i know you hear this. you have business owners that say we can build the factories. we may not have americans that are going to be pulled to work the jobs. what are you doing oklahoma so when jobs, we have americans to put in there? >> i appreciate the discussion. there are two things. one is, we can do as republicans to help our state economies and our national economy is to create certainty within our own states. there were so much uncertainty in washington dc. we have shutdowns, sequesters. i had the opportunity to leave congress. we all got smart and came back home to do something else. as governors we are getting things done. unlike those in washington, we have to get things done. they will take us out of office if we do not get things done. >> can you talk about that?

i had a lot of people come up to me saying scarborough, i used to be republican. i am not one now. all those people don't limit plan ahead. i can't plan ahead for the next quarter. >> they could plan ahead because there are such uncertainty in washington dc. they start sitting on their money. they do not hire more people. banks get leery about loaning money. people get leery about loaning houses. what we have to do in our state is create certainty. a conservative friends that are still working today, keeping taxes low, limited government, take personal responsibility for the things. create the right work environment. education is the key to poverty. if we can help people get a better education, we can help

them get the job they need to they began being productive citizens in our nation. here is what we are doing in oklahoma. i'm trying to do it nationally. i had opportunity to serve at the national chair of the governor's association. we have an initiative that we launched. putting america back to work. it is called america works. education and training for tomorrow's jobs. what you find in america right now is that you do have companies that have move jobs overseas because we have a corporate tax rate. they cannot find the workers here. rules, regulations. some other type of policy. we are walking towards trying to get those companies. they are -- in order to do that and retain our jobs, we have to have the right skill sets. the right education to be able to provide those employers with the skills they need. right now we have a mismatch.

that is the spot. 79% of jobs in america only needed a high school degree to reset middle-class. to make a good wage in america. now because of technology and innovation, and how we travel across the world, now the number has dropped down to where it is not 79% anymore. we have a big skills gap. you can't just go show up with a high school degree and expect to get a job in a manufacturing plant. you have to have some kind of skills to read and write, to operate machinery that you have.

as a nation, we are falling behind. we are 14th in reading. we are 25th in math. out of 34 nations. we are abetting -- we are a better nation than that. if we are going to remain competitive we have to change our education system and address the needs of our employers. >> we need to open up to questions from you guys. rick perry, final question. is johnny got a win the heisman again? >> i don't have a clue. i play six man football. >> you're an aggie. you're supposed to say yeah. >> i have no idea. >> i will make a prediction. i'm very confident.

texas a&m will beat the hell out of lsu this weekend in football. >> any lsu fans out there? >> bring that on. >> let's open it up for questions. we have a microphone. just shouted out. that settled that. >> can i have the first question? >> you ask. >> not take anything away from education, but joe's question about fairness. i ran into a member of congress

>> venture capital firms. you have to think about this. it is not so simple. economics is complicated. when you work in business, you begin to understand how people make decisions. the question is, let's examine it instead of doing it in a way which -- ronald reagan wanted to cut marginal rates. >> we lower capital gains in 1997. we got to balance budget because we provided incentives. all this money on the sidelines, they are buying twitter ipo. i am not telling you that. we ought to have a flatter tax with fewer provisions for

people, loopholes. get the taxes flatter. it corporate taxes down. that will help us. frankly, a lower flatter tax for americans is good. i also happen to believe that an earned income tax credit. we have the largest tax cut in the united states in our last budget. we haven't earned income tax credits. it helps people. we lowered some of the income tax. that is a reagan philosophy. it helps them both ways. i haven't spent enough time thinking about it. it should be on the table. at the end of the day let's not do something that comes up venture capital that is grading the 21st century businesses. let's be careful about that. >> this is a question bout populism. i will keep going. to rick's dad or my dad, a lot of people think you have wall street, the dow over 16,000. are people losing?

falling further and further behind. we have too big to fail. even bigger to fail. there aren't a lot of conservatives with -- that would love talking about breaking up the banks. why do we keep allowing bad behavior to move forward and reward bad behavior? >> the conservative principle is that top-down concentrated power, whether it is from government or from business monopolies, we do not think it is a good thing.

it does not matter if it is inside government or out. that concentration of power that you can just team role people is never a good thing. we have not been that party. we still shouldn't be that party. we can do it. it doesn't have to just be on economic issues where we challenge the elite. that is the big source of energy in the republican party. outsiders and little guys against great concentrated power. governor jindal and jeb bush came to washington to stand up against the department of justice. they are choking education in louisiana. governor jindal had opened up the school system there to get 90% black kids, all of them in dns failing schools so they could choose a better school. just like michelle obama. they chose the best school for their kids. why shouldn't all kids have equal opportunity to choose the best school for their kids?

that is a great republican idea. you can take that into the inner-city. you can take that into lower middle-class voters. who should republicans favor? everybody. >> thank you guys so much. we appreciate it. thank you all for being here today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a conversation on the u.s. economy. on implement and the minimum wage. morici andare peter

joseph minarik. mcconville.james journal" live every day at 7 a.m. eastern. >> republican strategist adam navarro talks about presidential candidates in 2016. the republican party can appeal to key demographic rubes. -- groups. there are marks are over one hour. -- the remarks are over one hour. [applause] >> she was thinking of brushing up on her spanish to do that introduction that she did not want to offend me. i said i do not get easily offended. i am no george w. bush. the butchering of spanish does

not offend me very much. thank you for being here. neil was telling me this is the third event that the institute of institute oft the politics today. it seems you guys are busy. i want to thank you. i want to thank you for inviting me to new hampshire. new hampshire has a very special place in my heart. i am a mccainiac. winning here was one of the highlights of the campaign. i happen to love your national committee man, who has the coolest socks of any committee man. you have the baddest state slogan in the entire nation. i felt would have a conversation today about whether -- about where the republican party is. i'm not here to give you a history lesson and give you specifics.

this is the birthplace of politics. you know that. i want to talk big picture and my impressions. the party is in flux. we are reeling from two consecutive losses. we have lost to quest for the white house. the gop has become the party of the gap. we have a gap with women voters. the gap with latino voters. a gap with asian voters prayed voters. we have so many gaps that closing company should she was we have so many gaps that the clothing company should sue was for copyright infringement. as it comes to elections and how to win elections, one group things that republicans need to get more of the base out. another group that i belong to things that what we have to do

is grow the base. we cannot just rely on traditional republican voters. what i believe is that old, straight, white, male voters ain't what they used to be. i love old, straight, white males. i am married to one. i am friends with them. i even voted for several. they are not winning elections these days. that is a reality. demography matters in politics. that is what jeb bush said when i was with him. mitt romney got 27% of the latino vote. the percentage of latino voters is increasing and the percentage of white voters is decreasing. i know that can be scary to some people. let me give you the good news and bad news. the bad news is that we have you

surrounded. the good news is, we come in peace. it will be very hard for any candidate to get into the white house without a decent showing of latino vote. 20 some percent is not a decent showing. republicans need to win back some of that if we ever expect to go back inside the white house. the inside of the white house is nicer than the outside. republicans not only have to motivate the base. we have to grow the base. republicans need to make the tent bigger we will undersell standing under an umbrella. i'm a woman. i'm an immigrant. i miss panic. -- i am hispanic. i am a republican. i am an endangered species right now. i often get asked how can you possibly be a republican? why? explanation lies in my personal history. my family story shapes my views. i was born in nicaragua. there was a communist

revolution. after a bloody civil war, [indiscernible] they went about creating communism in our little country. at that point they made the decision of getting out of nicaragua. my father stay behind and became a contra freedom fighter. when your father is struggling to bring freedom back to your country, you realize at an early age that politics matters. election results matter. being a by standa -- being a bystander matters. i became a republican the night ronald reagan addressed congress. when you hear the president the united states of america at a state of the union address support and defend the right of

your home country to be free, that pretty much seals the deal about what party you're going to belong to for the rest of your life. that is why i became a republican before i knew what one was. i stayed republican because i believe in smaller government. i believe in entrepreneurship. i believe in american exceptionalism. i believe in a strong america internationally. i have remained a republican because i live in miami. i have lived in miami for 33 years. i'm are presented by folks like jeb bush. fans? are you an intern? [inaudible]

she is the best at that. republicans in florida, especially south florida, understand that if you want to win, you have to embrace diversity and understand it. you have to represented. i'm a proud republican. no qualifiers. no labels. no subcategories. i don't want to be called a tea party republican. a moderate publican. amoss republican. a libertarian republican. i don't want to be told by my party who have appointed themselves the republican purity police that i do not along. i do not want to be called a rino. go ahead and call me a rino. that stands for republican that is inclusive not traction this. i just want to be a republican

and focus on the things we agree on as a party. not the things we disagree on. i do not want to wage fights against republican second when individual districts and states. , crazy, but i would rather use our resources and energy beating democrats, not other republicans. mike lee can win utah. he cannot win in new hampshire. chris christie can win in new jersey. he would have a hard time winning in alabama. i do not care how many times ted cruz hugs barack obama. i do not think he can win the majority of the latino vote, the women vote, in new jersey. i want to win elections. it requires fielding candidates that can win. fielding candidates that fit the population priorities of where they are running. it is better than losing publican candidates with whom i agree all of the time. because this is new hampshire, i

want to make this aside. kelly is a winning republican candidate. she is a better senator. she is thoughtful. she is courageous. she has guts. she worries about priorities in new hampshire. not republican primaries. as ted cruz and the senate conservatives found out, do not tread on kelly. she bites back. if you asked what the biggest problems the party faces, there are many issues. the most harmful one is the perception that we are intolerant to those who think differently. often in our own party. we have to reflect the diversity of thought. it is ok for republicans to disagree on issues. to disagree on tactics. as long as we agree on values.

you may not know it from watching cable tv or listening to talk radio, but not all republicans oppose gay marriage. not all republicans oppose immigration reform. i want to talk more detail about immigration reform. we must pass it. the system is broke. not doing anything is endorsing the status quo. we must pass it because it makes economic sense. it makes national security sense. every hispanic will tell you the same thing. immigration is not a priority issue for hispanic voters greeted sometimes it is not even in the top five. what it is an emotional issue. it is a gateway issue. too often the immigration debate turns hostile and ugly. you often it sounds like there are some folks who don't want us in this country.

unfortunately, more often than not, dear members of my party. let me assure you, [indiscernible] if they think you do not like them, do want them to be members of the club, and a likelihood they won't like you back and will let you -- and will not elect you. on election night 2012, i said mitt romney self deported from the white house. where are we on immigration reform? i'm not sure we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in united states preyed most rational people believe we should not round them up and deport them in mass. most rational people agree that we do not want to be left picking our own produce, cutting our own hair, operating our own hearts and brains. most rational people believe we need to secure our borders, attract and keep talented foreign students and workers. not offer blank check amnesty. not punish kids for the actions of their parents. but tough but fair requirements in place as a condition to

earning legal status. most rational people approve a a path to legalization. you must be asking yourself, how come we can't get anything done? the answer is simple. there is a lot of irrational people running our government. fortunately believe it or not, i think it seems harder to believe some days, there are still rational people left in washington. unfortunately, some of them happen to be in republican leadership. i spoke the john boehner. he wants to immigration done. he has to find a way to do it so that it passes the house. sometimes that is mutually exclusive. it is not an easy needle to

thread. i think it is premature to say the immigration reform is dead. it is not going to happen this year. i keep hope alive that it may make a recovery and wake up sometime spring of next year. we will see. if we immigration reform done and on the table, then publican's can talk to hispanics and other minority groups about other issues that are a priority to us. too often i hear folks say that if we pass immigration reform, we will create 11 million new democrats. people who espouse this theory have one thing in common. not one of them is hispanic. there are other things. hispanics know and understand that we are not one big monolithic block. hispanics are not going to vote republican because we pass immigration reform. the republican party will have to fight for the heart and soul and vote of immigrants.

i do know that the way to lose voters for sure is to assume you can never win them, and never make an effort. there are other things the gop needs to do to broaden the base. every male republican candidate needs to be given a biology class on a woman's reproductive system. the republican platform should include a clause whereby any republican candidate utters the word rate at anything other than a violent act against an individual, they will be cut into pieces and thrown into a tank of sharks. enough with that. part of the reason this happens because there are not enough women elected as republicans. if there were, i have to believe will make a difference on how republicans would talk to, talk with, and talk about women. it is time for the voices to make themselves heard. if one elected republican says

something stupid, something offensive, there should be 10 republicans that immediately repudiate the statements and make a they are not representative of the entire party. we cannot be lukewarm about it. it is not ok to say that is not the language i would have used. we have to call stupid, stupid. if you change of tone on so many issues. not just women's issues. this includes issues like gay rights. we have to change on gay rights. the senate voted on a vote ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. it passed with 10 publican votes. 50% of republicans under 44 years old support marriage equality. i support gay marriage because i think that it is consistent with republican values.

if we are the party of personal freedom, that includes the freedom to marry whomever you want. if we are the party of states rights, that means we have to respect states like new hampshire who choose to give citizens the right to marry. if we are the party that once less abortions and more adoptions, we can't stand in the way of a loving gay couple who wants to adopt a child who is the custody of the state. i feel this way, i didn't need to evolve. i have many gay friends. i cannot reconcile telling somebody i love and respect that i love and respect them, but i think they are entitled to less rights than i am because they have a different sexual orientation. i cannot reconcile that. i also think we have to start being the party of ideas again. we have to offer solutions. we propose alternatives. we cannot be the party of no.

i do not want to sound negative about the gop. i think it frustrated. i rarely get discouraged. i believe there are candidates out there who can be game changers. you can change the debate and tell him. who can change the message. reach out beyond traditional voters. go seek votes in places where republicans have stopped going. jeb bush did it in a purple state. susana martinez is doing in a swing state. this is not mission impossible. we have got to do it. we cannot just think about doing it. the democrats were stuck in a similar rut from carter and till 1992 when clinton came along. he brought energy, ideas, and a positive outlook. he told us not to stop thinking about tomorrow. it took democrats three elections to get their groove back.

12 years of painful losses. for them to get past internal differences and find a candidate that could unite behind. i am hoping it takes just two losses. with that positive note, i would like to open it up to questions. >> hi. one criticism i have been hearing about why you are seeing so many candidates who can't reach across the aisle, who can't appeal outside of their own demographics is because of gerrymandering. you have these ultrasafe districts.

you do not need to be more inclusive candidates to win. do you agree with that? do you think the republican party should get behind initiatives to have more nonpartisan districts? i agree with that. gerrymandering has a lot to do with where we are right now. that is not just a problem for republicans. it is a problem for democrats. it is more visible for republicans lately. there is going to be some state republicans get behind initiatives. there can be somewhere they don't. all politics is local. people like safe districts. it is a hard argument to make. i think the courts are going to decide in some cases, in some states. i also think that we have to look for candidates who are big thinkers.

not just small thinkers. who can think about the greater good, not just their own good. that has happened in primaries. i think primaries are where a lot of the problems are happening. definitely gerrymandering has contributed to these problems. amongst many others. cable tv is contributing. it has become a very polarizing force in american apolo ohno -- and has become a polarizing force in politics. too often, what we see from republicans on tv is republicans that say crazy colorful things because they are quotable. it turns into further press.

i have had times where i was booked on a sunday show, and it was the week of the decision on gay marriage. i got a call from a tv book are about friday asking me where i was on gay marriage. i said i'm supportive of gay marriage. she called me back 15 minutes later and said we are going to go in another direction. we want somebody that is against it. that person can get into a fight with hillary rosen. that is what makes ratings. we complain his viewers that we do not like polarization. but that is what we watch. i think that we have the power to change it. we just have to realize we have that power.

we have to do it. >> hi. you talk about how there are these divisions of the republican party. the tea party, moderates, radicals. do you ever talk about -- the changes you would like to see happen, are you worried that bringing changes in is going to create more, to divide us more? >> i have a hard time imagining that we could be even more divided than we are now. i shouldn't say that. because i shouldn't say that. no, i do not think broadening the base good divide us more. i think broadening the base can win elections. the funny thing about winning

elections, they are therapeutic when it comes to healing divisions and friction. we are going to endure this growing pain, healthy debate, insanity. we are going to have to endure for the next year and a half, two years, the glass we have a nominee that set the tone. i hope it is a nominee that sets the tone of uniting us, and yang the country behind the public and ideas. i hope it is a nominee that leaves the power of persuasion and off the power of anger. this is something that we are going to have to plow through. i don't see how getting more people in is more divisive. getting people out is divisive. i do not think we have the luxury. should the tea party breakaway

from the public and party, or should sell and so? we are not winning elections. it is building a bigger party. >> thank you for your talk read i'm a professor of theology here. i have a question for you. >> you think republicans need prayer? >> the republicans have a lot to offer. i want to ask you about jon huntsman. i'm going to admit that i'm a democrat. i tend to vote democratic. i saw what jon huntsman had to offer and i'm pretty sure nine times out of 10, if he were the candidate, he would've had my vote.

he is a man with cents, a big vision. he is able to reach out to people. i know that you already know this. you were on his team. what do you think strategies would you suggest for getting a candidate like huntsman, getting a chance to have a shot beyond a little bit into the primary? this is really important. on the perspective of a moderate, that is the candidate you need. why is it so hard to get a guy like him into play? >> it is too bad the republican primary is held in universities. there are a lot of jon huntsman fans in universities. i think jon huntsman is a great guy. i chose to support them because

ideologically, he was the one out of the field that i agree the most with. sometimes very good people, who might even be good governing, don't make the best candidates. i have to tell you. he wasn't too fond of fundraising. it is terrible to be asking people for money all of the time. it is one of the worst parts of politics. it is a necessary evil. he just didn't cut three.

i also think john, who i respect and like, has a tremendous family. jon has become a nonfactor in the republican party. and the democrat party. just to give you an example, last year, chris christie wasn't invited to tea pack -- tpac. that was fodder for days. how chris christie, potential 2016, bigger than life, wasn't invited. jon was invited and no one noticed. somehow, even though people like jeb bush and bobby jindal, like chris christie have been critical of the republican party, particularly in washington, a somehow managed to do it from within the tent. i can't do my thing ron why -- i can't put my finger on why that doesn't translate the same way. i would like to see him be a

bigger factor than what he is. but, really, outside of moderate democrats like you in academia, the jon huntsman contingency is small. >> hello. i'm a chairman of the college republicans. >> i know who you are. >> i retweet you. >> i am happy to see you look normal. you have a twitter fascination with me. >> i agree with you so much i can't help it. i was an intern on jon

huntsman's campaign i agree with your analysis on him. i just wanted to say thank you for having the guts to call out stupid as you see it. i actually was honored to sign on to the amicus brief, the supreme court that you joined onto. they key for being one of the sane voices. for giving me hope that there is a bright future ahead for our party. i do have two questions regarding that. what would you say about obama care? i asked because while generally we were universally against it, i do think that lately our town has been sounding like a witchhunt. everyone thinks they will be a winning issue. i'm not so convinced just yet.

i'm curious about your thoughts on that. secondly, i was curious about what you think the gop civil war. i have been told to tone it down, be friendly. show an image of you making -- >> who is telling you this? >> the party. we want to make sure that we look healthy. >> live free or die. [laughter] >> amen to that. >> on your second question, i'm not too fond of the term civil war when it comes to what is going on in the republican party. maybe because i lived through one. one of the things that i really hate that is happening in politics, and political commentating today, trivializing

of words like hostage, civil war. to me those things mean something. we have to make an effort to tone down and be more temperate voices, and use more rational qualifiers to describe what is going on. that is part of the problem. i do not see it as a civil war. i see it as what happens when a party is out of power, and there isn't one unifying voice. as i ask you guys right now, who is the leader of the republican party today? >> boehner?

alexi is my friend. i will tell him that he has one person who thinks he is the leader. >> [inaudible] >> it isn't john boehner. he has no control over his caucus. even in the senate, you look at ted cruz. he was --it is so loose. i would say chris christie. >> if i went around this room and i asked everybody who their leader is, either we get no answer, or 40 different answers. when you do not have somebody that sets the standards, this happens. people start talking. you start sounding dysfunctional. that is happening to republicans. it hasn't happened to democrats

because they have a president in the white house. there is no bigger bully pulpit than the presidency. frankly, he keeps them in line. when the progressive democrats want to go off the reservation, they have ways of keeping them in line. all sorts of things. i think that is one of the problems we are having. i think it is a result of being out of the white house for this long. they are not being one identifiable leader. there is not somebody today that is the likely nominee. it is an open field. it is going to -- we're going to do get out. issues. this is what it will be like for the next year, year and a half. i do think there has been a change in the last month as a

result of the overplayed on the shutdown. years,ut the last two the non--tea party, the republicans without qualifiers as i like to call them, they look the other way when this group was doing their thing. i think the government shutdown was the straw that took the camels back. you saw it. they went in to the gop conference lunch. that was the one who opened up the front door and said stop treading on me. stop raising money. why are you doing this? that opened up the floodgates all of a sudden. to confront the issue. all the other ones started telling on and asking the same

questions. has beenst two weeks from that moree acerbic part of the party. is involved. the tea party action is involved . the non-tea party faction is involved. there also is a way of just not being defined and allowing the brand to be defined by one very vocal group. srankly one tea party account for about 10 daily. they go to protests out in the cold in the rain. it takes an awful lot to get me to purchase something these days. recharged the

different factions in the republican party. i think things like the shutdown has had that one good effect. the only good effect. on your first question the best happen to the obamacare was the government shutdown. we would not know it was a debacle. i remember asking a guy who is defending it who helped design about two and a half weeks in when we started talking about obamacare and the website and all the different problems. they were calling it glitches. i said when can we start calling these glitches a debacle? he said by the middle of november if the website is not finished. today is november 19. it is a tremendous debacle. it's not just the website. it's incredible that the greatest country in the world

has spent hundreds of millions of dollars loving a website, -- building a website, and the thing doesn't work. i am tired of hearing excuses that it is going to work by november 30, when it likely is not. there is more than the website. the website is the least of their problems. it is perhaps most embarrassing. in life you get one chance to make a first impression. that is the first impression you made. we are seeing democrats like diane feinstein getting behind efforts on policy, on issues like the cancellation of policies, and that isn't going to go away. that is going to get more complicated, because the mandate

comes into affect. there are a lot of small and midsized businesses. we own hotels. business people are looking at paying the fine, canceling the policies, and putting the employees on the exchanges. i think we have to show self- restraint, so self disciplined. this is painful for the entire country. i think we need to come to terms with the fact there are aspects of obamacare the american people like. >> repeal, replace. i get worried when i hear those

words. >> the smartest thing we can do is start formulating positive alternatives, showing that republican solution is better than a plan passed by one party. thank you. >> let me just say senator john mccain is the reason i became a republican, and he is the man i would most like to see be president today. >> you know he is cranky.

>> i wouldn't want to be on his bad side. >> if john mccain was in the white house and spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a website, and it didn't work. he may not know how to turn on a computer, but somebody's head would have rolled, literally. >> most definitely. i agree with 80% of what you have said today. i think we are glossing over when it comes to the issue of redefining marriage. we are not -- if we redefined it would that not explicitly changed two realities such as gender differentiation and procreation?

>> i'm having a hard time understanding what you are asking. >> less likely to have husbands and wives and children. >> you are saying gay marriage would -- >> the stability of the gay marriage. -- the nuclear family. >> you have had gay marriage for a couple years now. how is it going? are a bunch of straight people turning gay or leaving their wives and husbands because gay people are getting married? >> i think 41% of children are born out of wedlock, and typically when someone endorses that view, according to polls, when people view a redefined image of mary they are less

likely to see children important. the generational gap shows up with children as well. -- with parenting as well. i understand there are legalities that help people who domestically depend upon each other to help them out. i think that could help with civil unions, but would not redefining marriage help in such a way? where are you from? >> syracuse, new york. >> it is legal there. you can move to alabama. >> certainly there is a social cost. >> your question is a serious question. first, when we talk about traditional marriage, what is traditional marriage nowadays? over 50% of marriages end in

divorce. so many live in blended families, second wives, second husbands, kids blending with kids from that family. the only difference between gay couples and straight couples is that gay couples can't get pregnant by accident. the vast majority of gay people who end up having children or adopting children or doing whatever they have to do, really have to work at it. it cost them a lot of money. many times gay couples have adopted children with disabilities, with problems. i have a friend who adopted to crack babies. it's a complicated issue, because it involves religion and social taboos. in my mind, sexuality is not

equivalent to morality. i think if we are going to allow somebody to adopt a child or have a child, where you go through some scrutiny, gay people need to go through the same scrutiny as straight people on whether they are fit to be adoptive parents, but i think their sexuality does not make them unfit. i don't see -- i don't see a connection between gay people being married as a threat to marriage. i would argue the people who most want to get married right now our gay people. most straight people are waiting well into their 30's and even 40's to get married, have children if they do so at all. part of the reason we need

immigration is because our fertility has fallen, because we are not having children up the same rate we used to. i think we have to come to terms with the fact that traditional marriage is not what it used to be when june cleaver was around. the bottom line is this. i am being pragmatic. gay marriage, gay rights, that train left the station. by the end of this year there is going to be 17 states in the district -- and the district of columbia that allow gay marriage. it's very hard to take away rights once you have given them. it's easy not to give them in the first place. we are going to see what it means in terms of the family and marriage and the sanctity of marriage and all that.

i agree you cannot force a religion. the reality today is there are going to be probably 17 states by the end of this year -- we are waiting for the illinois ought to get signed and new mexico to be decided, but there could be up to 17 states by the end of this year and the next several months that have gay marriage. that number is going to grow. this debate is on the brink of becoming moot. >> surely there are some social costs. if we look at countries such as the netherlands and sweden, cohabitation is getting greater. >> is that because of gay marriage? >> i think so. >> it's because straight people don't want to get married.

>> i think we've made it into a quaint social custom. i think our policy would be better served strengthening marriage. >> how does gay marriage we can marriage -- weaken marriage? >> by redefining marriage you associate it with decades of discrimination. often you marginalize those people who hold marriage to a strong standard. >> you are saying because gay marriage -- because gay people can't get married marriages trivialized and not as legitimate, and i am going to the marginalized and abstain from marriage? i am going to boycott marriage because gays are getting married?

>> i think it changes what marriage is. >> give it a couple years. we are going to have statistics and a couple years. there are 17 states. if all of a sudden you see a bunch of straight people are divorcing because of gay marriage, and it is on the form, reason of marriages going to be because i am protesting because of gay marriage, then i will agree with you. until then, i am sticking to my erie. -- theory. >> would it not dilute areas if we relegate it to a social contract? >> it is a social contract. if you are an atheist, what the hell is it? it's not a contract?

>> i think it should be more than a contract. >> have you heard pope francis on this stuff lately? surely if the catholic church can shift a little -- >> it's not shifting. he's just using a different tone. by fighting the catholic church has shifted tremendously, not just on gay marriage but in general -- i think the catholic church has shifted tremendously, not just on gay marriage but in general. i think it shows you what one person can do when they choose to lead, when they choose to stop being judgmental, and when they lead by example and they lead with love, not with judgment. iran.

it's an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you for braving the weather and the pre-pre-holiday traffic to join us tonight or what i'm sure will be a fascinating discussion. before we begin, i would like to take a couple of minutes of your time to take -- to talk about some upcoming events and about the council year-end campaign, which begins next week. on december 4, the town so hosts dr. henry kissinger for a

luncheon at the fairmont hotel. dr. kissinger's topic will be the a ship hit it -- asia pivot strategy. on december 4, the council's annual international .oliday affair we will be honoring the ambassador of rozelle and his diplomatic team at the 2014 global education gala in march -- the ambassador of brazil. this kicks off what will be an extended series of activities with brazil in the coming years. the annual giving campaign gets going next week, and i invite you to consider supporting the international and affairs and global education program, especially our programs with high school teachers and students to bring a much-needed global education into our classrooms.

there are many ways you can help . become a sponsor of our global education program, sponsor one teacher or one student or tend to attend one of our events, or the easiest of all, and i hope one that everyone here who shops online will consider, if you purchase items on amazon.com, please do so via our website. go to our homepage, click on the icon for amazon, and shop as usual. we will receive 3% of every purchase. it's seamless, anonymous, and it really helps, and it is no additional cost to you. i thank you for considering support of the world affairs council in these ways. before adam gives us the signal that we are ready to begin, let me remind you that this rogue ram is being filmed for c-span and for later broadcast -- this program is being filmed for c- span and for later broadcast. please turn off your phone at

this time. welcome to the world affairs council, washington, d.c.. i am president of the council, and on behalf of the board of directors and advisory committee, i welcome you here this evening to our foreign policy series discussion on the recently signed interim agreement between iran and the p5 plus germany and geneva. we have gathered a distinguished panel of experts who will walk us through what just happened and what may lie ahead. headlines during the last 48 hours have run the entire spectrum from victory for iran obamastoric mistake to achieves historic measure. most comments have followed what has become a redeemable republican/democrat divide, but recent polls indicate that nearly 2/3 of all americans support an agreement with iran at would lift sanctions for iran in return for tehran restricting its nuclear program.

what is undeniable is that there are many layers to this cake, and we look forward to hearing from our panelists as they discuss whether the agreement brings new hope for nuclear negotiations with iran or further disappointment. our panelists are no strangers to the world affairs council audiences. we welcome back all three. ambassador john bloomberg is professor at the united -- professor of international affairs at the united states naval academy -- ambassador john limbert. tehran at the u.s. embassy where he was held captive during the iran hostage crisis. his last postings at state were as dean of the forest institute language studies. parsi is the founder

and president of the national iranian american council and author of two books, "treacherous alliance," which won the silver medallion from the n foreman mutations, and "a single roll of the dice," which was selected by foreign affairs as the best book of 2012 on the .iddle east our moderator is a washington correspondent and a senior fellow at the atlantic council, where she focuses on iran. she is a regular commentator on u.s. foreign policy and iran. she is the author of the 2007 book "bitter friends, bosom enemies." ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] thank you very much. thank you for coming out on a cold and nasty night, but i think the news of this past weekend is sufficient enough to pique everyone's interest.

i guess you will have to do another book called "another roll of the dice" or "several roles of the dice." last marcha report that made a number of recommendations, and i'm very pleased to say it appears that people were listening. if you go back and look at that report, you will see that the agreement that was reached and some of the other measures that were part of this agreement were all recommendations of the atlantic council task force. enough of a commercial for our efforts. i promised i would play devil's advocate a little bit because, as you will see, i think we generally agree that this is a positive development. let me briefly sketch some of the main elements of the deal. iran stops producing uranium .hat is enriched to 20% this is very close to weapons grade. iran will stop it and take the stockpile and has an turn it

into a form that cannot easily be made into weapons. ins puts time on the clock terms of whether iran could break out and make a nuclear weapon. iran also will stop most of its work at a place called arak, which is a heavy water reactor. if completed, it could yield plutonium in its spent fuel, and iran has basically agreed to pause on this as well for six months. iranians are not going to add any new centrifuges to the 10,000 that are spinning away. they are going to give the international atomic energy agency daily access to their enrichment facilities. right now, the iaea gets to go about once a week. i understand there will also be remote monitoring cameras installed. at least according to one account. more transparency and limits on the program and turning the stock piles into less dangerous forms.

the iranians will continue to enrich uranium to five percent -- 5%. they say they will not increase their stockpile. they will take their excess and turn it into again at how to form, a form that cannot be readily turned into weapons, but they will still have a stop asle, which could give them half dozen nuclear bombs -- but they will still have a stockpile . putting on my hat is the devil's advocate here, this agreement does not force iran to dismantle a single centrifuge or enrichment plant -- i'm sorry, you cannot hear? do you hear me now? do you hear me now? ok. everybody else seems to be able to hear me. i thought i was talking in a loud enough voice, but let me continue. to play devil's advocate, this

agreement does not oblige the iranians to dismantle a single centrifuge or take apart any of their nuclear infrastructure. what it does is it pauses the program, and it events iran from continuing to advance -- prevents iran from continuing to advance to the point where it could make nuclear weapons. the united states and the rest of the perm five and germany are supposed to negotiate an beeement with iran that will more long-lasting. although how long-lasting is something that is not clear. my general take from this is that this is an excellent first step. i think the reason why i'm pleased about it is because it resulted from the most intensive one-on-one negotiations between the united states and iran that we have seen since the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when we did have such talks. those of you who have read my

book know that we did have such talks with the iranians after 9/11 for about a year and a half. however, there were more talks this time. they were at a higher level between our deputy secretary of state and others from the iranian government, and the result is certainly historic. we have not seen an agreement like this ever between the united dates and the islamic republic of iran. if it works, it means we may see progress on other issues in the middle east where iran has taken a different side from the united begin to seee may real progress on bilateral relations between the u.s. and iran. if it fails, though, it will be an enormous disappointment, and we will hear not only u.s. congress calling for more thetions, but we will hear israelis, prime minister netanyahu talking about military action against iran. hopefully all of you can hear

me. that's where we are now. i want to turn to our very excellent speakers. arsi becauseta p for this in geneva round -- actually two rounds, so he really knows what the drama was like, what the tdm was like, and can set the scene of how this came about. was it because of the john kerry andf the iranian foreign minister? was it because of the back channel work of no burns? was it because of wendy sherman and baroness ashton? you tell us. >> thank you. it is a great pleasure being here. it is always a great pleasure to be here with my two good friends , who i owe both quite a lot to when it comes to understanding this issue. much of at play that devil's advocate, i think. you were quite positive about this deal, and rightly so in my view.

it was a very interesting atmosphere in geneva. the last day was actually quite tough. there were some long moments where a large number of journalists were actually sitting in the lobby of the intercontinental hotel in geneva as negotiators were on some of the upper floors, and they were starting to get a sense that this may actually not work out. in the beginning, i think the vast majority were quite optimistic for a very simple reason -- the cost of failure is for both sides. there is a symmetric situation in the sense that neither side can feel particularly comfortable walking away inking, "even if there is no deal we are in a pretty good situation here cup -- situation." of the difficulty for the rouhani government to retain the current position that they have, if they cannot deliver on

negotiations, they have presented themselves -- and i think rightly so -- to be dramatically different from beadinejad's crowd, and to able to handle diplomacy and a sophisticated way, but they need to be two to tango, and if they could not tango, they would not be able to get some of the sanctions released that they were looking for, which means the economy would continue to suffer. at some point within the next year or year and a half, much of the popular support for the president would be lost, which would eliminate his real leverage within the in the. ultimately, i think we know that very well over here -- once the proclamation -- once the population grows disillusioned with the idea or the hopes the president puts forward, the support amongst the population tends to erode, and this will definitely happen to the iranians at some point, to the rouhani team if they could not get a deal. from the president's perspective, if there is not a deal, if they actually finally determined effort, a

effort at diplomacy and still, they could not get to it, then the arguments that diplomacy had been exhausted would, for the first time, actually carry some degree of truth in it. that would create a scenario in which the voices in favor of military action would quadruple. the president just had a very bad experience trying to push for war, and he got quite a lot of pushback from the population. this would certainly not be a route he would like to go down again, but more importantly, this is not a winnable war, and this is a president who kind of got a nobel peace prize on credit. now he is looking for an opportunity to create a legacy. looking around the middle east and asking iurself which one issue could potentially get some success on in the next year, two years and a half before i have to leave office to at least leave some

sort of a legacy, something positive, paradoxically, iran is now the lowest hanging fruit in the middle east. syria is a disaster. israel-palestine is always not looking particularly good success.a process of that is one of the major factors haso why the president and hisd political will own name towards this process in a way that he has not done since he took office. creating a they are genetically different situation than has ever had existed. it did not mean that it was

easy. the talks were supposed to end friday, but they continued on to saturday. that is when john kerry showed up. a lot of us were thinking, they are only showing up because the deal is already had. it caps on dragging on. was that john kerry has to go to london the day after. he had to have a meeting with the british foreign minister. the british foreign minister was staying at the same hotel. on, people started to think, they have to walk home without a deal. how is that going to be with ?hat -- for john kerry he put his name on the line to get a nuclear deal and twice he

would have to walk home empty- handed. we are hearing munich, surrender. imagine what would happen if he did not get a deal. end, it was quite dramatic and a lot of people thought it would not happen. journalistiranian run down the stairs towards her laptop. the person must have known something. to talkomats tended much more with their generalist than the american diplomats. the american diplomats hardly said a word. everyone thought, ok, something is happening. she says, there is a deal. logistics.rking out it starts to spread, but there

is no confirmation. the only person who knows about it is one iranian journalist. there was a lot of confusion taking place. for about an hour, a lot of people thought there is no deal. was confirmedt later on there was a deal. partly because they were debating how and where and when will they have the signing ceremony. it was a signing ceremony without an audience. they had a media center 10 minutes away. some of the negotiators do not like to have media. this was all done without journalists in the room. after 23 hours of negotiations. gave about a 40

minute presentation. you could never have expected he was awake for 23 hours. these guys were negotiating. the presentation was made. if i have a couple of minutes to say a couple of things. the white house has not been given a fair treatment in the media, references to munich, it is absurd. the radiance give the -- the iranians gave the vast majority of concessions in this round. they did so because of the -- in the second round, it will balance out. in the second round, the main

leverages of both sides will be traded. ,hat is from the american side banking sanctions and oil sanctions. from the iranian side, they will agree to the additional inspections access to the .arious iaea -- it is understandable that if one looks at it, it may leave that impression. from the iranian side, it is 19,000 centrifuge the got the americans to the table. the bush administration refused to come to the table. to -- wethey offered

said no because we were committed to the idea that they should be enrichment at the time. lo and behold, they have 19,000. on a lots have built of added leverage that they are trading away. i am not so sure that either side managed to outpace the other. if anything, i think both sides have exhausted their pipedreams. the iranian pipe dream with an was aered nuclear program pipe dream, never going to happen. the western pipe dream that you could push back the iranians and have them surrender and give up their nuclear program was also a pipe dream. we lost a dreams -- we lost eight years chasing that pipe dream. play.ds left to

as a result, they are doing what makes diplomacy happen. what is that? both sides have accepted each other's bottom line. the west has accepted that the iranians will keep enrichment, but it will be limited. this is enabling the iranians to say that the right to enrichment will be respected. the iranians have accepted the .mericans bottom line iran will not have a nuclear weapon. inspections and the other limitations, the iranians will no longer have an undetectable breakout capability . if they try to cheat, we will know very soon and we will have plenty of time to do something about it. the two bottom lines have now converged. i have to say, it is not a done

deal. challenge may be more on the american side. it is not in the hands of the president. i have no doubt he would be able to deliver on it. sanctions that have to move through congress. the president can use waiver is, but i have doubts as to whether they can be of final complete permanent solution that ends the issue if the sanctions are still on the books, but every six months and every future president honors the deal by continuing to use his waivers. but i doubt the iranians would go along with that. waiving sanctions is an inherently reversible m