[applause] >> mr. president, president of the german bundestag madam chancellor, president of

the federal constitutional court, members of the german bundestag, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole of german history there is no greater watershed within the 70th anniversary we are remembering today, the 8th of may 1945. it marks the end of world war ii in europe, collapse of the nazi regime, which had unleashed that war, and the end of the german reich. for 12 years, the nazis had fervently evoked german national unity.

as the regime ended, it would not be clear if the germans would ever live in a unified country again. in an historic speech marking the anniversary of the german reich's unconditional surrender, the federal president of the day warned the german people not to separate the 8th of may 1945 from the 1st of january, 1933, the day when reich president hindenburg appointed hitler as chancellor. he argued that the 8th of may 1945 should however be recognized as the end of the

wrong path of german history, an end that contains the seeds of hope for a better future the wrong path to which the man referred did not begin in 1933. much of the german elite and indeed the society as a whole regarded the first german democracy, the weimar republic as the product of germany's defeat in the first world war, as embodied in the german system during the first world war, when academics and writers contrast

ed the ideals of the french revolution of 1789 of liberty, equality, and a fraternity, with the german ideas of 1914. that would be the glorification of a strong state with a military as its linchpin, the people's community, and german socialism. when the final republic parliamentary democracy failed in the spring of 1930 and germany shifted to an authoritarian presidential regime afterward, hitler was able to appeal to the widespread hostility toward western democracy, at the same time exploiting one of the democratic achievements of the reich, now largely robbed of its political

effect, general and equal suffrage during the elections. -- had been extended to women as well as men since the revolution of 1890. the nazis' successes cannot be explained without taking into account the long history of german reservations regarding western democracy, or of the rapid surge in popularity that hitler enjoyed after his so-called seizure of power. his popularity reached such heights that in the words of a british authority, hitler himself became a believer in his own cult by 1936, at the latest. in the course of the second world war the fuhr -- was

diminished by the war against the soviet union in the winters of 1941 and 1942 and particularly by the defeat in stalingrad by the end of 1943. but it did not die. in fact, it even experienced a brief renewal of sorts, after the failed assassination attempt in 1944. many now believe that hitler might be allied with providence and only he could save germany. in the midst of the state, the final work before his death in the united states in april 1945, just a few weeks before the end of the war, german philosopher -- interpreted hitler's political career as a sort of

triumph of myth over reason, and this triumph as result of a severe crisis. i quotes, "in politics, we are always moving on volcanic soil. we must be prepared for abrupt convulsions and eruptions. in our critical moments of man's social life, the forces that resist the rise of the old mythical conception are no longer sure of themselves. in these moments, the time for myth has come again. for myth has not been vanquished. it is always there, lurking in the dark and waiting for its

hour and opportunity. this hour comes as soon as the other bindings of man, socialized for one reason or other, lose their strength and are no longer able to combat the demonic mythical powers. in view of the eruptions of xenophobia we have experienced in recent months and the anti-semitic incitements here and in other countries, there is a truly disturbing relevance today. they warned us to heed the real lesson of german history from 1933 until 1945. it is the obligation to reflect

in all circumstances the inalienable dignity of every human being. [applause] germany's second defeat in the 20th century was a total defeat and it dealt a far greater blow to german self-confidence than the defeat of 1918. it was not the case that an overwhelming majority of germans suddenly realized victory in may 1945 as a liberation. unlike the people for whom this victory brought liberation from german rule and tyranny, to many

germans the collapse of the regime meant the collapse of their faith, in the fuhrer, and the collapse of their hopes of a final german victory. the unconditional surrender was initially perceived as a liberation only by those germans who had already realized the criminal nature of hitler's rule. in the provisional council of the protestant church of germany -- spoke in october 1945 on the solidarity and guilt of the german people. this met with widespread

opposition, even within the church. one sentence in particular was seen as inappropriate confirmation of the assertion of the german collective guilt. "to us, endless suffering has been brought down by many peoples and countries." the words of all the crimes against humanity committed by the nazis, the murder of around 6 million european jews was not expressed in this sentence. decades would pass before germany could recognize this not only due to the research of jewish scholars, that the

holocaust is indeed a central fact of the 20th century german history. at the same time, another realization gradually dawned. the victory that had been won over germany that the sacrifice of allied soldiers and not the least over the red army had in a sense liberated the germans from themselves, liberated in the sense of giving them the chance to break free from political delusions and positions that separated germany from the rest of the democracies. in cultural terms, germany had always been a country -- [indiscernible] germany has participated in and

played a vital role in shaping the separation of powers in the middle ages, beginning with the separation of -- followed by royal power, so as the emancipatory processes of the enlightenment. however some essential political lessons of the enlightenment ideals of the american revolution of 1776, and the french revolution of 1789, the ideals of inalienable human rights, the sovereignty of the people, and representative democracy had been rejected by influential german people until well into the 20th century.

it was only the experience of the german catastrophe of the period from 1933 until 1945 when german opposition to the western political ideals reached its peak that gradually eroded this hostility. the opportunity that arose after 1945 to build a second parliamentary democracy, this time one that would be functional and capable of defending itself, was only offered to part of germany however. the western occupation zones would later be part of west berlin. those germans living in other parts of the country were denied political freedom for 4.5 decades.

the federal republic's progressive opening to the culture of the west and emergence of a self-critical historical conscience were inextricably linked. it took some time for journalistic and political debates to drive these causes forward. the debate about the german empire's key role in the development which led to the first world war was a great significance in this context. it took time to overcome the still influential apologists and dissertations of german history. and it took time to counteract widespread tendency to regard the german people as hitler's first victims and for people to observe themselves with any

share of responsibility for the wrongs perpetrated in that period. now there are memorials in many german towns and cities dedicated to the jewish and other victims of national socialism, placed there not by the state, but by civic initiatives and often school classes which devote themselves to research and history of the local area during the so-called third reich. the process of addressing the war crimes perpetrated by the not tease -- nazis choked in the

german courts was very slow to get off the ground. the began in 1958. as late as 1986 public debate, which has gone down in the annals of west german history, was reviewed among historians. -- about the place in history of the nazi murders on the jews which left winston churchill to observe in a letter to his foreign minister on the 11th of june 1944 that "there is no doubt, it is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and

it has been done by machinery by normally civilized man in the name of a great state and one of the leading races of europe." many germans had to travel a long and painful road before they could look back at this judgment from a former enemy. but if they had not been willing to face up to the unparalleled monstrosity of the holocaust the murders of tens of thousands of people with intellectual disabilities, countless homosexuals, if they have not been willing to accept responsibility for their

terrible war crimes committed in the european countries occupied and ravaged by germany, how could the federal republic of germany ever have become a respected member of the international community again? it was particularly hard for the million of german refugees to recognize that their suffering was a -- of military force and to come to terms with -- [indiscernible] however, after the fall of the berlin wall on the 9th of november 1989, this symbolic event, a peaceful revolution and the culmination of a series of events stretching back to the founding of the independent trade unions in august 1980, when the german question return

ed to the political agenda, it was clear to the overwhelming majority of germans that there could only be a reunified germany within its 1945 borders. in other words, the german question could only be resolved when another major question, the polish question, was resolved at the same time. that is exactly what happened with the german polish border treaty of november 1990. these were two trees which recognized -- treaties which

recognized once and for all the formed binding international law existing german polish border along rivers. the historic significance of the -- of 1990, the day when the german democratic republic acceeded to the federal republic of germany, is summarized at the ceremony as follows -- the day has come which for the first time in history the whole of germany takes its lasting place in the circle of western democracies. unlike the german reich, which met its end on the 8th of may,

reunified germany from the start was re-integrated into the supranational organizations such as the atlantic alliance. it is a postclassical relationship which exercises some of its sovereign rights jointly with other member states with supranatural institutions. german reunification was only possible because it had credibly broken those paths of its political tradition which had stood in the way of development of a western-style liberal democracy. that was the basis of germany's second chance.

as it was put in july 1990, by -- who was forced to emigrate by hitler. germany has not finished the process of confronting its own past, nor will it ever do so. every generation has their own way of understanding the history as contradictory as germany's. there are many achievements in this history, not least since 1945, about which the citizens of the federal republic of germany can be glad and of which they can be proud. however, accepting ownership of

this history must also include a willingness to face up to the dark side of the past. no one expects later generations to plead guilt for crimes which were committed by germans in germany long before they were born. that said, an essential part of assuming responsibility is the determination be conscious of the country's entire history. [applause] this applies to all germans regardless of whether their forebears lived in germany before 1945 or did not emigrate here until later, it applies to

those who have chosen to become germans or who make that choice in the future. [applause] even if germans -- of no longer wanting to remember the guilt germans incurred after 1933 and especially during the second world war, they would still be constantly confronted the fact that the victims cannot forget this history. the s.s. and the wehrmacht committed crimes in many places, crimes which would never be erased from the peoples affected.

these include the siege and starvation of leningrad, which lasted almost 900 days and cost between 600,000 and 800,000 people their lives. acceptance of the deaths of more than half a millions of soldier prisoners of war -- the destruction of the jewish ghetto in warsaw in 1943, and the systematic destruction of the polish capital after the second uprising in october 1944. the names and places are better known in germany than in serbia.

these names too, and there are many more, stand for massacres which still cast shadows today. there is no moral justification for not keeping the memory of such atrocities alive in germany or forgetting the obligation to remember these in germany. [applause] the same is true of the inhuman treatment of millions of forced laborers, particularly the eastern workers, especially the jews, for whom forced labor was almost invariably followed by their murder.

it is impossible to draw lines -- [applause] in addition to the danger of forgetting there is another risk , regarding how we address the the darkest time of german history. the danger of it being deliberately raised for political purposes. [indiscernible] preventing an imminent german -- genocide or another crime against humanity, there is no need -- on the other hand neither the holocaust nor other nazi crimes or this second world war in general has given germany the right to look away.

the nazis' crimes against humanity are not an argument that justifies germany remained on the sidelines when there are compelling reasons to take joint actions in other countries under the international communities' responsibility to protect. [applause] any compartmentalization of the murder of the jews, motivated by day-to-day politics, amounts to the trivialization of this problem. a responsible approach to history seeks to facilitate responsible actions in the present. this means firstly that the

germans must not allow themselves to be paralyzed by contemplations of their history. secondly, political decisions must not be held up to be the only true lesson of germany's past. any attempt to justify a special german morality leads us down the wrong path. [applause] and on the left, germany does still have obligations arising directly or indirectly from german policy in this period from 1933 until 1945. among the foremost obligations that should be mentioned in this context are the special

relations with israel that have developed over the past five decades. yet in europe as well, the nazi era still cast a shadow, a past that will not pass. not only did the german reich under hitler's leadership trip on the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of many european countries, by entering into the pact and invading poland and attacking the soviet union, it also paved the way for europe's division into two blocs, one with freedom, one without, a division which lasted 4.5 decades. as a result, germany has a special obligation of solidarity

with countries for self-determination and the peaceful revolutions of 1989 and 1990. the 21st of november 1990, just seven weeks after german reunification, the chancellor of paris was signed in the french charter. all 34 participating states of the conference on the security and cooperation in europe undertook to consolidate and strengthen democracy is the only system of government of our nation. with europe on the verge of a new era, the signatories including the soviet union, made

commitments to settle disputes by peaceful means. they reaffirmed the principles of the helsinki act, signed 15 years earlier, which included respect for territorial integrity and political independence and a pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force. those days represent the end of the post-second world war era, it is the date of the signing of the charter of paris, the 21st of november, 1990. some of the hopes, as a new era dawned until 1991, were fulfilled.

others were not. the old european occident, divided as a result of the agreement reached by the three -- the u.s., u.k., and the soviet union -- at yalta in 1945, has grown together, unlike in 1918, the zone of economic , political, and militarily and stability has emerged. in fact, most of the region's democracies are part of the european union and the atlantic alliance. however, the addition of a community of peace stretching from vancouver to vladivostok from the great alliance of liberal democracy has not become reality.

2014 marked a major watershed. an illegal annexation of crimea has dramatically called into question the continued validity of the principles of the charter of paris and the peaceful european order on which the former cold war enemies had once agreed. [applause] germany is still in ongoing conflict over ukraine. germany has done everything in its power to safeguard the cohesion of the european union and the atlantic alliance. at the same time, it has sought in consultation with its allies

the rescue as much as possible of the policy of constructive cooperation on which east and west agreed to after the end of the war. there is one thing which it was and is always essential to bear in mind in this context, and is a lesson from german history. our neighbors in east central europe were the victims of german-soviet aggression due to the hitler pact in 1939 and 1940, and are now our partners in european union and the atlantic alliance. and poland in the baltic republics will never be given the impression by making decisions the heads over which they will pay the price.

[applause] in late may, 1945, just a few weeks after the end of the second world war in europe tomas martin had been an eloquent -- the library of congress in washington. his speech, which he himself said was intended as a piece of german self-criticism contained a sentence that neatly encapsulated the conclusion of

his reflection. and i quote. the germans yielded to the temptation of basing upon there in a cosmopolitanism for germany to world domination. by this trait, it became the exact opposite. the hegemony of anyone country -- of any one country is the way the unit sees itself. the responsibility for the use and cohesion of the supernatural community.

this is reinforced by the responsibility of rising german history. it is rich at times, one that cannot be reduced to the period of 1943-1945. and let's not make the power of -- the transfer of power to hitler inevitable. but it did make those possible. it is both a european imperative and an enlightened patriotism. the third federal president in july of 1969. they are difficult.

one of them is germany. but it is our fatherland. [applause]

madam chancellor, president of the federal constitution court. ladies and gentlemen who witnessed the end of the second world war. professor gunter, the applause of the house and as many people throughout germany have been made clear how impressively you have described our country's long road west. even after 70 years, you made it clear what it means to pay tribute to the eighth of may.

i want to thank you for this outstanding speech. [applause] the german who won the nobel prize for literature said about the end of the war, and i quote. i knew then that the war would never be over. never. the wound that was inflicted is still bleeding. the wounds which have not healed. it the wounds that create obligations for us. they oblige us. for peace, for tolerance. it was the beginning. the end of a tyrannical regime that showed utter contempt for human life and dignity and might

save millions of lives and might perpetuate a systematic genocide of our country's history. let me say this explicitly. you were right in pointing out the unique nature of these events. 70 years from drawing a line under this. facing up to and dealing with the successful future. it also obliges us from the outset, making clear again and again that in germany, there is no place for those that agitate against democracy.

the supplies to extremist across the spectrum. enter the backward looking news report of the national socialist ideology that so civil discord and wreak havoc. it must be curbed with a full force. and also with society as appropriate. as time goes on, the eighth of may, 1945 has become clearer than ever. the late president also

described the different feelings, especially in a generation that actually witnessed that day. there were those for whom the day of liberation did not bring freedom. like citizens of other countries that found themselves under soviet influence. having one dictatorship simply replaced by another. it did not apply to everyone. that dictatorship established the basis for a new democratic germany and enabled our country to return to the community of civilized nations. as you pointed out, we cannot

claim credit for this liberation. it took internal force. that is why i feel the need to express my profound gratitude today and my respect to those external forces that made such sacrifices in order to free us from this inferno. i would like to express my deep gratitude for those that made it possible for germany and on the part of democracy. [applause] the priority would prevent germany from ever being able to

unleash another war. the federal system imposed by the allies and proved to be a fortuitous choice. they started a new era not only from germany but for centuries europe's great powers. the assertion of powers and interest by territorial extensions. they were routinely deployed as instruments of poverty. -- policy.

a democratic value in human rights if it were to have any hope of success. for this reason, i am deeply convinced that a united europe of the european union were and are the right answer to the inferno. transcending borders. balancing divergent interests without warfare and asserting common interest. these are the real strengths of this united europe. [applause] reminding ourselves that this is essential in many of the diverse challenges that this united europe must master. professor winkler, as he pointed

out, the conflict between russia and the ukraine, the struggle for a better future. not only economically but all the countries in this community. and the efforts to combat the reasons why people seek refuge in europe. they are just some of the examples of these challenges. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, our united europe is no paradise. i know of no other community of nations which offers a better guarantee of human rights, peace, freedom, and the rule of law. ladies and gentlemen remembering the events of 1945 and the years that preceded it is and will remain a core task

on the german political agenda. as i see it, it sends a key message that is surely relevant to all of us now and in the future. in our own country and across the world. the eighth of may is about a fundamental attitude that must inform our actions. it is about mutual respect. it is about tolerance and it is about moral courage. every day, over and over again. please rise now for the european anthem. [applause]

♪

♪

[applause] [speaking german] next, president obama discussing trade policy. after that, attorney general loretta lynch announcing a federal investigation of the baltimore police department. form of florida governor and potential presidential

candidate, jeb bush speaks at liberty university's for descent and concerted -- consortium yesterday. there is no specific timeline for >> congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress color photos every senator and house member, plus bio contact information and twitter handles. also a full capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, and state governments. order your copy today. >> president obama traveled to oregon to deliver remarks on trade. he the car -- made the case for

bipartisan trade negotiation. this is 35 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> good morning. not just a typical day at nike is it? it is an absolute honor to host president obama today. welcome to nike, mr. president. [cheers and applause] i'd also like to welcome representative bonamici and blumenaur who have been so important with partnership through the white house in their support of trade promotion authority.

[applause] then i want to thank our partners in the oregon business community for being here today as well. [applause] you know, nike is a true american success story. 40 years ago we began selling shoes out of the back of a van. today we lead our industry helping athletes reach their potential in 190 countries and that journey was made possible because of the power of trade. nike is a company that stands for a lot of things. innovative products, pursuing athletic potential, but we are also proof that trade works. and we believe that companies should see that kind of success, all companies. we see it every day at nike. free trade, opens doors. it removes barriers, it creates jobs, it lets us invest more in the things that matter. and that is innovation, it is

creativity, and people. thanks to open market, nike employs 26,000 people across this country. here in oregon, nike and our more than 8500 employees add $2.5 billion to this state's economy every year. [applause] of course, as our many friends who joined us today prove, economic growth like this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

trade has powerful ripple effect. but free trade is not just critical for our present success. it drives our future growth. a free flow of boards goods in the global economy unleashes our capacity to invest and to innovate. i'm proud to say if the trans-pacific partnership is ratified nike will accelerate our efforts to begin advanced manufacturing here in the united states. [applause] over the next decade that could mean 10,000 new jobs in manufacturing and engineering from nike and our partners and up to 40,000 jobs across our supply chain. the future of nike and this country depend not only on what we make but how we make it and we want to get to the future faster. and that's why we support president obama's strong leadership on trade, and his hard work on the trans-pacific partnership. so thank you, and now, please give a huge nike welcome to

president barack obama. [cheers and applause] ♪ [hail to the chief] ♪ [cheers and applause] >> hello, oregon. [applause] >> well, who arranged this day? every time i come to oregon, this is what it looks like. yeah, it never rains in oregon does it? never.

all right. well, listen, it is wonderful to see all of you. first of all please give mark another round of applause for his hospitality. [applause] and, thanks to everyone at nike for hosting us today here in federer plots. you know, the white house is cool. [laughing] we've got a basketball court. actually it's a tennis court that we repainted some lines when i came into office. so it is a combination basketball tennis court. there is a putting green that president eisenhower put in. can you imagine, by if i had put in a putting green? things have changed. [laughter] but, you've got all that, and the 18th tee box from pebble beach. come on. [applause] i'm sure some of my staff is

running around right now in the michael jordan and mia hamm buildings. they want to be lab rats for your new gear. but, it is wonderful to be here. please give it up for two people who fight every single day for oregon workers, your representatives in congress, they do a great job. earl blumenauer, and suzanne bonamici. they are here. [laughter] [applause] and there are two people who couldn't make it here today, but doing a great job, give them a run applause. that is senator ron wyden and representative kurt schrader. [applause] it is great to be at the world headquarters of such an iconic company. a company that helps athletes succeed, from, the individual to

the world stage. as you've heard i have come to oregon to talk a little it about trade. which, initially may have had some people thinking, what is mariota going someplace we didn't know about? yeah. and, he's going to be great. he is an outstanding young man. he will be terrific and from hawaii by the way. local boy. but this is important and i want to tell you why i think trade deals and our willingness to go out there and compete on the global stage is so important. before i came out here, i had a chance to meet with some small business owners from across oregon whose workers make everything from bikes to tea to stationery to wine. they know how important this is to them. sometimes when we talk about

trade we think of nike or we think of boeing or we think of ge, we think about these big multinational companies but those small business leaders came here today because they understood that these markets outside of the united states will help them grow and will help them hire more folks. just as suppliers to nike, boeing, ge, or any of those other companies understand that will be critical to their growth and their ability to create new jobs. in fact that's why ron wyden is not here because he is in washington, d.c. as we speak quarterbacking this on behalf of oregon small business es and workers. small businesses are the backbone of our economy, like nike, sometimes they grow into really, really big companies. they employ millions of people.

98% of exporters are small businesses. they're the ones who made, who make made in oregon and made in the usa mean something and they represent something essential about this country. the notion that if you've got a good idea, you're willing to work at it, you can turn that idea into a business. you can grow that business eventually, who knows what might happen. you can give other people a chance to earn a living. even as you do well. that's america's promise. and it is up to us to keep that promise alive. now that problem is was threatened by almost everybody just about seven years when the economy nearly collapsed and millions of americans lost their jobs and their homes and their life savings but thanks to the hard work of the american people and entrepreneurs like the ones who are here today, and some pretty good policies from my administration, we're in a different place today.

[cheers and applause] we're in a different place today. now this morning we learned that our economy created 223,000 new jobs last month. the unemployment rate ticked down again to 5.4%, which is the lowest it has been in almost seven years. [cheers and applause] that's three million new jobs over the past 12 months. nearly the fastest pace in over a decade. and all told, over the past 62 months in a row, american businesses have created 12.3 million new jobs. i should add, by the way, 62 months ago, when i signed the

affordable care act. so obviously it hasn't done too bad in terms of employment in this country. just thought i would mention that. [cheers and applause] predictions of doom and gloom. just suggest those who were making those predictions and check the statistics. [laughter] just saying. so, small businesses deserve a lot of credit for that. in fact over the last several years small businesses created two out of nearly three new american jobs. the question is how do we build on that success? we have to be relentless in our efforts to support small businesses, creating jobs to help grow the economy. that has been the purpose behind many of the policies i fought for as president. i have cut taxes for small businesses more than a dozen times. i pushed for investments in infrastructure and faster

internet. that is why we made health care more accessible, affordable, portable, to give people the freedom to change jobs or launch the startup without worrying about losing their health insurance. and, passing trade agreements is part of that agenda, if, those trade agreements are the right kinds of trade agreements. if, they make sure that they're growing our businesses and helping american workers by selling goods made in america across the rest of the world. i've been talking a lot about this lately. i view smart trade agreements as a vital piece of middle class economics. not a contradiction to middle class economics.

it is part and parcel of it. i believe our country does best, everyone get as fair shot, everybody plays fair, everybody plays by the same rules. that makes sure everybody get as good education. that means women are paid the same as men doing the same work. [cheers and applause] it means making sure folks have to have sick leave and, family leave and that, you know they can balance work and family in a fair way. it means working to increase the minimum wage across this country, because folks have some of the toughest jobs sometimes get lowest pay. that is part of economics, middle class economics. but you know what? so is trade. we've strived to make sure our own economy lives up to high standards but in a lot of parts of world the rules are unfair. the playing field is uneven. that puts american businesses

and american workers at a disadvantage. so the question is, what should we do about it? some folks think we should just withdraw and not even try to engage in trade with these countries. i disagree. we have to make sure america writes the rules of the global economy. we should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. [applause] because if we don't write the rules for trade around the world, guess what? china will. and they will write those rules in a way that gives chinese workers and chinese businesses the upper hand and locks american-made goods out. that is the choice we face. we're not going to be able to isolate ourselves from world markets. we have to be in there to compete. the question is, are we going to make sure that the rules are fair so that our businesses, our workers, are on a level playing field? because when they are, we win every time. [applause]

when the rules are fair, we win every time. so this is why i'm such a strong supporter of new trade agreements. they're going to help our workers compete and our businesses compete. this is not a left issue or a right issue or business or a labor issue. it is about fairness. and equity, and access. and like other issues that we waged, a slow steady fight song over the last seven years, this is a question of the past versus the future. so the trans-pacific partnership that we're working on, this is the biggest trade deal we're working on right now, has to do with the asia-pacific region. and it reflects our values in ways that frankly some previous trade agreements did not. it is the highest standard, most progressive trade deal in history. it has got strong, enforceable

provisions for workers preventing things like child labor. it has strong, enforceable provisions on the environment, helping us to do things that haven't been done before to prevent wildlife trafficking or deforestation or dealing with our oceans. these are enforceable in the agreement. and nike operates in the pacific region so they understand the competitive pressures they're under. nike has factories all around the world. and let's face it, mark, i think doesn't mind me saying it, some of these countries don't have the standards for wages and labor conditions that we have here. so, when you look at a country like vietnam, under this agreement, vietnam would actually, for the first time have to raise its labor standards.

it would have to set a minimum wage. it would have to pass state work place laws to protect its workers. it would even have to rotech workers -- protect workers freedom to form unions for the very first time. that would make a difference. that helps to level the playing field. it would be good for the workers in vietnam, even as it helps make sure that they're not undercutting competition here in the united states. so that's progress. doesn't mean that suddenly working conditions in vietnam will be like they are here at nike. or here in portland right away but it moves us in the right direction. and in vietnam or any of the other countries in this trade agreement, don't meet these requirements, they will face meaningful consequences. if you're a country that wants into this agreement, you have to meet higher standards. if you don't, you're out. if you break the rules, that is

-- we already meet higher standards than most of the rest of the world. that helps level the playing field. this deal would strengthen our hand overseas by giving us tools to open up out markets to our goods and services to make sure they play by the fair rules we helped write. truth is we have one of the most open markets in the world. folks are already selling stuff here, we have to be able to sell there. that requires us to enter into trade agreements to open up their markets. i hear oregon wine is actually pretty good. someone said the pino noir in oregon is top-notch. we have some wine makers here. i want to make sure japanese wine consumers have the opportunity to partake. in an excellent oregon wine or we got some oregon beef producers and ranchers around

here. you know, beef is really expensive in japan. [applause] let's make sure they try some oregon steaks. it is good stuff. and that is one of the best things that can happen for our businesses and our workers opening up markets previously been closed, particularly markets where they're already selling stuff here. there is a lack of reciprocity. it is not a fair deal right now. we want to make it fair. now, i want to acknowledge because this looks like a very well-read and informed crowd there have been a bunch of critics about trade deals generally and the trans-pacific partnership and what is interesting typically they're my friends coming from my party. and they're my fellow travelers on minimum wage and on job training and on clean energy and on every progressive issue

they're right there with me and then on this one they're like, whooping on me. i tell you what, i've run my last election and, the only reason i do something because i think it is good for american workers and american people and the american economy. i don't have, i don't have any other rationale for doing what i do other than i think it is best thing for the american people and on this issue, on trade, i actually think some of my dearest friends are wrong. they're just wrong. and here's why. first of all they say this trade agreement will cost american jobs and they're really basing this on some past experience looking at what happened in the 1990s, over the last 20 years, as there was a lot of outsourcing going on.

little with some of that is true. they were not doing enough to protect are y american workers. and that is when we are making a new treaty deal. they have outsourced, the already located elsewhere. with this treat you do was open to just this trade agreement will be higher inend. i at the higher end of the value change are able to access these markets. the fact is, over the past few years are manufacturers have been steadily creating jobs for the first time since the 1990s under my administration.

after a decade away from the spot comment business leaders have declared the united states women who exist to invest -- the number one and twoplace to invest in for a third year in a row. [cheers and applause] so, the point is outsourcing is already giving away to insert same. companies are starting to move back here to do more dance manufacturing -- advanced manufacturing. this trade deal would help that. as mark may mention, with the transpacific tartar ship, it will make new investments in advanced manufacturing. not overseas, but right here in the state and far more products would be made in the u.s.a. that means thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and engineering and design at nike facilities across the country and potentially tens of thousands of jobs along the nike supply chain here at home. [cheers and applause]

i spent 6.5 years trying to rescue this economy. six and a half years of trying to revitalize manufacturing, including restoring an american i know industry that was on his back and is now fully recovered. so i would not risk any of that if i thought the trade deals were going to undermine it. the reason i am for this is because i think it will enhance it and it can say. that is point number one. when you ask folks specifically what you oppose, they just say nafta. nafta was passed 20 years ago. that was a different agreement. in fact, disagreement exists some of what was wrong with nafta and making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable. i was just getting out of law school when nafta got passed. [applause]

number three, you've got some critics saying that any deal would be rushed through. it is a secret deal. people don't know what is in it. this is not true. any agreement that we finalized with the other 11 countries will have to be posted online at least 60 days before i even sign it. then it would go to congress. and you know they are not going to do anything fast. [laughter] there will be months of review. every t crossed, every i dotted. everyone will see what is in it. there is nothing abstract about this. this is a very deliberate plan. which will be subject to

scrutiny and i'm confident when people read the agreement for themselves, they will say this is the most progressive trade deal in history. number four, critics warn this would undermine regulation. even financial regulation. they are making this stuff up. this is just not true. no trade agreement will force us to change our laws. this agreement would make sure our companies are not discriminated against in other countries. we already treat companies from other countries fairly here. our companies don't always get treated fairly there. sometimes they need some way to settle disputes were not subject to the whims of some government bureaucrat in that country. that is important. we want our businesses to succeed in selling over there because that is how the workers will get more jobs in the united states. finally, some critics talk about currency manipulation. this has been a problem in the past. countries trying to lower currency because it makes their goods cheaper than ours more expensive. there is a time when china was pretty egregious about this.

when i came into office, i started pounding on them. every time i meet with them i talked about currency and we pushed back hard and china moves and in real terms the currency has appreciated by 30% since i came in office. we will keep on going after it. that is not an argument against this trade agreement. if we give up the chance to help dismiss this other stuff in the world's fastest-growing markets, that does not do anything to stop currency manipulation. the fact that some folks are just opposed to trade deals out of principle, the reflected principle. what i tell them if you know what, these trade deals, and means it must be satisfied with the status quo. the status quo hasn't been working for our workers. it hasn't been working for a business. there are people here who will tell you why.

i will just give you a couple of examples of small businesses who i had a chance to be with today. a portland-based greeting card company. really nice. [applause] they sell their cars in australia, which is a member of this transpacific partnership agreement. the ceo -- there she is. if they could more easily reach customers in japan, they would sell half the volume they sell in america. that is a lie. right now the logistics of exporting to japan are too complicated. this agreement would help solve some of those problems to sell more greeting cards in japan presumably in japanese. [laughter] there'll be a translation process.

[laughter] i am teasing. the trade deal that held by customs accountable for getting products delivers swiftly. the more you can hire in the united states. further products. canned fruit, berries, other products depend on exports for 20% of its annual sales. right now at exports to four members of the partnership we've had together. japan, australia, singapore and canada. selling in these countries right now could mean dealing with unfair rules designed to prevent our products in the markets under this agreement that would change. it becomes more simple and consistent. people around the world eating oregon berries all year long. [applause]

the winery. [cheers and applause] we've got a lot of drinkers in here. [laughter] a winery, family run in dayton oregon. one of the top export markets of japan. under this trade partnership those tariffs would be eliminated and wineries across america would grow overseas. the brother and sister team -- [cheers and applause] say if we can make it easier to do business with countries that are already trading partners countries that are allies, that is a good thing. this deal would be a good thing. so let's just do it.

[cheers and applause] it took a while for you to catch that. [laughter] i thought that was pretty obvious. so listen. a lot of folks are skeptical about trade. they haven't always lived up to the hype. labor and environmental protections were not strong enough. i saw for years in chicago and towns across illinois, and manufacturing collapsing outsourcing is real. some of our manufacturing case shifted over the last 25 years and it wasn't good for manufacturing or communities or workers. that is the truth. it had benefits. other jobs were created. we got cheaper goods, but there

is real displacement and real pain. for many americans, this is not an abstraction. this is real. but we've got to learn the right lessons from that. it is not that we pull up the draw bridge and build a moat around ourselves. the lesson is we have got to make sure that the trade deals that we do shape are ones that allow us to compete fairly. and i took office i decided we could rethink the way we do trade and the way that works for working americans. i didn't think this was the right thing to do just for companies. if i don't think this is the right thing to do for working families, i would not be fighting for it. if it comes for working families, i will sign it. i ran for office to expand opportunity for everybody. the all-american idea about who

you are, how you started out, ot who you love, in america, you can make it if you try. [cheers and applause] so, yes we should be mindful of the past. but we can't ignore the reality of the new economy. we can't stop the global economy at our shores. we've got to harness on our terms. this century is built for us. it's about innovation. it is about dynamism and flexibility and entrepreneurship and information and knowledge and science and research. that is us. we can't be afraid of it. we've got to give every single american who wakes up, sends their kids to school, punches in every day, the chance to do what they do best.

dream up the best products and ideas in the world to average corner of the world. [cheers and applause] because nike, we do not just have the best athletes in the world. we also have the best workers in the world. [cheers and applause] we also the best businesses in the world. and when the playing field is level, nobody beats the united states of america. [cheers and applause] nobody beats the united states of america. [cheers and applause] thank you. god bless you. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> makes him a discussion is really. tonight, attorney general loretta lynch announcing interest he is more police

department. . and david cameron making an dr. leslie elections. -- an announcement after last night elections. >> they were wives and mothers. some were raisings full children. the tragedy of loss. just in time for mother's day, first ladies looks at the personal lives of every first lady in history. lively stories of fascinating women, and inspiring read based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series. it is available as a hardcover or a n e-book.

>> this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, first ladies influence and him it will look into the lives of two first ladies. elizabeth monrovia e from the tradition, and gave him a reputation for being a cleanly by her critics. elizabeth adams is the only first lady born outside of the united states. she had difficulty winning the approval of her mother-in-law, former first lady abigail adams. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to

michelle obama. >> mix, a discussion about the relationship between government surveillance and transparency. this comes one day after a federal appeals court had ruled that people collection program of american phonorecords illegal. in congress is debating about and in the program for extending it without changes. is about one hour 45 minutes. >> i will open. thank you for c-span, thank you for the committee providing us this room. sunlight is a nonpartisan nonprofit that uses the tools of specific okidata analysis to

make government more accountable and transparent. they host quarterly events that are aimed at educating staff in congress untrustworthy issues. this event, who is watching the watchers is on policymakers. i am the federal policymakers, i had a joke, but it runs on i'm not funny. our goal is to ensure that congress and staffers in the room are all best able to do your jobs, and your jobs are complicated. this issue, surveillance, takes the complexity of your job to the extreme and tears it to the other goals of security civil liberty, and strict fruity and accountability. we're going to talk and have a q&a session and we are tweeting.

we will do quick introductions and i will be fast about this. all the way to my left is the director of national intelligence room 2009 and the present. to his right is the chief counsel is the desk at the front and center. he was also chief counsel to the church committee which was the project manager of some of the reforms we are still working on today. to his right is the staff attorney at the aclu national security project. the decision yesterday, he was one of the litigators working on it. to his right is the chief of staff former representatives shoe, and spent four years on the house intelligence committee. with that, i'm going to invite

all the panelists to do introduction about who they are, what they work on, and i'm hoping at least one thing that they think staff should know that they may or not know. ms. eoyang: hello. i just want to say a few words about how congressional oversight works in the current context. one of the things to keep in mind is that oversight is hampered by different benchmarks. one of it is hampered in public oversight, which is by necessity. the programs need to be kept secret for security reasons, but your kept deprived of the public tools of journalism that you would haven't other places.

they take their intelligence oversight very seriously. even as a matter of congressional oversight. two other tools, congressional oversight is hampered compared to some of the other committees in its access to gao cdo, crs, and also access to whistleblowers. those authorities are different from and the way to use that are very different or nonexistent in national security committees. congressional oversight and intelligent is different between the house and the senate. they are actually at a tremendous disadvantage compared to their senate counterparts. unlike their senate counterparts they do not have individual designees so they do not hire a staff member who worked strictly for them. the house members do not have access to technical support working group which would help them to understand the technical

part of the programs. in the house intelligence committee has much greater control of the dissemination of classified information in the house committee different from the senate and all senators had given access to an intelligence document relating to programs. there's a different orientation between the entitlement information between house members and senators. i feel like that as a of things to let staff know. >> my name is patrick to me, i'm a staff attorney at the national security project. i work mainly on surveillance related cases. that includes the aclu versus klapper case that was decided yesterday, and a lawsuit under the amendments act. it includes co-counseling in

criminal cases where surveillance authorities have been acknowledged or defendants believe they may have been used, including a case in colorado where the first defendant who got faa notice is litigating that authority. i would start by saying that the decision yesterday shows that a little sunshine can make quite a difference in how these programs are evaluated. that was a point of the second survey -- circuit, and that they expanded on in the concurring opinion. the type of robust judicial review is certainly welcome, but i would say to everyone who is here today that unfortunately that type of judicial review is not reflective of the broader reality. there are three ways in which

there can be adversarial for you of these surveillance program a third is when providers receive orders under the surveillance authorities free challenges. each of those avenues is currently broken. in the civil context the government has used the state secrets doctrine to prevent challenges to these authorities from going forward. in the criminal context we're learning that the government uses parallel construction and the strict rules around disclosure to prevent defendants for bringing informed and meaningful challenges to these authorities, and in the context of providers, it is very clear that their interests are not aligned with the privacy of the

customers. in fact, they have been granted immunity in many cases when they comply with court orders seeking the customer information in order for there to be more review, those mechanisms need to be fixed. >> fritz. >> right now and she counsel at the chief counsel for justice. -- right now i am chief counsel at the brennan center of justice. 40 years ago, i was chief counsel at the church committee. i was then 39 years old. i did not know a single senator. what would i say if i were just taking out one thing about -- that might be adjusting to

people not around at that point? in my new book, "democracy in the dark," i have a whole chapter on congressional investigation that might be worthy of your looking at. the one thing i would single out is that the atmosphere on the church committee was extremely nonpartisan. our most important fighting was probably that every president from franklin roosevelt through richard nixon, four democrats and two republicans, had abused their secret powers. that helps with internal cohesion and external had ability. the committee -- mike mansfield who was majority leader of the body is important. he had called for a major investigation of the intelligence agencies 20 years earlier as a junior senator, and nothing had happened. the circumstances change and he was majority leader. he structured the committee to help with it being nonpartisan. instead of seven to three democrats, which would have been the norm, it was 6 to five. instead of the leader of the republicans being called the majority -- what is it, ranking member, and not having any power

at all, senator tower of texas was the vice-chairman and have the powers of vice chair, and presided often. he picked senators also who were not people who had supposedly overseeing the fbi, the cia, even though both cases, they said please do not tell us but we are doing. he picked people who were not tainted by that, and also people who were capable of working in a partisan way. nonpartisanship is extraordinarily important if you are trying to oversee, or try to change and intelligence body. bob: i would just say that i think, as i said before -- sorry, i'm bob, on the council for national intelligence.

that does not mean i the chief lawyer of all the intelligence agencies, but it does mean that i am lawyer for the director of national intelligence. one of the things i think the entire intelligence community has learned over the past couple of years is that we do need to be more transparent, if we want to maintain public support for mission. my view is frankly that if we have been able to be more transparent about some of the things we do, in advance of the leaks, they would not have been nearly as controversial. i think some indication of that is that members of congress who did know about these programs, with one or two exceptions, were not necessarily troubled by them. there were quite a few members of congress that did know about them. the intelligence judiciary committee got all of the relevant information. i think in general, we can be a lot more transparent about how we interpret the laws and government activities, the

procedures we used to protect liberties. i think where we cannot be transparent, there are specific methods we use, specific sources of intelligence, specific targets, specific intelligence that we gather. at the same time, i think people have to recognize that there are risks to transparency. if we advertise everything that we do and the way we do it, we will not be able to do it anymore. i can tell you that terrorists are looking at the articles that appear in newspapers, passing them around to each other, and saying things like -- this is close to a direct quote -- stay away from x service, because we know that nsa is on that. there are definite risks to transparency. it is a careful balance that has to be struck, how much we can inform, while still protecting our ability to protect people.

sean: thank you. to start us off, i want to give us some recent context. in 2014, it was held that human rights activist gets -- advocates did not have right to sue the government. the court held that their fears were too speculative. a few month later, the world learn to edward snowden was the yesterday, the second court of appeals decided that the aclu did have standing, is fears were not speculative, and the government collection of telephone calls was unlawful. fritz, can you tell is a little bit, how does the country get to the need of the church committee? fritz: the climate of the times

is vital to understand. after world war ii, there was for 15 years at least, i would say, and probably more, a general acceptance that the government knew what it was doing and that the press and the people should stay away. then, there was a lot of frustration over vietnam, which got people concerned about if the government was being fair-minded and the pentagon papers brought out the is sort of had not been fair-minded in what it was saying publicly. watergate made the public worried about even the president being involved in improper illegal conduct including illegal surveillance, and break-ins to psychiatry's offices. j edgar hoover was dead. i make it -- that made a huge difference. with the senate have been

courageous enough to look at the fbi if j edgar hoover had been alive? i'm not sure. nixon had tried to use the cia to shut down the fbi investigation of watergate. and, there had been a series of leaks. there is an interesting comment that says that leak is not the right word. it had been interesting series of leaks about programs that were troublesome. seymour hersh about the cia doing domestic surveillance when it really is not lawful for them to do it. all of those factors led to the church committee being founded. i just want to join in something

both bob and mika said, you have to recognize that some secrets are legitimate. we succeeded -- the church committee succeeded in part because we did recognize that some secrets were legitimate and let the government see our draft reports before they came out, so they could argue. they cannot tell us, but they could argue that something would reveal something that should not be revealed. the parallel house committee which potentially could have done great good, because it was concentrating on the quality of intelligence that was coming out, but it foundered, and ultimately failed because they did not accept that there were some secrets that are legitimate. sean: fritz, a number of things were obviously unearthed by the church committee and the leaks

can you highlight a couple? fritz: i will highly three. one was martin luther king where we uncovered the document which was sent to him by the fbi after bugs -- by the way, they were able to put bugs, without even the approval of the attorney general, because the earlier attorney general had said to j edgar hoover, i do not want know, do what you want to do. they had put bugs to humiliate him so much so to where he would commit suicide. you have to use fact there are illustrative. the night of his "i have a dream" speech, they met and said

they had to destroy martin luther king and find their own choice of a new black leader. they came up with a new black leader. he did not know he was their choice. that was one. cia. that was particularly really terrible. the cia hiring the mafia as part of their effort to kill fidel castro, the leader of cuba. then, nsa getting every single telegram -- or almost every -- the content, not just the metadata -- the content of single telegram that left the united states between 1945, when it was the army security agency, to 1975, when it had been nsa for quite a while. just add something that i think

you would agree with me that this would not be the attitude today -- i assume you would -- the general counsel of the nsa when i was talking to them about why we were going to expose the program of getting everything will telegram the left the united states, and i said, you'd, there is a fourth amendment problem with doing that. he said, the constitution does not apply to the nsa. >> i would agree that i do not agree with that. [laughter] bob: i would like to follow-up. fritz's discussion is a good metric of judging what has been done in the past several years. the fact of the matter is that the programs we are talking about were all authorized by court order. there is disagreement about whether the court orders were valid or not, but the government went to the court, told the court about the program, and got

in order for the program. moreover, they were fully disclosed to the relevant congressional oversight committee. while i think it is legitimate to have a policy debate over whether we do these or not, to compare this with the things that were done with dr. king, or so on, recognizes how far we have come as far as oversight and a legal framework. sean: most of the program started with stellar wind, which was not authorized by court order, correct? it was several years before they came under court provision. bob: and that was 10 years ago and have since been replaced by court provisions. sean: let's say, pre-9/11, we had a review of congressional inquiry, perhaps, that turned

into legislation reform. bob, i think the intelligence community may even benefit from another investigation and find unequivocally that this is not the case. instead, the lack of transparency around the issue leaves it open to, let's say, the second circuit comparing it today to the church committee. bob: i'm not sure what much of transparency you are talking about. sean: the concern for example that the house intelligence committee or the senate intelligence committee is in some ways an effective broken, or co-opted -- i'm just using words that i think most of us here in some way. we can replace that distrust

with an effective committee. the question for the panel next is is it time for a new church committee? fritz: two things in footnote to bob's points -- the torture was never blessed by a court. it was blessed by a grossly inadequate legal opinion. it was devised in white house meetings where they listened to no history, they didn't listen to the state department, they didn't listen to the defense department, to the fbi. they did not recognize that both george washington and abraham lincoln had gone against torture. then, i have some trouble with taking all of what you said and accepting it, in light of where mr. clapper was asked a question that clearly was looking at the metadata program and he says --

the question is is the government collecting data on millions of -- hundreds of millions of americans? he said, no, not wittingly. that was not a truthful answer. what he should have done, i do not know. i think you have to worry about whether in the new system, the government is sufficiently candid when it testified. bob: on the issue of the cia's program, we are talking about surveillance. i think the president has admitted that that is wrong. i am an expert on the clapper case. i have written to the "new york times" and "new yorker" on this. when you say they were