in the arab spring, that non- violence has been one of the factors of the effectiveness of the protests and for the backing of the international community of of those movements. you have spoken about the u.n. and the possibility of acceptance by the general counsel of palestine. of palestine. if this happens, there will still be the problem of occupation. you were very active during the first fata in motivating in dealing, organizing, inspiring at least the non-violent demonstrations that happened and they were quite effective and by the way, i liked your poetry that you wrote at that time. >> thank you. >> what would be now your

message to the -- to those who are -- to the average palestinian, to the ordinary palestinians who are asking what should we do after september? in the best scenario. let's say there is acceptance by -- and then the question is what to do with the occupation? how should we resist the occupation? would you yourself be willing to participate such a non-violent movement? >> thank you. two more questions, because we don't have much time. please, ambassador. please. >> i apologize for not having got advanced -- but i brought along copies of a d.v.d. of a film that i did in which you had an interview, a key part. people can help themselves. >> thank you. >> called "searching for peace

in the middle east." you did a beautiful succinct job of summarizing and it is just as relevant as when you spoke to them three or four years ago. >> thank you. >> i apologize for having been late for reasons beyond my control. i wish to greet you here. the last time i greeted you was in qatar a few years ago. i have really two comments and i need your input in this. the first one is that israel, under the help of the united states, is pursuing a policy of racism by -- i just heard george mitchell yesterday talking about

the -- of israel. that is pure racism. and that this has been expelled first by a second rate president of the united states george w. bush when he called it the jewish state and ever since, it has been repeated. the second thing is that israel has been conducting a policy of armed robbery. ever since it was created and it has become isolated in the world with the exception of the united states. how can we -- out this armed robbery notion to the world, everywhere because this is very essential? thank you.

>> maybe one more question. we really are out of time. yes, sir. >> you have mentioned that you have been from 1967, you have been asking the united states for help to resolve this with assumption that the united states was kind of a mediator or a disinterested mediator but that was not true. wouldn't it have been better if you -- if as palestinians you were in a situation like -- like israel, at least had the protection to have russians who say any resolution in the security council against syria would be veto or for that matter, if india and pakistan were in conflict. the united states was blindly supporting pakistan. that's how india was able to get

an upper hand. so wouldn't it be better now for you to look for somebody like russia, china, whoever is willing to back you far better than just verbal support that you're getting from the united states and the runaround for all of these years from 1967 until now. i mean, this is one problem which has lingered on for too long and it is really sad that the united states has been able to bluff everybody and still continues to veto some resolutions in the security council. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. i didn't get your name. thank you very much. i'm so glad that you read my

poetry. it means a lot to me. i believe you need poetry to deal with this situation. non-violence as far as i'm concerned has always been the most effective means. i've been involved and i continue to be involved because i -- in many ways of expressing resistance by nonviolent means in which the human spirit is paramount, in which you have the moral high ground in which you expose the limbs of power and the morality to have -- of the power. i really think that we can -- we can relinlt mize and reenergize the nonviolent movement in palestine. what has been going on actually for years now as you know, in jerusalem and as constant

non-violence protests that are being faced with extreme violence and many internationals were injured and killed. many americans of course were -- there is this young woman who wrote the song. i shouldn't have forgotten. she got no protection even from her own government. she wrote a beautiful song. there are many people of good conscious who have joined us on non-violent -- i certainly will continue to be engaged in it and work with it. after the -- after september, i think we cannot give up. we have to continue and we have to pursue alternative means like going to the international

community, holding israel accountable, working with them, a new consensus and so on. but all of these efforts are thwarted then you cannot control everybody or everything. the ouppings occupation is by definition violent. we are a captive nation. so when you are facing it with nonviolence, of course if you -- if you expose it -- then that is fine and people see the -- but if you don't, people start picking up the same attitude as the -- the same means and this is where you begin to lose, unfortunately. but you do not control all the elements. you do not control how everybody -- you have to constantly explain. you have to show that you're there and you have to be able to

show what works. thank you very much. you have always been a great advocate of justice and peace. and a just peace. i think we should acknowledge your efforts. for decades you have stood up and spoken out. now the question of the jewish ness -- this is a new precondition. we were never asked throughout the negotiations, i don't remember ever being told you have to recognize israel as a jewish state. we were asked to recognize israel in 19949 in exchange of letters between yasser arafat and -- we accepted the two-state solution and we can niesed the state of israel, which is what we thought -- recognize states.

and israel recognizes the p.l.o. so that was a condition that was met. and then suddenly netanyahu came one the idea that if the palestinians do not recognize the jewishness of the state, it means that they want to destroy it if they don't recognize the state. but we have recognized the state. that's the point. i don't see any other country that asks for the ethnic or religious character of the state to be mentioned except maybe iran. >> i'm not sure even them. >> not part of his rail's name. so this is unique. now -- of israel's name.

this is unique. we have been struggling for an inclusive democracy. it is the only country in the world where if you say it is a state for all of its citizens you're accused of being a traitor. what is the state for? all of its noncitizens? the americans? if israel doesn't want to be a state -- it has to say so because i'm a nonjewish citizen. you cannot be exclusive. the palestinians have been there for centuries. you can't nullify them. you can't negate -- you can't say if you're not jewish then you have no rights. not citizenship. that's what he is saying. he wants to expel palestinians. as well as from the west bank. voices calling for gaza and israel and west bank and

jordan. other worldly solutions being based on this. that will not work. anything that is based on exclusivity and racism. discrimination. it will not work. you have to accept the fact that we live in a world that does not close up itself and that does accept the others and that does recognize that we are not all monolithic and one type of ethnic group. we say this is a negation of our history and the negation of the palestinians and a negation of the -- the palestinian people who the -- has to be acknowledged. but i doubt whether obama or anybody else would ever use the

term that says this is a christian united states of america and ask us to recognize the muslim kingdom of jordan or whatever. no. nobody would do that for any other nation. the exception is something that will eventually backfire. have to be treated like a country like other countries. it cannot constantly be the exception with the entitlement. the expected consideration. once it becomes a state like other states then maybe it will relax and interact with the region as an equal, not as a dominating part. the issue of land confiscation. they have taken other people's land. israel defines state land as belonging to the israeli state. not state land belonging to the palestinian people for whom this

land should be used for their own benefit. and we didn't ask for the -- u.s. for help. actually the u.s. is the only country that supposedly israel listens to but now we know better. it is the other way around. we think during the cold war, of course, we tried very hard not to take sides. we were always under occupation since 1967. so we could not go and say ok, we want to be within the -- satellite of the soviet union or we want to be with -- we just want the international community to end the occupation. on the basis of legality and justice. that's all we want. so unfortunately now with the monopolar world, with the soviet union, we do have one power, the u.s. and the u.s. has adopted a

policy since 1991, even though before some others tried to find the solution. ending the conflict. and bringing about -- and they have failed. look. when -- i said years ago, i hate to repeat myself. i am quoting myself. i said that by no stretch of the imagination can you accuse the u.s. of being even-handed. never. we know there is a strategic alliance with israel. if you heard obama's speeches, this is long-standing policy. when all this -- when the -- ultimately every country is going to look out for its own interests.

israel is becoming a liability. for everybody. to itself even. the occupation is a liability. this blindtons the needs of -- and the rights of people around and the palestinian rights is going to backfire it is going to -- and it is going to -- and last year we talked about how the american military was saying that israel is a liability in the sense of what it does in region and reflected on the u.s. and it affects american standing and american interest. so it cannot constantly do things and use this alliance with the u.s. to cover its illegal acts and violations. i think it is up to the u.s. to decide sooner or later where, you know, its real interests lie in the long run. rather than -- and accommodating israel.

we're not asking for support. we're asking for implementation of the law. we're asking for justice. that's all. we don't want to be part of any axes or alliance or whatever. we have a cause that has its own integrity that is based on justice and legality and that's what we want. i think you have lots of people now who are seing this and who are in support with it in europe, latsen america. -- latin america. here there will be a change. i know how frustrating it can be. look, i've been coming here since i was a student. keep pushing that -- it keeps coming back. you have to keep trying because -- ultimately, you cannot rely on the ignorance of people. this is a very -- ignorance is easy to dispel if you the truth and the facts.

thank you. >> and on that note, please join me in thanking hanan. >> next, author douglas brinkley on the legacy of warmed war ii and then comments from treasury secretary timothy geithner and then the confirmation hearing for gary locke to become ambassador to china. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. signed, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online on c-span.org/shop. >> next, a discussion on the historical impact of world war ii from today's "washington journal" this is an hour.

war memorial -- national world war ii memorial. it was dedicated in 2004 by president george w. bush. on this memorial day eve, we will discuss and look at the world war ii memorial and discuss as well world war ii on the last hour of "washington journal." we are joined by american historian douglas brinkley, who is one of many books is "world war ii memorial: a grateful nation remembers." thank you for being with us on a hot friday morning. what did it take us some years after world war ii to build and dedicate this monument? guest: remember, world war ii

consumed our country. we lost 400,000 americans, many, many more wounded physically and psychologically. se gi's comee home and want to get back to normal, drink coca-cola, go to the movies, be part of the healing of the country. in the 1950's and 1960's, as you did not have or ii veterans standing up, and we had the controversial vietnam war dividing the nation. that was not a good war. suddenly, by 1984, and ronald reagan, i believe was the catalyst -- he went to normandy and talked about the u.s. army's second rangers climbing the cliffs and getting shot down. all over america in the 1980's, people recognized they had war heroes in the neighborhood. everybody said to stand up, on

and on. it created a wave, a notion -- where is our world war ii memorial? many americans, not least of which is senator bob dole of kansas, stood up to make this happen. host: let's talk about the design. who designed it? why are there 56 of these all about? guest: the architect was frederick st. laurent, and it came from a pool of 400 excellent designs picked it right behind me, it's as the virgin islands, the philippines, puerto rico. alaska and hawaii were not states, so you get those later in the 1950's. all of our territories, and also, washington, d.c. gets 1. it is 56, and on top of all our 56 -- are 56 oak reeds but all

round. 56 in all. host: at the end or two end pieces. guest: this is it the atlantic, and the other side is the pacific. our great commander-in-chief franklin roosevelt -- words are car from both sides. in addition to that, if you go over to the pacific side, you see quotations from the great walter lord carved, douglas macarthur. you get people out of the atlantic. in between, there is a lot of efforts made to include women in the story, the rosy the river story -- rosie the riveter story. norfolk, detroit, a san diego, the airplanes that henry ford built up in dearborn area. it is trying to encompass the entire war experience.

host: doug brinkley is our guest, a well-known american historian. we are at the world war ii memorial on the national mall, talking about the memorial as well as world war ii. we want to get your participation as well. we set aside our third line this morning for world war about 16 million people were in uniform during world war ii according to the veterans administrations. from we would you and get your perspective.

doug brinkley, before we got started, there were some school kids yelling at us and having a little bit of fun. you made a sort of an aside comment that this memorial has lost so much of its meaning. what did you mean? guest: unfortunately, memorial day has been a day for barbequeing and a day off and set of remember why you and i are here today, trying to remind people of the cost of freedom. we're talking about world war ii, but all wars. max cleland will be at the american bebattlefield commission . as a going over to normandy, where money has been put in it for coastal erosion of a cliff, to make sure that the cemetery's properly taken care of. we have to reclaim the holiday, just like president's day, for

what the original meaning was not go any kind of programming -- for with the original meaning was. any kind of programming that can show us the cost of our freedom, what our ancestors did for us. host: overall, do you know with a cost of world war ii was? guest: well, the cost was our freedom to read it hitl -- while well --, the cost was our freedom. if hitler had developed the a- bomb before we did. after all, pearl harbor -- we were bombed at pearl harbor. the germans declared war on the united states. this was not a war chores like the mexican-american war -- this was not a war of choice like the mexican-american war. and the technology, even things

we are doing with c-span right now, some of the technology of the film and cable transmissions, the electronic journalism world started changing. everything changed in world war ii. development was intense in so many different area. what about the economic cost? guest: i think it is a small estimate. keep in mind, industrial mobilization -- say a factory in connecticut making women's blouses, suddenly making parachutes. a company that would make horns suddenly was making a ship of valves. that was the miracle of the world war, the way our country pull together and everybody chipped in with the war effort.

we do have a great world war ii memorial across from rosenthal's ghraib photographs of -- great photograph of iwo jima. but that is for the marines. this is america's world war ii memorial. we were all in it together, working to get rid of japanese warlords in german fascism. host: doug brinkley, is there a national world war ii museum? guest: there is in new orleans that started out as a d-day museum but has branched out to be much more than that. enter higgins started building those landing crafts and if you look at a movie like "saving private ryan," they open up and about 35 men would rush to

shore. new orleans was another one of these chubs, and the dream started by steven ambrose -- stephen ambrose, my late friend, historian. if you care about the world war, go to this memorial, and then bring your kids to new orleans for the national museum. at the holocaust museum. oh, it is just remarkable, in the 1990's, when elie weisel, who wrote "night" and other incredible stories of survival, and he was at auschwitz, and walter cronkite watched it as a q&a. it is mandatory to visit the holocaust museum to understand that side of the world war. host: utah for a long time at the university of new orleans and now teaching at rice university. what are you in d.c. today?

guest: i am working on a book on walter cronkite. i'm interviewing people from roger mudd, les moonves, bob woodward. i member to my book out in the spring of 2012 -- i am bringing my book out in the spring of 2012. host: first call, lee and connecticut. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: when are we going to learn the truth about the start of world war ii? roosevelt wanted to be a war hero like his cousin teddy, and he knew about the bombing of pearl harbor at least two weeks in advance, but he was pushing us to get into a war. also, with all the communists you had in his government, we abandoned our troops in the philippines and sent all the aid to the russians.

why did we do that? host: all right, thank you, lee. doug brinkley. guest: here on memorial day weekend, we want to thank franklin roosevelt for the extraordinary job he did as commander-in-chief, picking people like george marshall to dwight eisenhower, bradley, patton, this incredible group of leaders that he surrounded himself -- military leaders he surrounded himself by. the caller is dealing in the back door to more theory, debunked by -- back door to war era, did not by scholars. this wacky notion that -- debunked by scholars. this wacky notion that roosevelt, who love our navy is a much, allowed it to be destroyed to bring the country to war. it is similar to the obama birth certificate or things that come out of jfk's assassination.

there was missives, intelligence missives, saying that there was unusual japanese behavior going on. people don't realize that the president gets all sorts of information every day, and history is so much in retrospect that you say, "why did you notice this, why didn't you notice that?" that does not mean we do not debate the issue of how we got into war, to say that roosevelt was some kind of a scoundrel that allowed at the armada to be bombed in pearl harbor is kind of reprehensible. host: what happened on september was the and onwhat interim period like and what was the attitude of the american people? guest: there was a lot of isolationist sentiment. famously, charles lindbergh and

henry ford were opposed to intervention. there was this sense we got hoodwinked into world war i and now we were getting into another dirty european civil war. roosevelt was constantly doing what every one trying to help our l.a. great britain out -- there was a series of events that occurred, but go back and read the great freedom speech of franklin roosevelt, or the atlantic charter agreement between churchill and roosevelt up in newfoundland -- he said the cornerstone of the alliance is giving aid to britain at the right time. there is a whole group of the events that occurred leading up to pearl harbor. we did have an understanding of just how evil the third reich in germany was, and how dangerous japan's militarism had become. by the time pearl harbor came around, roosevelt and the country were ready to act.

but roosevelt had to educate the public to get ready for the big board. host: september 1, 1939, is the day that nazi germany invaded poland. william i. ohio. good morning, william. william, you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: ok, i visited about five years ago the memorial. beautiful. it is all inspiring. -- awe inspiring. i am sad come in a way, that many of the fellows i would like to have all of them visit, but they are gone. their lives are gone, finished. i will be 87 in october. the thing about the memorial is it took so long to get it builtit but -- get it built,

but that is the way things go. i was in the norman invasion, first wave. ipad capt., navy capt. it -- i had a captain, navy captain, that was on board. i was 19 at the time, and i suppose that is why they figured you want somebody real young. i got up on the bridge, and the captain asked me if i would stand on that little platform attached to the bridge. i had an eye view of the whole thing. i saw them all lined up, i saw all the different types of landing craft lineup, a first wave, and we went in on omaha beach. that changed my whole life, that one day in my life still imprinted. i can see it right now, the

beach, probably like a football field to get to the hill. we had these two ramps, one on each side, and they told these ramps on. and the infantry, we had about 130 on board, and they ran on the beach. maybe half of them did not make it. it was a terrible sight. anyway, on that beach, it took quite a while, all morning -- in fact, we worried we might even get pushed off, because they cannot go forward. but they finally broke through to my left way down on the beach, and tthey got up to the top, and the boys were able to move on up.

by late afternoon, things were pretty well, as far as the beach was concern, under control. so the view i see right now -- i am watching the tv, and i viewed it, and it is a beautiful sight, actually, memorable point. host: william, we thank you very much for calling in and sharing your story with us. that's your dog brinkley has -- let's hear what doug brinkley has -- guest: i also want to thank you for your service, and it is important that you record your memories, to get it down and have something specific about normandy. the actual idea for this memorial came from somebody from your state, ohio, a man named roger bergeron, who had been a veteran at the battle of the bulge, and as i mentioned earlier, the iwo jima memorial,

as wonderful as it was, was the marines memorial. what about other people who served in uniform during the second world war? with a congressperson from ohio, italy started -- it really started. one thing led to another, and we have a lot of different people at different times. tom hanks got very involved after "saving private ryan" to bring the public consciousness to the need for this. it has always been a bit of a struggle, and this wonderful area behind us is a reflecting pool, which is getting the revamping. i think in time for the martin luther king memorial which will be coming up, but also, 2013, august, will be 50 years of martin luther king's famous "i have a dream" moment.

host: that is the world war ii memorial and a lincoln monument. guest: and there was concern that you were taking up space, cluttering up the mall. nobody says that anymore, because you come here and see the capitol, the monument, and wonderful fountain system here surrounding it. there is an incredible waterworks operation going on in order to get this incredibly wonderful reflecting place. to spend any time here with these school kids and think about the fact that world war is quite moving, and its roots are back in ohio, a jerusalem county, ohio, where mr. durbin is from. host: about 2 million a world war ii vets still survive. the veterans administration predicts that in 2015, 85,000 vets will survive, and 2025, only 20,000 vets will still be

alive. our next call is from a vet, frank in washington state br. caller: hi. host: please go ahead, sir. caller: i am 86 years old. i was on about five different islands, went in on the invasion. i was on a seaplane basin. i came back stateside a couple of years later. i got to get an address to a friend. he got to ride back to see the memorial, and i got a friend out and maybe if i could get a chance to do that, i would sure love to come back and see that. host: all right, thank you,

frank. do you know anything about this a free ride? guest: i don't know about the free ride. this weekend, rolling thunder is coming, vietnam war vets using this to celebrate memorial day weekend. i want to emphasize that when we started this idea of this memorial, one of the other concerns was that we were losing about 1100 world war ii veterans a week. people were dying off on a regular basis. the idea was that there needed -- we needed to capture the voices of people like -- people like tom brokaw with "the greatest generation" and stephen ambrose with the book on d-day. there was this idea of people, like the people calling in today, and make sure you get your reminiscence recorded at a local library or something. it is like imagining we get that tape recordings of people at gettysburg -- we could have that

tape recordings of people at gettysburg. people are dying off in that generation, in their 80s and 90s now, and at this point we are looking at will war ii -- world war ii veterans as survivors of that generation. host: that caller talked about his experience in the pacific theater. it seems in many ways that your it seems to get a block of the press. -- europe seems to get the bulk of the price. guest: fdr's first objective was to win europe. only in recent years has it wore a scholarship caught up -- war scholarship caught up, not the least being that we are a western civilization, judeo- christian society. many americans had a background

of dutch ancestry, or german or english. there was a priority to win the war in europe. it has an apartment in the past years, including this past year -- has been heartening in the past years, including this past the pacific." there have been novels like norman mailer's "the naked and sehe dead," vonnegut' "slaughterhouse," "from here to eternity." i mentioned elie weisel. some of these memoirs and novels are as powerful as any history someone like myself could write. the problem with what war ii is that it is losing some of the trauma. -- the drama.

interpreting the second world war is a challenge, because it is so all encompassing. this memorial tries to do it in a fitting way that brings everybody in and it has been very successful in its inclusiveness. host: this is "washington journal" on c-span and we are live at the world war ii memorial. dr. brinkley, well-known historian, is joining us for this hour. our next call is from robin in oregon. caller: my question is about the merchant marines. are they included in the memorial? can you give us back out on in them? thank you. guest: merchant marines, yes. anybody who served in the war efforts -- again, it is not just for soldiers. a memorial is for a generation that came together. it is not able, when you are

seeing a look around, to give any kind of historical depth to the role of the merchant marines in the world war, but it is reflected on here. if you have a member of your family who was one of the merchant marines and he wanted to, to bring your grandchildren or friends to think about it, this would be reflective place, a place of prayer. you are not going to get world war ii history by coming to walk around this memorial. you are coming to pause imminent and contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war -- pause a minute and contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war. host: next to this flag is ua pow/mia flag. guest: everything is mentioned on that particular part of the memorial. host: they came to liberate, not

to conquer. where does that come from? guest: it is the famous saying of world war ii, when " we are liberators, not conquerors." it was the thrust of what eisenhower and pac-10 and marshall believed, that it was important -- and patton and marshall believe, that it was important to believe that we will liberating europe, liberating japan. the united states has had an influence in japan and germany. we demilitarized those countries. if you go, you see american bases all over. we did not conquer, but we did it demilitarizing japan and germany after world war ii. host: the commander in the pacific was -- guest: you mean -- host: who was our supreme

commander ? guest: to eisenhower was the supreme commander for our allied forces. host: next call for dr. brinkley, william, a veteran -- doug brinkley, william, a veteran. caller: i served in world war ii. my story is much different than what i am hearing. i have a copy of the history of might unit -- my unit. but it does not tell the story that i know. i live it every day, and the outfit that i went to, i never hear on holidays, but other units within the series before and after i hear.

the outfit that i was with when i got there, the first thing i heard was that the outfit was going to be in new guinea five years after the war. i don't know if i should go along with the rest of it, but also i have been hearing good stories, but being a person of color in those days, you had two armies. one, you did not get on -- host: william, if you could, please turn down of the volume of new tv and very quickly tell us where you served in world war ii, ok? caller: yes, sir.

i left under the bridge and there was a submarine that was ahead. i don't know whether he went with us are not -- or not. but we bypassed and went to the canal, and i landed in the army day. this outfit was the first american unit. from the bay to another bay, and to -- host: you know what, william, we will have to leave it there. we appreciate you calling in. doug brinkley.

guest: a couple comments. we tried to do at the memorial is remind people of everybody's service. there were african-american units in the world war and we -- only now people now beginning to understand their service. medgar evers, who went into the civil rights uni -- movement. in worldamericans' role war ii is starting to get scholarly attention and it is long overdue. host: were african-americans in combat -- guest: very much in combat. we are talking v for victory. they had to come back after fighting, say, germany, and come

back to alabama and south carolina and a face the jim crow system. one of the great things and dwight eisenhower did during world war ii -- he said, look, we are all americans. there was a lot of racism in the american military in the second world war, but there were also a lot of courageous people within the military saying no more. you would be amazed at how many african-american service men and women in the world war fought with the civil-rights movement. host: every one of the veterans all in this morning recounted his experience in detail. guest: the reason i mention these oral histories -- there is the sameying, the fog of war. it is impossible to have one

version of world war ii. it is possible to have millions of russians, because there was some much -- happening. -- millions of a version, because there was so much happening. we just lost the last a veteran of the second world war and then that will be distant history. collecting primary source material from people like a few of our callers. host: it is about 90 degrees out here and doug brinkley is doing yeoman's service for us on c- span. jim in ohio. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my dad was a world war ii navy vet and served in the pacific. i am a vietnam vet. i have not got back to see the memorial is yet. my father passed away bomb before it was billed. but my question is -- my father passed away long before it was

built. but my question is, on the columns, the transcript of fdr's december 8 speech he gave before congress is on there, and it was edited -- the last four words have been added off of the speech. is that correct? guest: it is not on that column behind me. most of the engravings are very truncated in very short-term -- very short to go around, but the point you raised has been made by some people, that they thought there should have been an extra line. i am not a designer of the memorial, so i don't know why that happened, but it did. host: we do want to point out this book, though, dug up brinkley, the author -- >doug brinkley, the author. very much a coffee table book, hundreds of the photographs, etc. guest: we work on this with john

eisenhower, and he is the son of and white eisenhower. then, of course, we had incredible contributions from some of our best historians. host: how many books have you written altogether? guest: i don't count them anymore. the one i am working on right now, cronkite -- he is a typical example of a journalist in world war ii, there for the battle of the bulge, therefore normandy -- there for normandy, there for the nuremberg trials. a good friend of his was killed in the second world war just trying to cover the story there. host: next call for doug brinkley, tom in north carolina. caller: i was in the pacific,

32nd infantry division. i went all the way up to quite a few lennings in new guinea. i think six. some were d1, some d2 and 3. i was also down in the philippines, manila, when the war ended. yet, but i was in manila. i cannot recall where the hell i was, but i was over there for three years, and we did not have any phone calls to call home. we had v-day letters, so we did not have it very easy. thank you very much. host: thank you for sharing your experience. guest: i find that the letters

some of the most moving documents. and your caller -- thank you for your service -- talks about communication being tough. there is a saying, historians read other people's mail. i read some stories from the second world war. each person before the d-day mission basically wrote a death note home -- "fix the barn" -- because they were basically being sent on a suicide mission, and yet you cannot tell anybody what emthe mission was because it would give away the plan. if anybody has letters at home from -- if you are a veteran or a member of a family that has them in a shoebox of something, look to the smithsonian institute or world war ii to donate them.

we are constantly trying to make sure those letters are not turnout. hos -- not thrown out. host: jack in new jersey. caller: good morning. let me know when i am to talk. host: jack, you are on the air and we are listening to you. caller: i was in the u.s. merchant marine in world war ii. i know we got a raw deal. we were not recognized as veterans until 1988. i might say that our casualty rate was higher than any service. over 10,000 of our men got killed. i have had decorations -- gorbachev was in, and medvedev

of russia awarded us. we made a very dangerous runs towards the black sea, romania, supplying soviet services and military. if it wasn't for us, i don't think we would and have one of the war, because the soviet union played a big part in it also. we got a raw deal -- white, one more thing. we have two bills in the house and senate, to get just compensation. we were denied gi bill of rights. our lives may have been changed if we did get some benefits now, those two bills -- if we did get some benefits. those two bills are right now in congress and we hope the people of the united states call their

congressmen and senators to support the bill. host: thank you for calling in. guest: the caller is absolutely correct. the merchant marines did get a bit of a raw deal. they were not in the gi bill, and they should have been. i want to restress that this memorial day, we of not forgotten the merchant marines. i believe it began in it 17 70's, the founding of our country, and it is included with the marines and army and navy, on and on. the merchant marines are represented here. i agree with the color that they have been short shrifted in history, and a lot of scholars have overlooked how risky it was. they were an extraordinarily important group in our victory, particularly in europe. host: jack mentioned the soviet

union that the russians lost 20 million people. guest: isn't underplayed a story in the united states, how -- it is an under played story in the united states, how important the russian role was. joe stalin, one of the thugs of history, was at one point "time's" man of the year. oliver stone has an upcoming history of what was going on during the war. a lot of scholars don't focus on the role russia play in supporting the advance. -- thwarting the advance. do you know how many japanese were killed? guest: if i get something off, i

will get emails. with the hiroshima and nagasaki, and the killing of civilians, should those civilians in considered wartime casualties areor not? it becomes a controversial subject. the fact of the matter is a man a-et who drop one of the bombs -- he is living in ohio, and meeting him was interesting, because this man who had a role of dropping the bomb on hiroshima was just shopping and grocery stores and nobody knew. that is something about the world war ii generation, that a lot of these great heroes are a round us all the time. i talked to a lot of veterans who said that in the 1950's and 1960's, they were booed and hissed. by the 1980's, people were cheering them.

our country has done a great turnaround in honoring these minimum of the second world war. this is kind of the main place that helped with the turnaround. host: on memorial day weekend, we are live at the national war ii morrow, opened in 2004 to the public -- the national world war ii memorial, opened in 2004 to the public. you are on with his s andtor -- historian doug brinkley. caller: let me say that your objective the and frankness make you an american icon, cultural hero. i have a hard question and an easy question. i am pro-military, but when they dropped the bomb, were there any apprehensions or regrets after a, just based on the fact that citizens were killed? my last, easy question, how does

it feel being in houston? i only said that because i used to be there and i walked through rice university all the time and i loved it. i will take that answer off the air and thank you for listening. guest: i do teach at rice and i teach classes on dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. students are very divided. the pro-truman view, and he said he did not lose any sleep, that he saved american lives, and he would have had to invade japan and that his view that anything at his disposal to win the war was essential. remember, russia, the soviet union, was starting to be seen as an enemy, and they were moving in joining us in japan . critics of hiroshima-nagasaki say, why did you drop it on -- didn't you drop it on a fly

speck island in the pacific and tell the japanese to watch it? they would have seen the mushroom cloud. there are some people who say that hiroshima was okay but nagasaki wasn't. this is hotly debated, as well it should be. keep in mind, though, the only time the united states had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, any country who had a monopoly, the west 45 -- the u.s. had from 1935-1949. then at -- 1945-1949. then the soviet union added and the cold war was on full blast. host: what was the darkest part of the 1945-1949 period? guest: there are many. when the soldiers started realizing what happened at buchenwald at auschwitz and the

frustration that we could not have done something sooner. to be talking about the bottom rung of evil, when you talked about what was going on at auschwitz, using human skin as lampshades, biological experiments, just massive murder and genocide. on one hand, we felt so good, we won, we beat germany and japan. to realize that humanity to be so ghastly and evil, just how we dicked the nazi regime was, as i say, if you ever visit those cans, you recognize that it teaches you -- those camps, you recognize that it teaches you just how essential the war was b. anybody who says we should not have been involved in the world war does not know what they're talking about. eisenhower wrote a letter taking

full responsibility -- it could have leaked out, the great armada, the allied invasion. things could have gone terribly wrong. it is easy now to say, what a great american, british, canadian,, but the truth of the matter was, we didn't know. that was the turning point, because it stars the liberation, the battle of normandy, of europe. we had to go to the battle -- and was a larger march to berlin. used -- the battle of the polls, and it was a larger march to -- battle of the bulge, and it was eight longer march to berlin. and that we were able to successfully test an atomic weapon in new mexico and dropped over hiroshima. it was clear that american technology and the industrial mobilization that won the war.

it is important to stress here that we are honoring not just the soldiers and fallen heroes, but the american people, because people were working 12 hours a day making, manufacturing, working on assembly lines in detroit or chicago, our heroes, too. we had to have the home front effort to win the second world war. host: about 10 minutes left in "washington journal" this morning. matt in wisconsin. caller: good morning. hello? host: please go ahead. caller: i am talking as hard as i can. host: sir, i apologize. we are having a little trouble hearing you. we are going to move on to texas. charles in texas, you are on the

air. caller: what you want me to say? i can tell you a lot. i was in hiroshima 30 days after the bomb, i was on my way to japan. we were not killed. god bless harry truman, and to hell with the rest of the world. host: 30 days after the bomb. guest: were you worried at all about radiation? caller: there was nothing standing but a few little brick pieces -- [unintelligible] guest: were you worried about your health? caller: that is just a bunch of baloney -- guest: i was just wondering, one

of the things that interested -- again, thank you for your service -- to see if the soldiers who went into the stands had any negative of the tax from radiation from going into nagasaki, a horsham, in the first wave after the bomb went off -- nagasaki, hiroshima, in the first right after the bomb went off. anyway, thank you???????

i think that they -- clearly we need to help open up the chinese markets to some of our services whether it is in shreds, whether it is pensions -- insurance, whether it is pensions. we also need to lead our expertise to china as they deal

with economic issues. i believe the key is the rebalancing of the world economy in which they are not so dependent on exports, but focusing on domestic consumption. if they have a recession, that could have an impact on that domestic consumption. we will have to watch very carefully. we will encourage more exchanges and deliberations between our top financial services sectors as well as our institutions a. we have had exchanges with our counterparts in china. 70% of treasurys are held by domestic companies. 7% of our treasuries are held by domestic entities. 30% are held by other entities. china has about a third of that. oura's ownership of

securities is only 8% of our total debt. in no way does china's position in any way influence u.s. foreign policy. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i would like to congratulate you on your nomination. i know how great a moment this must be for you and your family. we wish you the best in this assignment. i appreciate your having come by my office with the extensive discussions we were able to have. i have three questions i would like to get your thoughts on today. the first is, i held a hearing in my capacity as the chair on this committee regarding the

consistency and lack thereof in our characterization of governmental systems rather than human rights, perce. -- per se. human rights is an amorphous terms when you're looking at your relationships with another country. even in a country like the united states with free and open governmental systems, someone didn't -- someone to assert that our first amendment violation -- a thin and that violation is a violation of someone's -- our eighth amendment violation is a violation of someone's human rights. something that is rarely discussed in hearings like this -- they do not have democratic systems. they do not have elections as we understand them.

evaluations of freedom of the press rates china among the 40 countries in the asian-pacific at the bottom rather than burn up work north korea in terms of basic freedom -- burma or north korea in terms of basic human freedoms. we want to make sure there are not misunderstandings in terms of security issues. we want to work towards a time where they can be resolved, but we are talking about two different systems of government. what are your thoughts about the challenges of that and what the future holds? >> obviously there are major differences between our histories as countries, our cultures, our values, and

certainly, or governmental systems. there has been much criticism of human rights issues and freedom of the press issues in china. notwithstanding that, there is a great appetite and a hunter by the chinese people for information of what is -- and a hunter by the chinese people for information of what is going on around the world. what we must do as a country is to engage with the chinese people directly and convey the values that america stands for and our views on various issues. while much of the press is controlled by china, there is a movement for greater freedom among the press. i think it is income but among the ambassador and other government officials that operate -- in combat -- incumb ant among the ambassador and

other government officials that operate in china to communicate and to express the values for which we stand. >> thank you. my second question relates to the concern that i and many people have regarding the role the chinese government should be playing in assisting with the resolution of challenges -- a role that is more their level of eight emerging country around the world. you mentioned cooperation in the areas of iran and north korea. i in your opening remarks, there are other issues where i think we can encourage the chinese people to become more visible and proactive in the

international environment as we reached towards solutions. i have held two hearings on sovereignty issues, both of which, i believe, we could benefit with more participation by the chinese. the first is sovereignty issues in the south china seas. the position of china has been that date will only negotiate in a bilateral environment, which makes it impossible to solve this issue is, quite frankly. the other hearing, as i discussed with you when you visited my office, or the issues of downstream water rights. the red river that goes into the north of vietnam. china is one of the few countries in the world that does not recognize water rights downstream. dams are being built there. there are potential

environmental consequences in the northern part of vietnam. what can you do to encourage the chinese to participate in finding solutions to these sovereignty issues in a bilateral environment? >> we need to impress upon china the stability of the asia region is obviously in the interest of not just the other china -- of not just the other countries, but also china. it is in their self-interest. dealing with water, dealing with disputed territorial claims -- they should be addressed in a peaceful way that adheres to international norms and rules. >> with respect to china's continued status as a developing

country in terms of per capita income which allows the government to receive billions of dollars in multilateral assistance and lending for a lot of their developing projects at a time when they are sitting on a surplus because of trade imbalances -- what would your comment be on that? >> 30 to be a frank recognition that while china is a developing country, it is more developed than other countries. various international mechanisms must recognize that. for instance, that is the position of the united states in current negotiations. there are degrees of developing countries. some are more developed than others. not all should be looked into the same category. that applies with some of the same issues you have just raised. >> thank you very much.

>> chairman kerrey has asked the gavel be handed to you as part of the subcommittee. i will yield the gavel to you. >> i will carry on. thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your service to our country. it is exceptional and i appreciate it very much. this is an incredibly important position that you have been nominated to. i have three lines of questioning i hope to pursue with you. one is on taiwan, one is iran, and the other is intellectual property issues. i spoke at a caucus, and i am concerned about the military and ballots in the taiwan straits. reports issued by both taiwanese and u.s. authorities outlined the direct threat faced

by taiwan as a result of a military buildup by china. an expert in both our country and taiwan has raised concern that taiwan is losing the qualitative advantage in defense that has served as its primary military deterrent against china. to counter this build up, the taiwanese have sought to modernize their fighter fleet, which i believe in terms of taiwan's's defense and deterrence, capacity is in the u.s. security interests as well. all sent a letter to the president along with members of the senate requesting the administration except by 1's letter of request and notify congress. lettertie 1's -- taiwan's

of request and notify congress. do you believe the united states should proceed? >> we remain committed to or one china policy based on joint communiques of the communications act. we believe this must be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides. the administration will continue to follow the act. that will enable them to have sufficient self-defense capability. we also believed china must reduce its military deployments aimed at tie 1. having said that, -- taiwan. having said that, the sale to taiwan is under review. it is being evaluated by others

within the defense department and the state department. >> i appreciate that formal answer, which i expected. let me go further, though, because you are going to be the united states ambassador in china. it is very difficult to have -- i understand the one country policy, but you can be devoured if you do not have the ability to defend yourself. it is going to be very clear from your position, should you be confirmed, that taiwan has within the one-country structure, the continuing right to exist and to make its own self determinative efforts. >> that is the fundamental part of the policy. the united states stands with taiwan to ensure that it can

defend itself and that its capabilities are never eroded. >> the problem is that they have been seeking this help set 2006. it perceives this administration. but we are going to be closing down that line if we do not make this sale, therefore, we will lose it -- leave taiwan in a position which, i think, is indefensible. that will only exacerbate the situation for the one-china policy. i hope you will be an advocate of making sure that ballots is retained, which is ultimately -- that balance is retained, which is ultimately in our interest. secondly, on iran, there is a long history of relationships, nuclear cooperation.

both parties remain keen to have political and economic relationships. i am concerned that the chinese continue to share ballistic missile, chemical, a nuclear weapon and vote with iran. it has been reported that the chinese inaugurated a missile plant in iran. given the history, what steps we take to address the chinese government with the serious concerns held by the united states as well as the international community about its engagement with iran? >> china has played an important role to address the threat posed by iran's nuclear program. they were instrumental in helping craft the un resolution. we have also said that we are very concerned that china and chinese countries, especially in the energy sector where other

companies are leaving or deporting iran. certainly if other companies from china are engaged in helping develop iran's's energy sector, that income can be used to further develop iran's's nuclear capability that we very much opposed. we believe china can and must do more. we have passed are all set of sanctions and legislation. i want to inform you and i reiterate that on tuesday the state department issued sanctions against several companies and individuals from around the world including three chinese companies and one chinese individual. we take what china and chinese companies are doing very seriously. any proliferation and additional work by iran on nuclear arms is of paramount importance and

concern to the united states. we believe china can and must do more to abide by the un resolution at help enforce it and, also, to understand the position of the united states with respect to our sanctions policy. >> if you do that in -- you will do that robustly as ambassador? >> absolutely. >> you promote america's opportunities to send its products and services abroad, but i note you know that the international trade commission just released a report about the effect on u.s. competitiveness. it's suggest the losses to u.s. industry are valued at $48 billion resulting in lost jobs. with the president visited in early january, there were hopes that the at the less will

property rights campaign would have a results -- the intellectual property rights campaign would have results. the on-line journal piracy conditions have not improved on the ground. we have a company in new jersey that has 50,000 workers in the united states -- over 3000 in my home state -- that constantly find themselves with i.p.r. violations were chinese libraries consider totally the intellectual property rights of these medical and other journals. will you vigorously impress and vigorously pursue the chinese to seek enforcement of intellectual property issues both in the outlying context and the broader

context. >> that is one of my top priorities. once a commerce secretary, always a commerce secretary. it is a priority for the united states government. that includes my work as ambassador if i am confirm. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. >> i have another meeting to get to. we have competing finance committee and a couple of other things going on. >> mr. secretary, you have a challenging job in front of you. there are lots of different issues that have been aired here and i will not go over all of them, but one thing important to me and i think important to all the senators is that the united

states has a policy of trying to contain both iran and north korea -- contain their nuclear ambitions. the only way countries like this can pursue those ambitions is to have very sensitive and highly technical materials that they buy from somewhere. we all know that the united states is very diligent in containing the products produced here from winding up in the hands of the iranians or the north koreans. unfortunately, we find that there are chinese products that wind up there. china says the right things. it publicly take the position that they do not support that, yet it is chinese companies that are doing business to the back

door, or the back -- or the black market, or what have you. they allow information to get into the hands of north korea and to iran. i want to encourage you in the strongest terms to reinforce which the chinese our concern about that and how you cannot talk about its in one setting and, yet turned a blind eye on the other settings as our company's profit from helping arm these particular countries. that is as much a statement as it is a question. i know you talked about it a little bit, but i would appreciate if you could enhance your testimony in that regard. >> again, north korea and iran, china plays a constructive role in formulating the un

resolutions. >> and we appreciate that. >> the imposed sanctions on both north korea and iran, but is -- but it is important that those obligations be enforced throughout the world. that is why on tuesday the state department introduced sanctions on companies including chinese companies and chinese individuals. stopping proliferation is the utmost priority of the united states government and that includes the ambassador to china. we need to convey to the chinese people and to the leaders of china that it is in their national security interest to avoid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the nuclear capability of both north korea and iran.

whatever commercial benefits some other companies may contain by continuing to sell or transfer technology to north korea or iran, the risk and potential destabilizing water in the world are not outweighed -- destabilizing order in the world are not out way. -- are not outweighed. >> the profits are very modest compared to the harm that could be done internationally by putting these highly sensitive products that have been developed by a -- by a very sophisticated people into the hands that want to use it not for good. that is an important argument. i appreciate that.

thank you. >> i have a follow-up question. i am acting now as might capacity as chair of the subcommittee. i know you out rang me, but i have one more question -- out me, but i have one more question. [laughter] there were a couple points raised by my colleagues. the it is a pleasure to have you here. i want to thank you for your willingness to allow your name to come forward for this position. your background and training is what we need representing our nation in china. your record in commerce is, i think, would be very valuable in your role as ambassador. i thank you and i think your family for your willingness to

continue in this role. i want to follow all points raised by some of my colleagues. senator menendez just question on intellectual property. i want to underscore the after portraits -- the importance to american manufacturing and to american production that we impress upon the chinese their international responsibilities on enforcement of intellectual property issues. it is manufactured products, it is creative products -- it did so many areas where china has been eight major abuser -- a major abuser to allow products to be manufactured in their country, violating intellectual property issues. i encourage you to make this a high priority. >i want to talk a little bit

about china as it relates to the currency manipulation issue. you and i had a chance to talk about that. >> there is one issue that is probably the most dominant as far as a level playing field for u.s. manufacturers and producers. having a level playing field on currency. i would hope you would make that a top priority on your portfolio. china has by some progress recently only because they felt it was in their direct economic interest to do that. that seems to be their way. they do not do it because of respect for a level playing field. i would hope that our policy would be very clear that they must allow their currency to reach its economic balance and not an arbitrary balance. those are my principal economic issues that i would hope you

would take forward and move forward on. >> intellectual property rights in china remains very problematic. it is a top priority for the united states government. it is a top priority for me in all my discussions as commerce secretary. even as a lawyer on behalf of u.s. companies and helping open u.s. markets for companies in china. we note that -- we know that the lack of china's currency floating ending set by market forces puts american companies at a disadvantage and that in an unfair position. all of our work at the department of commerce, which i will continue as ambassador to china if confirmed, will make

sure american companies have fair and open access to china. it includes a level playing field and it also includes intellectual property rights. as senator mendez indicated, u.s. companies are losing money because of violations of international -- intellectual property rights. that is a great concern to us in the united states government. >> one final point and that is china is becoming a more interesting company as it relates to our policies in the middle east. we have seen recent events between pakistan and china indicating they are becoming more interested in that meeting. china holds a permanent seat in the united nations. obviously we have to work with them in that regard. i want to get your assessment as to where we can make

advancements in china as it relates to our policies in iran, pakistan, or afghanistan as to help china to be a more constructive partner for the united states. >> the united states and china have collaborated on a whole host of issues including counter-terrorism. that is of great interest and of particular importance in afghanistan and pakistan. we share interest in stability in that region. we encourage china, given its alliances with pakistan, to do more in the area of counter- terrorism. because afghanistan are so close and for the region bordering china, they have deep interest in ensuring stability in that region. we need to partner with them and

urged china to do even more in helping use the alliances they have to promote the stability. >> thank you. says you have taken the position in the cabinet, -- since you have taken the position in the cabinet, you have been living in the state of maryland. we hope you'll come back soon. >> we enjoyed living in maryland. >> i am the senator from virginia. [laughter] let me just say, there are some pretty nice neighborhoods in virginia as well. >> let me say, it was a tough choice between the great school systems in virginia and in maryland. [laughter] >> one of the rules of politics is to quit while you are ahead. [laughter] i mentioned in a hearing about a

week ago in the context of what we were discussing a little while ago, we tend to examine and debate the afghanistan situation, kind of moving laterally out into pakistan and from pakistan to india. i believe the movement to -- towards resolution in that part of the world could give china a major opportunity to demonstrate that it can't assume some leadership. i would hope that you would find a way to encourage that. last week -- i want to ask you a question about shipment of arms.

this is particularly troubling with respect to china's relationship to north korea. last week china blocked the release of the united nations report by a seven-member panel cast with monitoring sanctions against dr. rhea. the report concludes that north korea has been exporting technology. they were chance of a china to iran. we have other allegations of the -- allegations with respect to congo, barundi. in china, there were shipments -- usually from north korea. someone said a couple of days ago -- analysts said china is

having problems with lax enforcement control. while china cannot -- what is the state department's policy on this issue? to what degree do you believe is a priority issue in terms of our future relations? >> we are very concerned about these allegations of trans- shipment. there needs to be greater transparency and scrutiny. getting back to the issue of the region itself and the special relationships china has developed with several of these countries, we believe that china should use its influence as a

source for stability and security and prosperity for the entire region. we encourage china to end -- to use that relationship to increase the security and stability of the region. that also applies to north korea. we are deeply concerned about the shipment of weapons -- weapons system -- weapons systems to other parts of the world. >> could you provide us with the state department policy on this issue? we have had some difficulty getting a clear statement from the state department. >> i will try to do that, sir. >> thank you. with respect to your comment on pakistan, i would reiterate that i think this is a major opportunity for u.s.-china

relations at the chinese were able to step in, given their history with pakistan, and providing a -- providing economic stability. it would greet a great signal to send. >> i am it instructed by chairman kerry to indicate that the records will be open for 48 hours for any senator that wishes to make a further statement or ask questions for the record. other than that, i would congratulate you on your nomination. i know what a special thing this was before your family and also for those who went before you. it is touching to hear about your father in your testimony this morning.

i wish you the best of luck. the hearing is now closed. >> thank you very much, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on newsmakers, tom coburn of

oklahoma. the was a member of the senate bank of six. they work towards a deficit reduction plan. he left the group on may 17. people talk about the nation's debt situation and his involvement with nevada -- with the nevada senator. >> the senator was forced to resign. the ethics committee report says how you try to convince the senator to stop the affair. ultimately it discusses whether or not you were an intermediary or working on the question of how to get mr. hampton out. >> it was totally not the characterization of what happened. i said of caldwell if he wanted me to. the story you hear is not an

accurate reflection of what happened. >> this group known as crew -- as the committee contacted you about them? >> what i did i would do exactly the same way again. we put two families back together with multiple children. both marriages are stable right now. i am proud of what i did and the way i did it. there is nothing unethical about what we did. >> you can see the entire interview on newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. at 6:00 p.m. on c- span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> on thursday, the supreme court ruled that arizona and other states can revoke the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. the decision upholds the legal arizona workers act of 2007 and

gives more authority to states to act against illegal immigrants. the decision is a defeat for the u.s. department of commerce and the obama administration. that characterization is apt because congress provided for

an exclusively federal method for bringing to the attention of federal authorities problems with worker authorization. the method by which those matters should be investigated, adjudicated -- call federal activity. it goes exclusively to the federal courts in the field. the sanctioning provisions are very explicit, very clear, and very balanced. and for good reason. congress realized that if you over in force in one direction and if you try to deter the hiring of an unauthorized workers, you run the risk of causing employees to err on the side of not hiring. congress very carefully calibrated the penalties on both sides said that the employer would play it straight down the middle and hired the best people for the job under these

circumstances while complying with the federal requirements. >> why is that a problem? the federal statutes require and the state statutes require you have to show an intent to hire an unauthorized workers. is that not what the statutes require? >> it has two components to it -- knowing and intent. >> why is that a problem for the business? what with the intentionally hire an unauthorized worker? >> part of the problem is that there -- it is never one better% clear to is or is not an -- 100% clear as to who is or is not an unauthorized workers. look at the generality of the situation and realize that if

you put on one side of the scale what arizona has done here, which is completely eliminate the business is right to exist. all the other side of the trail, 8 $250 fine. it would be remarkable to say i am going to hide behind the intent and instead simply avoid the risk of arizona's sanctions being imposed. >> that is the only option the federal government left us. we might have used reticulated penalties or enforced the federal law or sells, but they did not -- what ourselves -- ourselves, but they did not allow us to enforce the

immigration laws. >> the fundamental problem with the scheme is that this is not a licensing law. this is a worker authorization sanctioning. >> when i looked at this case, i saw licensing. it really is not. your brief in the case -- your brief indicates what federal licensing laws are. but in the new indications about the juror -- the jurisdictional principles. >> the way it should be construed as broadly to allow the state to have wide authority to engage in supplemental enforcement. if you deal with a situation

where the federal government has enforced a position and imposed a penalty through the federal scheme, as a supplement to that the state does have the authority to add something over what the federal government has done. it seems quite remarkable today that congress intended through licensing laws to allow the states and entire alternative shadow enforcement mechanism. it is a state run operation. the sanction is not imposed by any regulating entity. >> all late because -- only because the federal government would not enforce it. of course nobody would expect that. but what arizona says occurred here is that the scheme in place

has not been enforced. arizona and other states are in serious trouble because of unrestrained immigration. therefore, they had to take this very massive approach. expectations change with the federal government has not enforced the immigration restrictions. >> justice scalia, i understand the point. the problem is, the statute was enacted in 1986. that is when the standards were put in place. if you look at the structure of the statue -- progress said very specifically that immigration law should be enforced uniformly. there should not be 40,000 different localities offering up

their view of licensing. second of all, and this part is particularly telling in terms of this massive scheme that has been adopted. under 16 -- under section 15, congress outlaws the use of the i nine form because it would be inconceivable that the state can in fact enforce knowing without having access to the i 94. >> let's get back to the issue of whether this is the licensing law. it is not an unknown term. states and municipalities issue all sorts of licenses. for example, here in the district of columbia, every business has to have a general business license. if the district of columbia

after having enacted this requirement some years ago were to pass a new ordinance saying "if you a knowingly hire a illegal alien, your general business license can be forfeited" with that ceased to be part of the licensing law? >> it is not a licensing law because it does not grant the license revocation power. >> why is it suddenly not a license because the state imposes additional conditions where it was a license before? >> i think the question is whether it is a licensing law, meaning what congress intended. there is no, definition of

license in the various states -- there is no common definition of licensed in the various states. >> it was copied of the administrative procedure act. this is awfully close. >> i agree with that, but the problem is the federal law does not talk about actions with respect to license. it talks about licensing laws. but that is right. it might have meant something different, but i read what you read. is that what congress did name? what evidence is there that they did not mean the definition? what evidence is there for that? >> they have done a nice job of explaining the particular focus of congress on the agricultural workers act. it was significant in terms of

narrowing the state's of 40. -- all 40 -- authority. >> what did it intended to add to that. this has nothing to do with the immigration law. >> what progress had in mind and the most natural reading of the law is that it is a fairly common situation. somebody violates federal law and the state licensing entity finds out about a conviction of a federal crime and says, "wait a second. we do not want someone to have a license under the circumstances." >> it is very common to talk about of 40 to do business within a state -- authority to

do business within a state. maybe you're persuade me otherwise, but i have no doubt that in certain parts of this law, it limits the authority to do business within the state. it is a licensing law. it is a little harder excluding licensing to formation of a corporation, but when you issue a corporation chartered, you do two things. you create the corporation and enable the limitation of liability that creates, and you authorize that the creature to do business with in your state. at least half of that corporation law is a licensing, it seemed to me. scalia, if you receive the author of corp., it

simply gives you the right to exist. you may need to get a separate document. >> but you do not need the type of document that an out-of-state corporation needs. >> that is true. nobody, i think, things of articles of incorporation as a licensing. >> could i just focus the questioning. we keep talking about whether the definition of licensing is what congress intended or not. but you do not disagree that congress at least intended that if someone violated the federal law and at harvard a document -- and harbored illegal aliens,

the state can revoke their license. is that correct? >> yes. >> it does not matter if they revoke their right to do business in the state, they can only revoke their articles of corp. if they were filed in that state. it is stopping them from doing business. so the only conflict you're talking about is not the power to stop them from doing business, which you accept they had the power to do that, to revoke the power to do business. you are talking about the adjudication of the issue. >> and enforcement. >> held they define license or not is irrelevant for me. -- how they defied a license or

not is irrelevant for me. what explicitly preamps that adjudication right? >> i think there are three pieces of evidence. first, congress specifically says enforcement should be uniform, which suggest this ought to be exclusively a federal process. to the point of was making earlier about the i9 forms -- the live >> what does that mean? >> enforcement of the immigration laws should be uniform. progress stated that as the overarching principle. >> what is the assumed situation with respect to all federal laws?

but they applied uniformly? >> i think it depends on the circumstances. remember, we are talking about immigration policy and immigration law here. in general you would expect that to be uniform. it has been decided that there are some elements that were not and progress is reinforcing the basic notion that enforcement of it ought to be uniform. >> does the exception for licensing made it will not be complete the uniform? what jurisdiction may take the position that a restaurant that employs illegal aliens may lose its license to operate, another one may take a deposition. >> that is why it is terribly important to narrow as much as possible. there needs to be a full sanction by the federal government and an at-on by the

licensing side. >> the cannot be uniformity of sanctions. questionsback to my of adjudication. what you are saying is what specifically pre-empts the right to adjudicate is someone hiring undocumented elements. >> the last thing i would say with respect to that is the conforming amendments is a situation where the department of labor which used to engage in adjudication has that authority. it seems unlikely congress would give that authority to the states. >> would that be a federal question if the company claimed that it was deprived of the ability to do business because of a mistaken interpretation of federal law that the person hired was not an authorized

person? >> arizona does not support federal wall here. it has an independent state law basis for the actions that it takes. >> does the state lot basis refer to the federal law? >> if it does not incorporate it. it is the same standards? but it is still a matter of state law. >> gracias, the council. -- thank you, counsel. >> may it please the court, over a quarter of a century ago congress declared immigration law federal, not state.

any sanctions on those who employ unauthorized aliens with the exception being a mayor parenthetical for licensing and similar law -- designed >> it seems to me that whatever ambiguity, congress swept pretty broadly. not just licensing laws, but license and similar laws. we think a licensing law as congress defined its was a traditional was in the lock in place in 1986. those were largely farm labor contracts. they had a few is essential characteristics. >> businesses have a licensing laws across the board. you cannot set up an electrical

contracting business if he did not have a license to do business or met the requirements for an electrician. it is not just agricultural. >> absolutely. but this licensing law worst differ from those you are referring to. licensing laws issue licenses that are generally about the issuance of licences, just -- not just the ones in which licenses were revoked. second, the criteria for issuing is the same as the criteria for replication. >> excuse me, are you saying, and i think the petitioner may have been saying as well, that if you have a licensing law that permits the revocation of the license, the revocation is not a licensing law? >> if you do this, your license

will be revoked. does that remain a licensing law? whites in general, that is not a licensing law. we can debate about whether subtracting one word -- >> congress wanted to preserve the state bought the traditional power for licensing laws. >> you can do whatever you like. do you think that is what congress meant? when you issue the license -- once it is issued, they can do whatever they like. >> i think the criteria is the same for revocation. >> why does it make any difference if the revocation position is contained in the licensing law or if there is a state law that says all licenses could be revoked? >> congress tried to preserve th