from nbc news in washington, the world's longest running television program, this is "meet the press" with david gregory. and good sunday morning. there it is. you're looking live at the olympic compound in sochi, russia, on the first weekend of these winter games, from the opening ceremonies to the competition. as excited as we all are about our athletes, we have to say that a cloud does hang over these olympics as they're real concern over the prospects of terrorism and attempted hijacking as a ukrainian man alleged to hijack a plane on friday. and the politics of olympics is raising a key question. how much will the divide get

from edward snowden to human rights over that a new flap over leaked tape. in a rare interview i'll get insight from the ambassador to the usa. and hillary clinton, how does she run in 2016, if she runs? we'll have exclusive first look at a new book about revenge, loyalty and hillary clinton's so-called hit list. battle lines in congress as well. were the republicans right all along? will obamacare cost jobs or is that a misinterpretation of a report. we'll have that debate. first, or round table. make, their debuts on the round table, mike needham, ceo of heritage action for and sara

sutton. andree, yeah get us started here. still a lot of concern about security, as great as the games have been so far. >> a lot of concern about security, not so much sochi but the area. officials in washington are concerned. they're on pins and needles. when you talk to them, they are sort of crossing their fingers that russia has it under control. for all the talk about cooperation, this is a very tense situation, very close to the terror bases in the caucusus and a lot would like to punish putin who has put so much of his personal stock in these olympics. >> putin, his leadership and this poor relationship between united states and russia. what is that impact on the games and the u.s.? >> i don't think this is going to hurt us at all, but our

relationship means we're not getting the kind of security information we would like out of the russians. but when you see the political controversy here and all the corruption stories in the past, i'm more and more of the view we ought to put the olympics in a fixed number of countries. maybe like greece have the summer games. maybe rotate the winter games, canada, chile, japan. i think having the games in an authoritarian country has raised problems for decades. i would like to have them take a look at having permanent spots for countries. >> a rising region, like london, or a region, now it's for a system that's come and gone. russia looked rich, but elite talent is leaving, corruption is strong, economy is sagging. it's a touchy-feely egotistical leader. it's bound to lead to problems, him compensating more and

tenseness. >> a whole new definition of touchy-feely. >> that's what i was thinking. >> for more on the security threats and this political tension we've been taking between the united states and russia. i've joined by nbc chief foreign correspondent richard engel who is on the ground in sochi. good morning. >> reporter: good morning. as we all know it was a very difficult roll-out but now that the games have actually begun, the mood here is improving. there's more focus on the competition, more focus on the athletes, but as all of you are saying, for russia, these olympics are more about just sport. russia has deployed 70,000 security forces. positioned anti-aircraft rocketses around olympic venues. and troops with binoculars to scan the mountains. moscow spent $50 billion for fairytale opening ceremony and to build two olympic cities.

why? >> putin wants to celebrate russia. russia's organization, russia's wealth, russia's achievement. those games are highly political because the kremlin made them highly political. >> reporter: the last time moscow hosted the olympics in 1980, the soviet union dominated all of east asia. now the berlin wall is down and the soviet union collapsed. sochi is a return, a world power led once more by vladimir putin. there's a problem with russia's story of revival. it's next door in the ukraine. the ukrainian government is a russian ally, but protesters backed by washington want closer ties with europe. this tug of war exploded last week with a leaked f-bomb. >> and, you know, [ bleep ] the eu. >> reporter: victoria nuland's

private conversation was posted on the internet, making her sound like she was picking winners in the ukrainian government. >> i don't think klitshko should go into it. >> reporter: they don't want the u.s. to interfere, especially while russia is hosting a big welcome back party for itself. russia claims the games have so far been successful and, aside from that threat with the plane that was potentially going to be diverted here to sochi, which turned out to be nothing, there have been no major security concerns. >> richard engel that so much with the full orchestra mplayin behind him. i want to turn to u.s. ambassador to russia, michael. >> thank you for having me.

>> there's focus on our athletes but the threats are real. all the reporting i've done in russia in this elevated threat environment, what is your assessment there as the games have begun, on the ground? >> well, the threat environment is the primary responsibility for our team on the ground here 37 we've been preparing for this for several months, actually, a couple of years now. we have an office here of about 150 people. the threat assessment has not changed since we've been here. and we coordinate very closely with the russians to share information about anything that might happen. >> the fear is that the russians are not actually sharing everything they've got for fear that the u.s. would exploit that, would somehow try to make them look bad. is that the case? do you know everything you need to know to keep our athletes and others safe there? >> well, we always want to know more. and if you work in the intelligence business, you always want more information

from any iterlocutor, from any country. we have an interest when it comes to the security of everyone here in sochi. so, we're quite satisfied with the level of cooperation we have now. >> as i said, the cloud over these games politically is that not only is it a politically charged time, but our relationship with russia seems to be at a real low point. we have a huge debate over the fate of edward snowden, who has political asylum there. this latest flap, as richard engel was reporting on, over ukraine and the leaked tape of victoria nuland. what does that say about this moment and how bad things have gotten? >> well, i would expand the list of what is in the u.s./russian relationship right now. all the three issues that you just mentioned are real. we're managing them. we're dealing with the russians in a very serious way. and at the same time, there's continuity and cooperation on a

lot of really important security issues for the united states of america. if we're talking about afghanistan, we're talking about iran, serious chemical weapons, those are all places where we continue to cooperate with the russians, even as we manage these more difficult issues. and i just think that's the nature of the u.s./russian relationship in the year 2014. some cooperation, some disagreement. >> right. but it goes beyond that, doesn't it? i mean, here's vladimir putin who is using this moment to project russian greatness. we saw that in the opening ceremonies. and yet he's been happy to use edward snowden to embarrass the united states. leaking the intercepted tape of victoria nuland. have you, yourself, been bugged by the russians? >> well, as we remind all americans that come to this country, the russian government has tremendous capabilities and legal by their law of intercepting phone calls, e-mails, et cetera.

there is no doubt that i am a primary subject of interest for them. and from time to time, they have also leaked conversations i have that i thought were private. that's just the state of working in russia. it is interesting to me that this doesn't get more attention to our critics and of course if goes beyond the pail of diplomatic if the russian were to publish conversations between two government officials. >> what does it mean to the united states? you listed areas where the united states and russia do cooperate, and those are significant. but some of these flashpoints where we really disagree -- syria, obviously, as a chief one. that goes back, obviously, to the iraq war and vladimir putin blocking u.s. efforts in the u.n. security council. what does this mean? what impact does it have on the united states that we have this

real question about whether russia is a friend or a foe? >> i wouldn't put it in categories of friend or foe. i would put it in categories of what do we want, as far as our security, trade and investment and our commitment to human rights. and then within that, how can we cooperate with russia? when we can, the president has said it many times, we want to seek win-win outcomes with the russians. when we can't, we are going to pursue our own national interest without them. and we're going to maintain our commitment to universal values, democracy and human rights, and we're not going to stop thinking about those things or criticizing the russian government in the name of some other outcome we want on security or trade side. that's our policy. it's been our policy for five years. i think it's been effective. both in obtaining our outcome that we want on our interest and on being honest and committed to our values. >> this is a time when americans are focused on russia and the

russian leadership like never before. here's the cover of "the economist" a week ago, the triumph of vladimir putin. a staged photo of him on the ice and the opening ceremonies really built on that i've talked to friends and family. they say, what's the deal with that? the new yorker has a piece, putin obviously is no democrat. not remotely. he's not interested in the contemporary requirements of human rights. he is not interested in empowering a real legislature or ceding the court. those are his themes, first and last. and putin regards any and all attempts from the west from human rights organizes and from the press to call him to account on nearly any issue as acts of russian self righteousness and hypocrisy. what do you say? >> well, we as an administration, first and

foremost starting with the president and me as the ambassador here, virtually every day are very open and criticizing the russian government when we see some kinds of restrictions on human rights and human rights of all kinds, including with respect to sexual orientation. obviously, the delegation that i was a member of here, for the opening ceremonies, reflects that. and that message, i think, is very clear. and the second thing i would say more broadly, you said that putin wants stability and development. i think the history shows that the most stable countries in the world are democracies. and the richest countries in the world are democracies. so, we don't see those aspirations as intention with each other. >> do you think russia has gotten the message about gay rights or has it chosen to ignore it? >> no, they got the message. they know exactly where we stand on that issue.

and i'm very proud of the way we've communicated or views on that issue. >> do you think there's going to be any movement significantly within the country on it? >> it's a bigger issue. that's a harder issue because of the domestic politics here. i keep in touch with everybody in that community. in fact, i just saw many of their lead rz just a few days ago. and we hope that in the long run that president putin will see economic modernization. >> it's been suggested on this program by lawmakers in the intelligence field that edward snowden is, perhaps, a spy for the russians. do you see evidence that would validate that? >> well, i can't comment on the evidence here or there in terms of those things. what i can say is we want mr. snowden to come home, face the charges against him and have a court of law decide what he has and has not done. >> finally, if you have any

expertise there on the ground, you've got to give it to us straight. how do you see the u.s. team doing in the end in terms of gold medals? >> i'm not an expert on that, although i've got to tell you, i have had -- we have had a fantastic time here. we got to see four events yesterday. seeing americans perform. it's a great atmosphere here, by the way, david. the american team's feeling very confident. but i don't -- i don't want to go -- i don't want to get ahead of my skis or beyond my skis. i'm not an expert when it comes to those things. but i hope by the end we will win. and everywhere i go, of course, i run into lots of russian government officials. i especially want to make sure we're just slightly ahead of the russians. >> all right. we'll leave it there. ambassador, thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >> and coming up here from hillary clinton's hit list to how husband bill settled scores for the former first lady. new details about the former secretary of state in a brand new book, not out until tuesday.

we've got the exclusive first look in an interview with the authors coming up next. ♪ [ girl ] my mom, she makes underwater fans that are powered by the moon. ♪ [ birds squawking ] my mom makes airplane engines that can talk. [ birds squawking ] ♪ . . . my mom can print amazing things right from her computer. [ whirring ] [ train whistle blows ] my mom makes trains that are friends with trees. [ train whistle blows ] ♪ my mom works at ge.

♪ a hit list a hit list kept about her enemies and a fight with husband bill over her 2008 convention speech. new revelations about former first lady hillary clinton in a book not out until tuesday. we're going to have an exclusive interview with the authors here in just a minute. first the key question. how will her past affect

hillary's future if she runs in 2016? >> what are your plans for 2016? >> i'm not thinking about it. i've tried to get other people not to think about it. i'll think about, you know, in the future sometime. >> she says she's not thinking about it but others definitely are. polls show hillary clinton with a commanding lead over other potential democrats. "time" magazine asks, can anyone stop hillary? "the new york times" magazine portrays her as planet hillary along with an interplanetary web of her political contacts. but her political opponents on the right blame her for benghazi and kentucky senator rand paul is now repeatedly criticizing bill clinton as a "sexual predator for his relationship with intern monica lewinsky in the late '90s." and now a new book hrc state secrets and the rebirth of hillary clinton" offers an inside glimpse into clinton's evolution in recent years and

her inner circle. one of the revelations making headlines, her staff put together a hit list of so-called sinners and saints that measured their support and opposition for her during the 2008 presidential campaign. almost six years later, most clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them as if it all had happened just a few hours before. among those rated the most disloyal, senator claire mccaskill of missouri, senator john kerry now secretary of state, and the late ted kennedy whose endorsement of barack obama was a crucial moment in the 2008 campaign. >> and joining me now, the authors of the book "hrc," amie parnes and bloomberg news jonathan allen. welcome to "meet the press." >> thank you, david. >> it's great to talk to you before the book comes out. one of the things that's already

made news is the concept of the darker part of the world of the clintons, the hit lists, the idea that bill clinton, the former president sort of settling scores, clearing field before there might be a run, jonathan. >> yeah, so the clinton aides during the 2008 campaign kept a list of the people who had been treacherous and over the course of the 2010-2012 election cycles bill clinton went out on the campaign trail and knocked some of these guys out that they didn't like. >> how so? >> so he went and supported other democrats in primaries against them and we go through a series of stories in the book as part of the big narrative, one of the light motifs that i like of him knocking out her opponents, people that didn't like her endorsing, raising money for, and this is really part of the story of the clintons, this loyalty. >> almost and having a chilling effect on anybody else who may not be with her down the line, right? >> totally. i think that's why you saw senator claire mccaskill come out very early for her. she was a seven on the hit list. i don't think she was worried.

she knew the hatred from the clintons still exists. so i think she tried to get out early and say i am supporting you guys. >> it's interesting when we talk about, you talking about this book in terms of the rebirth but also state secrets. in other words the job of secretary of state is so crucial to a potential 2016 run. you write in the book about her approach to the job, and this will be instructive when you debate whether she's a hawk or a dove but also the issues like benghazi. here's what you write about a bias for action. hillary also harbors a related trait that one source calls a bias for action which influences her decision making process. it can be seen in her approach to going after bin laden, her building of a coalition to 0 intervene in libya and she encourages her aides to innovate and improvise. she also felt in benghazi, the state department had to be there whatever the risks. that's going to be real fodder for her opponents. >> absolutely. we've talked to republicans. there's a quote in the book from shaun spicer, the republican national committee chairman, about an ad the rnc cut and released in 2013 about benghazi. you should get used to seeing that ad. so this is something that's

going to be an issue. republicans haven't yet made it something that's beyond partisan. they haven't influenced democrats and independents on it but they're going to try to do that. she's got to come up with an answer for that. >> republicans said it's part of an mind-set, an expeditionary foreign policy belief that she has that's certainly going to be a hard thing for her dealing with progressives in the primaries. there are going to be people who come at her from her left. >> certainly. i think the whole bias fraction thing is good for her. that's why leon panetta, we talk about this in the book, he sought her out early on in the bin laden raid. he wanted her buy-in because he knew she would be a hawk. i think that's a big plus for her going in. >> big factor here is the bill factor. how large does he loom? you've heard rand paul in an interview today talking about lewinsky, talking about the past, calling bill clinton a sexual predator.

so that issue is there. but it's also to what extent does he play in a campaign which he did so large before in a potential administration. here's a moment from her 2008 campaign convention speech you write about. while she had been on a mock stage at the convention center, bill had delivered edits. he had ripped up the structure and added some of his own flourishes to her speech. but hillary was having none of it. bill and the set of advisors she had hired from his 1996 campaign had proved disastrous at developing her message and strategy for the campaign. she was the one in the hot seat now. it's my speech, you quote her as saying, she declared as she left to find bill. that's a pretty dramatic moment. >> it's an interesting moment. they share the same goal but they have different strategies of getting there. i think that's going to be an interesting moment to see how this plays out. if bill can be the bill clinton that he was for barack obama in 2012, she's got it made. she can take it to the bank. she can take it all the way to

the white house. but i think if he is the bill clinton from 2008, that's a little bit of a precarious situation for her. >> how do you forgetting that bill clinton who was the -- who thought there was something of a fraud about president obama at the time? >> it's interesting. he's so good at political strategy for everyone including himself which a lot of people are bad at their own on strategy. but with her there's a blind spot. you see this visceral reaction to what's going on with her that he has. it's a problem for him. look, there's been the al gore method, distance yourself from bill clinton. that didn't work. there was the 2008 hillary clinton method, you know, sort of let him do what he's doing, he's a good strategist. that didn't work. barack obama is the one that figure the out how to use him. put him out as a surrogate but don't let him do a lot of freelancing or intervies with the press. if she can get him to do what he did on the 2012 campaign trail and we go deep into that in the book, she will serve herself well. >> interesting nuggeting about david petraeus, former head of

the cia, commander in afghanistan who had to resign because of his extramarital affair. he says she would be a tremendous president. that's a real endorsement for somebody that she showed a lot of the kindness to actually when he went through his own disgrace. >> yes. she wrote him a note actually and she said, i've had a little experience with this, which we thought was a really interesting moment. she does that. she tends to warm up to people. she might not be as gregarious as her husband but very much a retail politician in her own way. >> bottom line here, is there anything that says she doesn't run? is it just a matter of time? >> watching the olympics it's like the ski jumper. she's in the crowd. she's headed down the hill. there's little that's going to stop her from launching. we talk about the preparation going on, her top aide has been doing informational interviews about the 2016 campaign in particular. guy cecil was most often mentioned as a possible campaign manager, sat down with her june, they talked who should be the campaign manager.

he's made up his mind if he's asked he's going to do it. this is a campaign in full swing. it's more a question of whether she stops running than whether she starts running. >> nice olympic tie-in there. very well done. >> absolutely. >> thanks very much. so what will be the rallying cry for the opposition to a hillary clinton run in 2016? here is kentucky senator rand paul in an interview airing on c-span today. >> i really think that anybody who wants to take money from bill clinton or have a fund-raiser has a lot of explaining to do. in fact, i think they should give the money back. if they want to take a position on women's rights by all means do. but you can't do it and take it from a guy using his position of authority to take advantage of young women in the workplace. >> senator rand paul. i'm back here with the round table, mike needham, lobbyist with heritage action. here's the question i think we have to resolve. how does hillary clinton position herself as something other than a default establishment choice with a

complicated past and members in your own party are saying we're not going to let the past be forgotten? >> i think it's a big challenge for her and probably the biggest challenge out there is actually obamacare. if you look at the policy in obamacare, it's more similar to what hillary ran on in 2008 than barack obama. barack obama in the ohio primary said it would be unfair to make people purchase something that they can't afford to purchase with regard to the individual mandate. so i think she, like many democrats, coming up in the 2014 senate races are going to have a big trouble getting away from obamacare which are the policies she advocated for six years ago. >> whether it's impeachment, whether it's obamacare, it's benghazi, mona, you're a veteran now of the obama white house. same question. how does she position herself as a candidate of the future? >> first, i'm not sure that anybody knows exactly what her decision-making process is or what the timeline will be. >> right. >> but she clearly is in no rush

to make a decision and, frankly, why should she? she's got everything she needs to run a fantastically successful presidential campaign, star power, organization, institutional support. i think she's got the skill set and the background that you need to be a president in this time in our nation's history, which is an ability to deal with complexity and nuance and all the tradeoffs that come with being president of this country. so i actually think she's going to take her time as she should because it's a pretty consequential decision, and she knows that more than anybody else. >> the campaign ads, jonathan was pointing out at the end of that interview, the campaign's in place. there are two pacs. they've divided the lines of authority. they've got potential campaign managers lined up. she's got her book to do. she doesn't want a campaign announcement to muddy up her book tour. that's going to be a very big book next summer we believe. so at that point, after that she doesn't need to put in place the

fund-raising apparatus. and as was reported in hrc, they have kept very close all the fund-raisers, the big money people. she did in fact when she was at the state department you would see at state department events a lot of big-money people. they have always been part of her circle. it's never been disbanded. >> the bigger question of how, not whether, but how she positions herself herself, e.j., is what i'm really interested in, how she runs. >> she's got a great advantage, which is she was in the obama administration, and if president obama's doing pretty well at the end of 2015 or 2016, she can talk about being the candidate of continuity. she's also been out for four years. if you want somebody really experienced she can run that way. the thing that i am struck by when people like senator paul raise the old bill clinton story is she always had the best answer to that in 2008, which is what part of peace and prosperity didn't you like? and the country's kind of fought through bill clinton and they said, yes, there is this is

aspect of him connected to the scandal. but there's still a lot of fondness for the prosperity and she almost beat barack obama, if she had not messed up the beginning of the campaign, been overconfident and fallen behind on delegates, she won the second half of that primary campaign. so she is a formidable politician. >> what if the president is not doing well though? does she run away from him? does that anger the base? that's the pitfall. >> she's got all the campaign staff, all the money. that's unimportant in the campaign i think. she doesn't have the substance yet. how is she going to govern so it looks different than under obama. >> secondly, what are her issues? she's got to have three big issues that don't look like barack obama's issues. so i don't think she has that. i don't think she really is going to be able to appeal to the left and the base of the party. i think there's a 30, 40% chance jiri brown would be -- he's a little old, would be ideal, right personality, right state, right performance. there's going to be a challenge from the left. >> one of the challenges for

hillary is the bill clinton of today is not the bill clinton e.j. was just talked about. he was a moderate democrat president. harold ford was the upcoming star of the democrat party. today bill clinton is out there doing events with bill deblasio, the progressive mayor of new york city. over the last ten years, through the iraq war, through the primary challenge joe ses tech put up to joe lieberman, through the rice and fall of howard dean how the democrat party has become so much more progressive. >> it's the democratic party and i think that that misread who's bill clinton was. bill clinton always had a strong populist streak, one of the reasons he won in 1992. yes, he had the correction that the democratic party needed. ha the democratic party needed. he campaigned on raising taxes for the rich in 1992. this is not -- >> there's a big gap between the era of big government is over and bill deblasio saying the horses that go around central park -- >> let me get mona back into

this. andrea raised something before that is very interesting. is hillary clinton alex tension of president obama, a third term? there's a lot she has been an advocate behind the scenes. the books talks about that for health care reform. she's certainly been pretty hawkish in a way, you know, driving a lot of his policies. so where does his presidency end and his begin? >> a lot of it companies 0 down to how the competent is doing at that point, 2015. if things are moving forward and it looks like gdp growth is going to continue to pick up, the job picture looks better, she'll be able to say we've started to build the pillars of you new united states. let's keep that going. she's got room to show there's a dins in her approach. she can pull back to the clinton era in terms of style and the way they approach politics. >> i think in the general election, huge advantage because of the demographics. but getting through the primaries -- i'm not sure the

economy will help so much. >> she'll also have to show what she achieved as secretary of state. benghazi will be raised over and over again. she has to show real accomplishments, and that is completely up in the air. we see what john kerry is doing and what negotiations are in play in iran. >> so the politics of 2016 to the politics of the moment here in washington, a big one is health care. so the cbo, congressional budget office issues an report this week. all of a sudden you get the debate right back whether obamacare is a job killer. here are some of the headlines after that report from the hill. obamacare will cost 2.5 million workers by 2024. "the wall street journal" health law to cut into labor force, "new york times" health care law projected to cut the labor force that's not exactly what the cbo said. but strike the word cbo. these were congressional researchers who issued this report, e.j. you wrote about it strongly this week. >> this did not say obamacare is

a job killer. on the contrary, when doug elmendorf of the cbo testified he said this probably net create jobs. just think about the money put in people's pockets saving on their insurance from subsidies. what it said is some people might temporarily or leave the labor force. we're supposed to be for family values. you have a couple where somebody wants to leave the labor force for a couple years to take care of their kids. under the old system if that person carried the health insurance, they didn't have the option to leave. now they can. what you're doing is expanding people's choices. but you are also in the end going to create jobs out of it. >> this is a lot to explains and for a lot of republicans. >> i think people get the choice part. >> but there are still a lot of republicans who will say look, we told you it was going to have a huge impact on the labor force, some of which we truly don't understand. if you don't like obamacare, you may have a new reason. >> there are going to be a lot fewer people in the labor force. 2 million people who have a

stronger incentive to get out of the labor force. the marginal tax rates go super high as you go up the income scale. we want people at home helping kids and people in the labor force to be a growing country. this is not good for that. >> what you can do about the labor force, the most dramatic thing is do something about immigration. that is what is now stymied. we don't know yet wlts john boehner means it or is just trying to calm down his republican caucus. mike and heritage have been very, very powerful this past week in scaring the peeker of the house. >> moneyna, make a point about health care. >> let's put the people in context. 145 million people in the workforce. we're talking about in this country, and i've worked with a lot of silicon valley companies, in america today a lot of what you see, who are starting businesses? people who he already have means and people young and don't have families. one of the reasons is people are tied down because of health care.

so the idea that some people may ultimately fall out of the workforce but you have a whole group of people who may decide i'm going to start that new business and that in turn will create. >> hold on. a comment from mike here. >> the cbo debate has been one of those great moments that illustrates how washington, d.c. confuses the debate. here you have some of the same people who look at paul ryan's plan to strengthen medicare by providing premium support so that medicare exists for future generations and current generation and call that pushing granny off the cliff. people who look at mitt romney's career that created jobs and opportunities and say he's a guy who murdered some woman who had cancer that now say because you look at a cbo report that does say it's going to cost 2.5 million jobs, you're being unfair because you're not saying the implicit tax margins under the subsidies in obamacare are going to cause the labor demand to dry up. >> quick comment, e.j.ing >> this point about small businesses so important, a

scholar at harvard has shown in countries that guarantee everyone health insurance, there's a faster rate of small business creation than there is in the united states. >> it says workers. there is a very big distinction. >> let me get a break. we're going to continue this debate, by the way, in just a moment. the battle lines drawn in congress over this very issue, talking about immigration, the debt ceiling and the obamacare conversation we've been having. will it cost millions of jobses? two key senators will be here to have that debate coming up next. "meet the press" is [ male announcer ] at northrop grumman,

we've always been on the forefront of innovation. when the world called for speed... ♪ ...when the world called for stealth... ♪ ...intelligence... endurance... affordability... adaptability... and when the world asked for the future. staying ahead in a constantly evolving world. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. >> coming up, the battles in washington ahead from the debt ceiling to immigration. will anything get done this year? i'll put two influential senators on the spot coming up next. now it's your turn to bring something to the table. here's today's question, weigh now it's your turn to bring something to the table. now it's your turn to bring somehi, are we still on for here's ttomorrow?estion, weigh tomorrow.

quick look at the weather. nice day, beautiful tomorrow. tomorrow is full of promise. we can come back tomorrrow. and we promise to keep it that way. driven to preserve the environment, csx moves a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on one gallon of fuel. what a day. can't wait til tomorrow.

and we are back. so if you're betting big things are to get done in washington and congress this year, you might have been wrong. the glimmer of hope from the budget deal seems like it's disappeared with the battle lines now drawn over key issues and a new fight over the impact of obamacare. chuck schumer of new york and republican senator rob portman of ohio. welcome back. >> good to be back.

>> you've been listening to this debate with the roundtable over obamacare. senator schumer, here is an ad by the group americans for prosperity in this midterm election year that they're going to be running hard. watch. >> who told us. >> -- a system that eases up the pressure on businesses and unleashes the promise of our economy creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. >> but now we find out obamacare will reduce full-time employment by 2.3 million jobs. >> hurting the economy. and middle class families. >> so for democrats who thought senator schumer, that obamacare was going to be a plus in this election year, are you on the defensive again? >> i don't think so. bottom line is very simple. what cbo said is that many american workers would have freedom. now, that's a good work, freedom to do things they couldn't do. the single mom who is raising three kids has to keep a job because of health care can now spend some time raising those kids. that's a family value. the student, 27 years old, wants to finish school quickly so he

can get a great job. can't because he needs health care, is now free. you know, david, when we pass the 40-hour workweek 100 years ago, it reduced hours but it certainly was regarded as a step forward, and i'd say two other things here. number one, cbo used 2017 full employment as the baseline. many people when the folks like the single mom and the student and the small businessman who wants to now start a small business and can, when those people leave their jobs in 2015, '16, '14, '15, '16 others are going to take those jobs. finally in 2017 if there's full employment and no one it to take those jobs, it will raise wages. this is a net plus. i'd say one final thing. >> let me get a sons from senator portman man. i'm sure you're happy to have democrats on the offensive. why shouldn't this be seen as freedom for folks who didn't

have it before? >> it's not that i'm happy to see democrats on the defensive. i'm worried about the american worker. we've got in our country right now a 35 year low in terms of labor participation. we don't have as many people in the workforce as during the middle of the recession. and yet, you have democrats almost giddy about the fact that oh, boy, now we're going to have fewer people in the workforce. that doesn't help workers. it doesn't help in terms of fighting poverty. look, cbo was very clear. they said this is going to result in fewer people wanting to work. what they didn't say, david, which is going to make this even worse is for many employers are not hiring people because of obamacare. 70% in some of the surveys of small businesses are saying it is already harming their ability to hire people. why? for a few reasons. one is you have these employer mandates in place saying if you have over 50 employees you're part of this. you have companies saying i'm not going to get over 50 meez, some.cans letting people going certainly not growing employment.

second you have people saying i'm not going to let people work more than 30 hours. there's a new 40-hour workweek, senator schumer. it's a 30 hour workweek. higher health care costs is driving the cost of doing business up and therefore, fewer people are getting hired. i hear it in ohio all the time. i'm going to do more with part time and overtime. i'm not going to hire people. finally 19 new taxes in this thing. a trillion dollars in new taxes. that wasn't even analyze inside the cbo report. there were a bunch of promises made and none are being kept. you could keep your health care. >> let's stick to this issue and to the question at hand. you brought up the american worker senator portman but you voted this week against extending unemployment benefits for those out of work. it's striking. i wonder what you say to those as been reported in your own state, more than 50,000 ohio residents who had unemployment benefits end in december. those folks really hurting. why did you vote against that?

>> well, david, first of all i'm one of six republicans that voted to allow the debate to go forward. unfortunately the democrats wouldn't negotiate with us how to pay for it. but again, let's get back to the problem at hand. i said we've got a 35-year low in terps of the numbers working and the participation rate. we are record numbers of people long-term unemployed. the democrats answer to that is let's add more to the 26 weeks of unemployment insurance but do nothing to reform the program and give people the skills this he need to can assess the jobs out there. again, record numbers of people long-term unemployed. all the republicans were saying including me was look, yes, let's extend unemployment insurance. one, let's pay for it. last thing we want to do is add to the debt and deficit and make the economy worse. let's reform this program. i have a specific proposal to do that as do a group of republicans enough to get it across the floor. we need to work with the democrats to get that done. >> a response from senator shumer. >> bottom line is, our

colleagues on the other side of the aisle are telling people what's good for them but the people don't want it. the person looking for a job for six months, eight months doesn't want to be told, doesn't want to be told they shouldn't get unemployment benefits to keep their house, to keep their car, to pay for gas, to look for a job. the single mom who would like to go home and raise her three kids doesn't want to be told you have to keep that job because we're not going to give you health care. that's the about line. >> senator schumer, immigration, a big focus for you and here you have the house speaker after saying this was the year to do it saying he doesn't see it happening. is this had gamesmanship on his part or is this really over? >> well, you no he, it's been a tough week for immigration. but all three, many of the republicans have said the following speaker boehner, mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, even jim demint have said they want to do immigration reform. but they don't trust the president to enforce the law, particularly the enforcement parts. so there's a simple solution. let's enact the law this year.

but simply not let it actually start till 2017 after president obama's term is over. now, i think the rap against him that he won't enforce the law false. he's deported more people than any other president. but you col actually have the law start in 2017 without doing much violence to it. you'd simply move the day back from december 31st to 2011 to december 31st, 2013 as to when people, the deadline for people who could get either legalization or citizenship so we could go after the new people who come in later. and it would solve the problem. make no mistake about it, david. this view that we can get this done in 2015, '16 is false. you'll have the republican presidential primaries, to pull people over to the right. tea party maximizes. so simple. let's say to our republican colleagues you don't trust obama? enact the law now but put it into effect in 2017 and we can

get something real done for in irk. >> i an response for senator. is boehner at risk of losing his job if he pursues this? >> no, i think john boehner is fine in terms of his job. i do think our immigration system is broken. what chuck talks about delaying it, i think some republicans would be interested in that if we put in place the enforcement measures so it would work. in other words, make sure the border is secure, make sure you have a workforce enforcement program that works. the concern is to get back to the 1986 law. last time we did this, where we did provide legalization but didn't do enforcement, another 6 million came illegally. that's what republicans are looking for enforcement first. >> senators schumer and portman, thanks so much. coming up here, the roundtable responds a little bit and we'll talk about what's going we know why we're here. ♪ to connect our forces to what they need, when they need it. ♪ to help troops see danger, before it sees them.

♪ to answer the call of the brave and bring them safely home. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to support and protect all who serve. that's why we're here. ♪ ♪ we asked people a question, how much money do you think you'll need when you retire?

$500,000. maybe half-million. say a million dollars. [ dan ] then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. ♪ i was trying to like pull it a little further. you know, i was trying to stretch it a little bit more. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going to have to rethink this thing. [ man ] i looked around at everybody else and i was like, "are you kidding me?" [ dan ] it's just human nature to focus on the here and now. so it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or more. so maybe we need to approach things differently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪ ♪ weigh come right back with our roundtable. the news just made by senator schumer, how it's going to

drives the immigration debate and other big stories tall the building is, or how ornate the halls are. it doesn't matter if there are granite statues, or big mahogany desks. when working with an investment firm, what's really important is whether the people behind the desks actually stand behind what they say. introducing the schwab accountability guarantee. if you're not happy with one of our participating investment advisory services, we'll refund your program fee from the previous quarter. it's no guarantee against loss and other fees and expenses may still apply. chuck vo: standing by your word, that's what matters the most.

♪ [ girl ] my mom, she makes underwater fans that are powered by the moon. ♪ [ birds squawking ] my mom makes airplane engines that can talk. [ birds squawking ] ♪ my mom makes hospitals you can hold in your hand. ♪ my mom can print amazing things right from her computer. [ whirring ] [ train whistle blows ]

my mom makes trains that are friends with trees. [ train whistle blows ] ♪ my mom works at ge. ♪ my mom works at ge. if we don't double the number of kids graduating from high school in the next 8 years, our country won't be able to compete globally. what uncle sam needs now are more good teachers. are you up for it? you can help kids graduate. the more you know. back to you with the roundtable. e.j., you've got all your foets lined up. i want to make very clear you've taken a lot of notes. senator schumer may have slansed something to get this imdprags debate back on track. >> i think he's trying to call the bluff of the republicans, john boehner, paul ryan have been saying we can't trust obama. so what he's saying is okay, the new law will not take effect

until after obama leaves office. and i think john boehner and paul ryan are really on the line here because they've been sending signals privately to all kinds of pro immigration groups. they really want to do this. they've shown some guts and now they're in danger of looking gutless by folding at the first signs of pressure. so i think -- >> is that your pressure, mike needham, as a conservative lobbyist. >> the pro immigration groups he's talking to are big business lobbyists in washington, d.c. we needk$l@ modern immigration system. the bill schumer is talking about is a comprehensive bill that gets into detail of how many ski instructors will be allowed to come into the system. american people are bored how to change the status quo which is broken on the margin and instead looking for big bold ideas. >> every college president in the country is saying you've got to fix this, especially for the hi-tech jobs. >> we do. that's why the house of representatives in the 11th congress passed a bill to expand

the number of visas. these fights are about how to change the status quo. lobbyists are happy. >> it's not about who runs the republican party. do the leaders to want to have a presidential national future as a multiracial party, do they run the party or does mike run the party? the truth is, mike runs the party. >>. >> moneyna, go ahead. >> it's primary season. i completely get it if you're house member worried about a primary challenge having the debate come up in the height of the primary filing system. that might not be a great time. as the lens starts to shift from the midterms to the 2016 race, this is going to become clearer that this issue has to become resolved. >> not have millions of people with no documentation and all of these children, as well. this is an unsustainable situation. >> everybody agrees with that and the republican party should be strong enough and big1 #÷ en we can have a fak-based debate

what the right way to do any issue. we're doing a conference tomorrow. it's a conservative reform conference. nine hours of people coming over. senator tim scott talking about school choice reform, senator ted cruz talking about access to energy. these are all things the country needs and that conservatives have good reform ideas. the problem is that you have a broken status quo in washington, d.c. where where 33,000 lobbyists say we're not going to let anything truly bold go forward because then there's wenners and losers. we prefer the current system where we can pick winners and losers by working with hillary clintoning >> probably i go to your conference, i'll agree. i just don't see the political path. explain to me demographically how does the party survive without immigration. >> how are those lobbyists different from you as a lobbyist. >> by showing the republican party is on the side of the overwhelming majority of the american people who don't feel heard in washington. they're right. we don't center a tax code about

raising money to fund government. >> african-americans, asian-americans how do you reach those people? >> beneed to reform our immigration system. there is more student loan debt in this country right now than there is credit card. >> it tells you something about what is going to drives the weeks ahead is this immigration debate. thank you all for a spirited discussion this sunday morning. appreciate it very much. meantime, as you all know, the winter olympic coverage will continue from sochi on nbc. reigning u.s. cham gracie gold competes in figure skating. five-time olympic medalist bode miller tries for the gold in men's downhill skiing. go usa. that's all today. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com

another internet-wide protest is planned tuesday, but has the web picked the wrong opponent this time? figure out why one of europe's top entrepreneurs doesn't live in europe. and a technology tries to make guns smarter and safer. with reporters alistair barr of usa today and npr's laura seidel, this week on "press here." >> good morning, everyone, i'm scott mcgrew, if you look at what's been going on in tech lately, you may be under the impression it's mostly privileged people making apps for other privileged people's problems. but there are a few entrepreneurs, inventor who are trying to