office in the west wing and chaired a task force in front -- in charge of the president health-care initiative. today is a former senator and secretary of state political legacy is still unfolding. learn more about hillary clinton when it airs live tomorrow at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span3. you can also listen on c-span radio. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, offering complete coverage of the house and senate. we are c-span, created by the cable-tv industry 30 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next, a preview of the

upcoming elections this year. this roundtable includes a closer look at some of the congressional and governors races generating national attention. this is one hour. "washington journal" continues. to focus ont midterm election politics. joining us is jennifer duffy and nathan gonzales. good morning. talk about house races. how many are truly competitive and how does this compare to previous election cycles? we have 52 house races out of 145 on our list. it roughly falls for the target is for midday election cycles. compare to past wave cycles, previous to election day there were almost 100 seats on

our competitive list. now we're down to 50. part of the explanation is we have a round of redistricting under our belts where there was somes -- and there was uncertainty. depending on what the national political environment is, we could see that number grow. this could roughly be the field we have for the next 11 months. how many truly tossup races and how many are we onlyive now? guest: have three races, two democrat. -- two democrat and tossup. there are three seats that are leaning in republican's direction. however this is going to change.

one of the reasons there aren't more seats as we are really waiting to see the outcome of some of these primaries. this is particularly true in places like north carolina. republicans have the advantage of only having 16 seats up. those 15 seats, 13 of them are in very red states. don't have that much opportunity to expand the field. kentucky, there have been talks of trying to get a good candidate in mississippi. republicans have a very different picture. they are fighting on pretty friendly ground. there are a lot of formidable seats in red states. they also have more potential to grow, especially if the political landscape favors them.

they might have enough to make the case and some other races. that short list is going to get a lot longer. host: oath guests understand the geopolitical print -- understand the geography of states. you can send us an e-mail or send us a tweet at c-span wj. let's look at what it would take for the democrats to take control of the house of representatives. republicans have 234 seats. and net gain of 17 would flip the house from republican to democrat. when we look at the 52 seats on our competitive lists, it is not a matter of only winning 17 out of 52 seats.

democrats are defending half of those 52 seats. they not only have to win the seats they are defending but then also gained 17 more. there have been some pretty critical republican thatessional districts kept open. these are seats democrats have been salivating over four years. democrats have some of their own open seats. out any potential gains democrats may win by getting those democrat -- by getting those seats. take almost a small miracle at this point. it is not the type of election or type of environment the credits need to win those seats.

in terms of the u.s. senate, the democrats have 55 seats. 45 for the republicans. republicans need six seats, that assumes they do not lose any of their own. important they hold on in kentucky and georgia. if they can't the road just gets a lot steeper. we talked about the three seats already leaning in republicans direction. would have to win three of the remaining seats we consider vulnerable. louisiana, arkansas, michigan, iowa, north carolina.

that requires being incumbent. i am not at a place where i am willing to say the senate has a 50-50 proposition. a poll that shows little faith and no news here. pretty evenly split when it comes to the house of representatives's 45. president's own job approval rating is in the low 40's. guest: a tie is a most a win for republicans. that number needs to creep up democrats in order to have a distinct chance of taking back the house. i want to begin by that

begin with an ad that was released last week. -- by an ad that was released last week. [video clip] of a voice have much but i have been helped by somebody with a new big as somebody with a big voice. -- somebody with a big voice. i was exposed to radiation. .ike many others i got a cancer mitch mcconnell stepped in and helped create cancer screening programs and provide compensation for sick workers. us andked down walls for helped save people's lives. gives a voice to kentucky's working family. i would like to raise my voice. we are represented by a man who

has worked hard for us and always will. >> i am mitch mcconnell and i approved this message. host: is this effective? different.s it is not the full be role. -role.l b he pushes back against the democratic argument that he has done nothing for the state. i thought it was interesting that one of the first press releases attacking this ad was from the same conservatives who accused him of running your marks, which i thought was a little far field of a point. it shows you that he gets squeezed by the right. overall it is a fairly effective at. guest: this is january of the

election year. this is an early ad but it shows how much money is going to be spent. it was a one minute at in january. it shows you we are on pace for an election that is going to be millions of dollars. not onlya primary challenge, wt -- matt? >> he is not a kentucky native, something we are going to hear a lot more about. he believes that mcconnell is part of the problem here. he is not a conservative. i think the mcconnell com ampaign has done very well in not giving him too much room to maneuver.

rand paul until it's too late, and i think the lesson that the mechanical -- mcconnell fulks learned was that we were not going to do that again. there's very little room to maneuver, nothing that goes unanswered. they follow him around, they have caught every mistake he has made. he is not going to get a free road to do much. that is going to make it hard, mcconnell has about a 20 point lead now. does he question is, have the personal resources, and how much of that is he willing to put into this race? host: a radio ad from friday. >> mitch mcconnell is telling his pals of washington dc that

this senate race is the battle for the heart and soul of the republican party. what is really at stake is so much more than that. this is a battle for the hea rt and soul of the entire clinical process. will we continue to have a by, and forf, the people, or of, by, and for a handful of politicians? this is about the future of kentucky, and the future of the united states of america. i am matt bevin, and i approved this message because after 30 years, conduct he deserves another -- kentucky deserves better. host: the primary challenge with thetor mitch mcconnell, mcconnell campaign said that they were into law prevent -- in

too long. for the heart and soul of the republican party, because it is almost verbatim to a column that we wrote about how important this race is. if these antiestablishment conservatives are able to knock off mitch mcconnell, it is going a shockwaved through the republican party, give some of these other races that are later in the calendar some momentum. theymay not be the race, may get a couple of victories this cycle, it is maybe a little bit later on in the calendar. -- kentuckypublican primary is coming up in the calendar.

louisiana is a pure tossup at the moment, what is happening at that -- in that state? yup to remember that it has become increasingly more republican, which makes the child a little bit harder -- the challenge a little bit harder. the congressman who is fairly conservative, although the tea party would like a more conservative candidate. guyt of them are actually a ired airng a roet force officer. of jungleaving a sort primary on election day, it is no can enhance 50%, we will have a runoff on december 6. we will have until them to figure out who controls the senate. the numbers are not good,

largely because of her vote on health care. any support that she is given to president obama is not well received. flipside, she is going to be chairman of the energy committee, it is a big deal in louisiana. she's getting a lot of business support as a result. her campaign will be very well-funded. there is a reason she has started to challenge the president on something, most notably health care. she would voteid for it again if she had the chance, and this is going to be a very interesting race, and a late in the game player. host: we will get to your calls and comments in the northeast -- comments. it is back andt the new hampshire district. -- forth in the new

hampshire district. guest: those are all pretty key races when it comes to the house. two primary opponents, one of which is compiling a list of credible as an putting together a real campaign. he has to deal with that. republican who narrowly lost last time, you're going to -- the democrats are going to try to tighten to the him to the teae party. a retired air force pilot who rumsfeld the last time she was here.

slow to get her campaign up and running, and those are two key races. host: these are early numbers, because these are campaigns that will exceed over $1 billion this year. cs,terms of the super pa $20.5 million so far. these campaigns have not even gotten underway. guest: there are a handful that have been on the air, but a lot have not. majority onn this the democratic side go to try to help some of these incumbents. they also did something that wenty surprised me -- they into new hampshire to run an who ison scott brown, not even in the race yet. host: you do not think he will

run? guest: i think it is a jump ball. we will see. is this all about 2016? guest: it is possible. maybe he wants to be governor, which you can also run for judy six and -- run for a 2016. at any rate, i think the thing to watch this year is the rise cs.single issue super pa there is one in kentucky, when liz cheney was running. they have started to spend some real money. e smallering to se numbers in terms of american crossroads with the mississippi super pacs, they're going to be

very important in these races, and what they go to do. host: the ones listed in gray are true tossups right now. the ones that are light blue are leaning republican. solidin light blue -- read, i should say, are likely or leaning republican. how many senate races are up in 2014? guest: 56 now. montana. and possibly theoing to be whether democrats ought candidate is going to be the appointed senate or, but that races on the ballot anyway. host: our phone lines are open.

join us on twitter, or facebook. democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: how are you doing? i wanted to know as far as 2016, i want to know if republicans do not extend unemployment, would that hurt them in the boat -- votes? host: thank you for that call. what about 2014 in the midterm elections? guest: it will be one part of the puzzle, where democrats will be trying to portray republicans as not want you to do simple things to help government work. it will be a small part of it, but i do not think we will see a lot of ads that are singly focused on unemployment.

it'll be a wider case that the democrats are trying to make. host: a modest agenda in the state of the union address on tuesday. his audience will be a number of , not only the democratic party, but midterm election borders -- voters. moreyear involved executive orders the legislative action. though much of this is the blueprint for democrats this year? all of theill be blueprint for democrats this year. we are already seeing them work have seensues we before, the war on women, rights, white -- contraception, and unemployment. all of those things will come back, but i do not know if it is in his address to put out a very

aggressive agenda given a congress that does not get anything done. host: welcome to the program. caller: thank you. obamacare is going to be affecting a lot more political races than people think, in favor of the democrats. tens of millions of people are going to be receiving new health care, especially in kentucky. i think that is the top state of enrolling people, and would all those people go to vote, they will be clicking on democrat, not republican. i would hate to see the runblicans continue to commercials about obamacare, it is shooting themselves in the foot, they need to move to a different topic. guest: i think he brings up a point, we have to wait and see. part of obamacare is going to be

a gigantic issue in the 2014 elections. as he gets rolled out, and is affecting people's lives, how it plays out. do people like their coverage, do they not like it? do they like the premiums they are paying or do they not like it? if there were supposed to sign up, and they're starting to get by let, how does that affect it -- analyzed, how does that affect it? there's the potential for to happen the other way as well. feels one way,y i think the strategists right now feel like this is a solid president has gone too far, and can help the 2014 election. host: anyone of you following the race on florida governor rick scott seeking reelection? guest: exactly.

i think this is going to be one of the best races, and one of the most expensive of the cycle. are scott's numbers terrible. 30's.b approval is in the but charlie crist is not a candidate. -- perfect candidate. infamousd a rather senate race that did not go well in 2000 and -- 2010. i think this is going to be a big race. i do not even have a favorite candidate in terms of who i think is ahead. either candidate should not be underestimated. host: democrat line, good morning.

jonathan, are you with us? caller: yes. good morning. , we haves to the race portrayingn one ad a solid supporter of the obamacare act. it is more of a 50-50 in , as itity in the state is throughout the nation. there per trigger with the health care act -- portraying her with the health care act, i know rumor has it --

some of the democratic strategist, and they are not -- even though they have or trade her as -- portrayed her as a liar. thank you. host: thank you. guest: the senate race was talked about a little bit. i think that the caller is i salute you write about -- is absolutely right about new hampshire being a swing state. their congressional district has flipped a couple of times. this is probably the product of being such a large legislature. i think that if it around does es get an, brown do she has a race on her hands.

jump on that house and ride, he has had it for some time. they are not unfamiliar with him, the boston media market does go into new hampshire. he spent a lot of time advertising audited 2012 is biggest problem is -- on it into 2012.t his biggest problem will be the advertising and ratings. even though they are how manyng states -- senators have moved to another state and been elected in a different state? guest: that is a good question, and i know it has happened. answertion is -- my would be that it is only once or twice going back 200 years.

that is a good question for chuck. host: out of their retirement in the u.s. senate, there are only five democrats and republicans. any of these names surprising? baucus, tom coburn, saxby chambliss, tom harkin, mike levins, tim johnson, carl , jay rockefeller. nathan gonzales? guest: there are different reasons for the retirements. -- arer longevity

senatety, he got to the and was saying this was not something that was as glamorous as of might see on tv -- as it might seem on tv. we're talking about the majority being in peril, echo were not for -- if it were not for some of those democratic retirements. because of these democratic retirements by the it increases the pool of opportunities for republicans, and really helps the math. gives them some leeway when it comes to gaining those succeeds. -- six seats. host: kathy is joining us from michigan. caller: thank you. good morning. to the candidate

for the first congressional seat here in michigan. against mr. better mr. bennetshek. there's almost no and manufacturing anymore -- no manufacturing anymore, the vast majority of people do not have obamacare, and the best majority of the children on my child. they are not connecting with the constituents in this area. i substitute teach, so i'm around children all the time. when i hear from them is that they do not understand their life situation.

cannon,portant for mr. and the democratic party, because i think this is a winnable seat, to make very clear what they want to do for the people here. host: thank you. guest: this is one of the most competitive districts in the country, one of the most older opel republican incumbents in vulnerabley -- republican incumbents in the country. an outsider, and in a time where the congressional job approval ratings are so low, this is a time for the democrats to set up that contrast. we will have to see how democrats are able to make that connection with voters. one of the parts of the giving is making your case, and haven't majority on your side. he has the opportunity, his

opponent has not run the strongest of conveyance -- campaigns. host: independent line, good morning. far,r: i grew up not too across the state, and when romney was governor, there were jobs there. if over the years, they fell away into nothing. you could not even by a job in buy a job in michigan. believe elections, i the aca has democrats across the whole thing,. . i've been all over the world, all of the country, and some people seem to stand up for the wrong things. american self-sufficiency is

more important than democratic votes, i'm sorry. the president is letting everybody down. is that of all of is stuff to fail, obama blamed, and has blamed all of the for these failures. why is unemployment down down in the millions? who steps in the millions? -- food stamps in the millions? host: extension of unemployment benefits is still in the house of representatives, it is not moved anywhere. how big of an issue will this be in some of these key races? guest: it is going to be an issue, angry with nathan that it will be part of a bigger puzzle -- i agree with nathan that it will be part of a bigger puzzle.

they need to motivate their own base. in midterm elections, with the party in power, in its very to motivate. they need to put something together to motivate their voters, and this is minorities, younger voters. been aennifer duffy has consultant on nbc news on election night, her work is available online at the a kpolitical -- coo .com. based we offer state local news from both sides of the ideological sector. you can see some of the best from thend blogging

left, right, and nonpartisan mainstream media side-by-side. you can get news from different perspective go and get an knowing wherenot they are coming from, giving past that first stage. host: a graduate of vanguard and georgetown university. super bowl sunday? a lot of twitter conversations. guest: i have to go for the seattle seahawks. they are one of the teams who has lived up to the hype, and hopefully they can do it again sunday. since the broncos beat the patriots, and depth about of the super bowl, and to be a seahawks fan to -- i have to be fan too.s

check out all of that online. caller: good morning. i have watched the political maneuverings for a wild. -- hwhile. in 2010, the tea party sent a lot of people to the house of representatives, because they promised the market people they were going to create jobs. they went there, and they did not create jobs. there are people out there who enough pointsget to qualify for social security. jobs whennnot find they're going to follow the medicaid will cover because you cannot have social security unless you have a certain amount of points. unless have a medicare

you qualify for sources security -- social security. it is not an entitlement program but because we pay into it. the red states, where you feel that the house of representatives is going to keep getting elected, when people goinge that they are all to fall into the medicaid pool because they are not getting jobs, they're going to turn. the colors going to start changing. thatcans have to realize you cannot live in a system where people say no. there needs to be jobs created, and when they are created, people are going to play taxes. -- pay taxes. the end of the that rate will go down. when you shift jobs overseas, it is not just jobs, it is every thing that creates those jobs. host: it would like to take that? would like to take that?

guest: i do not think the tea party was created with the promise of jobs. --nk they were created with in reaction to obamacare, and then they morphed into a purity of the republican party, to make sure that the republicans were constitutional conservatives, and had that pure corp.. e. i do not know that that was the promise. the fight over the jobs and the unemployment rate is one of the fundamental fights of the election. isn't the president possible, is the republican's -- is it the president's fault about the republican's fault? host: able to get it it

democratic -- a multicandidate democratic are very -- primary. hostguest: he came in with an interesting agenda. he has not made too much progress in that front, and in some cases he has been stymied by republicans in the legislature. he was to privatize things like lottery, liquor stores, and he is not really been able to get his agenda moving. the economy in pennsylvania has not improved all that much. ally, he getsn stuck with some of the fallout from kentucky. he was attorney general and some of these allegations were first brought forward them and whether his office did enough, or they

swept it under the rug. moved governors out of their own party this early in the cycle tour the other party, we do not do that for any would have to say that would be in the democrat's favor. you have a very crowded primary, you have eight announced candidates. most of them come from philadelphia. dividedte that is east-west, you have candidates fighting in their own base. i have yet to see any one of them really make strides. whoever wins this nomination, they're going to win it by something less than a majority, and they're going to have a lot of work to do getting around the state once they do have that nomination. guest: we are not as giving as

the rothenberg political report. one other state, the fourth term for the governor of california. he delivered his 17 minutes state of the state address in sacramento. think california is so tough for republicans. brown has not given them a lot to work with in terms of running against him. the state still has a lot of the problems they had when he came to office four years ago. that has not changed. i think the price of admission to the california gubernatorial race is enormous. at least $50 million, and i'm probably being conservative in that regard. i am not giving republicans a lot of room here, or a lot of

optimism. in -- one of the states things in his state of the state address, he said he used to talk about throwing the bones out, and i'd ask about how experience matters. he delivered it with a smile, and realize that his own political career had changed him and understand there's a big difference from where he started. on debts and deficits -- would anyone be affected? guest: who is to blame? that is what it comes down to. it is not just about the debt and the deficit, it has to do more with the affordable care act, the president's standing. it fits into that, people that feel like the country is in the right direction will give them a thatn benefit of the doubt

-- will give democrats a benefit of the doubt. it starts to become a better argument for republicans when they ask what will he do in the last two years? james --s is from there are already some ads in north carolina taking aim at the senators for supporting the health care act. since it on the past by one vote, everybody was the deciding vote. there was a caller earlier who talked about health care be a problem for republicans. i do not know by agree with this now because what is going to happen down the road this year,

there are a number of other milestones that are going to be hit, and they're going to be some people that are unhappy. i think the 6 million or so people who have signed up under obamacare are happy, but i think what is going to start happening is that when small businesses -- when their plans, this year -- come up this year, those plans will be disqualified. larger employers were grandfa thered him till 2015. renew their plans, insurance at some point is going to have to point out their plans to the exchanges. this is the november 15 deadline, and those costs are going to be associated with how

have they taken on in the first year? there are going to be a lot more arguments about this. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, because a lot of the plans are restricting the vision choice -- physician choice. we have already seen some stories about people who have signed up but who have no proof of insurance. the doctor says there's no record of ever signing up. there is a lot more kinks to work out, and there will be some ripples that will happen throughout the year. i do not think that health care is going to be a problem for republicans as much as it is still going to be an asset, because i think there's probably

voters who are angry to everyone that is happy. we want to welcome you to bring your questions for jennifer duffy and nathan gonzales. guest: most republicans are saying repeal, and democrats are saying we know you do not like it, but you do not want to get rid of all of it. the challenge is that in the seats, where it is going in a slightly more red than the country at large. disapproval that approval in those key districts and keys eights, and it is a higher threshold. i think we are going to see an

election that is driven by a lot of anecdotes. both sides are going to have specific people to camera, saying because of what president obama and what the democrats did with the aca, i could not get the covered i wanted. or because of what republicans did, because they wanted to reveal it, this is how my life was affected. follow-up on an earlier tweet -- milton, philadelphia, democrat line. ask thei would like to guests, to they think the republicans will be able to take the senate? i think the potential is there, i do not think it is a jump ball today.

i went to see the outcome of some of these printers. -- i want to see the outcome of some of these primaries. 'sest: what is the president standing next november? we do not know. was on the economy verge of a great depression. 0e were losing between 500,00 month, butbs per while big government is not -- it environment is not great, i wish they would give him some credit. he is still gaining jobs, and nobody giving him credit for it. as far as the affordable care act about people have short memories. if you had a pre-existing condition, you cannot get health insurance we cannot say on your parents that you could not stay with your parents until 26.

healths a reason why care made a lot of people bankrupt. guest: i think that the caller is right without the president successfully ran on that -- right, the president successfully ran on look at what right. a lot of people were still blaming president bush, but as he gets further and further in the rearview mirror, and it gets harder to say look at where we were and where we are now. werethe republicans calling the scandals earlier in the year with the irs or other those diden y not evolve into full-blown scandals, it started to hit his credibility. it lessens the impact of what

the president could have, because people are more skeptical. caller from illinois. is that theproblem jobs are very scarce, and the taxes are stream the hype -- extremely high. ie politicians around here, was on the news about our parks. six or seven years ago, we had a $6 billion debt. we are now over $100 billion and debt, i just do not see it. we have the highest taxes and all of the united states. host: governor quinn is seeking reelection.

he is nothink that question the most endangered democratic governor. he has some of the lowest approval ratings in the country. there was a question about whether he would even run, but he is running. illinoisounting on being a blue enough state to which above the line. -- quinn has even able managed to alienate some of his allies. this is over much-needed pension reform, something that needed to and it took forever, to where he threatened to hold the state legislature's pay until they got it done. he is very wealthy, he is a --iness guy, he is running

has been on the air introducing himself to those who do not know him. helpful, he counts the chicago mayor as one of his good friends. who gets credit, and who gets blamed, that whole debate will layout and the governor races -- will play out in the governor races. were elected in 2010, they in heritage pretty dismal -- they inherited ready dismal conditions. host: a memo to house republicans on the issue of the debt limit and the affordable care act.

tom curry of nbc news have the tweet.-- has this guest: we're are going to see some of the most effect of -- e ads about obamacare at the affordable care act, with real people. the ad makers are going to look for those stories like mitch mcconnell. that makes for better ads, then just saying that so-and-so voted for it. talk about the real impact on people's lives. host: republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. they are swimming upstream because of the mainstream media.

exampleive you a good -- this chris christie thing. -- would think he that think that he planted roadside bombs if you read the newspaper. compared to hillary clinton who brought -- failed to provide security to our messenger in benghazi, it was on page seven of the new york times. if i were republican running for , i would compare the states run by democrats and republicans. i would look at the unemployment figures, and the abstract property, and all of that. you'll find that this date one by democrats -- in these states that are run by democrats, the

unemployment is much higher and poverty is much worse. host: let's talk about the economy because we have seen enough taken the market -- we have seen an uptick in the market, except for last week. guest: the economy is a big factor, especially for voters who are more casual voters and will vote their gut on election day. a state like ohio, where the governor is running on the economy, and believing that he has helped them turn the corner. it is tricky for democrats obamae they had president going around saying that it is going better.

the other thing that i would say is that if the economy does start to get better promote and we started to run record that is good for president obama. if people feel more secure about where they are, they are less likely to be agitated, dissatisfied, and likely to throughout their officeholder -- to throw out to their officeholder. most: this will play out in the governor races, probably not so much in the ascendant -- in the senate and house races. clean recordseaky on the economy these days. joining us from sperry bill, virginia. the offices where they have just swept and the -- just swept for the first time in eight years, how do you

interpret this? 10th is where the checked, the republican seat has suddenly become an open seat -- 10th district, the republican seat has suddenly become an open seat? guest: this was a big surprise to both hearties -- parties. he is running for reelection to a second term, he is a former governor, and former chairman of who hasonal committee been deeply involved in virginia politics for a long time, ving under -- serving under president bush. inle democrats did very well november, to call this a blue state would be a mistake. this is much more of a purple state.

i think that if gillespie is well-funded, it could give warner a decent race. i think we have to know what the landscape looks like. i think he has a fighting chance. this is a race that would not if it moves. host: why is he running? guest: you cannot win if you do not run. depending on how the election cycle costa rica upperdeck what the fall is going to look like runs, you cannot predict what the fall is going to look like. arguably, you have to start earlier, but gillespie should be able to put together the money. guest: even if he does not win this race, respectable showing gets him first in line if you would like to run for governor

7. 201 whether he can bring a little bit of report -- reform to the party, why did republicans lose candidates 2013, the they nominated. too were considered much conservative, and they nominated them through convention, the poster primary -- opposed to a primary. guest: the caller was talking about the house races as well, and the 10th district where he is set to retire is an opportunity for democrats that was not on the list. republicans did help themselves by not going through a nomination by convention, and it looks like arbor comstock will be the nominee.

barbra comstock will be the nominee. because the election cycle is uncertain, we-- have the lean, . democrats would love to get that see, it is a swing area of the state -- that seat, it is a swing area of the state. virginia, jim moran announcing his retirement, was that a surprise? guest: we were focused on races that have an opportunity for one side of the -- or the other to to see. i'm waiting

we will let people test the waters, decide whether or not they will get in, and take a deep dive. host: any races to watch that we missed? guest: we did not talk about arkansas area i think that is the most republican -- vulnerable republican of the cycle. that state has become much more republican than the last time ago.had a race, 12 years caught and has a terrific resume, relatively new to politics. he has only been in the house one term. talk toit is funny, you a lot of democrats who are very concerned about pryor. one of the things that is going for him is that arkansas did its own exchange.

the outgoing governor is very r, asar, and may help pryo well as the clintons. this is a tough race. elected threetor different times for three different states. he represented minnesota, missouri, and illinois. the only person to serve three different. jennifer duffy, and neither does all he -- nathan

>> on the next washington journal, the state of the union speech. and then rebecca adams on the role young people will play in the health care law and how many have signed up for health care insurance, and a discussion about the billions spent on the early childhood education program head start. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on washington journal, live with your calls, tweets, and facebook comments on c-span. >> no matter what party they belong to, i bet most americans are thinking the same thing right about now. nothing will get done in washington this year or next the yearmaybe even after that, because washington is broken. can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

the greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year did not come from events beyond our control. it came from a debate in washington over whether the united states would pay its bills or not. who benefited from that fiasco? have talked tonight about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street, but the divide between the city and the rest of the country is at least as bad, and it seems to get worse every year. >> watch president obama deliver this year's address tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern with the president at 9:00, followed by the response from the republican conference chair and your reaction by phone, facebook, and twitter. the state of the union, tuesday night, live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. next, a discussion about

security concerns at next month's olympics in sochi, russia. then, tony perkins, and later, a portion from the republican national committee's recent meeting in washington, d.c., including a panel of the so- called rnc rising stars. next, a discussion about the upcoming winter olympics in sochi, russia, and the security concerns surrounding the games. this is a little over one hour. >> good morning and welcome. we will confine all questions about richard sherman until after the briefing. thank you for being here this morning. we have some weather coming into washington so it is good to have such an excellent turnout.

this is obviously a very timely briefing and we will get to it. i'm joined by my colleagues dr. andrew kutchins and jeff minkoff. juan was the deputy security advisor in the bush administration, a key arson on counterterrorism and many other issues. -- a key person on counterterrorism and many other issues. we will open it up to your questions. thank you for coming. >> good morning, everybody. as andrew said, you braved the rumor of a snowflake in washington, d.c. later today coming in this morning. it is always wonderful during a press briefing to just check the news.

so i checked "the moscow times was good and the title of the story was potential suicide armor in sochi. you guys have probably already heard about this. there is video that was produced by [indiscernible] which is a part of the caucasus emirates headed by the maybe- alive or maybe-dead person, and supposedly, this is , video of the two suicide bombers who took out -- who conducted the acts in volgograd. maybe. i don't know. when you look at these guys, they look a little bit like wayne and garth in a "saturday

night live" skit. i wonder if some of this is a hoax conducted by folks. imagine yourself in a dorm room in a university. i don't want to take this lightly at all. but when i look at this, this is the first far ahead. and then the story of the suicide bomber, ruzanna ibragimova, who has been spotted in sochi, how serious this is is hard to say. but when you read the story, you kind of scratch her head. it says it is unclear whether -- scratch your head. ibragimova was carrying any explosives with her. and it is unclear how any terrorists could get into

russia's olympic capital in heightened security. the letter describes ibragimova imps slightly, l her elbow does not bend. and she has a scratch on her left cheek. oh is this really true or could this be a hoax? if it is not a hoax, how could someone who obviously looks like an extremist shaheed kia could get through security.

it doesn't give one great confidence. anyway, we can talk more about that later. this is unusual. how many times has csis held a press conference before an olympic event? never. this is a rather you unusual event. let me start by saying that these games are very personal for vladimir putin. has anyone to role of the games has any winter olympic games been attached to a national leader as these games are to mr. putin? i mean in 2010, was anybody , talking about mr. harper much in vancouver?

or george w. bush in park city? actually, ironically, the park city games, if they were politicized for anybody, they were a base for mitt romney. who was running the games at the time. but this is really unusual. you probably have to go back to the 1936 summer games in berlin, hitler's games, the not see gains, to have games that are attached -- that are so politicized anyway. i don't mean in any respect to compare vladimir putin to adolf hitler or current rush with not see germany. current russia with nazi germany. for putin, he has said this amount -- has said this on numerous occasions. to host the olympic games, you have to be a country, to put it in layman's terms, that has its act together.

to award the games over the other three finalists at the korea,ustria and south and he convinced the committee to award the games to russia. now, and for vladimir putin, he said this on numerous occasions that he looks upon -- holding the olympic games, you have to be a country, to put it in layman's terms, that has its act together. you have to be a major country. this is not a small undertaking, the olympic games, so this is not russia of the 1990's that was the wild, wild east, where there were the images of the russian mafia basically running the country to the extent it could be run, or the organized crime, which i referred to as

disorganized crime. no, this is vladimir putin's russia, where he has restored order to the country, and the country is suddenly finding itself much more wealthy than it the timing. now, in 2007, this is after literally russia became financially solvent. in 2005, russia pays off it debt to the imf. debt 2006, it pays off its to the paris club, so russia is financially solvent, which means in prudent's mind that they are politically solvent. -- in putin's mind. that russia held the g-8 meeting in st. petersburg. now, i should have thought at 2014, probably if

russia is hosting those sochi games, that should have been a big hint that vladimir putin was going to be running russia in 2014. i did not quite with that together at the time, that i should have, so thinking into the future, russia also has the 2018 world cup, and that is going to be after the 2018 election, so my bet is that bedimir putin will also presiding over the world cup in 2018, assuming things go well here in 2014. uniquey are the game's tom as well? first of all, it is the location. isvladimir putin, it personal for him because he has spent a lot of time in sochi. there is a group that jeff and i have met with annually with vladimir putin and other russian leaders. several times we have gone down

to sochi to meet him, and he has got a nice bread down there, should we say, and it is kind of like a rush in california. you can swim in the sea in the morning, and then you can go to the mountains only 45 minutes away. driving three or four hours, or if you're in traffic, six hours to tahoe. it is a unique situation. it is kind of bizarre for russia, being known as a northern country, is hosting the winter olympics in a subtropical climate. go figure. at the significant thing about the sochi geography is its relation to the caucuses, and this is also a very personal issue for vladimir putin. in his personal rise to stardom, it took place when he was initially crime minister in the fall of 1999 when the second

chechen war started. was the humiliation of russia, where russia effectively lost a civil war on its own territory. russian troops performed miserably. and the second war, particularly in the beginning, the russian security forces performed better than they had and the perceived success of those early strikes on the terrorists and opposition in the war was a big boost to the popularity of vladimir putin , and it was also where he kind of bonded with the russian with his kind of macho way of being. he said famously, i am going to wipe them out. well, you know what? vernacular, russian

is a rich language, and it is rich language of four letter words, and that is tied to mother. basically, he said i am going to up or beep. it was much more earthy. what he was saying was he was dudes, thats those he was going to deal with the separatists and the terrorist groups with this threat in the caucuses, initially in chechnya, because he saw it as a threat to the russian nation, and his mo is that he brought stability and the fact of hopefully and olympic games for the first time in history could be held in such close proximity to a conflict

zone. a relatively low level insurgency going on in much of the northern caucuses today, but again, this is a totally unique aspect of these games, which is why we are having this press conference here, and you can successfully hold these games next to this area, which vladimir putin saw as his mission as the russian leader to bring stability, then, yes, he has been successful, so he has got a lot riding on it. just a quick word on the over the lgbt legislation, which has attracted so much controversy and propaganda against pedophiles and homosexuality. many have asked the question, why in the world would vladimir putin and the russians

implement this piece of legislation on the eve of this big, international event, when they know it is going to attract a lot of negative attention and press, and you know what? my view istion in not addressed to the international community. he does not care, fraga, what the international community thinks about this, although in his press conference, he will defend it in kind of comparative terms. our legislation is quite numeral when you compare it with the rest of the world, etc., etc., but it is done for domestic audiences and his constituency. now let me say a quick word finally about the terrorists and juan becausever to i am going on too long. regardless of what is true or is etc.,ue about this video,

and, obviously, the tragic terrorist acts that took place a couple of weeks ago at the end of 2013 attest to that, but i think what we're talking about right now really are not the ideology that motivates these people at this point. i think they are motivated by a global jihadist ideology, comments by al qaeda and others in the world. this is what motivated the tsarnaev brothers in boston who were also from the northern caucasus. he may have been a chechen nationalist 30 years ago, but he

uses a global jihadist ideology. this is what you will see in his -- it goes back to july 13, threatening the games and with other subgroups kind of affiliated loosely with the emirates, this loose network. so with all that, putin has a lot riding on the games. sochi is the holy grail for a separatist, jihadist group to go after. so in a way, we have the ultimate showdown. putin has a lot riding on it. this is a very juicy target. this is sort of in american vernacular high noon at the ok corral. in russian terms, it is [indiscernible] you know, who is going to get whom? in spanish terms, it is mano a mano. in football, it is richard sherman versus michael crabtree

last sunday. who is going to prevail? the question though, and this is where i leave it to juan who really knows about these groups and individuals, is one of operational capabilities. you don't necessarily have to hit sochi to spoil the games. this is my concern in my response to the volgograd bombings. finally just a word about imarov. is he dead? i'm skeptical about that. reports have been many in the past. one would think in particular that, if you were taken out by the russian authorities, they

would want to show the video of his dead body to bring greater sense of calm about the games themselves. but, you know, whether he is dead or not, i'm not sure how much that actually would make a difference. in that i don't think that imarov operational capacity as much as 10 years ago. the network is so loose itself that may be the absence of his leadership would leave others, ok, competing to claim this possibility for carrying out the act, which would gather all the attention. but let's all pray that that doesn't happen. thank you very much.

for any difficult questions, my colleague jeff minkoff will address them. >> d.c. schools are closed. maryland schools are closed. our children, when they are switching back and forth from spongebob this morning, will learn to curse in russian. so that's great. >> it is a real pleasure to be here. great to be here. part of the reason you get great attendance is csis has great expertise. what i wanted to address more specifically the terrorist threats and give you some perspective. in particular from my vantage point when we worried about security of olympic games since 9/11.

whether they are in the united states or in london or athens or sochi, they become a principal concern for policymakers around the world because the olympic becomes such a target-rich environment for terrorist groups, including those have designs not just globally but perhaps locally and regionally. the terrorist groups led by the caucuses emirates but not solely and their affiliates and asian affiliates have the clear intent to try to disrupt the sochi olympics or at least to try to embarrass the russians, in particular vladimir putin. the intent has been declared. umarov this past summer has been very clear about the desire to have major attacks on the olympics or at least major disruptions. significantly, in

july, he lifted the punitive ban on the attack on civilians, which in many ways opens up the target set on terrorist groups and civilian sites. and they clearly have a desire to engage in these attacks. as seen through their videopostings, blogs and communications. the intent is clear and it would have been obvious even absent their open declaration. but the open declaration has made it very clear for authorities. they also have the capability.

we have seen that in three attacks in volgograd since september. we have seen that in past attacks directed by umarov since 2009. the high-speed attack the twin moscow and st. petersburg. the airport and other attacks that have rebated. what is interesting and important is the caucuses emirates and their various operatives demonstrated multiple modalities in their attack record. that is to say they can use a variety of means to attack, not just a variety of targets to focus on. so they've used suicide bombers to include the now famed black windows. they have used teams of

operatives. they have used assault teams. they have vectored planes, metros and hospital sites. so the modalities and capability sort of match here. they have a target-rich environment and they have demonstrated the ability to organize different types of attacks based on the opportunities available to them. that's why the reports of a singular black widow getting into sochi becomes concerning. in part because you have the potential that she is a singular actor intended to disrupt. but it also could be that she is part of a broader series of suicide bombers who have been dispatched to attack different sites. no doubt, the russians are following reports of not just a singular actor, but also multiple threats and individuals that they are concerned with. the olympics, as we all know,

centerstage. the world media will be trained on the olympics. the activities, the social activities around it. in addition, you have the proximity. rather brazen on the part of putin to lace the olympics so close to the caucuses and to give the terrorist actors who are used to operating in this environment the opportunity to plan attacks, not just in sochi, but in the immediate environment here in -- environment. and as andy rightfully said, you don't have to get into the rings of sochi to declare terrorist attacks. they only need to create a sense of terror to create a sense of instability. i would daresay that if you saw a successful attack significant

enough, even in the far abroad from sochi, you would begin to see debates in delegation circles as to whether or not to withdraw athletes and stop participation in the olympics. and that would be disastrous for the success of the olympics. a final point in terms of why this threat is so unique at this time and i think it has gone relatively unreported, but i think it is critically important as an accelerant to the threat. that is the fact, as andy said, we are talking about a movement, a set of actors who view themselves as part of a global jihad movement. this in many ways is born out of the session conflict in the 1990s and early 2000's. as these groups have been populated by global jihad he actors, many of whom have interacted with the leadership of the caucuses emirates, many of whom have gone on to fight, even now like in places in syria. i think it is critically

important to keep in mind that the russians have kept an open and active role supporting assad, which has brought russia back into the center as a far enemy for the global jihadi movement. and you began to see that narrative layout in some of the terrorist discourse. i think that becomes important as an accelerant. russia is not just an actor in the insurgency or five, but also a global actor in the context of the globe jihadi narrative. and syria is a real accelerant to that in key terms and ideological terms. you start to hear more and more about this from u.s. lawmakers and the security officials to they are three hold -- sacred officials. they are threefold. this is a real threat here. they are not just imagining one off threats that need to be

chased down as often as they use has had to do. a threat that exposes athletes, sponsors, u.s. citizens who will attend the event. two, you always have the question of event security. andy has raised a very good question about how secure is the rings of security around the sochi venues and sites. but how well are they secure? you can secure the venue, but can you secure well enough where the athletes and sponsors are staying? the transportation in and out? the raw security questions merge very important questions. you start to hear, including from chairman rogers, concerns about cooperation from the russians. as i was mentioning to jill before we started the remarks, usually when you have in the olympics, most countries very prideful wanting to secure the olympics, manage it themselves, to succeed for national pride

and other reasons. with the u.s. offering support in a variety of ways. most countries don't except of the support initially because they can do it themselves. but as you get closer to the day of the event, most countries begin to accept more and more of the assistance because the reality of the daunting task of securing the olympics and the threat to athletes and sponsors becomes more real. that isn't happening in the russian context. the reverse is happening. the russians have grown more and more concerned over the threat and are concerned over the perception of insecurity and therefore have not wanted to allow the united states and other security services in on

the ground to assist. in an olympics like london, as you can imagine, u.s. work very closely with british officials to create very cohesive command centers, respond plans, etc. that, in my estimation, is not happening in the context of sochi and that is very concerning. that is why you're hearing u.s. officials speak openly about those concerns. in addition, that's why you see reports today in the press about contingency plans the u.s. is making for potential worst-case scenario. transport aircraft, positioning naval resources offshore. in the worst-case scenario, if, for example, you had wounded athletes are citizens you need to get them out. so you are going to see a lot more than that. the u.s. is try to vector and take the fact that we don't have on the ground cooperation and resources as we have in the past. for the russians and for the international community, any

olympics is an international event despite the fact that it has been so personalized by putin and the russians. but the russians have to not only secure the sites as they're trying to do with physical security and intelligence and vetting of individuals, but they will want to disrupt as much as possible any terrorist activity abroad. this is why you have seen the reports of the death of umarov. it's an attempt to demonstrate that the russians are trying to do something to disrupt these activities. and i agree with andy that, with respect to the individual, it matters much less as to whether or not he is alive now with respect to the security of the olympics because all the terrorists groups who want to attack the sochi olympics will try to do so. they obviously need to secure the site and they need to worry

about the perception of security. i think this is key because, again, you could have a relatively minor terrorist attack during the opening ceremony and the general environs and he begins to affect the sense of security for the olympics. in many ways, the terrorists begin to win that perception. a quick note, we often forget that it is squarely in the minds of security officials, you have not just the winter olympics in february, but you have the paralympics in march. so you have two sets of events that are critical internationally. they require the russians to engage in security, not just in the month of february, but february through march.

and i would dare say that the terrorists probably would prefer to us tack -- prefer to attack the sochi olympics in february but if they could attack the olympics in march, they would view that as successful. these are real threats in real concerns for the russians, the u.s., and others who have olympians at the site. >> with that, we would like to open it up to your questions. questions, please. jill. >> thank you. i'd like to follow up on that u.s. side of it. what does the united states do -- to your knowledge, what is the state of play in terms of any type of cooperation in potentially coming in and getting americans out of there? people who are competing or officials. and what does the u.s. do if they do not have permission on the ground? how do they work that out in advance? you are mentioning that. >> yes.

>> what is the next step for the united states? what is happening right now? >> in the olympics, you would have state department nomadic security officials, fbi, and other u.s. security officials who are cleared into the various venues or cleared into a command center or integrated into the on the ground security. i am no longer in government so i don't know what the status of that is. but i would dare say, given the public commons we have seen, that the u.s. government probably is not getting a lot of clearances for individuals from the state department, from the fbi and others to be on the ground at particular sites. that is different from security for individual teams and such.

i would venture to say that we are doing the best of what we can on the ground. and what you've seen and have started to see publicly is contingency planning, which would be led by the state department, to try to determine what happens in the worst-case scenario. that is why you have seen reports of movement of u.s. military assets and personnel in this regard. so you would have the state department leading that planning, trying to determine how to best get citizens in and out in case of an emergency. and you would hopefully have precleared plans, clearances for ingress and egress in the case of an attack in russia. but i would assume that the russians will want to control any of that. any security service in any country will want to have full capability and control over what happens after an attack or a

worst-case scenario. so it's likely the case the u.s. doesn't have preclearance to move choppers in or assets in in the event of an emergency. that will probably have to happen as events unfold. >> this gentleman right here. if you could identify yourself that would be great. >> tell us a bit about what you know about the syrian civil war. there are reportedly groups fighting. are they being killed there? are they being lumped with other jihadist groups from other countries? that is a significant situation around the olympics. >> i think the syrian foreign fighter problem, in particular the flow of caucasus-based fighters in and out of syria amplifies the concern. and part of this is, again, the ideological and narrative dimensions of what this does to animate the threat.

but also populates sort of the environment with other actors who are trained, tested, and perhaps willing to attack. keep in mind that the syrian conflict has now attracted more foreign fighters than we saw in the iraq conflict and more than what we saw during the afghan mujahedin days and this is a very serious threat. you have seen a lot of reporting. very concerned about the flow of fighters in and out of syria. one thing i would say is, concerned that officials should have is that the survival rate appears to be much higher in the syrian foreign fighter context. in the past, foreign fighters would flow in but they would not flow out.

that is not necessarily the case here in syrian where you have foreign fighters already starting to flow back. and what that means for russian services being able to monitor who is moving in and out of syria, i don't know, but certainly something that should be concerned about. >> reports about foreign fighters from the north caucuses in syria itself. how many are actually there is impossible to say. but there are many there. this is one really big reason, and i think it has been underestimated in the two plus years for why putin has held his position on syria as he has. when he looks at who are the most effective fighters in syria, he sees the same kinds of individuals in groups -- sometimes literally the same individuals in groups -- that he has been dealing with in the north caucuses or that he and

his central asian colleagues were dealing with back in the late-1990s. in particular coming out of afghanistan. that is in particular why this is an issue that is deeply personal for him. and there is some -- i think, if the syrian conflict had receded and foreign fighters were leaving syria, i think there's no doubt in my mind that that would increase the danger that those from the north caucuses or others who are not from the north caucuses would return there and increase the threat there. a friend of mine was a month or two ago at the airport in istanbul transferring. he heard russian spoken by people who clearly looked like

you imagined a foreign fighter in syria to look like and it was rather unnerving since he himself at the time was transiting into -- not the northern caucuses, but the south caucasus. >> bill douglas. >> i was curious -- a lot of people don't know [indiscernible] counterterrorism or handling something of this magnitude. can you all speak about their capabilities of handling large-scale events like this, whether they have had experience handling large events like this before? [laughter] >> well, putin, in his press conference just the other day, noted that, no, russia has not had the experience of securing an event of the magnitude of the

sochi olympics. so the answer is no. you would have to go back to the moscow olympics in 1980. for an international event of this magnitude, which "russians " had to deal with. of course, that is after having invaded afghanistan, which, of course, led to the essentially the creation of the muhajir dean -- of the mujahedin and much of the problems we have today. so the answer is no.

juan can speak to this more effectively. we never know the number of successes in preventing terrorist attacks. we only know about the failures by simply the fact that we saw significant failures in volgograd three times at the end of last year, one in october and two december. -- two in december. the daily bombings and problems that there are in the north caucuses, it's not the frequency that we are seeing in iraq right now. we're listening to the radio and there are 25 car bombings a day, approximately.

so magnitude, for sure, is a no. the capacity of the fsb is very, very hard to say. to get back to juan's point earlier, you know, the fact that the russians have been reluctant to embrace support from the united states, i think partly out of reasons intelligence operation is a very, very delicate matter in the best of times. we have pretty effective intelligence cooperation with the russians after 9/11. i think at that time the russians were providing us more high-quality operational intelligence than we were able to provide them. but we know that the relationship and the level of trust between the two countries has deteriorated significantly since then.

and that is a problem for sure. and then there is the sort of -- the nature of the russian psychology -- it's not just the russian psychology, but maybe more so we can do this on our own and we don't need your help. and then for putin, this is such a sore spot because we did not recognize, in his view, soon enough -- and i think he has a legitimate arguement out this -- that the nature of the threat, even in the mid-1990s, in the first chechen war, when it was mostly a movement of national liberation, there was a significant foreign element there. fighters, also sources of financing, and training for them. that factor was much more significant in the second chechen war. it really rankles him deeply,

deeply that this was not adequately recognized. this is a harping on the double standards. it only accentuates some of the chip on the shoulder, so to speak, about this for him. the state department did a very smart thing a few years ago in actually putting dokumaris on the list of terrorist threat individuals. some would say in russia that is too late. too little and too late. finally, we have to look at what happened with the tsarnaev brothers. the fact that there was inadequate communication between u.s. and russian intelligence services, tracking and following these guys, and when the elder

brother had gone to dagestan, which is really now the heart of the islamic threat region in the north caucuses for six or seven months. how effectively were they tracking him? we don't know. and not knowing leads to increasing -- >> [indiscernible] >> my suspicion is that it is both. >> i would just add two things on this topic area you have heard a lot of discussion about this in the russian press recently, in terms of the capacity of security services. they are essentially structured

it from a from the way that security services in the west are structured. their main goal is regime security rather than public security, let's say. and obviously, with a high-profile, very politically significant even like the olympics, those two things are connected. but nevertheless, the goal of the security state thatputin -- security state that putin provides over and from which he came, pressures coming from outside rather than toward securing the public in general. i think one of the challenges that apparatus faces is trying to pivot to do more of a public security role because of the locals -- because of the political role. i would just emphasize here, and

this is something we haven't talked about, but i think it is very important and a lot of context related to the olympics is corruption. the discussion in russia, it in the lead up to the games, is focused on this, money that has been misappropriated, misplaced, gone into dodgy contacts -- dodgy contracts and offshore bank accounts. by all accounts, these will be the most extensive olympic games ever, upwards of $50 billion. as much of a third of that may have been embezzled or stolen. what does all this have to do with security? operationally, security services can be supremely effective. but they are only in the macro sense as effective as their we guess link. in a lot of cases, the weakest link is corruption. if you think about some of the successful attacks that have been carried out in russia over the last decade or so, one that really -- that is really

striking, i guess, is when two female chechen suicide bombers blow up a russian aircraft in 2007 or so. essentially, what happened was these women bribed their way through security checkpoints. they bribed the guards at the airport to let them onto the plane even though they hadn't gone through the proper procedures. they weren't searched. and then they detonated suicide bombs when they were on board. so the system can be set up in a way that is designed to focus on these kinds of threats. but it only takes one person, one corrupt guard to look the other way in exchange for a bribe of one kind or another to have the entire thing, part and for a successful -- entire thing come part and for successful attack to come about.

>> that is a very important point. just know that one of the planes that was targeted in the 2004 attack was headed to sochi. security services are ruthless and effective when they want to be. if you look at the history of u.s. designations of individuals, terrorists from the caucuses region or otherwise, most of those individuals end up dead because the russians kill

them. they are ruthless. and i think they will be challenged here. >> my question is to anybody who takes it. took responsibility for volgograd. is there any connection in your opinion? thank you. >> part of this is building the perception of security. you have to modulate one's reaction to anything that terrorist groups in decay. but you have to take it seriously. one of the concerns that russian and u.s. officials have had for a long time is the ability of groups in the caucuses to get their hands on wmds, whether it is nuclear components. that has been a source of great concern for a number of years. the fact that syria is a

cauldron of conflict and you have weapons available to the actors there, that certainly heightens the concern. but i have not seen anything in the open source reporting or otherwise to suggest you have a caravan of chemical weapons moving to sochi for attack. but it's the kind of thing you had to take very seriously and something the u.s. authorities are looking at in terms of threat vectors. >> that's an excellent question. it was very striking to me in the diametrically opposed responses of u.s. and russian officials to the august 21st brutal chemical weapons attack in syria.

the largest one that had been -- that has been perpetrated by a long shot. it puzzled me a lot. in thinking about it, tried to think of what can be a plausible, you know, case where actually the two sides are not fundamentally disagreeing so much. and the plausible case i suppose would be actually the -- you know, the russian response that the assad forces had no incentive to use chemical weapons because they knew that was the only contingency which would possibly bring upon an american military strike, you

know, there is a logic to that for sure. but there is a corollary logic to that as well. if the opposition somehow could gain control of some chemical weapons in syria and make it appear as though the assad forces had carried out that strike, there would be a huge incentive for them to do that. because, of course, that would bring on not only the american military strike, but american and other international support for them in their fight against the assad government. knowing at the time that, before our agreement on the chemical weapons initiative, the diffusion of chemical weapons sites around syria, there are so many sites, it just seemed that, gosh, it would only take, again,

one person or one group to get a hold of one site amongst 40 or even more than 40 that existed for people to have access to the weapons. we have to take this very, very seriously. and because of the transnational nature of the groups in syria, this is the one moment where the u.s.-russia relationship started to turn around and subsequently in our talks about the iranian nuclear weapons program. whether it is true or not what they are saying, it clearly has to be taken at the utmost seriousness. >> good morning. roxanna scott from "usa today." i hope to they you could

elaborate on the hoax part of this. and what are your expectations for protests for human rights, anti-gay legislation, the kind of thing, particularly in the zone they set up outside the park, far from the park? >> in my opening remarks i was a bit too flippant maybe. when i look at the picture, when i look at the video, it does make you think that this could be a total hoax, you know, someone just having fun.

like the intern at ktvu news in san francisco who fed the report to the teleprompter the names of the pilots. someone trying to be funny, but not really funny. i would expect to see more reports like this for the reasons that juan elaborated, simply to enhance or increase the sense of insecurity around the games. for that to really be effective, there has to be some terrorist attack to accompany it. but i would expect to see more

of this in the weeks ahead. i can only say that i am very, very relieved, at least at this point, we haven't seen any more attacks of the magnitude we saw in volgograd that we saw three weeks ago. because that could be the beginning of a series of attacks that could take place on a weekly basis or even more frequently that would effectively destroy the games, whether or not sochi was attacked itself. on the lgbt issue, you know, of course, putin tried to sort of deflect that in his press conference. although in doing so, it kind of enraged many in the lgbt

community more and their supporters more with the way he, look, no one is going to get thrown in jail. this legislation is more liberal than many other places. and really we are only talking about how began to -- about propaganda about this that is being disseminated. but essentially, lead our children alone. the effect he was trying to address, to diffuse the problem was not a very effective way, shall we say. all i can say is i hope the russian authorities have learned enough from the response they've seen to the issue over the last

few months that they will handle it with the utmost care and do their best not to inflame the issue in responding to any kind of sort of act or demonstration or statements that take place. but after following russia for so long, sometimes i feel like you can never underestimate the capacity to cut their nose off to spite their face. all i can say is that i hope that the russian authorities have learned enough from the response that they had seen to

-- maybe jeff has something more insightful to say on this. >> on this question of threats that may or may not actually be real. i think this gets back to the point that andy made toward the beginning. these are such an important political project for putin, specifically, and for the russian regime, more broadly. they are trying to get across, in the olympics, in order to advance the narrative, about how russia has advanced on its feet. it has been a volatile area for the last two decades. to the extent that insurgents, or whatever you want to call them, succeed in changing that area, succeed in getting the discussion not to be that russia is back on its feet, that putin brought stability, but rather

there is an instability and insecurity. that is what they are focusing on. they are undercutting be message that the government is trying to get across, regardless of whether they are trying to get -- whether there is a successful attack. if there is a successful attack, that changes the narrative even more. there is this low-level chatter that takes the attention of everybody's notice initiates who are looking at the olympics. it is to bolster the prestige of the regime. >> i would like to add something to that. >> i think there is -- putin has been very successful, in the eyes of many in his party. the olympics eccentrics it. it takes the focus off of the issues going on inside russia. some things going on inside russia are quite problematic. one of putin's most -- one of

the reasons why he is most popular is because russians are experiencing a time of prosperity. came back to a level of about four percent growth, which is ok, but not where they wanted to be. his economic growth has fallen close to zero. 2013 was 1.3%. then it was close to zero. the sense that he brought prosperity to russia -- if the olympics go badly, then you are disgruntled, and people are looking around, and they are saying, actually, this guy, things are not going so well economically right now in russia. even if there is a dip in the oil price, which is so important for the russian economy, then they start another scenario

where his leadership is really under much more pressure than one would have imagined. there is an element of focusing on the successful russia. come to russia, and see with the new russia is like. it is completely different than what the old soviet union was like. this is not your father's buick. this is the new russia. it is one reason why they spent so much money. a lot of it has been embezzled or whatnot. and it is as a showcase. >> one point. the question about protest is an interesting and important one. in planning the security of any event, whether it is the olympics or anything else, you have to account for potential disruptions. to the extent that there's been planning, i am assuming that

there is planning around everything from low-level criminality all the way to high-level terrorism. in between there, are unanticipated gatherings of individuals that could be disruptive. your question is a good one because we have been focused on the terrorist threat. but any security service looking at a major event like this is looking at a whole suite of potential disruptions that have to be taken into account both singularly and then in combination. >> i am with the hispanic link news service in washington. what, short of any kind of disruption or attack, might cause the united states to withdraw, from your perception,

from the olympics. secondly, what do you know about what preparations mexico and latin american countries are taking to ensure the safety of their athletes? >> that is a question for juan? >> do you want to do this in spanish? i do not know, specifically, what the latin american countries are doing? usually what happens it that you have a reliance on the host country to provide accurate security communications. usually, most delegations have their own protocols. the u.s. is best in class in that regard and probably the most demanding international player. to answer your first question, i

think that, absent an actual attack, what would be disruptive to the u.s. the only thing i can imagine is that if there were serious credible threats directed at u.s. athletes or venues that u.s. athletes would be attending. combined with the fact that the russians are not sharing the information about what is being done to counter it, and the sense that there is an inability to counter it ourselves. if there's a real sense of serious risk to our athletes that is imminent, that is material, and it cannot be countered, then you will start to see discussion in the situation room about what is to

be done. that kind of decision is taken incredibly seriously. nobody wants to see the olympics disrupted. pulling american athletes out would be disastrous for everybody i think. and it would give the terrorists a victory. you would want to make that decision very carefully. and you only want to do it in the most serious of situations. >> i would like to thank everybody for coming out. you can follow our twitter feed. we will have a transcript out later, which we will release on twitter and on our home page. csis.org. thank you for coming this morning. >> transcript? >> tomorrow? >> perfect. >> thank you. >> for more on the winter olympics in sochi, and the security certain best concerns that are being addressed we spoke with a reporter in russia. host: there is this a company

photograph, one of the thousands of russian troops that are part of the security detail in sochi, russia. what is be called -- been called as a 60 mile ring of steel. good morning, thank you for being with us. guest: you're welcome. the warning to u.s. athletes and any american to travel to sochi, russia, not to advertise that you are in american citizen. what is the back story on that? guest: i think they are just saying exercise common sense. personally, i have been here for 3.5 years, and i've never had any particular threat because i am an american. just common is

sense that a big event like this. you do not who is going to be targeting whom. on the other hand of the embassy has not warned people from staying awake, just as to be just to be away, cautious. host: touching on trade on other issues but also missing on other's dirty issues in such a -- other security issues in sochi. what do they want from the u.s.? in general, the u.s. has said if we can help you in any way, let us know. at am a primarily, it is russian responsibility. i think the best way the two

countries could cooperate would be exchanging intelligence. i think the russians are very sensitive about that. i have certainly given visas to given these ahave pseudo-poetic security people -- diplomatic security people. texasthe republican from chairs a key committee on the homeland security. he traveled to sochi, russia, and has a lot of concerns about the security, but even more portly, his concern about the lack of sharing of information securityussian officials go and those in the west. how big of a problem is that? think it has been a

persistent condition. russianser 9/11, the about sharingful intelligence, sharing information. been as thorough since then. is located in southern russia. can you give us a sense of the geography, where this is located, and why this is such a concern? it is in -- near the north caucasus, about 350 miles from pakistan, where there has been persistent militant

activity. almost daily shootouts with police. after the war in chechnya was 2000, thearound violence and unrest gradually moved. it has been quite difficult their the past few years -- th ere the past few years. will be causing nt torouble will wa make a target because of the century high-profile -- because it is so high-profile. host: we will look for your reporting in the weeks ahead online and in the newspaper at washington post.com. thank you for being with us. communications,

and their newest member will have a live hearing noon eastern on monday. global security challenges facing you know. senior be joined by a nato officer and other security experts. >> they began their teaching careers, and hillary became -- came a year later. she was a professor and taught classes in cruel procedure, trial procedure, and was a well-educated, ivy league law

school grad. her work in d.c. was part of that campaign, -- onfirst lady hillary clinton c-span radio, and c-span.org. c-span lost it urged c-span school bus -- launched its first c-span schoolbus, raising awareness on how they cover politics programming. the c-span bus continues on the road, on the campaign trail, and visiting full festivals, education conferences, and schools. look for us on the road and online at our website c-span.org. you can also i does on twitter twitter.s on

coming up next, newsmakers with family research council president tony perkins. vice president biden talking about the health care law. >> our guest this week is tony perkins. he is the president of the family research council. thank you for being with us. two reporters will be questioning him. chief correspondent for the "washington examiner." thank you to both of you. >> i want to talk to you about the state of the republican party and the role social