‘This Week’ Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’

June 8, 2014— -- Below is the rush transcript of "This Week" on June 8, 2014. It may contain errors.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Now on ABC's This Week, Hillary's Choice.

HILLARY CLINTON, FRM. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm going to decide when it feels right for me to decide, because...

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Still by the end of this year?

ANNOUNCER: His biggest hints yet on 2016. New answers from Diane Sawyer's exclusive interview.

Plus, our new poll reveals Hillary's biggest weakness.

Firing back...

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We still get an American soldier back. Period. Full stop.

ANNOUNCER: The president defends his deal to free Bowe Bergdahl. As outrage grows, brand new details from our global team at Guantanamo Bay and in Qatar where the freed Taliban prisoners now live in luxury.

Plus, World Cup windup.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: World champions at last.

ANNOUNCER: We're live in Brazil as the global celebration, four years in the making, kicks off.

From ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos begins now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: Good morning, it's been a packed week in politics. And we begin with Hillary Clinton. As she set to barnstorm the country for her new memoir "Hard Choices," we have a first look at more of her exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer and our brand new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

That poll shows Clinton has a commanding lead for the Democratic nomination. Seven in 10 Democrats want her to be their candidate.

And her time as secretary of state has boosted her standing with the broader public. 67 percent of Americans think she's a strong leader. 60 percent say she's honest and trustworthy. And 59 percent believe she has new ideas for the country's future.

Now, of course, the top political question right now, Hillary's personal future.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAWYER: When are you going to decide whether you're running for president?

CLINTON: You know, I'm going to decide when it feels right for me to decide, because...

SAWYER: Still by the end of this year?

CLINTON: Well, you know, certainly not before then.

I just want to kind of get through this year, travel around the country, sign books, help in the mid-term elections in the fall and then take a deep breath and kind of go through my pluses and minuses about what I will and will not be thinking about as I make the decision.

I will be on the way to making a decision by the end of the year, yes.

SAWYER: But probably not announced until next year?

CLINTON: I'm not positive about that, but I think you know the way I make decisions is that's probably likely.

SAWYER: I know it's a personal decision, but if you can do that, if you can do it, you see the path and can do it, do you have to do it?

CLINTON: I have to make the decision that's right for me and the country, and I have to make...

SAWYER: But is the party frozen in place waiting for you to make that...

CLINTON: No. I mean, no. People can do whatever they choose to do on whatever timetable they decide.

SAWYER: But on -- are they disadvantaged waiting for you, looking in your eyes every day?

CLINTON: No. I mean, Bill Clinton started running for president officially in like September/October of 1991. So, no, I just don't think that that's a, you know, a real concern. People will do what they think is best for them and whether they choose to seek the presidency or not is very personal for everybody.

SAWYER: And ultimately it has to be for you, too.

CLINTON: Right. Absolutely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: While Clinton considers her final decision, it seems like the campaign has already begun with questions about her age and health raised by top Republicans like Karl Rove.

KARL ROVE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You would not be human and not have a serious brain injury like this was and take it into consideration if you're thinking about going and doing what she might do.

SAWYER: How is your health?

CLINTON: It's very good, thank you.

SAWYER: How serious was it?

CLINTON: It was -- you know it was I think a serious concussion.

SAWYER: But clot in addition, if the clot had dislodged...

CLINTON: Well, can I tell you -- that was a scary point.

SAWYER: You had trouble with vision.

CLINTON: Because of the force of the fall, I had some -- I had double vision for a short period of time and I had some dizziness.

SAWYER: So no linger effects?

CLINTON: No linger effects.

SAWYER: Of any kind?

CLINTON: Nope.

SAWYER: You would release your medical records if you ran for president?

CLINTON: I would do what other candidates have done, absolutely.

SAWYER: OK.

And what would you like to say to Karl Rove about your brain?

CLINTON: That I know he was called Bush's Brain in one of books written about him and I wish him well.

(LAUGHTER)

SAWYER: Age?

CLINTON: Age, yes. Isn't it great to be our age?

SAWYER: Mitch McConnell said at one point 2016 will be the return of the Golden Girls.

CLINTON: That was a very popular, long running TV series.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: There will also be scrutiny of Clinton's record, especially the last four years as secretary of state. No surprise, it is polarizing.

Our new poll shows that 90 percent of Democrats think she's done a good job. Only 27 percent of Republicans.

And there is bipartisan concern about how she handled the Benghazi attacks the killed four Americans, only 37 percent approve of that.

SAWYER: 13 hearings, as you pointed out, 25,000 documents turned over. There's going to be another hearing in the House. Are you going to testify?

CLINTON: Well, that's going to be up to the people running the hearing. I'm not going to, you know, say one way or the other.

SAWYER: If they ask you, you'll go?

CLINTON: Well, we'll see what they decide to do, how they conduct themselves, whether or not this is, you know, one more travesty about the loss of four Americans or whether this is in the best tradition of the congress, an effort to try to figure out what we can do better.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you can watch Diane's entire interview, a one hour primetime special with every question on the table right here on ABC tomorrow at 9:00 eastern.

And now to the firestorm over Bowe Bergdahl. The FBI is being called in to handle the growing backlash against his release.

And we have new details this morning about how he's doing right now, what he went through during nearly five years of captivity. ABC chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz here with that. Good morning, Martha.

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, George.

Bowe Bergdahl is doing remarkably well physically, but he is now telling staff at the hospital in Lundstuhl, Germany that he spent time in a cage and the he is still not ready to cope with a family reunion.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ: It was after an escape attempt that Bergdahl was kept in a small metal cage in the dark, according to a senior official. But his physical recovery is going well, The New York Times saying he has problems only with his skin and gums. Yet a senior official says the 28-year-old soldier is not yet mentally prepared to see his parents and he has no idea the firestorm his release has created.

It is hard to believe that just over a week ago, Bowe Bergdahl's parents were celebrating. This morning, there have been threats against the family's lives. Hundreds of emails and phone calls, the threat so serious the FBI has been called in, one saying "I'd be ashamed to say he is from your town. Needs to be shot and his dad right along with him. Taliban lovers."

The ugly turn of events happened quickly for a variety of reasons. First, the circumstances of his capture. This week, we learned the results of an army investigation done at the time of Bergdahl's disappearance. It backs up what some fellow soldiers have already said, that Bergdahl walked away from his base willingly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was not forcefully taken off the base, he left on his own accord.

RADDATZ: Then the traded self, Bergdahl swapped for five top Taliban, sparking sharp criticism and now even jokes from Republican senator Rand Paul.

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: Mr. President, you love to trade people, why don't we set up a trade, but this time instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I'm thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, could we send them to Mexico?

RADDATZ: Finally, there's how the deal was handled politically, like the startling comments from National Security Adviser Susan Rice about Bergdahl to George right here on This Week.

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: He served the United States with honor and distinction.

RADDATZ: The administration is still defending those comments, saying Rice was talking about Bergdahl's service before he walked away from base. But he was in less than a year and did nothing that stood out.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ: We have word that Bergdahl does not want to be called sergeant. He was promoted automatically during his captivity. He is still staff he did not earn it.

And George, it's still not clear when he'll be back to the United States, but he will not go directly home. He'll go to Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, they're going to take it step by step.

He's showing great self-awareness there.

RADDATZ: He truly is. He's showing self-awareness and sort of military discipline still by saying I don't deserve to be called sergeant.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Martha, thanks.

Now let's get the latest on those five Taliban leaders who were traded for Bergdahl. They're now in Qatar. And ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross is on their trail with more on how they are living now and what happens next. Good morning, Brian.

BRIAN ROSS, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, George.

It's been a week now since the five senior Taliban leaders arrived here for what is, in effect, a year long all expenses paid vacation for them and their extended families in the midst of luxury in this tiny, prosperous Gulf coast country.

Government officials say the former detainees are free to travel wherever they'd like in Qatar, a country with the highest per capita income in the world and the five star hotels and other trappings of wealth and prosperity to prove it.

Since their arrival to a heroes welcome seven days ago, the five former detainees have been kept hidden from view by the Qatar government and told not to talk with any reporters.

The Taliban operate here out of a villa in an upscale residential area. And as part of the deal, Qatar will provide the five men with their own well-protected villas where they'll be free to talk or meet with whomever they like.

The Qatar government says it will closely monitor all of their communications and movements. And in a statement over the weekend, their first, the five men says they will comply with the agreement not to return to Afghanistan or the battlefield over the next year. But of course they'll be free to do just that in only 51 weeks from now -- George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Brian. Thanks.

Lots of questions now for the chair of the House intelligence committee Mike Rogers. He joins us now. And congressman, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

Let's begin with those five Taliban leaders in Qatar right now. You've seen the intelligence on these five men. What's your sense of what they'll do after this year is up?

ROGERS: Well, and we're not even sure they'll -- they'll wait a year. Their real value in the next 51 weeks is propaganda by the Taliban. We've already seen that start.

So they can meet with the Taliban political leaders in Qatar. They can have family members travel to Qatar and back to Pakistan and Afghanistan and we believe that's certainly an opportunity for a courier network, to get them prepared for what's next.

I don't think you'll see any operational activity right now by them. They're smart enough to -- to know better. But it allows them to proper for what's next. And that's going to be join the fight against what Americans are left in Afghanistan in 51 weeks.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're convinced of that?

ROGERS: I am convinced, absolutely convinced of that. We've already seen, both in their rhetoric and their actions, and certainly the information that we see coming out of the Taliban, including the Haqqani network in Pakistan, would suggest that's absolutely going to happen, maybe all not -- not all five. But I do believe three, for sure, likely four. And that fifth one is on the fence, but will probably play some role in...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But...

ROGERS: -- in active operations...

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- but is there anything we can do...

ROGERS: (INAUDIBLE).

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- to prevent that?

ROGERS: I -- well, unfortunately, the deal is done. And that's what -- what is the problem. Here. And I think here's one thing about this, George. The focus have all been should -- you know, is this -- is one soldier worth it, it -- not worth it?

I think that completely misses the problem here. This is a huge regional and geopolitical problem for the United States moving forward. Hostages are now currency in this war on terror. That's always dangerous for both diplomats, aide workers, soldiers on the battlefield.

But secondly, think about what happened in the last week. America said we're leaving in 2016 completely. We negotiated with the terrorist Haqqani network. Oh, and by the way, this happened before the election even occurred.

This weekend, this weekend, the Taliban tried to assassinate one of the political leaders, Abdullah Abdullah, who's running for office in Afghanistan. This was the wrong message at the wrong time and we are going to pay for this decision for years.

Again, this shouldn't be about did -- did Congress get invited to the party. This is all...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But...

ROGERS: -- about this -- this honest discussion about what the ramifications of this (INAUDIBLE)...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're very clear. You've -- you've been very clear. You said you would never have made the trade.

But what about that bedrock principle of the soldier's creed, I will never leave a fallen comrade?

ROGERS: But the problem, George, is that hostilities haven't stopped. Normally, that's if the hostilities have stopped. There are other options. And this was what so angered for those of us who have followed this for years. This was not the only option that was available to...

STEPHANOPOULOS: The administration says it was.

ROGERS: -- no, well, the administration has this theory that you're either with them or you're for thermonuclear war and there's not in between. That's just wrong. And so the reason they avoided Congress, this isn't about we didn't get invited to the party, so -- so we shouldn't have our feelings hurt, it is because we can empower all of the people -- diplomats -- who disagreed with this decision, uh, intelligence folks who disagreed with this decision, military folks. That voice never got heard in the final discussions leading up to this deal.

That's why you engage with Congress. We can empower those voices. We can get those questions asked so you don't make a mistake that actually might jeopardize diplomats, aide workers and soldiers as we move forward.

And that's what my fear is, as we move forward in this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If Bowe Bergball -- dahl -- had been captured during a battle, would you still be opposed to this deal?

ROGERS: Yes, I would, because I -- we haven't used all the options that are afforded to us. Remember, he was in Pakistan, not all that far, we believe, from an ISI, their intelligence service, and military outposts. So now there's two other -- an American and her husband is Canadian, we believe is in Pakistan. Bergdahl was in Pakistan. Certainly, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan.

You've got a reoccurring theme here. In the FBI, George, we would call that a clue.

This is a problem and a place to start. We never went at Pakistan with any level of -- of pressure to say you're going to have to help us solve this problem. None of that happened.

There were other options on the table, many still classified, that never even rose...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What...

ROGERS: -- to the level of discussion. I think that's the problem. And remember, it's not just getting the soldier out. And we're glad and happy for the family. That's great.

But it's a bigger ramification of what this trade means to the Paki -- to, excuse me, to the Afghans that we've asked to risk their lives trying to free that country of the Taliban.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What should happen...

ROGERS: Including women.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me.

What should happen with Bergdahl now?

If he's found to have been -- if he's been found to have deserted, should he be punished or has he already paid the price?

ROGERS: Well, I think that the Department of Defense needs to do a very thorough investigation. Obviously, those soldiers are very, very concerned and upset by it and -- and if their account is true, they should be.

You jeopardize other soldiers when you walk away from your post, period and end of story. And that's a serious, serious matter in a combat zone.

But it needs to be thoroughly investigated by Department of Defense. This -- the administration trying to change the narrative through these anonymous sort of, you know, leaks to the paper about what the deal was and wasn't, none of which I found credible, by the way, needs to stop. They should stop all of that.

We ought to have a full discussion, uh, right now about the policy implications, broader implications that...

STEPHANOPOULOS: A final...

ROGERS: -- have just occurred.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A final question. Lindsey Graham...

ROGERS: Yes?

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- has raised the prospect of impeachment. If President Obama releases more Guantanamo prisoners without approval from Congress.

Should impeachment be on the table?

ROGERS: Well, again, I -- you know, that's -- that's a long way down this road and -- and the most disturbing part about this, George, is that in 2011, the -- their answers to the questions about -- for -- for a bipartisan opposition to this trade, by the way, was a whole series of things that had to happen. And one of them struck me. And it was really -- by the secretary of State at that time, Hillary Clinton, said that if all of our conditions aren't met, then none of them will be met.

And it was conditions like renouncing violence, adhering to the Afghan constitution and making sure that women are treated fairly in Afghanistan.

We got none of that. I think that's where we ought to focus right now. We -- we have made a serious, serious geopolitical mistake. We've empowered the Taliban. The one thing that they wanted more than anything, George, was recognition from the U.S. government so they can use that propagandize against areas that are you can see still in Afghanistan. They got all of that.

So that's where we need to do focus. We need to unwind this thing and try to fix it before we start, I think, hanging scalps on a pole. This is as serious as I've seen it. And we need to work through these issues. I encourage the administration to come back to Congress, as the law requires, so you can have these discussions, so you can get these questions answered before you move forward.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman, thanks very much for your time this morning.

ROGERS: Thanks, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The debate over Bowe Bergdahl has brought Guantanamo back into the headlines. President Obama pledged to shut the prison down during the 2008 campaign, but six years later, it is still there.

And ABC's chief national correspondent, Byron Pitts, got a rare look inside.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BYRON PITTS, ABC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Justice moves slowly at Guantanamo Bay. Of the 149 who remain inside the wire, some, like alleged 9/11 architect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will face trial. But many others, like the five Taliban commanders freed in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, were never charged.

(on camera): At this point, we're standing no more than 10 feet away from the detainees. They can't see us, though. This glass we're looking through is one-sided. We can see in, but they can't see out.

(voice-over): Inside one camps, it's dark. We're asked to keep quiet.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're calling for the guards, so you guys can't (INAUDIBLE).

PITTS: We step back.

(on camera): You notice when the guards went in, they wore those protective shields to protect their faces. I'm whispering because that's what's required in this place.

(voice-over): Shields, we are told, protect from cocktails of urine and feces that have been hurled in their directions.

A few minutes later, afternoon prayer begins and we're soon escorted out. Seven hundred men have come through GITMO since the beginning of the war on terror, when these pictures of shackled and hooded men shocked the world. Some say past allegations of waterboarding and hunger strikes have turned this place into a terrorist recruiter's dream.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These men are ghosts. They're not being held for who they are. They're being held for our idea of who they are.

PITTS: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has final signoff on transfers and the White House has been pressuring him to pick up the pace of transferring low level detainees. National Security Adviser Susan Rice reportedly asking last month for updates, quote, "every two weeks."

Admiral Richard Butler is the commander of the Joint Detention Center.

(on camera): How concerned should the American public be, do you think, that at some point, this place will close, those detainees will be released or transferred?

ADMIRAL RICHARD BUTLER, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE: As a private citizen...

PITTS: Yes.

BUTLER: -- and a military officer, I think we need to be concerned about it.

PITTS: Why?

BUTLER: The -- once we transfer them to -- to a -- to another country, we -- we are obviously losing control over that.

PITTS (voice-over): Nearly half the men here have already been cleared to leave by an independent review panel. These men, identified as everything from bodyguards to drivers, wait behind bars for Hagel's transfer order, which depends on whether there's a country that will take them and if that country meets U.S. security requirements.

The Obama envoy tasked with closing down GITMO says the other, more dangerous detainees, may need to be transferred to U.S. prisons. That would require a change in U.S. law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're able to change the law.

PITTS (on camera): So you believe at some point, that some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will serve their time on U.S. soil?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do.

PITTS: I can hear some folks in Congress saying over my dead body. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In addition to other issues with Guantanamo, it is enormously expensive.

PITTS (voice-over): So as the sun sets on GITMO, the dilemma -- which of these prisoners pose a continuing threat and where should they go?

For THIS WEEK, Byron Pitts, ABC News, Guantanamo Bay.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the roundtable weighs in on the Bergdahl firestorm and Hillary's latest moves later in the program.

Up next, our closer look -- is Seattle leading the way on a living wage?

That debate in a few minutes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the roundtable weighs in on the Bergdahl firestorm and Hillary's latest moves later in the program.

Up next, our closer look -- is Seattle leading the way on a living wage? That debate in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: In this week's closer look, the city of Seattle made history on Monday when it raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour, far and away the highest in the country. So will that experiment inspire other cities or scare them away? Our experts here to take on that debate after this report from ABC's Neal Karlinsky in Seattle.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEAL KARLINSKY, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Across the country, this spring has seen protests by fast food workers demanding a raise.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fast food workers and all workers deserve a living wage.

KARLINSKY: Democrats are listening, hoping it'll be a winning issue for them in the mid-term elections.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: The minimum wage, even if it doesn't affect you and your family, is an issue of basic fairness. Whose side are you on?

KARLINSKY: In Seattle this week, they've heard the concern and done something no other city has come close to -- raising the minimum wage to more than double the federal rate, an unprecedented $15 an hour, the nation's highest hourly wage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we want to regain our economic strength and be competitors in the nation, the minimum wage is going to have to raise.

KARLINSKY: Newly elected Seattle mayor Ed Murray says his city is setting an example other should follow, and he is not afraid of the criticism.

I'm sure you've read and heard some of these things, Murray seems ready to turn his city into a gigantic laboratory for one of the most ambitious and quite possibly misbegotten labor market experiments in recent history.

ED MURRAY, MAYOR OF SEATTLE: I don't think this is a misbegotten experiment. I think we are acting as a laboratory of democracy, because the federal government is not acting.

The Seattle approach is the middle out. You rebuild the middle class, you get back to a vibrant economy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm very concerned about this.

KARLINSKY: Restaurant owner Linda De Lellow Morton (ph) say her cafe and others will almost certainly be forced to layoff workers and possibly close, because $15 an hour will put her in the red.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some of us might lose our livelihood if we can't keep our businesses open. But who is really going to pay for it are the workers in the restaurant industry.

Once we get to $15, the cafe is pretty difficult to even remain viable and remain open.

KARLINSKY: The new rate will be phased in over several years to give business owners time to prepare. The international franchise union isn't waiting, and plans to sue to protect small businesses. But the mayor says he isn't worried.

MURRAY: I actually feel pretty excited about the work we did, the very difficult negotiations we had between business, labor and nonprofits to reach a good balance. And I think it's a model for the nation to look at.

KARLINSKY: For this week, Neal Karlinsky, ABC News, Seattle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And let's get more on this now from Paul Gigot, who runs the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation.

Paul, I want to begin with you, you heard the mayor. He says Seattle will be a model.

PAUL GIGOT, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, if it's a model we'll find out if it works. But I think what he's going to find out is when you raise the cost of labor you just cost -- price a lot of people out of the labor market, particularly the young, the least skilled, teenagers, people who want to go in and start again on that basic bottom rung of the economic ladder and move up.

Look, I've worked for the minimum wage, $2 an hour back in the 70s. I had jobs that, you know, I learned to show up on time. I learned certain skilled. And I learned, I didn't want to make the minimum wage for the rest of my life so I better get an education.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Get out of there.

What about that argument, Katrina, that this will squeeze the young people out of jobs and that employers are going to move more and more to automation more quickly, which they're already doing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Listen, this is smart economics. It's good politics. And it's morally right.

First of all, only one out of 10 minimum wage workers today are teenager or young person.

You know, who are the real job creators in this country? It's a strong middle class. How do you get a strong middle class? You put money in the pockets of low wage workers who can then buy. They create jobs. They create growth.

It's a winning issue. 76 percent of Americans support this. And it's transpartisan -- it's Republicans, et cetera.

And morally, what does it say about America? If you're in America and you work full-time and you live in poverty? It's a broken economic system.

Henry Ford had it right, a good capitalist. He put money in the pockets of his workers to buy cars and he created a middle class.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's being echoed now by the CEO of McDonalds, Don Thompson, who says he's not opposed to a minimum wage increase. They understand people have money in their pockets, they spend it.

GIGOT: Well, what they're going to do is probably, McDonalds, is going to hire a lot more people over time. They're going to hire -- they're going to have kiosks. They're going to have automation. So -- and he's a big company with a decent profit margin.

But a lot of the people who employ the minimum wage workers are low margin businesses -- restaurants, cafes, retail. They're the ones who can't afford to pass the costs along, so what they do is they don't hire people.

VANDEN HEUVEL: The biggest employer of low wage workers -- Wal-Mart. I mean, Wal-Mart is being subsidized by taxpayers because their workers can't afford food or health care. The taxpayers are paying food stamps. Wal-Mart is the most profitable company in America. So we're getting socked as taxpayers on both ends.

There are enlightening businesses -- Costco, Stride Rite, Trader Joe's, healthy wages, healthy profits.

GIGOT: Big businesses with big profit margins.

Wal-Mart doesn't mind sticking it to the competition, to the small businessman. They can afford it. So they don't mind. They play politics and they say, oh, well we'll go along with it and then it's their competitors who...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about the politics...

VANDEN HEUVEL: But there are studies, there are studies that have demolished the idea that increasing the minimum wage will cost low wage workers jobs.

GIGOT: The Congressional Budget...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Extensive -- that Congressional Budget Office showed the benefits of raising the minimum wage out weigh the cost. You lift million people, nearly a million, out of poverty and you give 25 million people more money in their pockets.

GIGOT: 500,000 low wage jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is increased to $9 -- CBO.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Politics.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A quick note on the politics here. You see Mitt Romney, you've seen Rick Santorum, other top Republicans now come out for minimum wages. (inaudible) said 76 percent of the public for it.

GIGOT: It always polls well, because the average American instinct is to say, yeah, I think people should get a raise.

What they don't see are the jobs that are never created, the poor people who never get the job. And that's harder to detect and it's harder to show up in polls, but it's interesting, when the 500,000 job figure from CBO came out, the Republicans in congress said, you know what, that's a very powerful argument. And I don't think it's going to pass.

VANDEN HEUVEL: You know what...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You get the last word.

VANDEN HEUVEL: It's about the values of this country. If we are a country that believes in a strong middle class and healthy families, we need rules of the road to do that. And I think hiking the minimum wage.

By the way, if productivity gains -- enormous productivity gains of the last four decades were factored in, the minimum wage today would be $22. We need to have a sense of fairness in this country that also is good for business and the economy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Got to take a break. Thank you both very much. We'll be right back with the powerhouse roundtable to take on Bowe Bergdahl and Hillary launch.

First, their big winners of the week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: Did he make a deal with the devil on releasing those five Taliban?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think this was a very hard choice, which is why I think my book is so aptly named.

If you look at, uh, what the factors were going into the decision, of course, there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield as best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation.

SAWYER: It doesn't matter?

CLINTON: It does not matter. We bring our people home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: To talk about all this now, on the roundtable, Bowe Bergdahl and Hillary Clinton, we are joined by Republican Congressman Tom Cole, Alicia Menendez the host of "A.M. Tonight" on our sister network, Fusion, ABC's Matthew Dowd, Bill Richardson, former U.N. ambassador, and Martha Raddatz is back, as well.

Ambassador, let me begin with you.

You heard Mike Rogers there saying he's glad Bergdahl is home, but wouldn't support the deal.

BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.N. AMBASSADOR: Well, I think the president did the right thing. I know it's controversial. It was a prisoner swap at a time that we're winding down a war. Leave no soldier behind -- that's an American fundamental precept. I've been involved in these negotiations before.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You negotiated...

RICHARDSON: I've...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- with the Taliban back in 1998.

RICHARDSON: When the Tali...

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE).

RICHARDSON: You know, they're very tough. They're very shifty. So the deal was made at a time when his safety and his health was being jeopardized. But at the same time, I think it might lead, in the future, to a lessening of tensions with the Taliban. I know that may be a tall order, but I think the president was totally justified...

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE).

RICHARDSON: -- in what he did.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman, can the critics have it both ways, be happy that Bergdahl is home, but not support how he got here?

REP. TOM COLE (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, look, I wouldn't have traded Audi Murphy for these five guys. I mean let's talk about who they are. These are five Taliban at a very senior level. They have blood of Americans on their hands. This was a bad policy.

So obviously, everybody is happy when somebody comes home, regardless. But, yes, you can say I wouldn't have done this deal. And, frankly, lots of Democrats are saying that, not just Republicans. It's really not a partisan debate. It's a debate over what's the appropriate thing to do in American foreign policy. This was a big mistake.

MATTHEW DOWD, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I -- I think this -- this is an interesting issue to me, because everybody sort of approaches it from a partisan lens. And it -- I think it raises a lot of other big issues.

I think there's -- for me, there's three big points in this.

First, it's totally confusing to me. Here's a guy that we would have sent and risked his life in order to kill or capture these same five men but it -- in order to get him back, where willing to give them back to the enemy, at a time when we're in the midst of a war, in the midst of a conflict -- a conflict with a very fragmented and diffuse enemy and we're releasing five of them into combat.

The second big issue is this raises all kind of concerns of, first, why are we -- why were were in Iraq and Afghanistan to begin with and why we -- we're risking our men and women's lives in those wars that seem to have no real outcome on it.

And, second, as Byron Pitts went, here we have Guantanamo Bay, which is all -- there's all kinds of human rights signals and human rights violations in the middle of this so these -- these prisoners have seen no justice, no fair process. And they're not even a -- they're not even appealed in the Geneva Convention.

And, finally, three, and from a political perspective on this, the White House and administration has totally mismanaged this. The president and Susan Rice stood up there like this was saving Private Ryan. And it turns out it's the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

And when we have that situation, the president and the -- he should have never stood up there with those parents when he knew that the information about this soldier was going to come out...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, and that's what I wanted to take to Alicia. You know, you saw so many people who served with Bergdahl come out this week and show real anger and also suggest that other soldiers died searching for him.

ALICIA MENENDEZ, HOST, "A.M. TONIGHT": But how wonderful that we live in a country where our DOD will be able to make the determination of how he ought to be treated, right?

Yes, we are at -- we're in the middle of a war. We're at the end of a war. We're winding this down. This is what happens at the end of a war, we transfer and trade prisoners. And I think that it opens up a bigger conversation, that, in fact, we have a president who twice campaigned to close Guantanamo, one, campaigning to do that, are we actually going to be able to execute on that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, there's the whole thing, it's going to be very tough.

And meanwhile, there's also going to be this question, Martha, of what should happen to Bowe Bergdahl.

Now, you had those details of -- of his state of mind right now. And you did see the military come out this week and emphasize more that his actions will be investigated.

RADDATZ: They -- they have already being -- been investigated. They found that he walked away willingly. The only thing...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Twice, right?

RADDATZ: Yes. The only -- well, when he was captured.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes.

RADDATZ: Even at that time, he walked away willingly. They said he'd wandered away one other time and was just gone fast and one time in California. He seems to wander away quite a bit.

They will look at it. They've already looked at it.

The one missing element is his side of the story.

Why did he do it?

Did he intend to go talk to the Taliban?

I mean everyone -- everyone believes he was held against his will, definitely.

But I -- but I, also, George, in talking to some soldiers and talking to military, I also think this shows sort of a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the administration about the military and what the reaction would be after you had that celebration in the Rose Garden with...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, I -- I think they would argue they -- they saw it coming, which is why they tried to get out ahead of it, Bill Richardson.

RICHARDSON: Yes. Look, there's no evidence that he's a deserter. He's a troubled young man, probably.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Or a defector.

RICHARDSON: But at the same time -- but at the same time...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But the soldiers will...

RICHARDSON: -- look what's happened...

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: No, but look...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- a deserter.

RICHARDSON: -- look, I -- I'm -- I was a governor and I -- we dealt with a lot of young men that came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD, with mental issues. I mean this is probably what happened to the young man.

But that doesn't mean that we should not make every maximum effort to leave no soldier behind.

And this was a time when our military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of Defense said, unless we get him out now -- and I know the Taliban, because of health and safety issues, we're never going to get him out.

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: So we had to do...

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: But the vitriol...

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: I think we've gotten lost in this whole thing of whether or not he's a deserter. Obviously, every single human life has value, including the Taliban have value. Every single human life has value in this.

I don't think that's the question. And I don't think it's a question. I have a son who served in Iraq and a brother that served in panama and in Kuwait. It's -- and it's no question that we shouldn't leave a soldier behind.

The question becomes is, how do we do it and when do we do it?

And I think in this situation, most of the American public believes, here are five enemy combatants and whether or not they think we're -- we're winding down the war, they're not winding down the war. They're going to continue to be enemy combatants, whether we're there or not.

And we've just released five of them, what -- how are we going to track them?

(INAUDIBLE) that comes, we're going to risk soldiers' lives to go try to capture them again.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on now to Hillary Clinton.

Congressman Cole, you heard Hillary there. No daylight from the president on Bergdahl.

From the reviews of the book so far and what we've seen of her interview with Diane Sawyer, it doesn't look like any daylight from the president on any big issue, with the exception, perhaps, of Syria, which we knew about before.

Do you have any doubt -- do all you Republicans just assume she's going to be the Democratic nominee?

COLE: Oh, I certainly do. I think you can look at the poll numbers and you can look at her positioning, you can look at the rollout of this book. There's not much doubt tome.

And you can look at these really incredibly dull memoirs and know she's still a politician. We'll never get a great memoir out of Hillary Clinton until it's done. And you'll never get a great memoir out of any politician until it's done.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things we have seen, though, Alicia, that's fascinating is that she is trying to clean up some past mistakes. For the first time, we now hear, boy, I was just absolutely wrong, plain and simple, on the Iraq War, wouldn't do it during the 2008 campaign, probably why she lost.

And also, in the book and in the interview, as well, a lot more emphasis on her softer side, which she also didn't do in the 2007-2008 campaign.

MENENDEZ: Right. And then on top of that, we see her building the case for her time as secretary of State, saying I have accomplishments I can point to in Iran, in Gaza, in China, reclaiming America's place in the world.

What she's going to have to do next, though, is build an economic narrative that she can sell to Americans that actually get them excited about the possibility of her being president.

DOWD: I -- I was a big believer, and I know you and I have had this conservatives, that there was still a really good chance she wasn't going to run, that she still was not sure about that. After watching that interview and after watching this book rollout, I -- there's very little possibility that she's going to run in the course of this.

I think the big question mark in this memoir that came to me is she knows the difficult balance she has, it's what does she do with President Obama?

Because she's projecting forward that President Obama is going to be an unpopular president and getting a third term of a Dem -- in the Democratic Party after that is going to be very, very hard.

And watching how she wrote this book, well, she mentions disagreements, but, oh, by the way, I supported the president even though I disagree with him. That's her biggest balancing act over the next year and a half, how does she handle President Obama?

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE) the other thing so he's going to have to do is have ideas for the future, particularly on the economy, Bill Richardson. And we've seen one of our fellow former governors, Brian Schweitzer, out there talking about we can't have a candidate who's part of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. And even in our poll, it shows that most Democrats, even though they support Hillary Clinton, want a contest.

RICHARDSON: Well, you know that the Clintons don't confide in me. But I will say...

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDSON: But I do think this poll shows tremendous support nationally, bipartisan, for number two: She was a good secretary of state. Now if I'm a primary candidate like Governor Schweitzer, who, by the way, is a very good guy, you run on her left, that she's too close to Wall Street.

But if this poll is a measure, she has the support of every faction of the Democratic Party. The moderate faction, the business faction, the environmental faction, the progressive faction, and it's -- she is going to be very hard to beat.

And, lastly, on the loyalty issue, she showed her statesman-like view that she would support the president on this Bergdahl issue and many other issues.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, (INAUDIBLE), you covered her tenure as secretary of state quite closely. How about the issue that Matt raises, do you see any other places where she might try to open up more differences from the president down the road?

RADDATZ: I don't see anything in particular. And I think what this depends on is how people react to that narrative. Like Alicia said, she has laid out what she did as secretary of state, the pushback is going to come now.

And there are going to be a lot of people who say, wait a minute, you didn't make a difference here, you didn't make a difference there, what really did you do?

DOWD: George, inevitability is a huge burden to bear in this. She had it in 2008 and it didn't turn out well. She has it again. And in some respects, I'm going to kind of bring in what happened at the Belmont Stakes yesterday, is, is she Secretariat or is she California Chrome where she wins along the way and fades in the stretch?

STEPHANOPOULOS: We've got to take a break, but quickly, what is her biggest vulnerability, in your view?

COLE: Frankly, when there's no place to grow, there's no place to go. She is at her maximum right now. I think almost anything she does is going to begin to alienate people that are within her coalition now.

The coalition against her is actually very solid, it's not going to change. The people poll the same way. So I think a long campaign is very much not to her advantage...

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: The best day of her campaign is the day before she announces.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. We do have to take a quick break. Nate Silver is up next. He reveals his World Cup predictions. And our "Powerhouse Puzzler" is inspired by the World Cup. Here's ESPN's Julie Foudy in Brazil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIE FOUDY, ESPN CORRESPONDENT: The last time the U.S. hosted a World Cup was in 1999, when our U.S. women won it on a fabulous penalty kick from my teammate Brandi Chastain.

But when was the last time the U.S. hosted a men's World Cup, and who won it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we're back in two minutes with the answer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So when was the last time the U.S. hosted the mens World Cup, which team won? Let's see if -- this question is too hard. But let's see how you guys did.

DOWD: It was the 20th Century.

(LAUGHTER)

COLE: Hey, the Heat last year.

DOWD: That's the only one that counts.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Never Spain, you're right. Brazil and Brazil, let's see if you're right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOUDY: The last time the U.S. hosted a mens World Cup was in 1994. And you may remember Brazil beat Italy 3-2 on penalty kicks. And it was actually the first time a World Cup had ever been decided on a penalty kick shootout.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: All right. We're back in one minute with Nate Silver's World Cup predictions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: There is the U.S. national soccer team, getting ready for the World Cup, winning a friendly match against Nigeria last night. But what are their chances for the biggest prize in global sports? Who will win the cup?

ABC's Paula Faris went to our experts at ESPN's FiveThirtyEight for some answers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA FARIS, ABC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Who better to take on predicting the world biggest championship tournament than FiveThirtyEight guru Nate Silver. The election oracle has a soft spot for soccer too.

(on camera): You played soccer, but your career ended when?

NATE SILVER, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM: I think in sixth or seventh grade? It was my least worst sport. I was only kind of terrible at soccer.

FARIS (voice-over): And now Nate and his team have whipped up their World Cup forecast.

(on camera): So it's all based on numbers.

SILVER: It's all based on numbers. There is not any subjective component to it. We're trying to account for both the quality of the athletes as well as team performance.

FARIS (voice-over): Nate found everything counts, even the small things like getting there. The farther you travel, the tougher to win.

SILVER: Especially east to west. So it might help the other South American teams, it might hurt a team like Japan who is coming from the other side of the world.

FARIS: But the big question for American fans, how will the U.S. do? Last time the team advanced out of the group stage, and Nate gives them a 37 percent chance to do it again.

SILVER: They've played pretty well together as a team.

FARIS: But the chances the U.S. wins it all, Nate says it's just 4 percent. Well, make that 0.4 percent.

SILVER: So, one chance in 200, 250 or so.

FARIS (on camera): So in the words of Jim Carey: "So you're saying there is a chance?"

SILVER: There is a chance. I mean, look, if you go back to the NCAA Tournament, things like this can happen.

It's a tough year to be an underdog.

FARIS (voice-over): That's because of teams like these, the heavy hitters: Brazil, Argentina, Spain, and Germany.

(on camera): They are calling it a murderer's row.

SILVER: You have four terrific teams that might be favorites in any other year.

FARIS: OK. Big drum roll, who are picking to win the 2014 World Cup?

SILVER: So it's Brazil's cup to lose. I wish I had a more dramatic answer for you. But I feel like anyone who doesn't say Brazil is trying too hard to be contrarian.

FARIS: Way to go out on a limb.

SILVER: Yes, look, I mean, I'm the guy who got a lot of credit in 2012 for betting on the favorite, right?

I mean, this is a year in particular where it's a good year for the favorites.

FARIS: All right. Nate, thank you so much. We'll be watching. See you in Rio.

SILVER: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Nate's full World Cup predictions are on fivethirtyeight.com.

Now let's go back to Rio right now. We're going to see Julie Foudy -- ESPN's Julie Foudy. Look at the scene there where the World Cup is going to begin later this week. Of course, Julie Foudy won the World Cup twice for U.S. womens soccer.

Julie, we just heard Nate's hard truth, 0.4 percent chance for Team America. Even the coach has said the team can't win.

FOUDY: I know. And although, George, they looked good last night, the U.S. against Nigeria, it's probably pretty realistic, because all the big boys are here, as you heard Paula say.

However, here's the good news for the United States: the strongest team they've probably had in a very long time, and the deepest team. The biggest challenge for them, of course, is they're put in this "group of death," which is so hard.

Ghana, their first game, knocked them out of the World Cup the last two World Cups. Portugal has the best player in the world in Cristiano Ronaldo. And then Germany, who has won three World Cups, runner-up four times, that's their group.

So that's the big challenge. But we're looking at baby steps right now, baby steps for the U.S.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And how do you handicap the cup overall? Do you agree with Nate that anyone who picks Brazil (sic) is really trying too hard to be contrarian?

FOUDY: I actually am going to be a contrarian here, George, and I think Brazil is the obvious choice, of course, being the host here. But I'm going with Argentina. Argentina, besides having one of the best players in the world in Lionel Messi, has a tremendous team as well.

They're from South America, of course. They've got a lot of fans coming. So I'm going to go with Argentina to win this World Cup and not Brazil, because there is tremendous pressure on Brazil being the host.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, it looks so beautiful right there, right now, but there have been a lot of protests, a lot of anger, some security concerns. How is that playing down there?

FOUDY: Well, it's interesting, because Brazil known for this this love of Football and this joy, and it's in their heart and in their souls.

But there is this undercurrent. When you walk around -- I was out yesterday, there's this undercurrent of concern about how much money was spent on this World Cup. And surprisingly everyone thought the anti-government protests were going to be the big issue.

But really what is being the most disruptive so far are the strikes. In Sao Paulo with the opening game on Thursday, in a city of 30 million people, they are having a transit strike in its fourth day. And that's become a real concern. And you're seeing this sadness almost at the $11 billion being spent.

And so when you look at it, how this Brazil team does is going to be really a test of the attitude of this country and how they approach this World Cup.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Important for the national spirit. Julie Foudy, thanks very much.

You can watch all the World Cup action all day long on ESPN. Coverage begins Thursday.

And when we come back, the Tea Party scores a win this week. What does it mean for control of the Senate? Our roundtable weighs in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: There is Chris McDaniel -- after having passed long-term GOP incumbent Thad Cochran in Mississippi Senate primary this week, forcing a runoff. It is a boost for the Tea Party after some setbacks this season that have establishment Republicans feeling good about taking the Senate.

The roundtable weighs in after this from our political director Rick Klein.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK KLEIN, ABC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: The Tea Party announced that it's back with a bang.

Joni Ernst, the Harley driving mother of three and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Iowa National Guard blew past her rivals to capture a Republican Senate nomination. She's vowing to make Washington squeal.

JONI ERNST, REPUBLICAN NOMINEE SENATE, IOWA: I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm, so when I get to Washington, I'll know how to cut pork.

KLEIN: The same night Ernst won in Iowa, a stunner in Mississippi.

CHRIS MCDANIEL, REPUBLICAN SENATE PRIMARY CANDIDATE, MISSISSIPPI: I just tell you, we're going to get the victory tonight.

KLEIN: Newcomer Chris McDaniel forced a primary runoff with Thad Cochran, a senator since 1978. National Tea Party groups are backing McDaniel, a former radio talk show host.

Now comes a three week sprint of a runoff in what's already been the nastiest fight of 2014.

McDaniel supporters were accused of secretly taping Cochran's bed-ridden wife. And McDaniel's career on the radio airwaves, included this attempt to define a Spanish slang term.

MCDANIEL: Look at mamacita. I've said it a few times. And I think it basically means, hey hot momma. You know, you're a fine looking young thing.

KLEIN: McDaniel's comments have some Republicans worried about a rerun of recent Tea Party tumbles.

But could this be a repeat of 2010 or 2012? You have a candidate who ends up doing things that are disqualifying?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the Todd Aiken times where unique and I don't think anyone with some minimal level of political sophistication actually believes that Mississippi is going to be somehow coming into play in November.

KLEIN: For Republicans, though, it guarantees at least a few more weeks of not so friendly fire.

For This Week, Rick Klein, ABC News, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we are now back with the roundtable.

Let me bring this to Congressman Cole. You've spearheaded Republican campaigns in the past, Republican congressional campaign effort.

McDaniel, the only real Tea Party star who is looking to have a chance to win one of these primaries, which has made a lot of your colleagues excited about the prospect of taking back the Senate.

COLE: Well, I think we will take back the senate. I don't think the race in Mississippi has got a big change regardless of who the candidate is. It's going to be a Republican victory. You look at seven deep red states, we're probably going to win six, maybe all seven of those. Iowa, I think we'll win. I think there's three or four others -- Colorado, longshots in Virginia, maybe not quite so long in Michigan and New Hampshire.

So, you know, the board looks pretty good. The kind of fights we've had, they've been spirited, but they're not the kind that split us the way that we did in 2012.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Matt Dowd, it sounds like he's predicting the kind of wave that is all about the incumbent party in the White House.

DOWD: Well, you look at the past history of this, every way it becomes about what the current administration is doing and what the president's job approval -- the president's job approval is in the low-40s, which means the Republicans will pick up House seats and the Republicans will pick up Senate seats in the course of this.

I think what's interesting about this race in Mississippi -- and it's a much broader thing is the Tea Party candidates that have won and beaten incumbent Republicans, it wasn't so much about, quote, unquote the Tea Party, it was an incumbent who was disconnected from this constituents, who the constituents didn't feel was back there enough, and who became immersed in the status quo. And those are the ones who have lost in the course of these races.

So, I think McDaniel wins this race and he wins in November.

Mississippi is red.

MENENDEZ: All of the top lines here were definitely about Republicans and they got the candidates they want, they go into the general in a much stronger position. But I also think that there is an interesting conversation happening on the Democratic side where you saw progressive candidates winning in Iowa and California and New Jersey, potentially changing the composition of their caucus.

RICHARDSON: I believe we'll narrowly retain the Senate, narrowly, but if we lose the Senate, I think the president needs to concentrate on global climate change, on executive orders. I think it would be unfortunately the death knell of immigration reform.

What I would do if I were the president in that case is put a moratorium on deportations.

But I still think we will keep the senate very narrowly, perhaps by one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring that to Congressman Cole, the president does seem to be gearing up to doing something like that. And it comes when there's a humanitarian crisis that is going to affect your state of Oklahoma, this group of migrant, up to 1,000 now, being (inaudible) in a border detention centers in Arizona and Oklahoma.

COLE: Well, it's not a humanitarian crisis along, frankly it's a policy failure I think much more broadly. I don't think conditions in Central America are broadly different than they were two or three years ago. I think what's moving this up, frankly, is we've made a decision that if you're an unaccompanied minor, juvenile 13 to 17, you show up in the United States we're not only going to take you in, but we're probably going to keep you hear, we're going to try and place you in the United States.

I think that's encouraging this.

And I don't think there's been a lot of policy thought.

Look, people want to help people in crisis. It's appropriate thing to do. On the other hand, you can't have an open invitation for everybody that wants to come to the border to be welcomed in.

MENENDEZ: There's not been a lot of policy thought -- I mean, I think that there is legislation that can easily go before congress. We know what comprehensive immigration reform looks like. We have the same conversation every two years. It's time for congress to just act on this.

It is no longer a partisan issue, it is a humanitarian crisis. And on top of that, it's an economic crisis and we need to be honest about who is the engine of America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you want to get in, but we're out of time, I apologize.

Next week. And we'll be back after this from our ABC stations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And now we honor our fellow Americans who serve and sacrifice.

This week, the Pentagon released the names of two soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

And that is all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out World News with David Muir tonight. And I'll see you tomorrow on GMA.

END