state's traditional power to do business. that is not what is at issue with this particular law. they will license them without a care whatsoever as to whether they have a history of violating the particular provisions. should they amend the licensing laws to require what they require when the licence was issued and to say in the specific licensing law that it could be revived? >> even if they said and you have to renew your license every every six months. >> that is correct. it is generally aimed at qualifications to do business. >> we don't disagree that whether a company hires illegal

workers is related to ability to do business or qualification. >> the state can certainly make that part of this business law. arizona has not done that. we know that because the criteria for issuance of the license are entirely divorced from the criteria or revocation of the license. if hours on a really believe what you are saying which is that it is relevant to whether they can do business or not, they allowed every single one of these entities to get the license. >> your argument sounds to me like local and see what its purpose is. if the purpose is to regulate undocumented aliens than it is struck down. if it happens to put the revocation provision in its licensing law then it's ok. it doesn't make much sense that

i'm not talking about purpose. i say look at the base of the statute. >> if you hire undocumented aliens, your license is revoked. >> that looks like a punishment statute. >> the saving clause says that's okay, civil or criminal sanctions. >> this is not a licensing law. they did the traditional law -- >> if we disagree with you cannot you enter the question i posed to your adversary which is -- what makes the adjudication of status pre-emptive? >> the federal adjudication -- the state adjudication of a federal violation is expressly pre-empted for three reasons. the first is that congress said

at a series of procedures, federal adjudication, all sorts of different regulations and what arizona does here is what 40,000 different localities can do it this law is upheld. >> at the time this statute was passed, there were many, many state laws that adjudicated revocation of licenses. perhaps not many have addressed the issue of hiring undocumented aliens but many state laws existed that independently adjudicated revocations. what in the legislative history or in the words of the statute show that congress intended in any way to limit those adjudications? >> without the parenthetical clauses, arizona-like laws would be swept away.

the question is whether the licensing law says that -- i think the answer is no, because to read the statute that way is to permit all those states to have their own laws and is undoubtedly the case the congress want to sweep away the state statutes that were in place that imposed sanctions on employers. >> let me make sure i understand -- you say arizona had a law saying you have to have a license to do business. then became aware of a problem it was not aware of before. it found out that many employers were employing child labor and they did not know that would do that. they say we can revoke her license if you are determined to employ child labor. but that would not be okay? it would be ok if in the original licensing, you cannot employ child labor? >> the answer depends on what congress is trying to get

that in 1986. we know what they're trying to get at in immigration laws. they said for the i-9 provision that those documents cannot be used in any procedure besides -- >> the chief justice can insist on the answer. why isn't that still a licensing law? >> if it has independent adjudication, it is swept away by the first part of the h-2 statute which says the provision of this section prevent any state or low law imposing civil or criminal punishment. towhy isn't that in addition their regulatory licensing scheme so it is a licensing law? >> i may i not understand the

hypothetical. this follows the federal procedural statements. >> you tried earlier to talk about the two boxes and you said something would be parenthetical. anything, civil and criminal sanctions, are allowed if that are imposed for licensing or similar laws. there are not two boxes. the state can do what is in the first part so long as it does not approve licensing or similar laws. >> right, our position is that this is not a licensing law because it does not bear any of the and the share of a traditional licensing law. >> it is similar to a licensing law? >> i don't think so. congress meant to sidestep the semantic debate as to whether something is a cert like farm contractor statutory license. >> thank you, counsel.

>> ms. o'grady? >> states traditionally have the authority to regulate the conduct of employers within their jurisdiction to determine what conduct or the issuance of a state license and to determine what conduct justifies expanding or revoking such a license. congress printed some of our traditional authority when it enacted irka in 1986, it preserved sufficient authority through the clause that permits a state to impose sanctions for licensing and similar laws. >> have you entered the anomaly that arizona cannot impose a fine even in modest amounts but it can revoke someone's license

to do business? >> your honor, we think -- we don't view it as an anomaly. we think congress established is that the state that party is determined by the nature of the sanction that would choose to impose. we do not have the authority -- they took away our authority to impose civil, monetary, and for all such as but preserved our authority to impose sanctions. >> why would congress want to do that? >> i think it makes sense because in terms of licensing, it provides some accountability because we are the entities that establish policy for our licensees and we are the ones accountable for whether that business remains in business or whether we take away from them. >> congress never expected that the states would have to resort to such massive measures.

they probably wouldn't have if the law had been uniformly enforced and vigorously enforced, right? you did not have any notion of this in 1986, did you? maybe congress wasn't worried about it. it seems unlikely that anything like that would occur. >> perhaps, but also converts was recognizing -- but also congress was recognizing that unauthorized employment has been recognized consequences. they wanted to preserve -- >> the main anomalies' seems to be that in the federal act it was the first point that the chambermaid that it is a fairly careful balance. there is a group of people in arizona that may look as if they come from mexico or speak with an hispanic accent. you are not certain whether they are in fact illegals or their legal. think of that category.

congress has passed a statute that gives the employer just as much incentive to verify so there is no discrimination as to dismiss so there is no illegal hiring. it is absolutely valid. $1,000 fine for the one, $8,000 fine for the other. hours are comes along and says if you discriminate, nothing happens to you. if you hire an illegal immigrant, agribusiness is dead. that is one thing they do. how can you reconcile that intent to prevent discrimination against people because of their appearance or accent? how do you reconcile that with arizona possible? if you are a businessman, every incentive under that law has laws against hiring that person. every incentive under this law is to look at it carefully.

>> we have a prohibition against investigating any complaints that are based solely on race. we get a complaint that says those people all look mexican or hispanic, that does not get investigated under arizona law. we also have criminal penalties. beyond that, we have the verification which is an added protection for employers to prevent the hiring of authorized aliens. if they use e-verify and that they are in compliance, they have no risk of exposure under a result law. >> doesn't frustrate the congressional intent when federal law says that the i-9 can be used for no purpose other than federal adjudication of whether a violation has occurred or not? doesn't it frustrate that lot to have -- that lot to have the states raise the issue that it

depends on forcing someone to disclose something that the federal law protects tex? this is a vicious circle. they say you cannot use the i-9 this says you cannot use it for adjudication that you are making the argument that federal law otherwise protect from disclosure. >> we don't think that the federal law prohibits the use of the i-9 in a state proceeding. beyond that, if in an actual enforcement action it was determined that federal law have that impact, they would still have that defense available to them. there would have to prove it. frustrate federal law when the federal law says the i-9 can be used for no other

purpose than the federal adjudication of the status of employees? >> the law says it may not be used for any other enforcement of the chapter. we believe that the state action would fall within that. we think they should be able to use that. >> is there a difference between saying it may not be used for any purpose other than for enforcement of this chapter and other provisions of federal law on the one hand and saying that it may not be used for any other purpose other than in a federal proceeding? the i-9 certainly could be used in a federal proceeding by the employer. would that be used for the enforcement of the federal law? i would not think so. >> that's true, your honor. >> i have a question on the i-9.

i thought under federal law that if the employee -- if the employer is not certain andean places here is my social security card and driver's license, the employer looks at that he is home free. is that right? under your law, under arizona law, that is not sufficient. he is not home free. he still could be prosecuted. is that right? >> no, that's not right. licenseows a driver's and social critic art under arizona law and the employer looked at, the employer cannot be prosecuted. yes or no? >> we would need the evidence that the person knowingly employed the hon. arrest alien. >> i thought it creates some kind of presumption that he is not home free. but under federal law he is home free. >> we are imposing a new

obligations. >> then he is unprepared and try to understand. i thought federal law requires this e-review and no his word about that which it seems to require because it seems to me in 20% of the cases where the nose is, this guy's not authorized in the devin record -- record that he is authorized to work. the employer who follows that is really going to fire 20% of the people who will be absolutely entitled to work. i would like to address that. >> let me tell you how bulwarks. arizona does not change anything in terms of the abusive i-9. we require employers to to e-

verify but we don't impose a sanction on an employer if they don't use it. >> this is a federal resource. the federal government has said we want this to be voluntary. how can arizona take a federal resource which the federal government says it is voluntary except in certain circumstances and turn it into something that is mandatory? >> we think the question is answered by looking at the conflict pre-emption analysis. we think congress did not address the state -- >> is not about preemption. arizona wants to use a federal resource. the fed makes available

voluntarily but not mandatory. how can arizona set the rules on the use of the federal resource t? not a burden it's to the objectives of congress, we think we can require employers within our jurisdiction to you e-verify. >> did you make it mandatory? >> in our statute says you make use e-verify. >> you don't get the safe harbor. >> that's right, you don't get the safe harbor on e-verify. some additional requirements similar to what they have on the federal system exist where you can i get state contracts. >> your taking a mechanism that the congress would say -- would be a pilot program that is optional and you are making a mandatory. >it seems that is a classic

example of the state doing something inconsistent with federal requirements. >> we look at the test for conflict pre-emption in terms of does it make it impossible to comply with federal law, no. are we interfering with the federal government's ability to achieve its goal. the goal in the bill e-verify is to have a more effective verification system. >> if they cannot receive any grant, loan, or performance- based incentive from the state, that's what the law says. yes, there is the penalty. >> there is no penalty in terms of -- >> you don't go to jail but you lose any grants, loans, or performance-based incentives, is that right? >> that is true under current law.

>> does this law challenge that? >> it does not. >> the only sanction is you lose the safe harbor them about right. >> in answer to the earlier question, relying on i-9 does not provide a safe harbor because under e-verify system you can adjust rely on i-9 forms. you have to rely on the e- verify. >> this is modeled after the federal law. the federal law as a defense for employers who follows i-9. so is the state law. >> kasich to be the same on this point. i don't understand how these two provisions that together when e- verify is used. the first thing an employer does is received the forms from the employee. he looks at the forms and a

reasonably seem to be authentic that employer and as the good faith -- now has the good faith to provide information on state and federal law. the employer either must or meg also a newsthe e-verification system. that creates a rebuttable presumption under both systems that the employee is not authorized to work. how does that fit together? if you have a complete defense for avenues i-9 process in good faith, but wholee-verification process seems to be disrupted. how they fit together? >> we have not wrestled that in practical application. i am not aware of them reaching the point under the federal system, either. it seems that some point that if -- that the system should

work that if you use i-9 and you get back a final confirmation that the employee is unauthorized and that should carry greater weight. on and applied basis, i am not sure how that plays out in actual enforcement action. sure what sheite meant. it was emphasized that this statute was being evaluated on its face. particular challenges might arise. how would that work if we determine this is not pre- empted? how would a challenge, about? >> i think perhaps in terms of what the outer limits of our definition of license -- they say we're outside the definition

of licensing and similar laws in a particular case -- perhaps that would be as applied. sun of thei-9 challenges are more properly resolved in a direct case for that issue has arisen. i think there was a concern there was an implementation question that were wrapped into the legal challenge. for the most part, i think the general framework of our statute is appropriate in this challenge. >> you think after this case we can look forward to cases one by one with various types of licenses? those with as applied challenges? you are wasting our time here. >> wouldn't be easier to take the solicitor general's position

that you if your indicating good faith are intent in any way from the federal government that it is pre-empted? what waiting for a challenge means, whether or not you are putting their requirements on true good faith text >> no, your honor. to try to give some examples of the things that may come up as a practical matter. i think we can get the guidance from this court. >> let me ask the question directly. in arizona says -- if the hours and the system does not permit an employer to rely on non- suspect documents ,the i-9 documents that permit employers, the arizona system says you cannot rely on those.

is that pre-empted or not text you can rely oni-9. the arizona system says you cannot hire someone who has not been approved under thee- verification system. is that pre-empted? >> i think those would both be problems. >> are you conceding that every variation from the federal standards for criminal and civil liability is automatically precluded? as i read the exception, it is an exception for state licensing and similar laws. it does not say so long as those licensing and similar laws go no further than what the federal government has done. we often allow states to impose

-- to impose regulatory requirements that go beyond regulatory requirements of the federal government. that is not automatically considered to be pre-empted. what are you conceding that arizona cannot go beyond what the federal government says? >> i think the congress preserve for as was the ability to impose sanctions including the revocation of state laws. i think they establish a uniform national standard. >> what i was looking at specifically -- the federal law says that if you look at the driver's license and social security card which are i-9 docs, the player -- the employer

has not violable law. he has established a valid defense. that is federal law. arizona law says on determining whether it is an unauthorized alien, the courts consider the federal government determination. it creates a rebuttable presumption. that means it might be rebutted. i see a difference there. the reason that is relevant is because my first question -- if you are an employer prior to your low, it is 50/50. i'd better verify because if i am discriminating and it is not that hard, a look of a driver's license and i am home free and the social security card and a by hire an illegal immigrant - york law, the employer looked to be so security card and driver's license, you are not home free. if it turns out that you have

been hiring this illegal immigrant and he is not an american, your business is finished. what happens if i discriminated? under our law, nothing. that was the original point they made. that is what i brought this question of difference in standards. i want to be absolutely clear what your answer to that is. >> i am hoping i am being clear. with the same standards as federal law. we have thisi-9 defense. >> where is it in the statute? i might be reading the wrong words. where is that in the statute? >> let me get to it. the may explain the rebuttable presumption. >> page184-185? >> this applied in good faith.

that is the provisions that provide ai-9 defense. the republic resumption issue is we have to in bringing an enforcement action have to rely on information from the federal government regarding whether someone is authorized for an authorized. we have to rely on federal information from the federal government. we bring our action to state court if we have verification from the state government that that person is on operas and have additional information. the employer has an opportunity to rebut the evidence we presented in a state court proceeding. that is the role of the rebuttable presumption. >> thank you. >> in terms of the prior adjudication -- >> i interpret your answer as

confirming the implication of the question that there is a substantial difference in federal and state law on this point. if you are home free and the driver's license and social security is good, under federal law there is a difference. you think you are home free interstate law? >> to the extent that you should be home free and you have the benefit of that good faith. >> it is an affirmative defense under both? >> yes, your honor. i think maybe i was mistaken perhaps. then we are still stuck with this enormous discrepancy in penalty.

it seems like it is even on discrimination under the federal law but it is not even, your business is gone on the other side. it has nothing. what about that? >> a and that is the natural consequence of the savings clause. >> they were licensing, not everyone looks at this. i looked at the legislative history. when you look of the paragraph on page 39, it seems to me that that paragraph says precisely what it is. the first thing it says is if you are found to have violated this -- there it is -- if somebody has been found to violate the sanction provisions in the provisions, you have been found by the federal government, then the state can revoke the license.

that is one thing. the second thing it says is it does not want to preempt a witness to do business loss. such as state farm labor contracted laws or forestry loss. in other words it is backing of some precise set of licenses and that is why this licensing bank is there. the very next part of this federal law is conforming amendments than those conforming amendments apply to the departments of government that we are concerned with maintaining state farm labor contract or loss. i grant you you have to go beyond the text. some of us do because we get in the. going beyond that text, it seems that we should follow what the house report says. was your response to that? >> which focused on the text or congress did not limit it. >> let's deal with the part

where you look at their explanation as to what it put those words there. >> the form labor contractor isn't the and. example example. that is not an all inclusive universe of sanctions of licensing laws that might be subject to this. they don't possibly say there has to be prior federal adjudication. they specifically refer to state and local processes that provide for the suspension and revocation of state licenses. the following sentence says we don't intend to disrupt laws such as forestry and other fitness to do business. we think it is it business to do

business law in that we are establishing as a state standard that if you engage in misconduct of knowingly employing unauthorized aliens, we will have the ability to take an action against that license we have given you to do business in our jurisdiction. we think we fit within that last sentence. >> can you also x h blatantte i- 9. the i-9?lso explain you require a the e-verify. does that information modified i-9? >> they work in our system as they do under the federal law that you get a rebuttable presumption that you can use in your favor it few youe-verify.

it is good faith use of thei-9 system. if an employer is terminated because they are unauthorized and choke with a different name and paper two weeks later, you are not going to be able to establish your good faith. you are home free but subject to that adjudication. we incorporate the same obligations that exist under federal law. i want to address more on the farm labor contractors. what we think they were doing was simply dividing responsibility at the federal level between the department of labor and their processes that pre existed. they said we will not have these determinations whether the farm labour contractor has employed an illegal alien. the irca will usei

provision. beforeirca and after, the federal law's only supplement the authority of the state. that means they preserve all of the state authority but -- that they had a i beforerce irca. i think that reinforces that those have been preserved through irca. this is an area that has traditionally been within the mainstream of police power. we acknowledge that congress has the authority to preempt this but the elected board and discretion in terms of our ability to impose sanctions for licensing and similar laws and we are doing so by establishing the suspension and revocation of state licenses. it is important part of the balance the congress struck went

to enactirca by addressing what state authority would exist after the congressional enactment. we think the lower courts have properly determined the scope of that determination. unless there are further questions, thank you for your attention this morning. >> thank you, counsel. mr. phillips, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you. i want to begin with the question of whether or not there really is a basis for allowing states to independently investigate and independently adjudicate these matters. this is from the house report recognizing that not everybody accepts that. it seems to articulate a very common-sense limitations that says you have to have a federal

adjudication the first sentence and once you got that the state is allowed to add that sanction. that principle to me is reinforced by the limitation on which you can use thei-9. it seems quite clear that this is what congress envisioned in 1986 when it adopted this that you have been exclusively federal enforcement scheme including the judicatory process. it is only in the context you are allowed a to use the i-9. the notion that the state could adopt this knowingly and not be able to have thei-9 material available seems flatly at odds and therefore it cannot be what congress intended on those circumstances to allow these matters to be adjudicated in that particular fashion. >> what can the state do that would be complementary rather than conflicting? >> if an employer is convicted

of a while i lettingrca and he happens to be a barber and a state licensing law says if you are convicted of a federal crime, you will lose your license, it is available to the state under those circumstances and that is what congress had in mind to issue a notice to show cause why that particular person should not have the license revoked. >> it is issued by a federal government that has not gone after many convictions? >> it seems to me the whole question here -- i don't think pre-emption can be moving target. congress was balancing at least three very difficult problems. minimize the birds of employers, minimizing discrimination of

people permitted to be hired, and avoiding hiring people who are not permitted to do so. how you proper -- properly reconcile that is very difficult. the one thing that seems to be clear is that was a choice congress meant to leave to itself and the federal government to sort out and not to give the states the opportunity to come in where they did. >> you are bleeding over the savings clause. -- you are blinking over the savings clause. >> if you interpret the sittings close as i do which means it is truly a supplement to federal adjudication, then it is a very narrow limitation on the basis. at that point, you've already invoked the federal scheme and it does not modify the balance on those broader legal issues. >> thank you, counsel, the case is submitted. >> next, defense secretary

robert gates gives the commencement address at the naval academy and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments "washington journal on." next, defense secretary robert gates gives his last commencement address at the u.s. naval academy's graduation ceremony in annapolis, maryland. he told the graduates what was required to be a good leader and described setup was to send young soldiers into harm's way. he is retiring on june 30. he served under president george w. bush and president obama. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] >> does a special honor to join

up today for this well-deserved celebration. i first want to welcome and thank the family members who are here today. your support and encouragement have made this day possible for these young men and women. more importantly, you have nourished their spirits and molded their characters. you have instilled in them love of country and willingness to serve and now you entrust to the nation your most treasured possession. thanks also to the sponsor families of the midgetman. over that -- over the midshipmen. it provided good meals or respite from academy life for a shoulder to lean on. your guidance and your caring helped make it possible for your mids. to the class of 2011, congratulations. as the first order of business, i will exercise my authority as

the united states secretary of defense and grant amnesty to all midshipmen whose antics led to minor conduct offenses. [laughter] [applause] as always, admiral miller has the final say on what constitutes minor. [laughter] represents my final commencement speech as defense secretary, culminating one month of five commencement addresses. the most recent being last sunday at notre dame. for my brief time there, i can report to do that the notre dame student body is moving through grief to denial to anchor [laughter] over the pounding navy football gave them last october. [no audio[applause]

i related note, whenever ricky dobbs throws his hat in the ring for president of united states, he will have my endorsement. [laughter] i would like to start by thanking each of today's graduates for choosing to serve your country and your fellow citizens. in everything you did here, from studying for exams to training sessions with your upperclassman, you have grown together as a team. there is also been something bigger united new, your willingness to take on a dangerous path and the service of others. i made my first academy commencement address here in annapolis in may, 2007. a short time later, you arrive here to begin a remarkable educational experience, an experience that concludes today.

all of you made the decision to enter this academy of military service during the toughest stretch of the iraq war. you reported here when casualties were at their highest and the prospects for success were uncertain at best. at the same time, the taliban are making their comeback in afghanistan in history's most notorious terrorist was still at large. as a result of the skill and sacrifice of countless young warriors and patriots, many of them graduates of this institution, i am proud to say that we face a different set of circumstances today. iraq has a real chance that a peaceful and democratic future and afghanistan, the taliban momentum has been halted and reversed and osama bin laden is finally where he belongs. [applause]

while many people witness history, those who step forward to serving time of crisis have a place in history. as of today, you join a long line of patriots in a noble calling. by your service, you have a chance to leave your mark on history. almost 100 years ago, president theodore roosevelt delivered an extraordinary speech called "us and ship in a republic." he observed our society's success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman does his or her duty. the average citizen must be a good citizen if our republic is to succeed. roosevelt went on to say that the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

the graduates of this institution are not average citizens and so you can never be content to be merely good citizens. you must be great citizens. in everything you do, you must always make sure you live up to the highest personal and professional standards of duty, service, and honor. the values of the navy, the values of the american armed forces, the values are the best traditions of our country. indeed, when your call to lead, we were called to stand in defense of your country in faraway lands, it must hold your values and your honor close to your heart. 46 years ago this month, i graduated from college also having committed to public service. in the decades since, in the air force, cia, the white house, and now the pentagon, i have served under eight presidents and had the opportunity to observe many other great leaders along the

way. from this experience, i have learned that real leadership is it rare and precious commodity and requires qualities that many people might possess peace mail to varying degrees but few exhibit in total. as you start your careers as leaders today, i like to offer some brief thoughts on those qualities. for starters, great leaders must have, the ability to get your eyes off your shoe laces at every level of rank and responsibility and see beyond the day-to-day tasks and problems, to be able to look beyond tomorrow and discern a world of possibilities and potential. how do you take any outfit to a higher level of excellence? you must see what others do, cannot, do not, and be prepared to act on your vision. an additional quality necessary for leadership is deep conviction.

true leadership is a fire in the mind that transforms all who feel its warmth, all who see it shining light in the met -- in the eyes of a man or woman. it is the strength of purpose and belief in a cause that reaches out to others, touch their hearts, and makes them eager to follow. self-confidence is still another quality of leadership, not the chest-thumping egotism we read and see all the time, rather it is the quiet self assurance that allows a leader to give others responsibility and real credit for success. the ability to stand in the shadow and let others receive attention and accolades. a leader is able to make decisions that than delegate and trust of this to make things happen. that does not mean turning your back after making a decision and hoping for the best. it means trusting in people at the same time you hold them

accountable. the bottom line -- a self confident leader does not cast such a large shadow but no one else can grow. if further quality of leadership is courage, not just the physical courage of the seas, the skies, and the trenches but moral courage. the courage to chart a new course, the courage to do what is right and not just what is popular, the courage to stand alone, the courage to act, the courage as a military officer to speak truth to power. in most academic curriculum today and in most business, government, and military training programs, there is great emphasis on team building, and working together and building consensus, on group dynamics. you have learned a lot about that. for everyone who would become a leader, the time will inevitably come where you must stand alone , when along you must say "this

is wrong" for i disagree with all of you because i have the responsibility and this is what we will do. don't kid yourself, that takes root courage. another essential quality of leadership is integrity. without this, real leadership is not possible. it seems like integrity these days or honor or character is kind of quaint, a curious old fashioned notion. we read of all to many successful intelligent and successful people in and out of government who succumb to the easy wrong rather than the hard right. weather from inattention or sense of entitlement, the notion that rules are not for them. for a real leader, personal virtues, self-reliance, a self control, honor, truthfulness, morality are absolute.

these are the building blocks of character of integrity. only on that foundation can leadership be built. a final quality of real leadership, i believe, is simply common decency. treating those around you and above all your support in its with fairness and respect. an acid test of leadership is how you treat those you about rank or as president truman once said," how you treat those who cannot talkback." whatever your military specialty might be, use your authority over others for constructive purposes to help them to watch out and care for them and their families, to help them improve their skills and advance, to ease there are chips whenever possible. all of this can be done without compromising dip -- discipline or mission or authority. common decency builds respect

and in a democratic society, respect is what prompts people to give their all for a leader, even at great personal sacrifice. i hope you'll keep these thoughts with you as you advance in your careers. above all, remember that the true measure of leadership is not how you react in times of peace or times without peril. the true measure of leadership is how you react when the wind leaves your sales, when the tide turned against you. to get accepted to the naval academy, most of you have probably succeeded in many cases brilliantly at pretty much everything you have done in the classroom, on the playing field, or other activities. i know this institution has challenged you in new ways that from here on out, it gets harder. the risk of failure or setbacks will only grow as your responsibilities grow and with them the consequences of your decisions. know this -- at some point along

the path, you will surely encounter failure and disappointment of one kind or another. nearly all of us have. if at those times you hold true to your standards, you will always succeed if only in knowing you stayed true and hon.. in the final analysis, what matters is not the failures and his appointments themselves but how you respond. about four years ago, the young ensign ran his gasoline tanker into a buoy, typically a career killer. i work with that nabal's her every day. he is now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. [laughter] to be able to respond to setbacks with determination should apply as well to the military institutions you lead. i'll never forget the night of

april 24, 1980. i was executive assistant to the cia director at the time and was in the white house during the secret mission to rescue american hostages in iran. i had been in on the planet from the beginning and while the operation was clearly risky, i honestly believed it would work. it did not end soon images of burnt helicopters and the charred remains of u.s. servicemen flashed around the world. it was truly a low end for our nation and for a military that was still recovering from vietnam. then the special operations committee and the u.s. military as a whole pulled itself together, reformed the way was trained and organized, took on the course of service parochialism that have hobbled our military institution. under one month ago, once again spent in are wrecking afternoon in the white house as a risky

special operations mission was underway. when word of a downed helicopter came back, my heart sank, remembering that awful night 30 years ago. this time, of course, there is a very different results. a mass murderer was brought to a fitting end, a world in all of american military prowess, a country relieved that justice was done and frankly that the government could do something hard and do it right. a powerful blow was struck on behalf of democratic civilization against the smoke let and -- this most lethal enemy. [applause] i want each of you to take that lesson of adaptability, of responding to setbacks by improving yourself and your institution and that example of success with you as you go forward into the navy and marine corps you'll someday lead.

the qualities of leadership i have described as many do not suddenly emerge fully developed overnight or as a revelation after you have assumed important responsibilities. these qualities have their roots in their small decisions you have made here at the academy and will make early in your career. they must be strengthened all along the way to allow you to resist the temptation of self before -- before service. but mentioned earlier, this is my last address to america's service academies, my last opportunity to engage the future leaders of our military as your defense secretary. as i look out upon this morning, i am reminded of what so struck and moved me when i went from being a university president to u.s. secretary of defense in a time of war. at texas a&m, i would walk the campus and see thousands of students 18-25 typically wearing

t-shirts and shorts and backpacks. the day after i became secretary of defense in december, 2006, i made my first visit to the war theater. there i encountered other young men and women also 18-25. they were wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles. they're putting their lives at risk for all america. i knew that some of them would not make it home whole and that some would not make it home at all. i knew then that soon all those in harm's way would be there because i sent them. ever since, i have come to work every day with a sense of personal responsibility for each and every young american in uniform as if he were my own sons and daughters. the only prayer -- is that you

serve with honor and come home safely. i personally thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service. serving and leading you has been the greatest honor of my life. may you have a fair winds and following seas. congratulations. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause] >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal."

after that president obama possible tuesday at buckingham palace and his speech to parliament and then french president nicolas sarkozy on the g8 meetings. >> people often say to me how much of your time to use than writing and how much of your time to you spend doing research? that is a great question. no one ever says, to your time and do you spent thinking. that is probably the most important part. >> sunday in part to of the interview with david mccullough, his writing process and latest, "the greater journey." you can download this as a podcast online and c-span.org/ podcasts. this morning, a political roundtable on the 2012 election. roundtable on the 2012 election.