no, i can't do that. [laughter] the constitution prohibits it, and more importantly michelle prohibits it. the reason we are told this is an unusual election year is because people are anxious and uncertain about the economy. and our politics are a natural place to channel that frustration. so i wanted to come to the heartland, to the midwest, close to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety and what it means.
number one, america's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago, it is the most strongest and durable economy in the world. two, we can make it even stronger and expand opportunity. to do that, we have to be honest about what the real channel -- the real challenges are. elkhart is a good place to have this conversation. this was the first city i visited as president. i have been in office just three weeks when i came here. it turned out to be one of the
worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. our businesses were losing a month.obs our auto industry was about to go under. our families were losing their savings and health insurance. as kelly pointed out they were in danger of losing their homes. and elkhart was hit harder than most. unemployment here would peak at 19.6%. that means nearly one in five people here were out of work. told you then that i was going to have your back, and we were going to work hard to bring this economy back. [applause] so what has happened since then? in elkhart has fallen to around 4%. [applause] at the peak of the crisis nearly one in 10 homeowners in the
state of indiana were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure. today is one in 30. of your kidsy 75% graduated from high school. tomorrow 97 -- tomorrow 90% of them will. [applause] the auto industry had its best year ever and the -- is doing its part. 4000 rvs this year shipped, which will be an all-time record. so that's progress. thanks to you for the hard work you put in and the second phthisis you may to our families and the way you looked out for each other. we also wouldn't have come this far. elkhart would not come this far if we hadn't made a series of
smart decisions. my administration, a cooperative congress, decisions we made together early on in my administration. we decide to help the auto industry to restructure. we decided to invest in manufacturing. entrepreneurs would not bring back the jobs we would lost -- we lost. we can see the results. not just here in elkhart but across the nation. by almost every economic measure.
-- every economic measure america is better off when i -- better off than when i came here. that is the truth. that's true. it's true. it's true. over the past six years our businesses have created this -- created for 2 million jobs. that is the longest stretch of private sector growth job in our history. we have seen the first sustain manufacturing growth since the 1990's. we cut unemployment in half. we buy fromil foreign countries by more than half, doubled the clean energy we produced. for the first time ever more
than 90% of the country has health insurance. [applause] in fact the poll that was out of three week, two out americans think our own financial situation is in good shape. we know a lot of people are still feeling stressed about the economic future. pundit's, they say one of the reasons the bargain parties have picked the candidates they have -- the partisan parties have big the candidates they -- if you watch tv, they will say the reason folks are pays is because nobody
enough attention to the plight of working americans and communities like these. that is what they say. i'm the first to admit my presidency hasn't fixed everything. been stuck with a congress recently the proposed opposedgress that everything we try to do. we want to make sure that every kid in america gets the same opportunity michelle and i did. i know that communities haven't been -- communities like elkhart -- haven'tn forge been forgotten in my white house. oh card proves it. where we haven't finished the , where folks have good
reason to feel anxious is addressing some of the longer-term friends in the economy that started long before i was elected that make working families feel less secure. reverse.o do more to let me be clear about what those are. despite the drop in unemployment, wages are still growing too slowly. that makes it harder to pay for college or safer retirement. [applause] inequality is still too high. rich and poor is bigger now than it has been in any time since the 1920's. competitionglobal
and automation of more and more jobs, the race of technology, all these trends have left many workers behind, and they have collectingat the top extraordinary wealth and influence like never before. that kind of changes our politics. saul these trends make it easy for people to feel somehow the system is raked. there are plenty of politicians preying on the frustration. i am a politician for another six months or so. but i am not running again. besides -- while i may have won the state of indiana just barely , i know i lost the vote
in elkhart. i know i don't poll all that well in this county. i'm not here looking for votes. cared deeplyuse i as a citizen, to make sure we sustain and build on your communities to bring america back over the past seven years. that's one of the reasons i came here. economy is really what is driving the selection, -- this election, then it is voters like you that have to decide between
-- you are going to have to make that decision. be a straight as i can be about the choice of economic policies that you are going to face. i'm going to start with a story that every republican or most -- or most candidates have said. i think this is but a fair, and if you don't, you can look it up. their basic story is america's working class, america's middle class, families like yours, have been victimized by a big bloated federal government run by a bunch of left-wing elitists like me. and the government is taking your hard earned tax dollars and giving them to freeloaders and we are strangling business with endless regulations, and the
federal government is letting immigrants and foreigners steal whatever jobs obamacare hasn't killed yet. i'm being serious here, that's the story that's been told. i haven't turned on foxnews or listen to conservative talk radio yet today. enough to them on know i am not exaggerating in terms of their stories. that is the story they tell. you can hear it about every member of congress on the other side of the aisle. they have defined their economic agenda by what they are against. let's face it is anti-change.
a lot of people believe it. if what they are saying were true, i suppose it would make and do everything -- and the lack of thing we have done in the past 7.5 years and happy days were here again. if what they were saying where is true, then just being against whatever we have done might make sense. but what they are saying isn't true. and if we are going to fix what is really wrong with the economy we have to understand it. let me just do some quick myth busting. i'm going to start with the biggest myth. which is the federal government is going to keep growing at growing and wasting your money and giving tax dollars to people who don't deserve it. these journalists do some fact
checking. we spend less on domestic priorities outside of social security, medicare, medicaid, we did duringthan we president ronald reagan proved when george w. bush or reagan our deficits have gotten bigger. when bill clinton and i held this job our deficits have gotten smaller. our deficits have not grown these past 7.5 years. we cut the deficit by a most 75%. moreover there are fewer families welfare that the 1990's. funding has been frozen for two decades.
bunch of not a whole giveaways going on right now. aside from our obligation to care for the elderly and americans with disabilities, the vast majority of people who get help from the federal government of all backgrounds who are working, striving to get back on their feet, striving to get back into the middle class, and sometimes their kids need temporary help for food stamps when mom and dad are between jobs. these kids didn't cause the financial crisis. these kids are not what is holding back the middle class. and by the way neither is obamacare. let's look at the numbers. i'm just giving facts here. will have some opinions later
but right now i will give facts. i thought -- i signed the a for the care act into law six years ago. since then our businesses have created jobs every single month. we did as well covering 20 ending americans, discrimination against pre-existing conditions for everybody. [applause] slowing theally rate of which health care is going up. employer-based premiums grew by an average of 8% per year, that means you are paying that much more every year for health insurance. the year they grew by 4%. half as fast as they were growing. today the average families
health insurance premium is tony $600 less -- is $2600 less than hadould have been if it been going up at that pace before obama care. hoosiers who shopped around for obamacare on health care. of -- healthcare.gov, for the millions of americans who buy on healthcare.gov, they get tax credit to pay for. there hasn't been a double-digit percentage heike. i want to bust this myth of crazy liberal government spending. government spending is not what is squeezing the middle class. two is the notion that my administration has kill
jobs through overregulation. back in the 60's and 70's government was adding all kinds of regulations. rules for protecting workers, rules for protecting the environment. these regulations didn't crush the economic growth that the 60's and 70's and they are not crushing economic growth now. i've issued fewer regulations that my predecessor. executived fewer orders than any two-term president since uss -- since ulysses s. grant. [applause] the regulations that we have , to protect their errors and waters, to protect our families from being cheated when buying a house, those rules have benefited more than they cost. here is myth number three.
other countries are killing us on trade. if a lot of supporters and trade deals -- the truth is the nefit for trade is widely spread. it is one of the reasons you can buy that big flatscreen tv for a couple hundred dollars. why the cost of basic necessities has gone down. some parts of the economy like the agricultural sector or tech sector has done well with trade. some communities are hurt by foreign competition. sometimes the pain of the plant closing magnify when other countries are cheating. they are unfairly subsidizing their business to undercut our business. violators --worst
here is what we have done over the past seven years. we have brought other trade cases for more other countries for cheating than anyone else. that is what we have done. making sure we have a level playing field. companies and export days were work higher- wages. most of the manufacturing jobs we have lost over the past decade, they weren't the result of trade deals.
it lets businesses make more stuff with fewer workers. you go into an auto plant , now they need 1000 workers to produce the same number of cars, just because they are robots and machines who replaced a lot of the work. now you have atm machines. you can't put technology back in a box anymore than you can cut ourselves off in the global supply chain. i guarantee you some of those parts came from someplace else. then we sell them back to other parts in the world. no matter how many terrorists were -- no matter how many trade wars were say they're going to put in place. say andent economists trade were would trigger another
recession and cost millions of jobs. when you hear something friend to cut off trade and say that a standing up for american workers, that is not true. myth, thatfourth immigrants are taking all of our jobs. let's look at the numbers. right now the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is near its lowest level in 40 years. it is near its lowest level in 40 years. it was lower than before i came into office, lower than during ronald reagan's time. it is true that new immigrant sometimes compete for services and construction jobs. but they represent 30% of all business in america.
everybody thinks that immigrants come here and they are getting all this stuff. immigrants pay a lot more in taxes than they receive in-service. most importantly immigrants are the reason wages haven't gone up for middle-class families. thee decisions are made in boardrooms of companies where top ceos are getting paid more than 300 times the income of the average workers. [applause] so deporting 11 million that ants, not only is fantasy, though it cost taxpayers billions of dollars families apart, and would logistically be impossible. to helpn't do anything the middle class.
what would help us if we fix our immigration system the way i propose, everybody plays by the rules. making sure the families have been here 10 years, 20 years, they are out of the shadows, paying taxes. that which regard deficits further. we just need a congress that is going to make it happen. here is my main point, the primary story that republicans have been telling about the economy is not supported by the facts. it's just not. they repeat it a lot. but they say it anyway.
it has worked to get them votes. at least that the congressional level. by telling hard-working middle-class families that the reason they are getting squeezed is because some moochers at the bottom of the income ladder, because of minorities and because of immigrants or because of employees or because of poor folksbecause of who aren't willing to work, they have been able to promote policies and protect special interests and those at the very top of the economic pyramid. [applause] i hope you don't mind me being blunt about this, but i have been listening to the stuff for a while. and i'm concerned when i watch the direction of our politics.
hearing this story for decades, tales about welfare ,ueens, talking about the 47% it is the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations. it is pumped into ours and cars and bmw halls. if you are hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. it is no wonder people think state government is the problem. no wonder people think that the deficit has gotten up under my presidency when it has gone down. no wonder they did a survey and a lot of americans think that is -- think that reverse discrimination is the biggest of discrimination
against authorities. -- against minorities. there are only a handful of women but that is the story that has and told. came here, we have to challenge the assumption behind this economic story. [applause] is, it has ended up dividing americans who actually have common economic interests and should be working -- betteror a battle deal. it has made people cynical about government and kept working families from pushing to advance economic challenges in a realistic way.
families of all races and all backgrounds deserve higher wages. families of all races and all wages deserve decent health care and retirement. every child in this country deserves an education that lets circumstancese under which they were born. [applause] economy, we cannot put up walls around america. we're not going to roundup 11 million people or put technology back in a box. we are not going to rip away of women,d rights minorities, and american with
they canies, so that better participate in the workplace. these are permanent pictures and our economy. not helpem back will us. if we are going to transform our politics so that they are actually responsive to working families, and growing the middle class, then we have to stop working-- pitting americans against each other. everyone needs to do their fair share and play by the same set of rules. and that is the vision that made progress possible these last seven years. that is what will lead us forward now. this is not a state of the union address, ird gave my last one. i already gave my last one.
i want everyone to have a fair shot of opportunity in this economy. you have heard these things before but it is worth repeating because they are true. number one, let's get wages rising faster. [applause] here is the good news. at a are actually growing rate of 3% so far this year. are finallyicans getting a bigger piece of the pie, but we have to accelerate that. that is why my administration took new action to help millions of workers finally collect the overtime pay they have earned. that will help. [applause] but we should also raise the minimum wage so that someone is working full time they are not living in poverty.
some states and the cities have done it, but we need a national law. we should make sure women get equal pay for equal work. [applause] that is something we can all agree on. that should not be a partisan issue. republicans have daughters, too. they should not want them to be paid less than somebodies boy for doing the same job. if you care about working families getting a better paycheck, that is a weird choice for you right there. we also need to give workers a bigger voice and the economy. one of the reason wages have not grown faster over the last couple of decades is because some politicians, some
laws, have some undermined the ability of workers to bargain for a better deal. and that needs to change. always talk about the good old days. in the good old days 50 years more than one in four american workers belonged to a union. [applause] one in four. reason all those wasfacturing jobs paid well because folks were unionized. they not only negotiated for good benefits and wages, they had a pension plan that they could count on. it used to be one in former
members of the union, today it is one in 10. and it is not a coincidence that as union membership shrinks, inequality grew, and wages stagnated, and workers got a smaller share of the economic pie. i just want everybody to remember this. a lot of the good manufacturing jobs that everybody misses, those were union jobs. [applause] it is great to get all riled up about wages and worker standards and other countries, but let's get riled up about that stuff here,too. america should not be changing our laws to make it harder for workers to organize, we should change the laws to make it new formsd encourage of worker organization to give them more of a voice and a say
in the economy. way, there are a lot of terrific business leaders who have figured out that doing is good their workers for the workers and for their bottom line. it means they have more customers, their community is doing better. there are plenty of business owners here who florist throughout the recession. so we should lift up the good corporate citizens like that so that more businesses across america follow their lead. number one,rity getting wages to grow faster. priority number two, we need to better prepare our children and workers for the highway -- high-tech jobs of the future. we know early childhood education works.
and we should invest in smart ways of doing it across the country, especially because childcare costs take a huge chunk of the family budget. we have to make college more affordable, and job training more available. one way to do that is provide two years of community college for free for every responsible students. there are mayors and governors already doing good work on these issues across party lines. they have shown the way. now we need congress to do the same. number 3, 1 of the reasons wages grew so quickly in the 60's and 70's is because we had a government that put people to and building highways
airports, and investing in research and development. it led to countless new discoveries and innovations. it educated a new generation of workers with public colleges where tuition was low, plus the g.i. bill. too often, republicans in congress block investments like these for no other reason than the cult of small government they keep repeating. it has been a drag on the economy. it made us recover slower than we should have. it has been a drag on jobs and wages, and it is penny wise and pound foolish. dollars,in less tax but would be better off putting people to work and bringing in more money, the economy gets stronger. the deficits actually go down. we should be making smarter investments.
fourth, we have to make it easier for working americans to retire -- save for retirement or bounce back from lost jobs. one -- those in congress have a pretty good deal. that is what obamacare is all about. so that ifn the gaps you lost your job or when back-to-school or started a business, you could go and compare and buy affordable coverage and get a tax credit for it. work even, it would better if we had governors and legislators. and, expand medicaid, that helped more than 300,000. in congressr folks decide with special interest, we need to lower health care costs. give us the funding to fight
challenges like zika and the opioid epidemic. those are things we could get done that would relieve a lot of worry for a lot of families. then we have to tackle retirement security. that is something that keeps a lot of people up and night. that is why we have taken action already to make it easier for more workers to stay with their jobs, to make sure that you -- when you do said, it is not in wall street's best interest, but your best interest. a lot of americans do not have retirement savings. even if they have an account set up, they don't have enough money at the end of the month to put into it. they are barely making the bills. that is why social security is more important than ever. we cannot afford to weaken social security, we should be
strengthening social security. not only do we need to , it is time we finally made social security more generous and increase the benefits so that today's retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned. [applause] we could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest americans to contribute a little bit more. i can afford it. a fifth way to make the new economy work for everybody is to make sure trade works for us and not against us. ourselves off from other countries does not work. tough talk is not going to do it. here is what will make a difference. making sure other countries raise of their labor and environmental standards to the levels that we set. did with thewe transpacific partnership.
we negotiated with 11 other countries. it, itdo not like overhaul the with stronger labor and environmental standards, so they cannot undercut us as easily. if you want china to set the rules for the 21st century, and they are trying, we can make sure we set the rules. china, -- ifo help you want to help america, you need to pass the trade deal. otherl cut taxes countries put on our products. it raises other countries standards two hours. better how we secure wages for our workers and compete on a level playing field. playing field, america wins every time. i'm going to make one last suggestion, make sure the economy works for everybody by
strengthening and not weakening the rules they keep wall street in check, and goes after folks who avoid paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] crisis, wefinancial passed the top is wall street reforms in history. the toughest wall street reforms in history. by the way, the bank bailouts everyone was mad about, they had to pay back every done, and with interest. and we passed laws to make sure nothing like that would happen again. and they are making a difference. the biggest banks have to carry twice the amount of capital as they did before the crisis. that makes another crisis less likely. we of new tools to guard against another too big to fail situation. we have already secured more than $10 billion for families who were cheated by
irresponsible lenders or irresponsible credit card practices. and guess what? thing,nce we passed this the big banks, working with a lot of members of congress on every side of the aisle, they have teamed up to try to roll back these rules every single year. every single year they have been trying to roll them back. the republican nominee for president has already said he will dismantle all the rules that we have. that is crazy. [applause] sometimes i just don't get it. [laughter] how it is that somebody could propose that we weaken regulations on wall street. have we really forgotten what
just happened eight years ago? it has not been that long ago. regulus -- of their reckless behavior, and the notion that you would vote for anybody who would now allow them to go back to doing the same broke our almost economy's back, makes no sense. i don't care whether you are republican, democrat, or independent. why would you do that? [applause] less oversight on wall street would only make another crisis more likely. letting credit card companies write their own rules will hurt working families. it sure as heck would not make the middle class more secure.
for theyou say you are middle class women want to tear down these rules? -- middle-class and want to tear down these rules? they try to avoid paying taxes in america. we have cracked down on tax cheats trying to hide their wealth in offshore accounts. you don't get to avoid paying your taxes, so why should they? [applause] but i have to say, the folks on the other side of the aisle have opposed our efforts to close these loopholes. how do they explain it? when big corporations and wealthy individuals do not pay their fair share of taxes, and by the way, a lot of people do
-- but there are a lot of folks who don't. when they don't pay their fair share of taxes, and it means either you are paying more, or it means we don't have enough revenue to support things like rebuilding our roads or funding public universities, which means tuition goes up. and then you are trying to figure out a pay for your kids education. we should of close these loopholes a long time ago, and lord knows i have tried every year in my budget. we should use the savings we get from them paying their fair share to give tax breaks that would actually help working families pay for child care. or help you send kids to college, or save for retirement. the point is, if we want ace class,- a strong middle we have to support that. middle-class families have paid
lower federal income rates during my presidency, then any other time since the 1950's. is the truth, look at up. [applause] americans areiest still paying far lower rates than they used to. i said we for office, reversed the tax cuts but by the previous president, for wealthy individuals. when the economy was booming and we ran a surplus with clinton, they said it would be disaster and would go into recession, we did not. 1% isday, even as the top doing better than ever, the republican nominee for president auld give the top 1/10 of 1%
bigger tax cut then the 120 million american households at the bottom. our deficit bye nearly $10 trillion. i am not making this up. you can look at the mouth. that will not bring jobs back. that is not fighting for the american middle class. win.will not help us not make your life better, that will help people like him. [applause] that is the truth. so you have a choice to make.
more or lasts inequality. between stacking the deck for the folks already doing great, or making sure everyone has a chance to succeed. you is the economic choice face, that is what is at stake in this election. two very different visions for our economy. i hope i have broken it down for you. now, let me say this. i understand that not everybody votes based on their economic interests. not everybody votes based on just the economy. we are more than just a matter of dollars and cents. --e folks very keep late care very deeply about our amendment rights, national security, or they are worried about terrorism. they may think we have not done a right thing on any of those issues.
have at republicans better answer. we could have that debate, that is fine. those are all issues very worthy of debate. about inat you care this election is your pocketbook, if what you are concerned about is who will look out for the interests of working to old and grow the middle class, if that is what you are if what you are concerned about is the economy, the debate is not even close. one half would lead to lower in things investments like education, weaken the safety net, it would take people off health insurance, and it would allow china to write the rules for the global economy. they would have the rules to
protect our air and water. it would allow -- it would cut taxes for the wealthiest americans. those are the facts. sounds like a strange agenda for politicians claiming to care about you and working families, but those are their plans. you can find it on the website. when i hear working families thinking about voting for those plans, then i want to have an intervention. [laughter] [applause] i want you to take a look at what you are talking about here. and if you tell me, mr. president, you may be right, but i disapprove of what democrats -- thenr on gay-rights
i am fine, i hear you. the economy is not everything. if you tell me, you may be right, but i believe as a matter principal that- governments should be small, and they should be able to keep what they have. you're making a philosophical argument, i got you. but don't think that this agenda is actually going to help you. it is not designed to help you. the evidence of the last 30 years, not to mention common that, should tell you their answers to our challenges are no answers at all. [applause] fortunately, there is another pass that leads to more jobs and
higher wages and better benefits, and a stronger safety and and a fairer tax code, a bigger voice for workers, and trade on our terms. and it would make a real difference for the prospects of working families, and would grow the middle class. that is the choice you face. the ideas i have laid out today, i want to be clear. they will not solve every problem or make everyone financially secure overnight. we are still going to be facing global competition. all our kidse sure are ready, that is a 20 year project. we will still have to make sure we are paying for social security, medicaid, medicare. there were still be a lot of issues out there. but the agenda i am putting forward will point us in the right direction. and the one thing i can promise
you is that if we turn against each other, based on divisions , if we falleligion okie-doke just or the it sounds funny, tweets are provocative, then we are not going to build on the progress that we started. if we get cynical and vote our fears, or for we don't vote at all, we will not build on the progress we have started to read we have got to come together around our common values. our faith in hard work,
responsibility, our belief in opportunity for everybody. we have to assume the best in each other, not the worst. we have to remember that sometimes, we all fall on hard times. and it is part of our job as a community of americans to help folks up when they fall, because whatever differences, we all live in this country. we all care about our children's futures. and that is what makes us great. progresshat makes us and become better persons. othere we believe in each , that is what is going to get us through our toughest moments, that is how we know things are better around the bend. there will be setbacks, but we know that our journey is not finished. and we know that with steady, effort,nt, collective
>> president obama returning to elkhart, indiana. in 2009, theear first up when he was elected president of the united states. back then, selling the stimulus package. visions ofdifferent the economy, the democrat and 2016.ican visions of and we're asking you what you the economy.er for you can call our phone lines. you can also join us on twitter and send us a tweet.
leaving forama colorado springs, speaking before graduates of the air force academy tomorrow. look on coverage on c-span tomorrow. from homestead pennsylvania. which party do you think is better for the economy in this election year? >> you have to be kidding, it has to be the democrats. iss president, barack obama, the best we have had since fdr. if people cannot see that, they are just blind. republicans are jealous of him, he is such a great speaker. president, a great and people are just jealous of him, and that is why they do not like him. and that is why congress has not worked with him these last seven and a half years. and it is a shame because his puts are so good and would us in a better track than what we are on already. our country is already great.
republicans, wake up and see that. >> president obama speaking for that the hour saying main story republicans have been telling about the economy is not supported by the facts. let's go to our republican line. sharon in peabody, massachusetts. , i cannot believe what some of the comments are. he has been in office for seven and a half years and he has done nothing, nothing for us. if people cannot see that come up they are blind. change, drastic change. if it takes donald trump to do that, that is what we need. it is time these politicians become accountable to where our dollars are going. we are supporting illegal aliens, we are taking care of people that could get out there and work. we are no longer a middle, we are a working class. we cannot even make it paycheck to paycheck. cannot see that, he
could not even speak, he was stumbling over his words. and now hillary has the nerve to run. and she is committed a felony. what is wrong with this country, wake up america. host: we go to danny on our other line. if america is stupid rap thato hear the bullc comes out of his mouth, we are a sad country. him, hillary, all the rest of the democrats, are trying to turn us into a third world country. we all have to wake up. better wake up before it is too late because what is happening is happening now. host: asking our comments on which party is better for the economy. on the phone, also on twitter. he says he is speaking on behalf , i am sorrylinton
bernie sanders, you will not follow him. and stacy saying, i switch over , he is speaking the truth, i love my president and will miss him. i wanted to show you a look from a couple years ago. in 2009, obama spoke we will show that to you in a second. let's get to tarzana, california. here on our democrats line is anthony. hi, i think the economy has done very well, but president obama, as well as president clinton, i believe the middle years were our worst years while i have been alive. i have been a registered republican for over 50 years.
i've just switched to be a democrat, and i am voting in california as a democrat. thank you. host: you are voting next tuesday, want to share who you might vote for? the democratic candidate, whether he be clinton or bernie sanders. host: you have the choice, who do you pick? caller: clinton. host: a reminder, our coverage tuesday of the primary and more on the c-span networks. next, garland, texas. i find myself appalled at everybody that can set back and say that this man has done so much for this economy. -- if the real facts and figures were made known to the american public about our labor force, he would've been
taken out of office a long time ago. the way he appeases other nations, he goes around apologizing for defending our country. he will not defend our borders. come on? earlier spoke clearly about it that this man has been an atrocity and he does not do anything for this country. how can people sit there and beept what he a spouses to correct, and turn around and want to vote for hillary clinton, another four years? mention that president obama spoke fair in 2009, you can see that on our website, www.c-span.org. and a look at what the president look like some seven plus years ago. on the independent line, go ahead. you, i don't know
what people are thinking, republicans or democrats, this is a mess. the country has gone downhill for 30 years, but he is put it in a ditch so deep, i don't think it can be gotten out of in 20 years. dividing, iut not have not seen a more divisive president in my life. in short, i don't think he has good on the economy. it is time for a new world order. host: tell us about the economy elkhart at thein time of the recession, it was 19.4%. now, 4.3%. what is it like in indianapolis for you? indianapolis has not changed in the last 10 years -- indianapolis has not changed in the last 10 years, 5%
unemployment, i am not sure who they are counting. in theike we are stuck year 2000 or before, in the 1990's. i don't know what we are going to do. host: another caller from indiana, in newburgh. i think your approach to the economy depends on where you are at in the financial world. those who are extremely wealthy, there earning power and capacity is unbelievable. those of us in the working-class, and those of us who are retired, our economy has not changed much. we have more jobs than we used to have, but we do not have the wages. recently, here in indiana, our
governor brags about the jobs he is brought to indiana. down here on this part of the world, we need better wages of not. we need more protection than we have got. host: what part of the state is newburgh in? tip, likery southern a baseball hit kentucky. host: are you working? caller: i am retired. host: has it been tough for you in retirement, the last seven plus years? host -- been toughhas not for me since i worked in the construction industry. we had a very good pension program. however, i know the senate voted last week, and the house a month before that, to take away the
requirements that the investors of pension funds do their fiduciary duty when it comes to investing my ira funds. i had to deal with the fiduciaries the whole time i was earning those funds, but now i can go to an investment fund, and they can give me somebody have to accept fiduciary responsibility because our senators and congressmen feel that that would be too expensive for me to have that type of advice. host: a reminder, you will be up to see this in our video library later, www.c-span.org. also later in our schedule on the c-span networks. and tomorrow, president obama will be speaking at the air force academy commencement. just to take some of the
partisan rhetoric out of this, in a strictly objective way. during obama's term in office, it is never been 3% or greater, and that is an abomination when you consider all the presidencies in my lifetime, which goes back to the 1950's. secondly, the unemployment and underemployment numbers are higher than they have been at least since the 1980's. my final comment is, this economy would be in much worse shape than it is if the federal reserve had not resorted to the extraordinary measures of keeping interest rates down around zero four essentially all of resident obama's term. for anyone objectively to think this man has done a good job
with the economy, their living in some sort of alternate universe. from mary andnext west virginia on the democrats line. am one of those people who do persistently live in an alternate universe. joy,k at the world and the we talk about the evolution -- host: losing you there. we will go to ohio. on our independent line. i am just listening to the speech of barack obama. the more i listen to him the more i feel proud that he got a
novell prize. being the only standing president in the history. person,ch an educated and every time he gives speeches, he tries to educate people. and this is a university town, all i want to say to people, he is giving us facts and how much during his presidency, our economy has grown. it is not an overnight fix. you for your call. the president lang of the case ,or the democrats continuation the continuation of democratic rule the presidency. we are asking you which party is best for the economy. from arkansas, go ahead. i am proud to say that i
am a c-span person. i follow the politics of the republican and democratic parties, the congress and the senate. when it a fact checker comes to the principles of things that are being said. like president obama said, check the facts. there are a lot of things going on in this economy, the republican party denying. it is held up the american people for so long, the rhetoric of politicians. i am proud to say that this president has truly made me proud to be an american.
for the first time ever in my life, i felt someone was concerned about the american people. host: one more here, charlie in minneapolis on the republican line. which party? caller: republicans. host: tell us why. at the you look situation with what is going on, back to clinton, when he was in office. he was in office in arkansas, had an open door policy about all the women he has been with. and there are other women he has -- the last caller you had, i don't understand where he is coming from. if you look back for hillary clinton, when she was in the presidency with her husband, she said that they were broke.
six months after that, she was in new york city, and asked for special treatment to be in the congress. now you check back on his open policy in arkansas, how many women he had been with -- host: let's get back to the question, what about the economy? under president obama, you think it will be worse under hillary clinton or bernie sanders? caller: worse under clinton, she has no clue what is going on. the benghazi incident, she screwed up. the lady has no knowledge or experience to be a president. bernie sanders, i don't know. we will see what trump does. i think trump will basically be the president. host: we won't hear from president obama until a nominee
is announced on the democrats reminder, of the primaries coming up tuesday, and our coverage on the c-span networks. i also want to remind you of our coverage of the border, laredo, texas. the focus on trade issues, cross-border trade issues. you will hear from a reporter from the san antonio express, and representative henry cuyler ar.cuell bob casstate director, h. and our prime time coverage begins tonight here in washington with the iraqi ambassador talking about the future of u.s.-iraq relations.
later, we will hear from chief talking about,, among other things, diversity and the federal judicial ranks. here's a preview of tonight's program. >> mr. chief justice, you mentioned the unanimous nature board ofown v. education 60 years ago, how would you describe your approach to consensusbuilding on the court, and how would you compare it to the styles of some of your favorite chief justices in our history? it isjustice roberts: interesting, but there is another side to that. it was unanimous in many respects because they left a lot of things undecided. you have a generation of litigation, trying to figure out, what does this mean? how does this work out?
where does the obligation apply, and on what basis? so it was unanimous, and that was a good thing, and i understand chief justice warren's reasoning, but it is subject to criticism. let's get some of those things resolved so people know how to implement this. all deliberate speed, what does that mean? sometimes, when we have written forions, people of said, the lower courts, they pay the price for that. how exactly do we do this, could you have spent maybe five more pages giving us a little bit more guidance? i try to achieve as much consensus as i can. again, that is not something i can do on my own. we kind of have to have commitment as a group to do that. for thewant to speak others, but i think we spent a fair amount of time, a little
more than others in the past, talking about things. talking them out, which sometimes brings you a little bit closer together. but it has been subject to some criticism, that you can put things off and say, let's not deal with this. but then you get another case where you have to. that is bad, ink don't. it has something to do with judicial philosophy. i think we should be restrained and only decide issues when it is necessary to do so, that is part of how i look at the job they judge in our system. others, i ams to not quite sure. the big chunks of our history, john marshall there, the idea was not clear that you could dissent. because things were unanimous, and i think that had a lot to do with john marshall, just the
force of his intellect and gregarious nature. the first big decision he made was that when we get to washington we will all live in the same boarding house. have a lot of responsibilities outside of washington, so they did not have a permanent residence there. and they very much functioned as a group. if you look at some of the history, it is not because marshall imposed his will on the others, but there was a lot of exchange. considered andre became part of the unanimous opinion. >> and you can hear all of that conversation with chief justice roberts at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. effect,nk today, we in catch up to the 20th century. the invisible half of the congress for the past seven years. we have watched our house colleagues with interest. the television coverage of
the numbers of our colleagues in the house. >> as the senate comes out of the dark ages, we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and technological advancements into indications through radio and television. ago, our executive branch began appearing on television. today marks the first time when our legislative ranch in its entirety, will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> the televising of chamber proceedings also represent a wise and warranted policy. media coverage recognizes the basic, driving needed the knowens of our nation to
the business of their government. >> thursday, c-span marks the 30th anniversary of our live, gavel-to-gavel coverage. it includes key moments from the senate floor. >> the body of evidence from this question, do you trust william jefferson clinton? that has not before happened in senate history, the change of power during a session of congress. >> what the american people still do not understand in this bill, there are three areas in this bill that in the next five years will put the government in charge of everybody's health care. >> plus, an interview with a majority leader, mitch mcconnell. cover it, wasan one of them. watch 30 years of the u.s. senate on television, beginning thursday on c-span. and to see more on c-span2, go
to www.c-span.org. on june 23, voters in the united kingdom will decide whether or not to remain part of the european union. will haveled brexit major evocations, not only for the future of europe, but the long held special relations between the u.s. and the u.k.. a panel of experts weighs in on the brexit and its global impact. this is one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you everyone for joining us today on this beautiful morning here in washington to discuss is very important issue about the relationship of britain with the european union, and what it could mean for the united states. for americans, the ideas of economic freedom, direct election, transparent and good money, manyyers
developments that we are seeing in europe should come as a shock and is a concern. the european union, and organization that started out in the 1950's, has now been morphed into a supernatural organization that touches on almost every aspect of life across europe. eu laws and regulations are seen as increasingly unnecessary, and burdensome. let me give you one example. there are 70 words in the lord's prayer, 271 in the gettysburg address, and 313 in the 10 commandments. but the european union 4, layingns number 128 out the number of hazelnuts and a shell, in the thousands. during a time of mass medication in the internet empowering individuals in bringing power down to the people, the eu is
doing the exact opposite by centralizing power and taking it to the top. this goes against the national state of affairs. bodies decision-making are largely unelected and unaccountable to the government and the people. as a steve hilton, a former top advisor and close friend to british time -- prime minister cameron said, the only thing you need to know about the european union is that it has three presidents, none of whom are elected. the united kingdom is the fifth world largest economy. it has the world's fifth-largest defense budget it has a nuclear , deterrence, a permanent seat at the un security council, is a member of the commonwealth of nations. trades more outside the eu than it does in the eu. it has a special relationship with the united states and with the community. even so, parliaments and courts are not the supreme law of the land.
they cannot sign their own free trade deals and they cannot control their own borders. we would never allow this in the usa so why would we want to support something like this for our closest ally, the united kingdom? discussing these issues today, we have a distinguished panel. our first speaker is dr. victoria coates, currently serving as the national security advisor for senator ted cruz. she is a cultural historian who received her phd from the university of pennsylvania, specializing in italian renaissance studies. in 2007, she became the director of research for donald rumsfeld and provided editorial support and content analysis for the new york times bestseller "known and
unknown." she is a senior fellow at the commonwealth foundation. she is a consulting curator at the cleveland museum of art. her latest book is "the history of democracy and 10 works of art." victoria? ms. coates: thank you. thank you to all of my friends here at heritage. it is wonderful to be participating in these events. this is a critical issue for us on both sides of the pond. i am glad to have this opportunity today. i want to start my remarks with a minor sidebar. i like to address president obama's recent trip to london, but first, i want to mention one of his comments that was not related to the brexit issue. but rather to an incident that took place shortly after he -- it had beent,
loaned to george w. bush after 9/11. it was reported that president obama was sending it packing and replaced it with abraham lincoln. art is a personal thing and each president has the prerogative to surround themselves with objects they find personally interesting and inspiring but what was , interesting to me was the white house response. outrage byhase was the communications director, posts that it hadn't been returned but that the churchill bust had been moved to the residence. he declared the whole thing a ridiculous claim. the story persisted, and here it -- is where it is valuable to have an art historian on staff. bronze, and there were actually two sir winston's and one had been returned to the british embassy.
mr. pfeiffer updated his blog post with the explanation that the first one was being worked on. by the time mr. obama came to office, the work was done, making the second bust redundant, and it was returned to the embassy. the notion that it had been returned because it was not wanted was "an urban legend." but the story so persisted, fueled by president obama's also tendency to , try to rewrite history that he found personally distasteful or uncomfortable. churchill, with his association with the british empire might have seemed out of place in obama's oval office. my boss, senator cruz, raised the issue in a speech saying one of the very first act
president obama did after being elected was sending churchill's bust back to the u.k., and i think that foreshadowed everything to come for the next six years. a statement that earned him two pinocchio's, who judge that while the white house aide might have recognized the symbolic significance of the bust, it was an administrative matter. it was not one that may have risen to the president who was preoccupied at the time with wings like the financial crisis. finally, on his trip to london in april, obama himself addressed it, and told reporters that he had indeed personally directed the removal of sir winston and his replacement by martin luther king on the grounds that it was appropriate for an american president to have a bust of an american in his office. and that "there are only so many busts you can have before it starts to look a little cluttered in there."
so the mystery is finally solved, and i would like to thank mike gonzalez forgetting those terrible pinocchio's removed from cruz's record. i think this episode is illustrative on the approach of an administration that speaks in symbolism. clearly, the president and his aides knew perfectly well that the return and replacement of the churchill bust marked a significant shift from the bush era approach and the special relationship with the united kingdom. where they got into trouble was the not owning up to the change in policy. and instead trying to spin the return of the bust as no big deal. which brings me to the topic today. the referendum on leaving the european union that will be coming before the british people on june 23. mr. obama made his remarks on the churchill bust during a trip to london, to sway the british people that brexit would be a bad thing.
it would damage their economy. the american president went as far as to say that if they left the union, it would go to the back of the queue for trade deals. in other words, that the united states would punish britain for having the audacity to want to remain a sovereign nation, independent of the european collective. this is the core of the policy shift, represented by the return of churchill's bust. as he has demonstrated again and again, mr. obama prioritizes international institutions above identity. the notion that the brits might choose to retain their freedom and protect economic prosperity by withdrawing is fundamentally unfair to the other nations who are now dependent on the union. is forure for europe, mr. obama, in brussels, into which the states should be absorbed, rendering any special relationship between the united states and great britain obsolete.
it is astounding to me that an american president who, one month earlier, had been standing next to castor, affirming the rights of the cuban people to choose their own course, in which the united states would not metal would be so eager to , override the actual sovereign rights that the british people have to determine their own future. but what compounds that is that brexit is in the best interest of britain and the united states. europe is a continent, not a country. this may seem a self-evident truth, but i think it is worth three stating here. the 28 members of the eu are not homogenous, they are widely disparate, in both economic strengths and culture. the two arenas the eu proposes to dominate. forcing nations is different, as say both great britain and greece, who have very
different identities and histories to conform to the , norms dictated for brussels is an ill-fated project. the notion of abandoning them is being condemned. the president of the european commission went so far as to say in march that the eurosceptics should visit the military cemeteries of world war ii to learn the error here we have the of their ways. here we have the crux of the matter. the european union was conceived in 1948 when the continent was reeling from the global conflict. the devastation was unimaginable. the impulse to do something, anything to prevent this from , happening again must have been overwhelming. the nationalism that spurred the conflict was a logical place to start. so the process to bring the individual countries of europe into a single union was initiated. fast forwarding 70 years, the good news is that there has not been a third world war. there is still conflict in
europe, referring to the russian invasion of the ukraine. but, that was not a case of european members fighting one another. while europe faces a real danger from an increasingly aggressive russia and from the radical islamic terrorists, the threat that the eu was designed to counter no longer exists. this is not an attempt to minimize the violent trauma of the world wars or to suggest that but it is to propose that no such think it happen again. int it is to propose that preparing for future conflicts, we should not be preoccupied with writing the last one. this brings me the risks it brings to european security, which is closely tied to american security. the two issues that are fueling brexit are simple economic , security and immigration. while opponents of brexit britain,isaster for
the only certain disaster would isremaining in the eu, which turning out to be nothing more than an economic suicide pact for its members. if the united states can salvage one independent, strong, partner from the eu, we might consider that an opportunity. the eu has been an active proponent of the open borders that have enabled unchecked flows of migrants from the middle east that have resulted in a significant radicalized islam problem on the continent. issuewho recognize this and pledge to counter the been vilified. the fact of the matter, this is a most -- is a security problem. a most significant security threat that europe currently faces. given the eu policies, individual countries have an obligation to their citizens to confront it. the united states has benefited from a collective european union
but the purpose of nato was never to dissolve the individual into one, but to provide them a venue of communication and cooperation. moving forward, that might be the more productive model for the eu, as in the current incarnation, it gives greater risks than if promises security. i don't blame our british friends for having second thoughts about the project. and so i await the june 23 vote with much interest. thank you very much. [applause] luke coffey: thank you. our next speaker will be dr. ted bromund. he studies and writes on anglo-american relations, the u.s.'s leadership role in the world and organizations and entreaties. he is a senior research fellow in the heritage foundation's margaret thatcher center for
freedom. he joined heritage in 2008, and previously served nine years as an associate director of yale university's international security studies, a center dedicated to the study of diplomatic history and strategy. he was a lecturer in history and from 2004, in international affairs for the master of arts program. he is a prolific writer and has published hundreds of articles in numerous publications. he received his doctorate in history in 1999 from yale. his thesis on britain's first application to the economic community, relevant to the discussion we are having today, won the dissertation prize from the british politics group. he holds two masters degrees in history from yale as well as a bachelor of arts degree.
mr. bromund: thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. it is a pleasure to talk, for once, about the subject of my research. it is a perilous thing to do i , have waited 25 years for this moment. my dissertation is relevant, go buy your copy now. i'm not going to talk about my dissertation. but what i'm going to do is provide a historical overview of american policy toward europe, talk a little bit about the cold war era and the ways in which the eu, for a while, and its the way those were part of america's cold war strategy. and then what happened at the end of the cold war and how the
train ran off the tracks. let me start by saying that since the end of world war ii, u.s. policy towards europe has drifted without a lot of deliberate thought, very far from the original premises in the late 1940's. that drift really accelerated at the end of the cold war. at the same time, europe felt -- changed out of all recognition. my contention today is that if we want to get back to proper policies, we need to understand history, understand u.s. policy in the 1940's, 1950's, and and 1960's. get back to a u.s. policy that speaks to secure the goals we did achieve successfully in europe during those years. let me start after world war ii. after 1945, it was widely accepted in the united states and europe that u.s. forces were not going to remain in europe for very long after victory over nazi germany. it would be a matter of a couple months or a year or two.
it became obvious as the cold war kicked off that the permanent or semipermanent u.s. security role in europe would have to be undertaken. that leads fairly rapidly to the creation of the nato alliance. at the same time, the u.s. realizes that the european states, and here we mean the western european states, were far weaker -- socially weaker, politically weaker and economically weaker after world war ii that the u.s. had expected. it turned out that they couldn't stand on their own right away. if we left immediately, the whole place would fall apart. so this leads rapidly again to the advancement of the u.s. reconstruction efforts in primarily western europe. he put demised in the marshall plan. both the marshall plan and nato, they have the same fundamental goal. they are concerned about an actual soviet invasion of western europe.
but what is more significant is the american diagnosis that europeans have lost confidence. the real threat isn't soviet invasion, it is an internal european collapse. that might come as a result of concerns about security, hence the need for nato. partly to stop the soviets but also to prop up the europeans to give them confidence. or, as a result of an economic, social, and political plan, hence the need of the marshall plan. all of this stems from a successful and thoughtful american diagnosis of the causes of the great depression, the causes of the rise of the nazis and the cause of world war ii. the american concern is, don't let european economics and security go down the drain, because when they go down the drain, you get european
political radicalism, and then bad things happen. and ultimately, the american army has to get involved. that is a reasonable diagnosis. so what are the american remedies? how do you stop this from happening again? well in the best sense of the word, american remedies are liberal. one is free trade. one of the american diagnosis is that, your nations are too walled up economically, you need to trade more with each other, you will be more prosperous, and it would be better for you, politically. the short-term reconstruction -- the world bank -- it began as a short-term reconstruction program in europe. there is a debt forgiveness, particularly of germany, on a very large scale. there is the international monetary fund which was intended to provide short-term currency problems. the u.s. places enormous emphasis on german regionalism, making germany a federal state.
reducing centralized power of berlin, making germany a little bit like the united states with strong states and republicans. -- strong republics within germany. and a strong u.s. emphasis on multilateralism. multilateralism on the political, economic, and security level. these are intended to rebuild the european state system. two re-fortify and strengthen france, britain, germany in a federal structure. italy, and the other smaller states with any europe. this is not a program of wiping out the nationstates of europe it is a program of rebuilding. ,by and large this program is , extremely successful. nato works, european confidence is fortified.
the marshall plan and other u.s. efforts are successful. european economies do recover and retain political confidence. they are not invaded by the soviets. they are not overtaken by the messick radicalism from the far right or far left. one other part of this american agenda is the support for emerging ideas about the european integration, centered on the coal and steel community in the early 1950's. the coal and steel community is initially a french idea, the idea really is to restrain germany, to tie it into european institutions before it gets too powerful. that is the predecessor of today's eu, and is part of a much larger program, that is a liberal, multilateral, multi-state fortified program. fast-forward to 1989, 19 91.
that hey, whats we did after 1945, we can now do. we can reduce our exposure to europe. we can start bringing people home. because look, we won the cold war in europe. what does this lead the united states to do? it leads the united states to begin to outsource most of its policies to the european union. the european union becomes a vehicle for many, although not all, american policies in europe, because as we decrease our interest in europe, we can pivot to asia or the middle east, the european union becomes our representative, as it were. at the same time, the european union decides they can step on the gas pedal. during the cold war, the european union doesn't get very
far down the road of integration because you need those strong nationstates if you are going to keep peoples loyalty during the cold war, and actually win. germans might fight for germany, italian might fight for italy. the french will fight for france brits will fight for britain. , but they will not fight for europe. some of you may know what winston churchill called the idea of a european army in 1953 in a letter to president eisenhower. he called it a "sludgy amalgam." [laughter] there is no such thing as a european, they will might fight for europe. they will fight for their nation. if we want a nato force, it has to be a series of national some pretend european force. after the cold war is over, all of the cold war imperatives seemed to disappear. so the eu steps on the gas pedal and integration goes faster and
faster and deeper and deeper, at precisely the moment when the u.s. is outsourcing more of its european policies to the european union. when this process creates instability, the euro, or the large-scale of immigration and migration into europe, the eu answer is simple. more europe. what do we need when the euro causes problems? we need a much higher level of financial tax integration into brussels. what happens when immigration and migration become a problem? the european union needs to take full control of everyone's borders to solve the problem. the answer is always more and more europe. we have now reached a point where this process has become both self-perpetuating and self destroying. the more europe demands to solve
problems that it cannot in fact solve the more problems it , creates. the more problems it creates, the more it demands more problem -- power to solve the problems it has failed to address in the past. the united states has lost sight of our golden policies in europe. what are the goals? i don't think they have changed since we have the same basic 1945. interests in europe. what are those interests? above all, peace. we want the european continent to be peaceful. our instrument for that has always been nato. since the late 1940's, the american security instrument to peace in europe, both to defend it against external threats and to shore up europe politically has been the nato alliance.
so the eu is not the answer to the foremost american goal peace. , as a contribution to peace, we want prosperity. this stems from the american diagnosis that the great depression was the cause of not seize, which was the cause of world war ii. where are we now? we are now backing the euro which is bad economics. right? bad economics. the lesson we learned in world war ii is that bad economics don't make good politics. bad economics make bad politics. what are we backing in europe? we are backing a currency that can only be maintained by creating extremely high levels of unemployment, and extremely low levels of economic activity in most of the mediterranean countries. a are deliberately adopting -- we need a bad economic strategy.
are we following the lesson that we have learned? no, we are not. we are doing the opposite we are , deliberately empowering bad economics and we are getting bad politics as a result, not a surprise. third, our interest in europe is democracy. i would echo what victoria said. the eu is hostile to to national level politics and politician. it protrudes deeply into the nationstates. it generates hostilities in some ways that i find completely understandable, and other ways i find less desirable. above all, the european union is not the answer to the problem of european democracy, in part because it is super national, and it dislikes nationstates. but ultimately, because if you
look around europe today, and if you believe that some european political trends are concerning, i have news for you. all of those took a route when the european union was in existence. if the european union is the cure for political extremism, how come the political union has advanced further and further at people have become more concerned about the state of european politics? i would submit that the answer here is not more eu, the answer here is less eu. as we have had more eu, we have had more problems. my view is, that if the u.s. continues to base its european on the eu, and i think most of our support has been unthinking and ignorant, it will continue to see more economic strains, which is inherent in the euro. it was a rising liberalism, and a weaker european-u.s. transatlantic security link.
because all of these developments will inevitably undermine nato. i don't think any of these things are in the interests of the nations of europe or the united states, either. the true interests of the united states are the return it to the american ideas that helped save western europe after 1945 and then save eastern europe after 1989, which are the ideas of economic freedom, multilateral cooperation toward security and prosperity and support for a democratic national government. that was the basis of the american strategy in europe after 1945, and it worked. and do you know what? it can work again today if we have the courage -- and it doesn't take very much courage -- to return to things that have worked successfully in the past, and not continue to go down the foolish road that we've increasingly followed since the end of the cold war. thank you.
[applause] luke coffey: thank you for those very clear and forceful remarks. our final speaker is dr. nile gardiner. he is the director of the margaret thatcher center for freedom at the heritage foundation. he has worked in the heart of the washington policy world for more than a decade and is the leading expert on that u.s.-u.k. policy towards europe. he has testified before congress on several occasions and has advised the executive branch of the united states government on a range of issues related to u.s. foreign-policy in the transatlantic alliance. before joining heritage, he served as an aid to margaret thatcher and advised her on a number of international policy issues. working in her private office, he assisted her with the final book. "strategies for a changing world."
he received his doctorate and from yaleors degrees university, and his masters degree in modern history from oxford university. after he gives his remarks, we will have time for some questions. you might want to start thinking about those now. nile gardiner: thank you very much. thank you to ted and victoria for two excellent presentations. my views on brexit are very clear. i believe firmly that great britain is better off outside the european union. and that brexit is not only good for britain, but for europe, and also for america. i will be outlining my remarks for why i believe that is the case. i will talk a little bit about margaret thatcher's view on brexit to set the record straight. i like to think of the eu as the modern version of the titanic.
[laughter] nile gardiner: on a glide path towards a massive iceberg. and the british people on june 23 have the opportunity to jump onto a lifeboat. and i think many british people will choose to get onto the lifeboat. the latest opinion polls in the u.k. published yesterday show the brexit camp now has a slight lead over the remaining side. what you are seeing in britain at the moment is project fear, the project launched by the british government in favor of britain staying inside the european union. beginning to think -- because i think the british public are thinking very carefully about
their future in europe. and all of the scaremongering that is being projected by downing street and by the european commission and by a host of multinational institutions -- all of this fear mongering is being largely rejected by the british public. opinion polls are bearing that out. i think the message being projected at the moment by downing street is like an episode of "the walking dead." if britain leaves the eu, they will face the apocalypse. a sort of zombie populace, and everyone will be forced to eat each other. that is the level of the argument being put forward by the remaining tenants. it is absolutely staggering, the belief that britain, the world's fifth-largest economy, one of the biggest military powers on the face of the earth, the idea that britain cannot survive
outside the european union. i think it is ludicrous. it is my view that britain, a nation that has been a global power for centuries, will not only survive outside the european union, it will thrive out why the european union. the eu, at the moment, has tied britain down. it shackles britain to what is an increasingly declining and to date that seeks to trample upon self-determination and sovereignty. self-determination and sovereignty matter in the world today. and without a doubt, americans would never accept the kind of sub nationalism that the british people have to endure at this time. aericans would never agree to pan-american government in a pan-american
court of justice in mexico city. most americans would reject the idea that the u.s. should relinquish control of the borders or have their court overruled by foreign judges. this is exactly the scenario being faced by not only british people, but by people across europe. if britain doesn't vote to leave the eu on june 23, i'm sure this will just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of those in europe who will follow suit. i would expect to see a wave of referendums across many european countries. i would expect to see others following britain leaving the eu. without a doubt, the eu exposes an economic burden on great britain. as the former mayor of london noted in the telegraph a couple of days ago, it eu legislation