we polled 16,000 americans, 8000 of which are center or center- right leaning. we found again and again and again strong support for not only these rights associated with marriage but also, when you in conservative arguments, it was conservative leaders and the support was even higher. when you explain to people that freedom means freedom for everyone, the level of support -- republican support is overwhelming. a lot of this is the context in which you frame it and describe it. a number of republican and elected officials have voted for marriage. the number has doubled.

there is not a single issue i thought of where doing the right thing and 1% loses. that is a pretty amazing record. that is certainly not true from what i can think of. when you look a of the data, it says the republican electorate is not clear some people perceive it to be. >> i would like to move to questions from the audience. we have an audience watching remotely. what i call on you, please wait to be called on. wait for the microphone. a helpful person will bring you a microphone. please announce your name and affiliation to let our readers

know a bit about you. in the second row in the sweater. >> my question is, everybody talks about gay marriage and everything but i think that another thing that has been talked very little about is equal protection, discrimination against gay people. in certain communities they still fire people if they are gay or do not like their lifestyle. in terms of equal protection, i hink that is a very serious thing to do even if you talk about marriage. >> any reactions? >> i do not like discrimination laws in general. private organizations should be able to hire and fire for whatever reason or no reason that they want. i am not sure the solution is to expand the number of that are going to be

filed on all these areas on what private organizations do. but these issues we debated today about what government does -- it has to treat all citizens equally. >> i disagree with that point. i do think laws that say faces of public accommodation, places open to the public, organizations, companies, businesses, that welcome the public in, can properly be prevented from discriminating on sexual orientation, race, etc. there is a long-standing tradition of upholding those laws. but i do agree that what we are talking about here with the freedom to marry -- even worse it is the government that is the discriminator, the government that is denying marriage licenses. in my view all discrimination is bad, but it is most intolerable when it is by the government against any group of

americans. one other thing -- my favorite moment from the argument yesterday was 11 justice sotomayor asked the opposing side, the anti-gay side, apart from the context of marriage for a moment can you think of any other context, in any other context, employment, other kinds of protections, housing, is there any rational sufficient good reason for discriminating against lesbians and gay men? even the opponents could not say. he said, i do not think so. he conceded there is no good reason for discriminating against gay people. that, i think, is extremely powerful and shows how far we have come. now we need to turn it into law. >> that was extremely good lawyering on her part. you do not stop being a lawyer just because you are a judge. it surprises me this battle is taking place on the marriage hill rather than the adoption hill. there are more states that

gay adoption than gay marriage. the prominent interest is to have a union of a man and a woman to raise children and the interest is regulating procreation, and only with a heterosexual couple can you have accidental pregnancies, etc.. shouldn't the focus be on a regular thing child lock? >> in western europe often adopted the opposite set of policies. legalizing gay marriage but making it quite difficult for gays to become parents. i was asked the other day about this. one reason may be the pool of adoptable children is low in europe and much higher here. another is that europe has a stronger aggressive tradition at children come up with the state, that thankfully we have avoided having in the united states of america. further questions -- second row on my left.

>> i write for the pakistani [indiscernible] my question is, how can you separate the gay marriage issue from the morality of our christian brother and sister? if you allow this, what will stop you from marrying with your brother, with your sister? muslimond thing, i am a and during september 11 i used to go -- after september 11 they think every muslim in this country has a bomb in his pocket. there are one million muslims in this country. christian residents think everybody is a terrorist. similarly, they think gays are very powerful, very organized, and are going to take over this country and they will have their morale the pushed on the country.

>> any response? >> we have a place called crucible -- on new york avenue. >> you have asked a question. >> what is at issue before the court is civil marriage. we had a brief that 135 republican and conservative officials signed. we made it clear we believe it is correct policy, that the establishment policy protects a church or synagogue from performing a star money they do not want to perform. the reality is today the faith community -- there are some religious organizations and faith organizations, synagogues and churches, who believe they ought to marry members of the same gender, and other should not.

to me it is wrong of the government to second-guess their decision. they ought to make their decision and the government will respect that decision. the issue here is civil marriage, and that to me, it is interesting, i have noticed in a number polls a higher percentage of people who think that there is a constitutional right to marry than to support marriage. why is that it seems counterintuitive. it seems weird if you think about it. the constitution is higher. here is why. youe is a depth of insight have to consider there. what they're saying is i do not personally support it but the law ought to treat people who pay the same taxes, who served in the same military, who put their lives on the same way, the same. that is what we are are talking

about. civil marriage. whatever organization anyone is part of, they have a right to do it they want. >> i agree. one other thing you had in your question -- the question that is always thrown out about the specter of polygamy and all these other kinds of things. whenever people bring that up it is almost always an indication that they do not have a good reason for why loving and committed gay couples should be excluded from marriage so they try to change the subject and hope you will spend the rest of your time talking about polygamy or whatever. but the really important point to understand is that gay people are not saying, let's have no rules let's do anything and anybody can do anything. they are saying let us have what you have. just as you have the freedom to marry the person who is precious to you, whom you are building a life with, so should we. churches, religions, synagogues, temples, mosques -- they are free to do what they want to do. they should not be dictating to

the government who gets that marriage license and excluding gay people from this opportunity to take that commitment in law to match the commitment in life that they are making. >> in some ways this is actually a tremendous success for an tribute to the argument that opponents of a social conservative worldview have made the past several years. there was a debate in this country in the 1960s and 1970s, is marriage a good thing? is a good for people to make a lifelong commitment to somebody else? that was the real thing. what this is about is proponents of the traditional way of -- thinking are right and we should not take a group of people and exclude them from that traditional approach. i think andrew cameron said he supports the freedom to marry because despite being a conservative -- i think that is absolutely true. i think it is true from a social conservative perspective. >> i think this again illustrates the danger and the problem with the government intruding its tentacles into more and more spheres of life. if health care were not

nationalized we would not talking about contraceptive mandates. if the government did not have such a heavy-handed and other regulation we would not be talking about, should catholic charities have the right to do adoptions and refrain from conducting them for gay couples? i am for all sorts of religious liberty. notissue here is -- i do want to repeat what was said, but civil marriage as recognized by the government, the best solution would be for the government to get out. but as far as questions of morality go, living together, getting married, the marriage license is a different issue than if you disagree about the morality of gay sex. that is a whole different set of cases. >> quite a long time ago western societies separated birth certificates from christening and death certificates from last rights and coming-of-age from equivalents like bar mitzvah. 10 the this is a -- to me this is a recognition that marriage is separable.

one question -- there was one of her here. right by the wall. >> i am john murdoch. i am an attorney and volunteered on the 2004 bush campaign. i partly did that because of my opposition to judicial activism. i must say, i am baffled by your definition of judicial activism now.

this seems to be the epitome of that, at least in the proposition eight case where you were overturning a democratic election based on the evolving standards of vague terms such as equal protection. >> it is a good question and one we talked a lot about in our brief and over the years. what i would say to you is i also do not like when courts step in and substitute their views and there will for that that of the people either directly through a referendum or alternatively through a legislature. i do think that as somebody who believes not simply in judicial restraint but in a limited government broadly it is the province of courts and it is appropriate for courts to step in when a fundamental right is violated. a lot of people were very upset when the court throughout the city of chicago and the city of washington's and on people having and possessing a firearm. i thought it was the right decision. i was also pleased when the court throughout a number of the elements of the campaign reform laws.

what was right about that is they were saying, even though they had been democratically enacted they violated the fundamental law. marriage has been held to be a fundamental right 14 times since the 1880s. if you are a prisoner according to the supreme court your right to speech can be taken away, you're right to vote can be taken away, but you're right to select a spouse cannot be taken away unless there is an incredibly good reason. what we concluded is that proposition 8 does not fit that good reason. well it is an extraordinary measure, it is appropriate for the court to step in. >> that is exactly right. i was an intern on the 2004 campaign policy staff. a bit of a reunion for us, i guess. judicial activism typically means that the speaker disagrees with the opinion he is talking about tom a an empty vessel filled with whatever the speaker wants to talk about. i do not think courts should be activist and they should not be pacifist. i disagree with chief justice roberts turning a individual mandate into a tax rather than doing his job and striking down a law he thought would have been unconstitutional. not enforcing property rights.

so the debate should not be about whether courts are restrained, upholding, striking down, overturning the popular will of the people. it is whether they are interpreting the constitution correctly. people in good faith can disagree about that. that is what the argument is about. either california is violating individual rights or it is not. but it is the proper role of the court to say so. >> i am very sorry to have to leave early, but thank you very much. [applause] >> second row, you had your hand up for well. -- four a while. >> my name is greg olson. i have a question for mr. schapiro. i'm a little bit baffled by you seeming to be against the government issuing marriage licenses. do i read into that that you do not think that the government

has any role at all in regulating any marriage regulations at all? for example, inheritance or parental responsibilities to children? no license, no regulation responsibility? >> of course there has to be family law. people live. they are not individualists communes. they form families. there are issues with custody, with with paternity, all sorts of things, inheritance. there are issues that arise. but people living together and producing children are dated the arrival of civil marriage in human history. there are ways of the common law or even codified law in terms of inheritance and bankruptcy, whatever else, that

can take that -- that ought to exist. and contract law. how most of these things really ought to be handled is you sign a contract with whoever you want to marry spelling out what the right saarc. -- rights are. for 90% of people that would be a simple boilerplate contract. there is room for the operation of law but that is different from saying that the sovereign has an interest in regulating who you can marry or who can marry. >> roger? >> with the cato institute. it is -- my question is in response to the first question asked about the broader indications of this issue and discrimination more broadly. in response to the question, distinguishing the private from the public. one way that comes up is in the

effort by private parties who have scruples against gay marriage about participating in them. we have a case in new mexico right now of the photographer who declined to participate in a gay marriage and is being prosecuted for it. kindems to me this is the of overreach that could put something of a brake on the momentum we have now. it is the kind of thing we need to be careful about, not too expanded so far that there may be people like this who for whatever reason may not want to and yet in overreach of discrimination law can give us something of a backlash. would you care to answer? >> sure. that is a very valid concern. if you think about it, the truth is that we are debating -- what we are debating does not affect that lawsuit.

the reality is that there are separate laws in states, and these are worthy of important debate and discussion, which define when you are allowed to say no to performing an event or a ceremony in this case. essentially, anti- discrimination laws are entirely separate laws. if you look at whether it happens through judicial process like massachusetts or connecticut, or alternately through the legislative process or to the referendum process, in every one of those cases the effect of civil marriage does not in any way change whether the photographer could be sued or could not be sued. finally, whatever we do legally there will always be people who -- we live in a litigious society and people will always bring lawsuits if they are unhappy about something. that absolutely excessive litigiousness should perhaps -- should absolutely be discouraged. but we ought to be thinking

about the context in which it comes up. marriageabout civil really does not affect that particular question as evidenced by where it happened. >> i should add that they are participating in a amicus brief on behalf of that photographer. >> we are waiting for an appeal. >> for those who are interested i have written at some length about how nearly all the horror stories have come from states that did not have same-sex marriage laws. the problem, as we libertarians know well, is the overweening tendency of the law. yes -- fourth row. >> to brief questions. the first, in certain states with common-law marriage does the state have the right to declare two people, whether straight or gay, married who have never chosen to be married? my second question, with the rise of states that have civil unions is there a constitutional right by a state to create a condition that is not marriage for any reason, or is this simply by creating civil unions is that in itself discriminatory?

>> some states do have a recognized common-law marriage. if you live together long enough and certain other criteria, produce children, hold yourself out as if you were a married couple, these sorts of things, you can be treated as common-law married. i do not think i would want that to happen if there is no consent to wanting to be treated as married. complicationer from having a civil marriage regime and having some approximation institution in the midst as well. a lot of these issues can be taken care of by common-law. this came up today. chief justice roberts asked, does the federal law, how do you treat states that have

common-law marriage but some of gay might allow common-law marriage, others do not? it really, locate the jurisdictional and federalism issues that abound. as far as civil unions are concerned, that is an issue in the proposition 8 case. i doubt the court will rule this way given how hostile all the justices seem to be to solicitor general -- the solicitor general's half loaf solution that part of why it has to go down as california has civil unions that do not differ in any way other than the name from marriages. there are eight or nine states in that boat. but if you have a rule saying -- if you grant all the rights except the name then that has no rational basis. that disincentive ices other states from giving some rights who do not want to go the whole hog and give marriage. again, it should be contract based and common-law-based.

i do not think this civil union means that you have to have marriage is ultimately a tenable position for constitutional law. >> i have to question -- it brings in something that is not enough appreciated about the history of the marriage law. far from being sometime this thing handed down by our ancestors, it has been in continuous flux. alimony is a quasi-marital concept that has turned up in our own lifetime. in general it has never been static. there is nothing to go back to in that sense. there was a question in the front. >> getting married is always exciting and fun, and we all -- >> is it good?

i'm doing it in june. >> i understand the benefits you are looking for with the insurance and the health care and being able to visit another partner the hospital and that type of stuff. but when it does not work out, maybe the next day you work out -- wake up -- will you have to go through the same divorce situation we are? are the laws going to work equally in that situation? >> there was a cover story in "new york" magazine -- welcome to gay divorce. the quality of unhappiness. -- the quality of unhappiness. a lot of people favored the marriage for that very reason. havefigured, why let us all the misery? in all seriousness, if one takes the sweet one must take the bitter. logically one cannot ask of a commitment and then somehow escaped through some sort of parachute the consequence of a failed commitment. so this has already happened. law nerds will love the fantastic competitions when a

couple has changed states and finds the new state will not even recognize them as married and after divorce. >> is there a court in record -- in texas that recognizes gay divorce but not marriage? >> a few nonna gay marriage states have come out both ways. it would make a wonderful case to what is more punitive, making them stay with each other when they do not love each other or creating a separate divorce capital -- category because you deserve that right. the gentleman in the fourth row. >> rick rosendahl. this is a question that relates back to an earlier question. at least to my years the most heated moment in yesterday's argument was when justice scalia asked ted, when the

exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage became unconstitutional. i thought olson was extremely combative, unusually so. second, he did talk about how our view of the constitution's applicability changes and grows. when we increase our understanding of sexual orientation. in any case, do any of you think scalia landed a real blow there or did he just -- was he just being cranky and demonstrated that perhaps it is not so much to me in a nest -- dominionist? >> i blogged about this. scalia was getting at one of these evolving standards of decency that the living constitution -- when was this? do you really mean that the

founders of this country or even the ratifiers working the amendment had in mind gay marriage? that is not the right way to frame the question. i think ted olson did not answer it very well. he talked about, it was when we began to accept gays into our culture, new understandings of equality. i do not think that is right. that sort of plays into the opposite trap that scalia was laying. i think the answer is, 1868, when the 14th amendment was ratified. not because i have proof or think that the ratifiers of that amendment had in mind gay marriage or any aspect of gay rights, but you look at if you are an originalist, we are arguing the right to equality under the law protected by the 14th amendment. what is the meaning of equal protection under the law? look at that, and either there is a right to gay marriage once the government gets in with the

14th amendment, or there is still not that right. those are the only two possible answers. i link to other possible discussions of this. josh blackman has a blog about this. my cocounsel on our brief also. >> you make an interesting point. here is what matters. whether it happened in 1868 or happened when we came to understand the sexual orientation was not something people choose, today it is unconstitutional. thate that is the---to me is the important answer. there is a fundamental right being taken away from individuals based on an arbitrary characteristic, and by arbitrary i mean when they did not choose, and they are denied access. there is not a good public policy rationale for that. when those things are present it

seems to me that the court needs to look very carefully and argue whether the const duchenne is involved area i believe it is -- whether the constitution is involved. i believe it is. whether it happened when the 14th amendment was passed or when we came to understand this is less important than that it is a violation. >> i think these answers are more a proper layman's response. from a legal term i want to use another analogy. for example, segregation. brown versus board of education said separate but equal is unconstitutional. does this mean that 1954 is when segregation became unconstitutional or was plessy versus ferguson in correctly decided? wasl protection of the law extended in that way against the separation of the races in 1868. that is the type of analogy i'm trying to draw. every time a court -- i do not

just mean all those years of anti-sodomy laws were constitutional. and that then there was a switch and that they were not. when the court interprets a provision of the constitution, right or wrong they are interpreting what the provision actually meant when it was ratified. >> we have run out of time so that will have to be the last question. these join me in thanking our wonderful panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the president of the hispanic federation spoke wednesday about immigration. here is a portion of his remarks. you can watch the entire speech at c-span.org.

good morning. latinos have come together unlike at any point in recent memory to demand brought in just immigration reform. that was evident in the last year's present election, were 12.5 million latinos went to the election,residential where 12.5 million latinos went to the polls. today represents a coming together of latino leaders. my colleagues who represent tens of millions of latinos across the nation coming together to make sure our community's voice is heard and that our committee is engaged in key congressional districts across the country. one of the things we look to do is having town halls across america to make sure that voices loudly and clearly heard across the country. it is critically important that

latinos are heard in this debate. ultimately, the reason we stand here today and the reason we are talking about immigration reform is because latinos have said, enough. we want to make sure our broken immigration system mystics this year. one of the mobilizations is 60 town halls across -- immigration system is fixed this year. there will be town halls with hundreds of people in key congressional districts to make sure congressional members get the point that this is nunnelee an important issue for our community, it is the evidence that this is not only an important issue for our community, it is a defining issue for our community. it has united us on like in the issue before and we demand just and brought immigration reform. we will make sure that happens this year.

>> retired general general petraeus -- david petraeus apologize for marital infidelities. "washington journal" starts at the top of the hour at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage of the aviation summit. >> when they first moved here, he spent a lot of time at home. the primary people who would have visited prior to the war of 1812 would have largely been friends and relations from the area. she was acknowledged to be a pretty nice hostess. during his fame after the battle lotsw orleans, they have and lots of company.

they have many parties and dinners at here. -- dennis year. they were entertaining people looking to find things in the city. she had a very nice things. of higher as a country lady, she was not that exactly. i think it was more about her comfort in the big cities than it was about her actual appearance. conversation with historians about rachel jackson is available on our web site. former ciaay, director and army general david petraeus address the universe to southern california in los angeles. general petraeus apologize for the extramarital affair that he

says hurt his family, friends, and supporters. this is 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, good evening to you all. things for that welcome and thanks for your kind introduction. thanks for your visionary, energetic, and inspirational leadership of this great institution. a true national asset and thanks to you and your team for your wonderful efforts to demonstrate such sincere appreciation and impressive support for those who have served our country in uniform. we're all grateful to you for that. [applause]

i am very pleased to be here tonight with trojan nation and i think it is a nation, not just family. usd stands out as a leader in the effort to support our country's families, veterans, active duty and to support those who currently serve our nation in uniform and will serve in the future as well. in the past day and a half i have been able to get acquainted with a number of your programs. speaking of that, where those intrepid rotc -- where are those intrepid rotc members who dewent with me this morning? [applause] it was a privilege to run with them. the and i are still standing. -- they and i are still standing. despite experiencing the stairs in the coliseum. i look forward to spending time with all the cadets tomorrow. in any event, from europe impressive rotc program to your world-class military social work initiatives, and your recent serving those who served endeavour to your office of veterans affairs and student

veterans of america chapter, programs are truly exemplary and i know that all here appreciate that deeply. well done on that as well. again it truly is a privilege to be here with you this evening. all the more so given my personal journey over the past five months. i join you keenly aware that i am regarded in a different light now that i was a year ago when president -- the president invited me to speak at this event. i am keenly aware that the reason for my recent journey was my own doing.

myplease allow me to begin remarks this evening by reiterating how deeply i regret and apologize for the circumstances that led to my resignation from the cia and caused such pain for my family, friends, and supporters. but tonight is not about me. it is about your veterans, your active-duty military, and your honor -- rotc cadets and the efforts to support and recognize them and their families, particularly those who have sacrificed so much in the difficult campaigns of the past decade. as one who was truly privileged to serve with many in this room in cold war europe, haiti, the balkans, and above all, iraq and afghanistan, as well as various other places in the middle east, i am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few words this evening.

but before continuing i should note that a southern california native briefed me before coming out here on the usc-ucla rivalry. i used to do intelligence. it appears that this is as emotional relationship as that between army and navy its football season. in fact, discussion of the u.s.a.-ucla rival reminds me of a story i heard this afternoon. apparently there was very nearly trouble at a party downtown attended by some usd students a few weeks ago. the way i heard it, one of the usc students leaned over to the eye and said do you want to hear a joke? >> before you tell a joke you

should know something. i am 6 foot 5 inches tall and i weigh 230 pounds and i go to ucla. the guy next to me is a bruin too and the next guy is 6 foot 3 and he goes to ucla. do you want to tell that joke? >> i guess not, the usc student said. not if i am going to have to explain it three times. [laughter] [applause] well, thanks for laughing. you know what they say in this town.

i am only as good as the material they give me. [laughter] of course, that ucla student could be -- the dewomen's volleyball championship or women's tennis or all those olympic medals in london. those brands are so sensitive. -- bruins de are so sensitive. the post 911 generation is recognized as the new status -- greatest generation. the members of the post-9/11 cold war have responded with valor, purpose, a skill, and courage to the defining conflicts of their day. they have learned their place in along a line of patriot on whom our country has

always depended. we should also note that america has never had a group of men and women who on average have served so long in combat or have spent so many tourists down range. this is of course the result of our country. the shift from the drafting forces that fought our past wars to the professional force that has prosecuted our post- vietnam and in particular, our link the post-9/11 engagements. iat is a policy with which strongly agree, but one that obviously means that the burdens of military service are borne disproportionately by those who volunteer. well over 2 million servicemen and women have served in iraq

and afghanistan and other places in the post-9/11 era. many have left the military. hundreds of thousands more will take on the uniform in the years ahead. in view of that, the focus of my remarks this evening is these young veterans who have done so much for our country. in particular, i want to offer my view that while our country continues to improve its support for and recognition of these and all our veterans and their families, we can and must do more particularly in certain respects. it is in fact appropriate at an event such as this to ask what our nation owes our veterans. what are our obligations to those who have risked everything in the service of our united states? i believe that our responsibilities are four fold. we must look after the families of our fallen heroes.

we must take care of our wounded servicemen and women. we must help our veterans transition successfully to the civilian sector and we must recognize and honor our veterans service. first it goes without saying -- [applause] firsts without saying that we must do all that is humanly possible to look after our gold star families. our fallen, our fallen in the words of abraham lincoln, gave the last full measure of devotion in the service of our country and we must see to the needs of the loved ones they have left behind. second, our nation has to take

care of those who returned for more with once, seen and unseen. war changes everyone who has experienced it first hand. in some cases, the changes are positive. many returned home with greater resilience, a former sense of purpose, and a keener awareness of the blessings of life. others, however,, -- come home scarred and would it. this group includes those with physical scars and wounds. it includes those with the unseen wounds, posttraumatic stress and other mental challenges that can lead some of our veterans into a spiral of hopelessness that contributes to a suicide rate that remains far too high. regardless of the injury we must provide the assistance that is needed by those who have been wounded waging our country's wars. third, i believe our country must help our veterans transition successfully to the civilian world. doing so will help enable those who have served to continue to be all they can be in the next

chapter of their life's journey. such efforts will not only strengthen our veterans, there will also strengthen our country. some veterans make the transition relatively seamlessly. they begin applying their skills straightaway. in school and other forms of government service or in the private sector. however other struggle with the transition. we see this most starkly in the post-9/11 veterans unemployment rate which is typically several percentage points above the national average. we also see the transition challenges in some veterans who enter school or find new employment but still have difficulty developing new skills relating to napier's, or the meaning in their new pursuits of the experienced while in uniform.

let me elaborate. there is often a view that because an individual was a great soldier, he or she will naturally do well in the civilian world. military experiences are seen as so exceptional as they assuredly will carry veterans on to further success. fromality, the transition military service to civilian pursuits often is quite challenging. as many here now, hanging up the uniform and living ones comrades are very difficult. and neither going back to school or entering the civilian workforce is as easy as it might seem. in light of this reality, we need to ensure that the right transition programs are in place, whether they are the improved military transition assistance program now being offered at the conclusion of active duty service or other

initiatives such as the college refresher course. better job skill training, transition measuring, or more in-depth assistance programs for veterans struggling with persistent unemployment or even homelessness. it is not enough just to have all these programs. we must also work hard to connect our veterans to them. there are two reasons why it is important to help veterans realize their goals and -- in civilian life. first, helping those who have given so much is simply the right thing to do. second, it makes good business sense. veterans to bring distinct capabilities and valuable leadership experiences that often are exactly what businesses are seeking in today's marketplace. i might add that i recently agreed to support several non- profit organizations. the mission continues, american corporate partners, a team rubicon, and team red, white, and blue and i would likely will assist others as well. i am doing so because of the importance of programs that

help our veterans identify and then make the most of the opportunities available to them. in fact, their representatives from these organizations and other veterans out its here this evening and i would like to ask all of them to stand up and be recognized so we can thank them for what they're doing. [applause] while i am at it i should also note to that there are three representatives of the gray u.s. military academy class of 1974 this evening as well. they are small but wonderful bunch of guys. we clearly should recognize them also or will never hear the end of it from my west point classmate. please stand up. good to see that you are still sober.

[applause] as i mentioned, there is one additional commitment our country has that needs to continue to recognize their service and their sacrifice. for is important not just our veterans but for our country. much has been made of the fact that a very small portion of the population is carrying out this generation's wars. honoring our veterans service is a small part of a larger effort we must continue to insure that the so-called civil military gap is as small as is possible. this is a moral imperative. taking care of our goals are families, health and our veterans transition successfully to civilian pursuits and

recognizing our veterans' service, it is fair to ask how our country is doing in meeting them. we should recall george washington's time with admonitions that the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of earlier wars and how they were treated and appreciated by our earlier nation. as an overall assessment, it is fair to say the united states has done reasonably well in meeting its obligations to those who have fought to keep us safe. even so, as with any endeavor, there is clearly room for improvement. over the last few decades, the veteran of administration has received significant budget increases. forcing% in the past them years alone. it has established such programs

and forpost-9/11 technical training and apprenticeship. there is the new veterans benefits management system and the integrated electronic health records of our sole important. the president and congress are ensuring that va funding is sustained in the face of the tough fiscal realities facing our country. this is use the important as the works to process claims in a timely manner, tasks that -- the zero involves recognize are absolutely imperative. there is support for programs overseen by the department of defense to care for our wounded

warriors and the families of befallen and these and other national state and local fallen.s -- the that, in stark contrast to the shameful way we treat those who returned from vietnam, americans have worked hard to honor those who have served, even when the policies our men and women have been executing have been questioned by some of our citizens. i remember driving from massachusetts to the airport in boston in 2006 after spending time with our son at mit and seeing on a bridge over the road and large signed and read, hate the war, love the troops. 50% is noty wife,

bad. the sign makers may be right choice if they had to choose between the two. all of this notwithstanding, there is no question that we need to do more for the families of our fallen, our wounded warriors and those who returned unharmed. as i mentioned earlier, the veteran of unemployment rate consistently exceeds the national average. are 9/11 and veterans who do not have a place to sleep or call home. some veterans are struggling to get the care they require in a timely manner and have their claims resolved expeditiously as well. we must continue to devote the time and energy to devote the with-to address these issues in particular. -- devote the time and energy to address these issues in particular. -- thery should secchi

secretary of the veterans demonstration spoke about the commitment when i spoke to him before coming to this event. we must also focus on improving the transition of venice go through as they become civilians. this has to include assuring all veterans are able to taken advantage of the programs available to them to help him be all they can be as civilians. all they canem be be as civilians. these are sacred responsibilities. this event and other initiatives to support veterans to demonstrate that the leadership of trojan nation understand and is intent on meeting its share of these responsibilities. in view of that and for all the u.s. he does, i once again -- in view of that in from usc does, i

want to thank you again. [applause] as i close, i want to take this opportunity to say thank you to those who provided words of the current sentiment family and me in recent months. the support meant a great deal as we saw to look forward rather than backward. this has been a difficult episode for us. experience can be instructive to others who stumble or fall as far as i did. one learns that life does not stop with such a mistake. it can and must go on. the effort to move forward over the rocky path of 1's own making , and worthnescapable it. i know i can never fully assuage

the pain i inflicted on those closest to me and on a number of others. in a try to move forward manner that is consistent to the values to which i subscribed before slipping my marines -- moorings and to make amends for those that i have let down, which is what i strive to do. in the past when i received an award, i would note that i was able to excepted on behalf of the men and women in uniform and homehe blood services for by was privileged to serve in the post 9/11 period. me -- applause for me was applause for them. tonight is an opportunity for me and for all of us to say thank you to those selfless americans who put it all on the line day

after it difficult to get under the toughest of conditions under the most challenging of enemies to help safeguard our fellow citizens and preserve our interests around the world. this room is full of such individuals. it was the greatest of privileges to serve with them and countless others like them during my time in uniform and that the cia. behas been a true honor to here this evening to help you recognize your current and future veterans service, as well as to discuss our nation's obligations to our veterans and their families. doing it has been a privilege to helpud usc efforts to active-duty service members who are part of trojan nation and to applaud the leadership of a great institution that shows its appreciation to those in its ranks who have served and moved

to serve. bless each and every one of you, our veterans and their families, and all those in harm's way tonight. go trojans. t on. >> coming up in a moment on "washington journal," a look at today's news and your phone calls and tweets. we will hear from a panel of airline ceo's. and coming up in 45 minutes, we will talk to a member of the national journal about guns, immigration and a look at senators who have announced their retirement. and a discussion on recent proposals to have missions help fill dr.'s