daily engagement with the public. in airports, seaports and lan ports of interest. the attitude toward the entire federal government can be shaped by we must be mindful of this as we seek to put support for our work. this is why i am pleased to announce that the commissioner of border protection will soon make the use of force policy public. we must do a better job of highlighting the good you do a half -- we do on behalf of the american. a new tsa rechecked application center at dulles airport. it illustrates the risk-based approach to homeland security that i talked about earlier. it is smart, effective, as an efficient use of resources and taxpayer dollars. in december we extend the

benefits to all military including those serving in the coast guard, reserves, national guard during by permitting travelers to provide information about themselves ahead of time, we expedite the process for them in airports. with better focus resources to the pool of people we know less about. this advances aviation security and should be popular with the republic. lastly, i am mindful of surveys withinflect the morale various components of dhs. our greatest asset is our people. each and every day the men and women work hard to fulfill our critical and noble mission. they dedicate themselves to the security and advancement of our nation. i will be a champion for those men and women of dhs and will advocate on their behalf. morale also depends on good leaders in place of each of our

components. we must inject any energy. arts withrship sto recruiting new leaders to help run the organization. with the help of the white house and congress, we're bringing in some terrific people to bring in the large number of senior management vacancies that exist. i spent a part of almost every day on this. i am pleased that in december, congress conference arnie deputy secretary and in october our new general counsel. to the forward confirmation of suzanne spaulding to be the under secretary for national nationalng -- rejection of programs directory. leon rodriguez to be the next andat of u.s. citizenship immigration services and dr. ritchie brothers between next undersecretary for science and

technology. we are actively recruiting telik -- talented people to be undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, director for immigration enforcement. the next chief financial officer and other key positions. finally, we will also continually reinforce among all the men and women of the department the common unifying mission of homeland security that binds us together. homeland security security is the most important mission in the government can provide for its people. in new york was city on 9/11. for years, my secretary at the law firm i was with in manhattan was a woman named gina teachey ichiari. she works about 50 hours a week, raises two weeks, the wife of a retired new york city police officer, plays by the rules and never makes wages.

in 2000 love and she was walking into the world trade center with her three-year-old daughter -- in 2011 she was walking into the world trade center with earth real daughter when the plane plowed into the building above her. gina picked up her daughter and inher walked or ran with her her arms all the way to 14th street. anyone who knows manhattan knows that is a long way even to walk empty-handed. motherge of a 5'3" running for the life with her mother -- with her daughter in thousands of displaced americans at the louisiana superdome during katrina, the image of the finish line at the boston marathon turning in an instant to a blast zone, the should be constant reminders of the urgency and the importance

of our homeland security mission. i am aware that there is another component to my job. in the name of homeland security, we cannot sacrifice our values as a nation. we can build more walls, install more screening devices, ask more questions, expect more answers, and make people suspicious of each other but not at the cost of who we are as a nation of people who cherished privacy and freedom, celebrate diversity, carry our flag at the olympics and are not afraid. thank you very much. thank you for listening to me. [applause] >> i got teared up as i think others did by the close of your

speech, mr. secretary. let's remember that most of this this room are in sons and daughters, spouses, many are parents. usthat day on 9/11, many of knew people who parish of people erishede at risk -- paris of people who were at risk and suffered with a scar that in some ways will never heal. i'm going to ask you some questions in a friendly manner. we know you were born on 9/11. i'm told you wanted to be a subway conductor in new york city when you grew up. is my next life. i will be a subway motor man on the number seven train.

>> in case you don't know this, the new york subways are protected to a substantial extent by dhs assets. let at this. -- look at this. your background is assistant guy who hasy and a a lots of experience in the department of defense. now to take on this awesome responsibility to fore principal spokesman our u.s. counterterrorism policy? >> i lead a terrific inanization of men and women the people that are there as leaders. we will be doing a

terrific job in the next couple of years. the department of defense, a lot of people ask me if dod is like dhs, are they different? how are they different? it is essentially a military organization. dhs has people in uniform. we have the coast guard. most part dhs as a civilian organization. it is a different culture. like the department of defense, it is a lars decentralized whonization with components are capable of running themselves. dod, i the at privilege of working with two terrific secretaries of defense, bob gates and leon panetta. i was part of their management team. i saw them a decisions. when you are the general counsel you have purview over the entire department of defense unlike almost everybody else.

i was part of the management team. health solved a lot of problems. i was involved in a number of difficult issues. involveded, it national security. i came back to government in february 2009. i have been the eyewitness to many historic events that occurred and were involved in some of the decision-making here in washington. i would say that the thing that comes to mind first when you ask a question like that is i have a passion for the mission. i left government a year ago and was i was done settling back into private life. the president asked me if i would do this job. it ever occur to me that i would be sitting here, that i would be asked to do this job. i have a passion for the mission. i believe deeply in the mission.

i want to serve the country. that is why i am here. >> good answer. own shot outget my to suzanne spaulding was the director of the national commission on terrorism formed by congress in 1999. it is one of three groups that predicted a major attack on u.s. soil. i was part of that group. people started to pay attention. she is very well trained for the mission. as are many other people who work with you. since i mentioned congress, let's talk about congress. >> i love congress. [laughter] >> good start. >> i do. nobody believes me. -- you'llget not bird

get a lot of opportunity to do that. was on ther day i hill. i said let's do some drive-bys. let's stop often see friends of mine. >> are you sure? >> do make appointments? we can do that. i just stop and say happy new year. it is relationship building. that iers of congress know and respect. >> i'm pleased to hear you say that. chertoff was the director, he would routinely invite me as the chairman of a subcommittee down here for breakfast. we would talk about issues. we formed a professional relationship which just developed into a friendship. i know you are having fun. it is a fact of that 100

committees and subcommittees of the united states congress, this is not an exaggeration. they have some piece of the homeland security mission. i think of is on the national journal cover and look like a where's waldo picture. it showed all the different jurisdictions. the 9/11 commission was a member of that recommended a number of wings which congress did in the president did except there is one glaring gap. that gap was to reorganize congress in a way that would streamline the homeland mission. get numerous to request to testify across the board. that is one issue in terms of the time snap for you. the other way is when you are a member of congress, you want to do something legislatively. pick one. reduction of overclassification

of materials. are on a committee. they have a piece of jurisdiction but not the whole thing. it is very frustrating from end to do something. aboutre you have thought this. how are you personally going to navigate this? nothing it should simply be get off my back. there are a lot of people interested in the homeland security mission on both sides , how canow can i help i work with you? how can i support your mission? morningy remarks this was to try to answer that in the cyber security world by spelling out the legislative priorities.

some of them might have a better chance of passing than others. to spell out what i think the legislative goals of the cyber security mission should be. there are a lot of committees and subcommittees who have a piece of the department. committees do not often seek jurisdiction. very protective about that. beginning i want to build relationships on the hill. at some point we will have to have a discussion about realigning the jurisdiction of congress. it does require a lot of time and attention by the secretary and the senior leadership to go back and forth in response to committee testimony or individual visits. time that is useful,

valuable time for a senior leader. i do find it useful to know what is on the minds of members of congress. the confirmation process is what it is. i have a relatively good experience. it is an opportunity to find out what is on their mind. there are a number of very thoughtful members of congress who are embedded in these issues, who gave me a lot of insight in that process. you are right. there is a tremendous amount of oversight. and used to be realized at some point. -- it needs to be realized at some point. i will ask our colleagues on the hill to help. >> it will help. there are many good people who serve on capitol hill on both parties. the business model needs a lot of work.

the committee structures from the 19th century. their are opportunities, especially if you invest personally in changing at least some of the dynamic. let's just moved to cyber security. you carefully identified issues in your remarks. congress tried hard but failed to pass cyber security legislation. >> 2012. >> two years ago. most people think that we are enormously vulnerable to cyber threats. basicallye sector controls at least 85% of our cyber systems. a lot of them have to do with critical infrastructure. the president issued an executive order which goes part

way toward solving some of the critical problems of aligning the private and public sector. how urgent do you think it is to pass legislation? you as the leader of the homeland department over, what huge objections before, the private sector did not have confidence that homeland had the capacity to handle its risk possibilities on cyber? not a cyber security threat. it is a cyber security ongoing series of attacks are different , arces on banks, substations servicesices -- e-mail to a different degree of intensity. it is no longer just a threat.

i think the key aside from the help congress can give us are breaking down trust with the. .- with the sector i'm developing ideas with what business groups, what private sector entities we should go to. also a talent search. theink the resources, talents are there, particularly among our young people, and graduate schools, people who are just out of school. we were talking earlier about the cyber talent that exists in the military. military recruits from a very early age. the military is very good at identifying those within the security have a cyber talent and bringing them into

the cyber security world. we had to build that holland from either with in our civilian or tracked from the private sector. part of my job in the cyber ealm will be to look for ways to attract private talent. i know it is there. >> would it also help for better management for the department as a whole? it is a huge task to integrate the cultures of 22 different agencies and departments. if you had better management to mirror the good management and many private sector firms, could that help instill confidence? the big objection two years ago was it is not a well-managed department. this was the objection. we are wary of cooperation with its.

>> i want not disagree with the. when you talk about cyber security, we have an office within dhs headquarters. components also have a cyber security mission. for example, the secret service. it is into cyber security. secret service is very involved right now in the effort regarding the target stores. he to -- one of the dilemma isswer the visible leadership. good leadership but also visible leadership. good leaders bringing in good leaders. we have to be fairly transparent to become familiar with the private sector to become so that with the public

we build trust. that is one of the reasons we're here today. get outu have plans to and about? i know you said you have traveled to the southern border. we are working on redeveloping some ideas right now. in all parts of the country. >> turning to a few other issues. threats,the homeland one of the things that was clear to me when i was in the roles i had in congress was how ofortant the mission vertical information sharing was to the department. it is not just a role played here in federal government land sharing information among the federal agencies. down getting information to first responders who could be privateou also could be citizens who smell something strange in the house next door or something weird anywhere. mission is going much

better. i am looking at charlie allen who at one point was the head of the intelligence function. this.ked a lot about one of the improvement i think that congress insisted on was setting up something called the inter-agency risk assessment and coronation group. it was a teach for america group of state and local law enforcement folks who would come temporarily to the department of homeland security and the center, which was created just about at the same time. on what thedvise bulletins should look like that go vertically from the department of homeland security down to first responders so that

first responders could understand what to look for and what to do. are you aware of these outreach efforts? do you think they need support? >> absolutely. given the evolving terrorist threat which is becoming more decentralized, , less of ae traditional al qaeda or al qaeda like command control structure, we have to be more concerned about homegrown threats, the lone wolf, the person who self radicalized is. that is going to require that we continue to build relationships with first responders. in the boston marathon bombing,

it was a perfect illustration of this. we need as a department in a federal government to build relationships with state and local law enforcement and government. the federal government cannot be everywhere. the fbi, the department of homeland security cannot the everywhere. that is critically important. that is something i hope to advance over the next couple of years here you are also correct that homeland security is a team effort that involves the public. we do not want to scare people. we do not want to take people. annoyed. --do not want to make people to make people. annoyed. it involves -- paranoid. it involves public participation. that can result in very constructive, positive teams if

there is public awareness -- things if there is public awareness about what is in the trash container at the bus terminal or what is in a backpack that was left at the gate or something like that. if people are willing to note these positions package and report it to the nearest aviation security person or law enforcement officer. back can have a tremendous effect. we all hope it never gets that far. verticalrticipation is . we never get to the point where innocent civilians have to take matters into their own hands to save their own lives. do,s your secretary had to such a compelling story. part of that is building trust with the public. it is a function i think you as the counterterrorism spokesperson have but so do local police departments.

there have been very successful outreach efforts in minneapolis were there were improvement -- improvement of folks in al- shabaab. in loss angeles with the sheriff's department has had some very good cooperation with the muslim community. it is not only the muslim community that has problems. if you something -- see localing at the supermarket, you think saying something to law enforcement or just -- or the fbi to somebody who will get the information where it needs to go is inappropriate thing to do. >> that is correct. the i went on my trip to

southwest border, i spent a lot of time meeting with mayors and and policeiffs chiefs for exactly this reason. it, we need to continue to emphasize that this is a collective effort that involves multiple levels of government and the public. >> moving to border security, you mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. , inlmost passed congress case anyone remembers this, in 2007. president bush very courageously , michaelrd a proposal chertoff was heartbroken when the bill failed. aw the senate has passed comprehensive immigration reform bill. those conversation in the house that the house version might be different. you commended the congress in

your remarks for the effort it is making. there is a news, comment from house speaker john boehner that it may not happen this year. greatk it will be a disappointment to many communities across our country who were hoping it will and to our efforts to rebuild our economy after the most serious recession since the great depression. do to persuade john of steps he might take in this election year to get this thing back on the right track? he was one of the one for said he wanted to make this happen. >> i do not have a crystal ball. there are people who talk to the speaker about this and other issues. i am sure he is getting no shortage of advice right now. in 2014ope will happen

is that there is an emerging, evolving realization that this should not be politics. this is a problem that we have in this country that needs to be fixed. of us here in washington who represented the american public ought to do what we need to do to fix the problem. everybody agrees we have a problem with immigration, with enforcement and administration of our immigration laws. everybody knows we have millions of undocumented immigrants in the country. are not going away. they're not going to sell the poor. i do not know exactly what the statistic is. 80% of these people have been in this country for years. to either 2004, 2008, something like that.

they're here. they're not going away. from my homeland security perspective, i would rather encourage them to come forward, the accountable, pay whatever taxes and fines they owe, go through the background check, and if they are able to, , i think it is a 13 , get to a path to citizenship if they are able to do so. we need to deal with this problem. that, and i really do see the signs for this. i thought that was a very thoughtful statement of principles of the speaker and other spent a lot of time thinking about. i do not know to what extent it has the widespread the port in

the republican caucus. they are identifying a problem that we have in this country and seeks to address it. that is a very positive step to see both major parties recognize that we are to deal with this. a message that i would like to convey and emphasize is that from the homeland security perspective this is something we need to do because of the added resources that commonsense immigration reform provides an so that we can encourage people is notaccountable, which giving them a pass in some way. it is encouraging them to get right with the law. for my homeland security perspective, i hope people in congress and government will finally wrestle with this problem and we can deal with it. questionre comment and on this. i think the right term is

"earned legalization." people have to go through a lot of hurdles in the get in the back of the line and 13 years law passes it this they can become citizens. as sayingr was quoted the american people do not trust the reform we are talking about it was implemented as intended to be. should people trust you and your department to implement the current law? >> we've already begun thinking if the legislation that is contemplated in various different forms it comes law, we will have to implement it. we have complimented the limitation. it is not like it will happen tomorrow. it will happen over years. we are beginning to think about what we need to do to get ready for this. this is an advanced planning

whateffort to anticipate the department needs to do, when and if this legislation passes. we will have comprehensive immigration reform. and you have a crystal ball on the timetable -- i do not have a crystal ball on the timetable. i believe it will pass. i am assuming it will pass. i am optimistic. we need to prepare for it. we are he started that process. you mentioned syria. you said syria has become a matter of homeland security. you did amplify that, it a bit. i think the audience might be interested in any additional comments you want to make about why syria has become a matter of common security. -- homeland security. over theave stated

last couple of days, we are concerned about the foreign fighters going into syria who are leaving syria. they are encountering all sorts of radical extremist influences there. we need to be concerned about that. to it as a i refer matter of homeland security. it is not just this country. our european allies are very concerned about this issue. collectively we are determined to do something about it. i think people do need to understand that there is a variety of terror groups in seyria. some of them have expressed a desire to to train fighters in

syria to attack fighters in the west. it is a threat to people being radicalized here, moving to syria, conducting terror acts there and in coming back here. towe need to do our best take close attention to any balding situation. >> you were very careful in the way you talked about self radicalization. audiencexperts in this who have studied radicalization carefully. tryat the think some of us to do in congress was create a multidisciplinary commission to advise congress on what the someone who has radical views which are protected by our constitution,

turning into someone who is prepared to engage in violent acts which are a crime and finding that nexus. in the last minute it became controversial. at least in my opinion. a hallmark of some of these homegrown lone wolf type as they have clean records. violente not created acts before. many are on the internet looking at sites on how to build bombs. there is a lot on the internet there. some of them also intersect people either in our country or travel abroad who most think it takes human intervention. this is the focus. how should the american public

think about this? i wanted to convey the answer to that question in my remark. governments, first responders, law enforcement in local communities in to be vigilant. we are building that he read we are building those relationships. because of the -- of that. we are building those relationships. because of the nature, we risk reading suspicion, fear among people about those that are different from them. that was really the purpose of the last part of my remarks. thinkinge charged with about homeland security, whether state homelandhe

security adviser to the governor or police commissioner, you can build walls. you can build something that is so secure that you make everybody. knowledge. you deprive people -- you make everybody paranoid. you deprive people of the basic freedoms this country is all about. we cannot do this. it is a delicate balance. do we have to writit right now? probably not. a basic responsibility for those of us charged with homeland security and law enforcement and national security is to find that right balance and to be sensitive to it. we can go too far. there are instances where we have done that. we need to be mindful of that insensitive to it. >> in my opening remarks, i commended you for your speech on

whichnamo and on drones got a lot of attention and was a very courageous act for someone in the general counsel. you say in the name of homeland security we cannot sacrifice our values as a nation. we can install more screening devices and make people suspicious of each other but not at a cost of us as a nation. it is notve that enough just to take out guys, although sometimes we must do that. very courageous people have very carefully try to do that. dohave to win the argument

you agree with that? >> i do. things i said the at the oxford union. we have to be sensitive to our actions. one of the things i think we will do, and i think we have begun this process, one of the things we will do is develop how we can adjust this

issue in the homeland. to the to be sensitive fact that there are people who, while they live in this country, hate this country. they want to do harm to others who feel disassociated and disconnect it and are influenced by forces beyond our control. address thery to audience in some way or another to get at this exact issue. i want to begin thinking about this issue. we have arty started developing ideas for how we can go about the living a better job for that. >> i personally commended that thought. i want to underscore the last part of the last sentence. we are a nation of people who cherish privacy and freedom,

celebrate diversity, carry our flag at the olympics and are not afraid. statement ofyour our values as a country is a big piece of your job. if you are to become and you will become the face of warning about the terror threat it will be wonderful if you're also the face of reassurance that our country will survive this. we will be resilient. said you're going to boston on the anniversary of the marathon bonding. there was a place where a horrible thing happened but a community pulled together very quickly and never lost its stride. we do not do it that well on 9/11. we did it that well in boston. boston is strong. i would hope that those are , not just can learn

we the people listening on the , but that we can learn the department of homeland security can learn and can teach and can help inspire others to teach. i would just like to close this has been a i think wonderful honor for the wilson center. and an example of the kinds of things we do here. when john brennan was a terror adviser in the white house came to talk here. >> i was sitting right there. event, was wonderful not? yes it was. as we close this event, let me tot offer you the last word

any last thought you had. shots.ing thank you again for your leadership. here.you for bringing me thank you for your mentorship and support. this is a terrific organization. it is educational. it is sober. it is a place for thoughtful, intelligent escutcheon. >> it is nonpartisan. partisan. is non- when you talk about national and homeland security, it should not be partisan. i believe that fervently. thank you for the terrific work you do here. will see you again. >> i thank you. are not going to check the party registration before they blow us up. we should focus on this as a country. thank you coming as un-american to talk about a challenge -- as

an american to talk about a challenge as an american. like thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> a reminder. you can watch the remarks today anytime online at c-span.org. the news from capitol hill. news about montana. said that he is appointing lieutenant governor john walsh to serve out the term of backs -- of max baucus was

leaving. the interim appointee will serve the remainder of the current term until january 2015. is expected to be sworn in on the senate -- in the senate on tuesday. jane harman eight years on the intelligence committee. a hearingthey held from the leading intelligence officials about worldwide threat. all of that available online. we will show it to you that we can. here's a little bit about a discussion on covert action. this has had serious negative consequences to the national security of the united states. when it comes to america's approach, there is only one thing that is certain. that is our allies have no clue --t our clue is from one

what are policy is from one day to the next. we had 10 bilateral meetings and a bipartisan delegation. this was different from the same direction he got from the state department that was different from the direction he got from the white house. the frustration of our allies in a very troubled time. talking about the problem, reviewing the problem, assigning a task force, is causing serious problems. our adversaries completely see it as weakness.

the opinion of our international partners who we meet with frequently. grabbing land around the world. our adversaries capitalize on our indecision and absence from the world stage at their own strategic advantage. when policymakers embrace national security policies based on what sounds good in a speech, those left to untangle the mess are the gentlemen you see before us today in the very courageous men and women who work for the agencies. i think all of you for the work you do. not only the good work you're doing now but the years you have country, oneng the of the most challenging times i argue in the national security issues. the lack of

leadership has treated a growing risk aversion within our intelligence agency as al qaeda has spread throughout yemen, syria. we have piled on even more bureaucracy on our intelligence agencies. individuals who would have been previously removed from the battlefield for attacking or plotting to attack against u.s. interests remain free because of self imposed redtape. pondering moresy transparency, our professionals are left paralyzed because of the totally incoherent policy guidance. let me be the first to say publicly. the president's changes for the targeted strike are in utter and complete failure. they leave american lives at risk. the changes while finding nice in a speech are right now endangering the lives of americans at home and our

military overseas in a way that is frustrating to our allies and frustrating to those of us who engage in the oversight of our classified activities. i asked whether we had the conviction to submit our games and achieve lasting the tree. would we just walk away? a year later we have seen -- we have seemed more focused. we have already learned what happens after a hasty exit in iraq. the ability to do this in the west and our homeland. represents and loss of love gains. our policy should be dictated by what best or text america combined not what is clinically expedient.

now is not the time to disengage from the world. you must pass feigned outrage. back to business of protecting america. we must give intelligent services the clarity and certainty in tools to be successful in that effort. tot is why we look to you find innovative ways to make sure that you have the ability to impact attentional terrorist operations targeted to the united states and our allies and collect the information for policymakers to make the right decision. >>is no small task here it among the witnesses at that hearing, james clapper, john brennan, and jane's company. we will show you that in its entirety tomorrow.

with security a prime focus at the sochi games, the olympics getting underway today. we have been asking for talks on the games and what you're concerned might be here if you can leave them at facebook.com/c-span. i am glad our athletes are participating. i do not agree with jimmy carter's boycott. or it is good entertainment. -- back in the u.s., the president is on the road today. he is now in east lansing michigan. he is dining with the itch right mayor. then he has the campus of michigan state university a long with debbie stabenow. is going to sign a five-year farm bill.

both the house and senate are out of session today. the senate is also back monday at 2:00 p.m. as lawmakers will work on a bill that restores cuts to military pensions. you can follow the house here on c-span. >> i came to washington to conduct investigations. five or six days a week. eight or 10 hours a day. i had a great galaxy. people are on the stand.

we never would colin man if we knew that he was in there. >> they continued the series of oil history interviews with former supreme court justices. washington, online at c- span.org. channel 120. >> opening ceremonies are underway in sochi. with the start of the winter games, our focus was on the number of issues related to the olympics including the intersection of politics and the olympics throughout history. conversation from philadelphia is eric zillmer, the athletic director and a professor at drexel university. we are going to be talking about

the history and politics of the olympics with dr. zillmer. when did the modern olympic games start, eric zillmer, and have they always been political? d have they always been political? guest: the modern olympics started with the summer olympics in 1896 in athens. but for the winter olympics, it started in 1924 in the little french resort town. this is the 27 olympics, sochi, for the winter olympics and there have been 30 summer olympics. of course, a long history of ancient greece hosting the olympics. and as the olympics have become more visible that has been more glory, more power, more money, and with that, an opportunity for propaganda. and of course the olympic have always been political. in ancient times, peter, their athletes were put on coins. there were statues build if they were the victors. and in more recent times,

especially in the summer olympics, there's been little statements. think of the 1936 olympics, as an expression of an ideology of an entire country, the third 1980, germany, or think of in moscow, the first olympics that russia ever held where 66 countries including the united states boycotted the olympics because russia -- ussr was in afghanistan. go 1968 mexico, silent display of black power by two american athletes who won the gold and silver in the 200 millimeter -- 200 meter race. politics started from whether americans should where american-made apparel to who goes to the olympics, to how the site gets selected. and now we have openings the most expensive olympics ever held, $50 billion, $10 billion

in security. sports,talk about the peter, as about the politics. the olympic games and the olympic political games. host: so, how did we get to be discussing gay rights and authoritarian regimes in the olympics? guest: the beauty of the sports is that it has always been a slice of humanity. mostlympics are sports ambitious moments. if you combine the two, sports has always been a way -- how to look at humanity. if you think about sports, the barriers broken down in terms of diversity, racial diversity, gender diversity. the first olympics had no women participating. now there are as many women athletes as men athletes in the american delegation. and so, for every olympics, there is a litmus test, what is the olympics about in russia.

believe, it is i project and there are two issues i think russia wants to be seen as favorably, and that is that they are a modern country and that they are wealthy. and some of the social issues you now see coming through the olympics are freedom of orientation,exual and also money. how much money do the athletes need to go to the olympics? this is the script behind the olympics. of course, all of this goes away the moment the lights go on and you see the athletes. i have to tell you, i am a fan of the olympics. the eyes.ast for the more television has gotten involved, it is just irresistible not to watch it. so i think the sports, when they take the main stage, everything will be dedicated to the sports. but the context is political.

is area code if you want to participate in a conversation with eric zillmer, athletic director at drexel university and a licensed clinical psychologist on top of that. host: you can also participate via social media, send a tweet to our twitter handle. even though we will not be looking at those comments, you can continue the conversation all olympics and politics on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. important arehow the olympic games to nationalism, to small states, etc.? they are amazingly important. you may remember the cold war almost the country's

ideology was in competition with each other. you remember the miracle of ice in 1980 when the united states team made up of a bunch of college kids for the first time beat the ussr in their red jerseys. it gave us conviction that we could win this cold war. sports has been an amazing tool in this respect. or if you remember during the cold war, a small country like east germany with a population of 16 million people being always in the top three in the summer olympics in medal counts. of the metal council race has always suggested whether a country -- medal count race is always a just a whether a country can be superior in infrastructure, education to other countries. nations,ompetition of and it reflects how well a country is going. i think it is true for the united states of america as well.

athletes competing in these olympics, the largest delegation we have ever had. and i think americans are as nationalistic as eddie -- any other country and wants to do well as a nation. host: a few years back the head of the international olympic committee said "the olympics are more important than the catholic religion." ioc is all, being nonprofit organization, houston luzern -- lausanne, switzerland, and they have 100 members who determine how the olympics are staged and where they are located. and i believe this statement, that they actually believe that statement. you know, sports can mean everything to some people in some countries and to some people it means nothing. that is the beauty of sports. it actually is irrelevant. what it is a celebration of

movement, what people can do. like the state of the union address, peter, for humanity, to watch the olympics. now, since the inception of the been aolympics there has separation of money and politics from the olympics. the american who was for a long time the president of the ioc in the 20th century, he made a comment about -- politics having nothing to do with the olympics and also should be no sponsors or outside money but completely and amateur istic event. summer olympics 1972 in munich at all came ahead -- to a head when a terrorist organization, black september, invaded the olympic village and took the israeli wrestling team hostage afteral of the decision one day of not competing they would compete in the 1972 summer olympics while this terrorist

organization was holding their wrestling team hostage. that says statement politics are separate from the olympics. of course some of peter, the ioc is an olympic entity in and of itself and you have to remember. so, they have their own agenda and their own propaganda. host: let's take from -- some calls for you. herb is calling from orchard park, new york. guest: good morning. agree more that politics should not be in the olympics. but unfortunately they are. and i think we are seeing much more of it this year in my memory than we have in the past there -- in the past. and i happen to be an admirer of the russian people. i hope nbc and other networks will show a little bit of the history of the soviet union. for example, i don't think most the russianslize

really won world war ii. yes, the united states, canada, britain, australia helped about 20 million russian people died, themselves to bring victory over than not these -- not twos. --nazis. and even today if you really this visit moscow in red square there is a statue of the russian unknown soldier. you will see young couples just married after their ceremony on their way to their reception, they will stop and visit the unknown soldier .emorial there what i am saying is the russian day, haveen to this not forgotten the tremendous sacrifices. and i hope the coverage will show a little bit of that. got aerb, i think we point. eric zillmer,, for the caller?

guest: the question is how do we get to discussing this, especially for the oh winter olympics. the went olympics used to be held in small villages like lake placid, for tina, saint mauritz, ch, after yougarmis come from the slopes you sit at the fireplace often with the athletes themselves. but the ioc made a decision to make -- awarded to a low-key resume this resort of sochi and a few years, south korea. these are not mainstream at the resort areas. bebop in critical how a low-key seaside resort like sochi is going to stage a winter olympics. since this is the second olympics in russia, russia is very motivated to do very well on an international stage. and so that is why the background of sochi has become so political for a winter olympics game when in the past very few people talk about

winter olympics. herb'skground to question, you know, the cold war ended in 1989 but is it truly over? war againstved in a global terrorism. we have troops on the ground in afghanistan as russia had in the past. i think we see a lot of media spin that is not giving russia a fair shake for these olympics. before the olympics even started people were told that the olympics are unsafe. i would say that sochi right now is the safest place on the earth. over 40,000 security. anything can happen, but there is so much security on the ground and sochi it is hard to believe that these olympics are not going to be secure. i think there is a lot of spin about russia's natural enemies who want to make sure and provide a context that these olympics are going to be a failure.

what is yourllmer, personal history in the olympics? guest: well, my sister competed in the olympics in 1968 in grenoble, france, as a women's figure skater. two event that i think are so mesmerizing in the winter olympics, on sunday, the men's downhill. an amazing feat of gravity has gone i think the biggest pages the drama of women's figure skating and my sister was a competitor. were of interest politically was for the first time they were embraced by mainstream america because they were televised, and the heroine peggy fleming won in a fairytale performance in grenoble and showed the world that women can be athletes and can be feminine at the same time. i tagged along. i was a 12-year-old boy. and i remember things, peter, like walking into the olympic village every day to visit my sister and there would be absolutely no security. there was a sign that said

"olympic village" in french, of course, and i would just walk have by and never credentials checked. now you have an olympic village that is like a fortress. so many things have changed but the politics of never change. the politics of 1960 eight winter olympics, the ones my sister participated in, was for the first time east and west germany were recognized as separate countries and were allowed to represent each other's country. so you know, every olympics has had its own agenda. i also remember as a 12-year-old watching the ice hockey game, the ussr against czechoslovakia and it was, of course, the same year russian tanks invaded prague. hockeys was not an ice game but this was an athletic contest for liberty. with the previous caller that politics should be separate from sports but it

isn't as it is a reflection of life and that is what you will get from the lyrics. host: seagull tweets in -- was it a mistake for jimmy carter to not f which compete in the 1980 x? mistake.was a huge you look at it now in the historical perspective, and i think most people and scholars would agree it was a mistake. eyed hundreds of american athletes who tried to hundredste -- denied of american athletes to try to participate at highest level -- daily training, sacrificing family and social life, employment, and you denied those american athletes in the pursuit of happiness which is in our constitution through a political gesture and in return, of course, the russians were not part of the 1984 olympics in los angeles so this was drawn out over a period of time. so i believe it was a huge mistake. host: next call comes from tom

from north carolina. go ahead with your question or comment for eric zillmer. guest: i heard you make mention of the 1968 in the 1980 olympics a little bit, and the 1972 olympics. but an event that was hostageowed -- taking but the israelis, the gold-medal heavyweight boxing where united againstussell fought the russian, put them on the canvas five times in three rounds and somehow ended up with a silver medal. that caused him to completely get out of boxing after that. he could have overshadowed those of the -- both of them spinx brothers. guest: also in the 1972 olympics with mark spitz who won at that time most gold medals, i believe six or seven.

one of the beautiful things about the olympics are these personal stories you see about these athletes, how they got to the olympics and what happened to them afterwards. for some, it is the end of a long career and for others it is to an amazing career either in sports or onto partnership. the gentleman mentioned moffett that show boxing. cash is clay, now mohammed ali, was a boxer who won a gold medal and look at where he went. in the next two weeks we will see what stories are going to be told, human stories, individual stories about athletes performing at the highest level. that is what the olympics is about as well. olympics have so many different facets to it and that is why we are talking about it and that is why people interested in it. it has athletics and it has politics. began this morning with "the washington times" column,

tom navarro talking about economic devastation a host city faces after hosting the olympics. host: it is an interesting point. when you think about it in america now, which city would want to actually want to host these olympics? it seems like if you are the mayor of a city like that, you want to make sure you are not in office anymore when the olympics comes around. it is financially very difficult to stage. and in fact, i used to believe it would not be possible to stage anymore by a democratic country. you would almost have to be totalitarian or communistic to really have the entire country support financially such an amazing event. you have to remember, there's 100 events that are in the summer olympics now. like having 100 world championships in one place. the operational chaos is just incredible. but then i watched the london and i wasn 2012

really impressed how london handled it. seemingly in an amazingly organized fashion. financially they did well. so, i think it is possible and i think it is a reflection of how you want to stage it and what resources you have and how much you wanted. becoming very, very expensive. remember the athens olympics in billion, and $2 billion in security and now the most expensive games ever, sochi, $50 billion and 10 million. -- $10 billion in security. it is a very expensive undertaking and very few countries can afford it. some countries have made a mistake in probably accepting it. look at sarajevo in yugoslavia when they had the winter olympics and look at that town now. we will see how rio de janeiro

who has the next summer olympics will do. we know that country is going to struggle to financially support all the buildings that go along, the infrastructure, with olympics like that. peter, remember, the summer olympics are 15,000 athletes, 15,000 volunteers. you have to provide an olympic village that the athletes can move in the day of the olympics. it is just an amazing undertaking. so i agree. one of the aspects of olympics his finances. in --iewer tweets the next call for eric zillmer comes from madonna in missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on your previous guest. she stated that she was not at all having interest in the

government -- let me start over. she stated that she wanted the government to back olympians athletes because they were representative of the u.s. country. which takes offense -- which makes sense to me. but at the same breath she did not want olympians to being used as commodity for the government. i am thinking to myself, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, so to speak. i am thinking, if you want the yournment to back you up, have to be a marksman for the government but if you want to verizon, which she repeatedly suggested being their sponsor, she did not think they were responsible for holding the whole bill. the other thing that kind of bothered me with what she said was, she said olympians also had i am a full-time job and thinking -- that is wonderful. i'm so glad we have people in who want to show

their true colors and working hard and being these talented athletes and their god-given grace have been given, and they use that for the good. have to to say they also work. that is what the rest of us are doing. you do have a choice if you want to provide for your family or do this. if you want to continue on with the stuff. we got the point. eric zillmer, i do not know if you heard, but we have been talking with samantha retrosi, a former luger. guest: her question is are athletes privileged and should they be given a free ride. and it isathletics really difficult to make an olympic team. you have to be very talented. you have to put a lot of time into it. and how you get supported is really part of the puzzle.

separate the athletic events from how you are going to be supported to actually engage in those athletic events. peter, iscountry, doing this different. that is why the olympics are so interesting. during the cold war, east germany would have academies where athletes would live and practice and eat and would be by theely 100% supported country. whereas the united states of america, we are much more capitalistic and entrepreneurial so bode miller, who, by the way, has the fastest practice time for the downhill race sunday, he is just a kid from the hampshire who was skiing in his backyard and somehow he was able to make the olympic team and is one of the gold-medal favorites. that is the beauty about the olympics, too. how do countries support their athletes and how do the athletes get to the olympics in the first place. story is different for every athlete from every country. and so, to feel that you are

entitled to be supported by your region, i don't believe in that. many athletes have their own sponsors, they find sponsors. some of them are wealthy. and not everybody is going to make it to the olympics. so those stories and adam -- in and of themselves i find interesting as well. host: a viewer follows it up with a tweet -- guest: well, i just watched it last week, "hunger games." i am slow when it comes to popular media. of course, it is interesting that there is a parallel. in the parallel i don't think is really there. the athletes that you are seeing on television the next two weeks are amazing people doing amazing feats and in the hunger

games, the contestants were chosen randomly. and the idea that you are going to fight to death is something that came out of sports possibly -- if you look at roman times, and the colosseum, the athletic events, the loser would and could lose their life. and if you look at mexican culture and my and control -- culture, it is well documented athletes would be killed if they were to lose. so this idea of fighting to taken intoeen sports. you have things like sudden death, over time, and so sometimes you compare the loser as basically dying. there's parallels. i liked the movie, by the way. but i do like the olympic games a lot better because it is live, you don't know what is happened, it is completely spontaneous and

there are going to be moments, peter, that are going to last a lifetime. host: gloria from fort washington, maryland. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for your program. i don't have time to call as often as i do because i don't have time to listen as often as i did. 77-year-old nearly of all things ordained volunteer pastor lives in fort washington and i am also a social justice activist, an odd combination. brought some interesting food for thought. athink the olympics point out whole bunch of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. i happen to be a democrat. voted for president obama twice. no the truth is the truth, matter it is blue or red, just the truth. i would love to see that much thetement generated about support services that don't

exist in the state of maryland for people with disabilities and nbc -- dc. i might be able to find 20 hours a week of gainful employment. i never saw the kind of exercise over the race problem -- and i happened to be african american could not even a ride on the bus. host: gloria, we appreciate your calling in and you watching. we will leave your comments to stand there. and we are going to move onto rich in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to bring out some points about these olympics and how they came to be in sochi. there is reports coming out all over the internet such as the australian gangsters.inc, russian mafia boss, his name is akhimov, and the sochi

olympics. he was organized and boxing and the main reason for the $50 billion, and it is something .eople are not talking about i mafia kingpin, drug king pin, heroin kingpin. and he is a main support of the olympics. host: we got that. , when a city secures the olympic games is they're usually so movers and shakers behind that it? guest: of course. that is political in and of itself, peter. you may remember the salt lake in the united02 states, when actually there were charges of bribery, free college education, free medical treatment to the olympic committee members.

since then, the olympic committee members are actually not allowed to visit the city once it is announced they are bidding for the olympics. nevertheless, there's a lot of secrecy surrounding how these cities get selected. there is a lot of money involved, a lot of power, and you don't have to stress that stretch your imagination too far to understand there could be corruption. but at the end of the day, the ioc made a decision to award games to nonmainstream countries that have posted these events. and in doing so, they created some of the baggage themselves with having all of the turmoil some out -- surrounding sochi as a site for the winter olympics. host: finally, i must ask you, something will not talk about, the history of the torch relay. something that gets attention at any -- every olympic games. that began in 1936. guest: yes, it did.

sports have -- the sports have also been very spiritual. the idea of a flame be -- being eternal and on during the olympic games is something people embrace. olympic games in 1936. nobody really talks about the winter olympics in garmisch which set the stage for their better-known summer olympics in berlin. part of the torch relay brought olympics to the itself. my sister was a torchbearer for the 1972 olympics. it was onlyn, german champions -- my sister competed for germany -- who were allowed to run the boat that torch and after one -- run with the turks -- run with the torch and she had to pass it on. it has now become a commercial event.

the torch for so she was taken to outer space into the lowest lake in the world. it has become like a zoo in and of itself. i think the purpose of the relay has now been lost did but as you can see, the lighting of the olympic flame is still a very celebrated moment because it's of-- signifies the beginning the olympics even though the olympics are so complicated that the events actually started yesterday. finally, eric zillmer, president obama is not attending and no real high-level officials are attending. significant? guest: yeah, of course. it is a political statement. on tuesday, the ioc president thomas back went on record saying take the olympics out of the olympics and he was accusing allocations of making statements of a were not showing up. in the past political figures would say i am going to be there and now it is news when the you are not coming. it was interpreted that -- it is not against the olympics, it is

against the host country, russia, and in this case, some of the politics surrounding gay rights. so, many political figures, including european and american figures, have boycotted politically the olympics. host: eric zillmer and is the >> 113,000 jobs were added to the unemployment rate, dropping to 6.6%, a five-year low. some reaction from the white

house, the chairman of the council of economic advisers says that given the elevated long-term unemployment rate, extending emergency unemployment benefits for the 1.7 million workers who lost them is critical area of the president will continue to focus on action, both pushing forward on priorities with congress and using both his pen and phone to expand opportunity and growth. house speaker john boehner released a statement which said, in part, "their failure to lead leaded to the result -- to has resulted in the worst job recovery in history and, we learned this week, the health-care law will drive millions out of an already diminished labor force." : joining me from the set, leon aron, director of russians that is at the american enterprise institute. a recent op-ed he had in "the washington post" --will russia's olympics be putin's triumph?

--e you write russian president has looked at the stern quartet across the world -- poker table and says, "i see you and i raise you." what do you mean by that? guest: what i meant is every is a marathon undertaking with enormous risk. in that sense, sochi is not an exception. but what happened in sochi is four majoringled out risks for all the olympic, especially want to. to weather, the mad rush finish the construction, public incidentsand terror -- 1972 olympics in munich.

they are present in every olympic games. almost aputin liberally -- if you personify those risks, if you put them at the poker table so that they made their bets, the bets were very large and cute and -- putin said, i see you and i raise you. when briefly one by one. the weather. the last olympics and the subtropics. the temperatures, we researched mountains,n in the they could go higher than 60 degrees. now, the russians accumulated 6 million cubic feet of snow and thermal blankets -- almost futuristic -- but assuming that is true, that is still not a protection against the rain. on february 8 last year it

rained and they had to cancel a snowboarding competition in the mountains. the venues -- our previous guest was talking about the venues -- down in the valley, they are safe because they are not open air. hockey, figure skating, they are safe. but open air are a problem. .he mad rush to finish well, i think there has never inn on olympic -- olympiad which the gap between what was needed and what was there was so wide. soviet resort. people came. there were huts. they went on the beach. as a child my parents took me there. it was very nice. on trees. but that's it. to make a world-class olympic venue out of this is a huge challenge. cost, which is

reported to be around $51 billion, more than all the winter olympics together, they had to drill 10 -- 12 tunnels through the mountains they had to go up into the mountains. apart from the corruption, which people say may have consumed as much as $18 billion, stolen and spent, it is just simply a mammoth undertaking. and the final point on the construction is a lot was done essentially -- i don't want to call it slave labor, but laborers from central a zea -- asia. to stand, paid around two dollars a day and work about 12 hours. uzbekitan, and if you protest that you failed because you were technically an illegal alien. it becomes even more at risk than the general olympic

tradition where everybody rushes end.e final -- to the the third issue is the public demonstrations. again, it happens every olympics. people want to bring their causes to world attention. the problem with the timing -- russia holding the olympics shortly after it angered the gay community and the community at large with the so-called blasphemy laws and anti-gay propaganda laws -- we can talk about them more. capital of andhe in the judas -- of an indigenous muslim people who were expelled the entiremasse, people, by the russians, who were completing their 50 year conquest over the muslim north caucasus by the russian empire. hundred and 50th anniversary. anniversary.

the caspian activist demanded an apology, at least acknowledgment that they got nothing -- and although the test we hope it will be nonviolent, but the russian police have not had a particularly good record of gentle treatment of public protesters. final, of course, which essentially makes the choice of the venue a bit reckless is that if you envision sochi as being on the western slope of the theasian mountains, on eastern slope, starting with about 50 miles from sochi, and thishe way to the gestan, is the fifth or the fourth, depending how you count, most dangerous ways of the world as far as terror is concerned. brothers grew up in dagestan.

there were two horrendous bombings killing nearly 300 people at the very end of the summer and all of them were trained abroad in dagestan. but you don't have to go all the way to dagestan. sochi, in anm atomic mass republic am a there have been terrorist acts. this entire area is extremely dangerous, one of the most dangerous places in the world. and the challenge of terrorism -- the usual challenge of terrorism in all the olympics is much greater. host: how close is chechnya? guest: if you go 370 miles to dagestan -- host: closer to the caspian sea? correct. chechnya is right before it. about three hundred miles. host: does moscow have control, for lack of a better word, over this region now? the eyes ofol is in the holder. they say they do but literally there is not a day that a law

enforcement, a judge, a prosecutor, a policeman is region thatis begins about 100 miles from sochi. fraud, athere a bribery issue with law enforcement in this area? you know, again, only the russian antiterrorist committee, which is very secretive, would know the truth. but people point out the fact that these -- presumably despite all of the tight security, the the 29thde bombers, and 30th of december, managed to get to the city of volgograd, which is about 700 miles away and which is linked to sochi by a direct rail line. and that brings me to another issue with security. is locked.hi it is locked, as they say, in a

ring of steel. one people say it is up to hundred thousand uniformed personnel, even the paratroopers, undercover personnel, various kinds of volunteer troops. i think sochi is locked. but russian security experts bringing allt in of that safety to sochi, in d other placesare in russia and less nimble mobile to terrorism. that, i think, is very left them -- he vulnerable to terrorism. that, i think, is there reasonable -- but nobody in their right mind would want anything going wrong with these olympic games. especially bloodshed or violence. but the risk has been increased by the fact that putin either now or before him of the plan all along, realized how risky it is geographically to have chosen sochi as a venue and he brought essentially most of the

resources, antiterrorist resources that russia has, into sochi where the rich -- or the vicinity, thus making other places in russia vulnerable. guest,eon aron is our director of russian studies at the american enterprise institute, a native of what part of russia? guest: i was born and raised in moscow. host: when did you leave? guest: 1978. host: had to get out in 1970 question mark guest: got lucky. host: talking about some of the politics and risks, some of the issues surrounding the sochi games with him. to calls,go professor, what about the fact that western leaders are not attending the opening ceremonies , and they have in the past? guest: well, i think it has to do with issue number three of my quartet of issues. has been used by

interest groups and protest groups to zero in a mature underscore, to draw the world attention. in this case, as i said, either by design or most likely by oversight, the timing of the laws. it was not just the anti-gay laws. in 2012,in was elected russia adopted a host, about a half a dozen various laws. ,n demonstrations, on blasphemy anti-gay propaganda and so on, which made the country much more repressive. and i think this is reflected in -- reluctance of of leaders of major industrial democracies to come to the olympics. host: did you support jimmy carter's decision in 1982 boycott moscow? i was probably too young to think in those terms, but it

was a courageous decision. recall,o do, if you with russia's invasion of afghanistan and in retrospect, even that invasion in the end gave us the taliban and afghanistan as a base of al qaeda and essentially 9/11, i think he was right. is our guest and mark is our first caller from california. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. apparently the athletes don't have any right to free speech and the people that put the olympics on, it seems like it is all about putting their products out on the first base.

things and said, is a good, bad, are you indifferent to that? don't like it. host: why not? caller: because, you know, the countries that put these things on, i just wondering how much money do they get from advertising -- they are just wondering how much money they get from advertisement or the sales from different research -- t-shirts. tot: anything you want respond to? guest: i just want to correct slightly the caller. i think he said where the athletes -- after next on the -- free speech. have the athletes, i'm sorry.

member of a protest against racial discrimination in the united states in the 1968 olympics, the black love of african-american -- black glove of african-american athletes. there's a strong possibility several have already signed onto the gay activist petition. it's true, the athletes will not be allowed, i'm sure, to make may be ablet they to make symbolic gestures like this, protesting discrimination against the gay. wonderful tweets in. guest: [laughter] depends on how you define healthy. i have no problem with a healthy ch, let nationalism, whi

me added -- this is not only grim side, i think this is the healthy side. there is nothing wrong -- every olympic games, every albeit -- every olympiad has a healthy dose of nationalism. you show yourself as a generous host. there's nothing wrong with it and it is absolutely true. let me cite something from the polls in russia that i just got yesterday. the russian people in the national poll were asked, why do you think -- i'm translating from russian here -- what do you think was the main reason the russian powers that be, the russian functionaries wanted to have the olympic games in sochi, in russia so much? by far the largest plurality, 38%, said "that was a good

opportunity for dividing up -wise a huge sum from the state budget." -- again,nother thing from the opinion poll, the .ecent opinion poll "what do you think -- why do you think in your view russia has spent so much more on this olympiad than any other country from any other time?' is dueplurality said it .o the huge corruption factor most of the funds that were supposed to go to the olympics was wasted or stolen. these are the russian people. i think they probably have a better idea than we do what is going on. healthy nationalism?

absolutely. showcasing your country? absolutely. let me add something to this -- russia spends twice as much on these olympics as it spent in a 2013 on education. $51 billion, 80% of other countries that on health care. that is a little bit too much, even for healthy nationalism. host: richard, mountain view, california, good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning. can you hear me? host: we are listening, sir. ,aller: first of all, dr. aron let me give you quick background. my regret, -- my great-grandfather was the cossack major in the army and fought the communists. yeltsinvited by the committee to go to russia and talk about the economy and what russia could do. i remember during that period of time there was so much russia bashing going on.

you sound like really a premium basher. why do you have so much hostility towards russia? russia is becoming a key economic power. i see this in the media and i think you are part of the sphere and moaning to knock sochi the russian people. why are you doing that? guest: first of all, richard, fought side bys side. my grandfather was a doctor in the russian army in 1914, 1918. i love russia, i have lots of friends there. but if you allow me, i would like to follow up on this come because this is a totally irresponsible statement. what i saidl me in what specifically find not true or hostile? could i havegize moved on and hung up on him. he is no longer -- guest: ok. host: you will have to take what

he said and go with it. guest: well, i have nothing to say with this. nowhere in my writing or anywhere else. if i am hostile, then i suggest that richard read the editorial today in "the new york times," in any other major newspapers. i am no different. i think, peter, you could testify to that, i stuck to the facts. host: we read the "new york times" editorial earlier this morning on "washington journal." do you agree with what it says? guest: absolutely. host: are you a supporter of of vladimir putin in any way? --you think he is -- r do you think he is bad for russia? guest: yes, i do. host: 2 specific reasons why. guest: ok. i just returned for a major push returned from a major gathering of experts in russia, named for

my great friend, a great privatized and brilliant economist. the ministere were of economy, the debbie chairman deputyrussian bank, -- chairman of the russian state bank, and several others. what they said was, essentially, after 2008, 2009, the world financial crisis, when russia must gdp in when you're filled eight percent -- when russia's 8%,in one year fell russia face a simple choice. we needed to diversify the country's economy away from oil and gas. they could no longer service this demonstrators of wealth that should serve as this fabulous producer of wealth -- they could no longer serve as this fabulous producer of wealth. how do you do it?

change the investment climate. create better protection for .roperty rights .irect investment is down 15% rule of law, courts for sale, or subject to government subject to government pressure, and most of all, no accountability of the government. this was the choice. what happened before that, we could quibble, but the economy was growing and people were having and that is a separate issue. i have problems with that part of putin's rule, but this is the key decisive point. putin decided no, we will go short-term stability, preserving versuser of the regime long-term progress of the country. to awe're seeing is

certain extent chickens coming home to roost because the --sian economy grew 1.2% grew 1.3%, and at the same forum, the deputy chair of the world bank -- i'm sorry, the russian state bank, the equivalent of the fed, was talking about stagflation. i hold putin directly responsible and i think so do russian people. let me cite one opinion poll. people were asked three weeks ago, do you think that the current regime is more concerned about preserving its own power and aggrandizing itself versus long-term welfare of the country and progress of russia? , concernede latter with the progress of russia. 60% say they are only concerned with their own power. i think that is a fairly good judgment. host: could you say what you just said in moscow?

guest: yes. host: and you would feel safe? guest: yes. and for other richards out there, believe me, i grew up in the soviet union. not in my wildest dreams, and your viewers have to keep this compare the would soviet union to putin's russia. it is like comparing a very severe cold or ulcer to a deadly cancer. no comparison. russia is a freer country, much more prosperous country. is, putin took a wrong turn and i think he will all this fuss over this. leon aron call for for the american enterprise institute. caller: good morning, sir. presidento comment on

putin. i think he is a corrupt-minded person. he is still trying to dictate and make this great comeback. i'm -- i mean, their allies to syria. why would they have the olympics in russia? you know what i mean? that is crazy. he has been a dictator all his life. he is a tyrant. his money stinks. he has no good. changing and not, better country, -- and have become a better country, but barack obama should've gone over there and bomb them. leave it therell

and got a comment from leon aron. guest: well, i think, when you asked me, peter, earlier, why westernleaders of major democracies absent, serious one of the issues -- syria is one of the issues. it is obligated, because on one hand -- it is complicated, because on one hand russia allied itself temporarily with united states on the issue of extraction of chemical arms from syria. but whatever goals the obama administration have with respect to that, the russian goal was simple. they could care less about this chemical weapons. their goal was to protect the syrian regime. it is a long story why, but one credosissues, one of the of putin is you do not allow change of any authoritarian especially if the west

once the strange. -- this has been an overarching sort of strategy and goal in putin's foreign policy from the beginning, to stand up to the united states. essentially in many respects save in that instance the regime and they are no longer using, at least i hope, the chemical weapons, although they have not surrender them yet , but they are bombing their starvingom behind and them to death. this is the product of the , the constanttion

because of any syria -- constant resolution -- of any syria resolution in the u.n. guest: very good question. gorbachev has been increasingly -- he was born in 1931. he will be 83 this february. bolds been increasingly he critical of putin because rarely sees himself as a great liberator. he is the man who gave the russians points come even though it led to the collapse of the country and collapse of his regime. th because he allowed

the people to say the truth about the country. and with effective censorship of the russian television, with the oppositionf any leader to appear on television for any length of time or risk gorbachev's, opinion is quite right and we should applaud him for being courageous. host: does he spend all his time in moscow today? he has been unwell but he still has the gorbachev foundation in moscow. i've been in touch with them on numerous occasions, and for some of you gorbachev fans come he b for my latest book. truth in advertising. host: leon aron, what is his life like? does it well -- does he live well? does he have security?

guest: there is no library, no >> this conversation is in our video library on c-span.org and washington journal airs every day at 7 a.m. eastern. president obama has come to michigan to sign the farm bill, which was passed by the senate this past week. this --ting underway underway, live on c-span. [applause] want to think a very key person in part here who we now have handed off this bill to. so proud that our united states secretary of agriculture, tom vill sack is with us today. -- secretary of agriculture tom

vilsack is with us today. wastor cochran, this truly a bipartisan effort. i also want to thank my staff involved. i have the best agriculture staff on the hill. thank you very much. i hope you will also join me in thanking colleagues who are here today who are so important to this process. our great senior senator carl , we thankgary peters them.

our president pro tem of the united states senate, former committee, patrick leahy. [applause] the senior senator from ,innesota, amy klobuchar congresswoman from ohio and chair of the congressional black congress -- of the congressional caucus marcia fudge. [applause] billis a bipartisan jobs that makes sure 16 million people who worked in agriculture from michigan to mississippi to

ohio to texas and everywhere in between have the support they need to provide food for all of us. what you may not know is this is an export bill that will help extend opportunities. is one of the few areas we have a trade surplus. this is a research bill that will allow us to find solutions to past disease issues and innovation for the future. this is also an energy bill. also create the next generation of biofuels and help farmers and small businesses generate their own power to improve energy efficiency and improve the cost of business. there is a bio digester up in fremont about two hours northwest of here that we helped

through rural development. i was there in 2011 for the they're taking food waste,ain restaurant grease and left overs from the gerber baby food plant and mixing it with lovely livestock manure and bill -- feeding into billions of pieces of bacteria in giant holding la, methane gas that powers 1200 homes. that is part of our future. [applause] bio-based manufacturing, michigan state again a leader that allows us to take soy oil and make car seat foam rather than

national counterterrorism