good morning. welcome to "this week." this morning, breaking news. america's number one fugitive on the move. >> edward snowden left hong kong. >> what went wrong. we'll talk to the four-star general who runs the world's biggest intelligence service. >> they provided critical leads to prevent 50 terrorist events. >> at the heart of the domestic surveillance controversy -- >> they told us they weren't collecting data on american citizens. it was a lie. >> and alexander, his first ever and only sunday interview. a this week exclusive. the round table on the politics, from the president overseas -- >> complacency is not the character of great nations.

>> to that trench warfare in congress. >> fundamental disagreements on so many things. >> turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. >> america's youngest congresswoman is a combat veteran. she's in the spotlight. and we begin with the breaking news. edward snowden, the 30-year-old government contractor who escaped to hong kong with a treasure-trove of america's top secrets is on the move. landing in moscow on his way to venezuela seeking asylum. and the question for u.s. officials, how did this fugitive slip away again? let's get to the latest with pierre thomas. the u.s. is working with hong kong to bring snowden to the united states, but the hong kong government said today that the u.s. request did not fully comply with hong kong law. what went wrong? >> reporter: it's a game of cat and mouse, and the u.s. lost this round.

a senior u.s. official said the u.s. government was expecting a lengthy process. they were anticipating a lot of back and forth with hong kong authorities before nay got this resolved. clearly he took full advantage of the fact that the wheels turn slow, he got out of there because there was nothing to hold him. >> that was not a faulty request from the u.s. government? >> he's claiming that the processes take a long time, there's back and forth. and again, while they're trying to resolve this, there was nothing to hold snowden. >> is there anything they can do to stop snowden now while he's in moscow waiting for the flight to venezuela? >> george, it does not look like there's much the u.s. government can do at this point. snowden appears to be bound for countries that have a combative relationship with the u.s. >> how did this happen? what do u.s. officials say? how get out of hawaii and into hong kong and away again?

>> a big issue here is the fact that when the information was taken, allegedly taken by snowden, there was no blinking flag to let the u.s. government know that the information was taken. he was able to move freely before they knew what happened. >> he is being accompanied by a representative of wikileaks. they are trying to get him to safety. >> well, based on statements from officials today, they helped him leave hong kong and may be traveling with him. at some point, the u.s. is going to have to resolve if wikileaks are journalists or an enemy of the state. officials say they are aiding and abetting someone who may have broken the law. >> and now on with this week's exclusive, general keith alexander, heads the national security agency. thank you for come on this morning. the news that he's on his way to moscow, perhaps to venezuela. to get to the point pierre was making, do you understand why

the system did not blink red in a way that would prevent snowden from leaving hawaii in the first place with the secrets? >> no, i do not. it's an individual who betrayed the trust and confidence we had in him. this is an individual who is not acting, in my opinion, with noble intent. when you think about our mission, i want to jump into that, it reflects on the question you are asking. my first responsibility to the american people is to defend this nation. when you think about it, defending the nation, 9/11 and what happened. the intel community failed to connect the dots in 9/11. and much of what we've done since then were to give us the capabilities, this is the business record, fisa, sometimes called section 215, and the faa 702, two capabilities that help us connect the dots. the reason i bring that up is that these are two of the most important things from my

perspective that help us understand what terrorists are trying to do. when you think about that, when he revealed caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and allies. on friday, we pushed to congress over 50 cases where these contributed to the understanding and in many cases disruption of terrorist plots. i brought with me a quote. because i thought it was important to read this. and as an army officer, you know i can't read that good, but i'm going to try. this was a report issued by the senate select committee on intelligence in 2012. in support of the reauthorization of the 2008 amendments to fisa. through four years of oversight, the committee has not identified a single case in sch a government official engamed in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law. what that means specifically is we take protecting our civil liberties and privacy as one of

our key foundational values. >> and i want to ask more about that. but first, pretty startling why the alarm bells didn't go off. why can't this happen again? 3.5 million contractors with top secret classification, and a million with government clearances. how can you prevent this from happening again? >> this is something we have to work through. clearly the system did not work as it should have. he betrayed the trust and confidence in him. he had top secret clearance, he was to administer the networks, he betrayed the confidence and stole secrets. we are now putting in place actions that would give us the ability to track the system administers, what they're doing, what they're taking. a two-man rule, changes pass words. but we have to trust our people will do the right thing. this is an extremely important

mission, defending the country. when they betray that trust, go to the department of justice and others for action. >> in a statement that hong kong put out this morning explaining why they allowed snowden to leave, they have written the american government for clarification that they had hacked computer systems in hong kong. he said the nsa hacks chinese companies to steal sms data. is that true? >> we have interest in those who collect on us as an intelligence agency. but to say we're willfully collecting all sorts of data would give you the impression we're canvassing the whole world. we're getting the information we need to foreign intelligence. that primary mission, in this case, in the case that snowden brought up, is defending the nation from a terrorist attack. we have other interests just like other nations do. that's what you expect us to do.

we do that right. our main interest, who's collecting on us. and i just say, look at where the source comes from. >> the government of hong kong, putting out that statement. are you confident we have not broken the laws of hong kong? >> i'm confident we're following the laws we have. we have a set of laws that guide how nsa acts. we follow those laws. we have tremendous oversight by all three portions of the government. the courts, congress, and the administration. and when you look at these laws and the way they have been passed, and the oversight we have, i am confident we are following our laws. >> final point pierre made, some are asking whether wikileaks is a journalistic organization or an enemy of the state. where do you come down on that? >> i have no opinion on them. i really don't track them.

i don't know. i don't know who they are other than this assange person. my job, defend the nation. no speculation. >> you just said, as you testified to congress this week, the government programs helped prevent 50 terrorist attacks. senators wyden and udall responded, they acknowledged that the prison program was effective, but said this, the the bulk collection phone collection records played little or no role in most of these disruptions. in fact, we have yet to see evidence that the bulk phone records collection has provided any otherwise obtainable evidence. can you provide that evidence? >> yes, and i think we did. now here's the facts. what they put on the table, when you look at it across the board, across these 50, the business record is only going to focus on those that had a nexus in the united states.

and that's a little over ten. when you look at it, the scope that the business record fisa can deal with it those that are just over ten. and in those, i think it contributed in the majority of cases. it allowed us to form some of the dots. that's key in what we're trying to do. look at where this came from. i think you heard part of the testimony on tuesday as you mentioned. in 2001, midar in california, the intelligence community didn't know that. we weren't able to connect those dots. these programs are helping us connect the dots. i think that's very important to have the tools of this. we can argue over which do the is the most important, but at the end of the day, we didn't have enough information to connect the dots. and i think working with fbi, cia and others, our job is to get the information. if we're going to defend the information, we need the intelligence. here's the key, i think another

important point on this, look at the information that we're collecting. in 2012, less than 300 selectors were proved for reasonable significance in the database. it's a small set. two-thirds are foreign. one-third were in the u.s. of those one-third, we treat all phones inside the u.s. as u.s. persons. so in this case, when we talked about the 2009 case of zazi, he was in colorado. that is considered a u.s. person. so from our perspective, tracking them is the most important thing we can do. here's what's in the balance. over 50 cases globally, ten in the united states. these two capabilities helped us form the dots. i think that's what the american people want us to do. and note that they did not -- we

have not in a single case had a place where a government official engaged in willful effort to circumvent or violate the law. zero times have we done that. from my -- >> when you talk about the tracking, the president told charlie rose this week, what he can say, if you are a u.s. person, the nsa cannot listen to your telephone calls. i understand under the 215 program you don't listen to the phone calls. but is that statement correct? i would assume that if an nsa analyst is tracking someone in cuba or overseas, you're going to listen to the phone call, correct? >> you're asking a different set of questions. let me put first of all, the prime directive on the table. the law makes it clear. in order for the nsa to target the content of a u.s. person's communications anywhere in the world, nsa requiring probable

cause and a court order, a specific court order. if we're targeting outside the united states a terrorist, and they happen to talk to a u.s. person inside the united states, yes, we would follow that law. and the min mization procedures that i think were leaked earlier this week, talk about the responsibilities that we now have with respect to those u.s. persons. we follow those. we train the people how to do this right. we get oversight by justice, by the courts, we get oversight by the administration and by congress. all three parts of government. our most important job is defending the nation. we follow the laws and defend the nation. and i would tell you, when you look at on balance, over 50 cases that we've helped disrupt terrorist plots and contributed information to those, zero times have we come up with a place where we have failed the public's confidence or congress' confidence in these laws. i think that's pretty good.

i think that is what we have to do, move the debate from a political debate to a debate on national security. because that's what we're talking about, and security of this country. >> and the head of the national intelligence said cyber threats are the top security threat. you were the head of the cyber command. preside over the navy, air force, the army that deal with cyber warfare operations. in your testimony to congress, you said this involves both defensive cyber warfare, and offensive operations. here's what you said. >> this is an offensive team that the defense department would use to defend the nation if it were attacked in cyber space. 13 of the teams we are creating are for that mission-set alone. >> in one of the documents leaked by mr. snowden, the ppd 20, i believe, elaborates on

that authority. you have emergency authority to act on your own in circumstances, including anticipatory action against imminent threats. that's a pre-emptive authority for you. can you help explain under what circumstances you would be authorized to launch an offensive act of cyber warfare? >> to be clear, what i can do on my own is within our networks to launch offensive measures to stop somebody from getting inside the networks. anything i want to do outside that is offensive in nature, we would have to call the secretary and the president to get their approval. there are things we can do to stop packets in flight, but from our perspective, any actions that's offensive in nature would require the policy-makers. this is no difference if you think about the nuclear situation. if someone attacks a country, we would stand up a set of communications with the secretary, the president and the policy-makers and say here's what's going on, here's what

we're doing to defend the networks and the actions we've taken. those are the defensive cyber effects operations. here's what we recommend to secure the nation and the steps we need to take. and the president would have several options. he could take diplomatic, military, he has a range of options. we would present some. and the president and the secretary would choose what to do. they may call the offending country and say stop, or choose else. but that's a policy decision. >> finally, the chairman of the house intelligence committee was on this program a short while ago, and he said we're losing the cyber war to china. is he right? >> i think our nation has been significantly impacted with intellectual property with the theft of intellectual property by china and others. that is the most significant transfer of wealth in history.

and it goes right back to your initial question. who's taking our information is one of the things i believe the american people would expect me to know. that's one of my missions, who's doing this and why. the initial question, why, that's part of the answer. who's coming after us, we need to know that so we can defend the nation. >> general, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. more with martha raddatz, and dan seymour, and richard haas. author of a new book, foreign policy begins at home. let me begin with you. you put out a powerful tweet this morning saying that by releasing snowden, china threw away the chance to invest in relations with the united states. >> china talked about a win-win relationship to be a model of relations between major powers of the day.

and instead gone for a short-term game. plus, whether china is prepared to enter into regulation for the international competition. >> you had no doubt this was the government of china -- >> not a lot of freelancing in china. the idea that the hong kong authorities did this independently. inconceivable. >> does this complicate it? >> yes, but not ending it. i don't think it's quite that serious. china will move on, hong kong will move on. what were they supposed to do? they have domestic politics as well, especially in hong kong. snowden created protests in that country. i think in effect china had to get rid of this guy, get rid of the problem. he might be here for a long time and that would complicate things. >> this is something the united states does every day. working in china. >> and snowden, interviews, and documents released to the chinese press puts us in an uncomfortable position.

i think domestically in the u.s., i think this further strengthens the center on national security. i think there was a real risk there would be a left-right coalition that would backlash against the united states government, a libertarian uprising. and i think snowden traveling around the world, traveling to anti-american capitals, i think the center is holding in the u.s. that's positive. >> how about the great irony. he's complaining about the united states and all the things they're doing wrong, and in venezuela? good luck, pal. >> one of the stunning things we just heard, he conceded, the alarm bells didn't go off. a lot of people think how could this happen, a fairly low level guy in hawaii gets the secrets. >> what the general said is true. we have a system depending on millions of people.

some full time in uniform, some civilians, some contractors. and there's weak links. no way to ensure the security when you have the individuals. particularly in the tech world, come at it with the libertarian ethic, big government is bad, individual privacy is paramount, no matter what. so many people called this guy a whistle blower. he's not. he's a felon. he endangered the lives of americans. the story is beginning to turn. that's important. >> and the majority of americans believe he should be prosecuted. you're just back from jordan. we're learning where the united states has been in a training exercise for possible military operations in syria, some kind of military intervention. it seems clear that the u.s. is committed to helping the rebels in a way that levels the playing field with assad's forces. >> i think what has been going on for a while is the cia has been helping to train the rebels

on heavier weapons. i think you'll see more of that. that's a way for america to vet the rebels. there's still concern who they would give heavy weapons to. i don't think the united states -- qatar, saudi arabia, but train them. look the rebels in the eye. these are the guys we trust. it's as much as we can do to change the balance there. the small arms will not change the balance in any way. and you have such a huge problem with the refugees, 500,000 in jordan. that is unstainable. >> question, dan, is it too late? >> i don't think so if we do more than just arm the rebels. the big question is whether or not the administration is prepared to do a bombing campaign of syrian airfields. this is the landing strips that enable them to move chemical weapons around, move troops around, receive arms from iran. unless they are taken out, arming the rebels will have limited impact. >> is there any way to limit our involvement once we begin trying implement a no-fly zone? >> i don't think we should go that far.

but what we should do, is do the max of indirect help. provide serious anti-armor, serious anti-aircraft support. but not direct military involvement. syria is one thing to worry about. we have a much bigger issue in fact middle east, iran. plus, all sorts of issues in asia with china, and the domestic challenges at home. we don't want american foreign policy to be grabbed by events in syria. >> i agree with that. the risk, however, is the iran-hezbollah-assad proxy prevails, to tehran, it could give the iranians the upper hand. >> that's why we should arm them more heavily -- >> i still don't know what comes next. i want that question answered. what comes next? what's the strategy in syria. if they take out airfields and that doesn't work, and arm the rebels and train and assist and

that doesn't work, then what happens? >> what we have to be prepared for no matter what, be honest and bleak. looking at years and years of prolonged fighting in syria. there's not going to be a quick ending. there's no going to be a happy ending. even after assad is ousted. >> none of that is going to happen. we saw the president with president putin this week. none of that is going to happen unless the russians change their attitude. >> i agree. which is why we have to move past the russians. there's not going to be a peaceful transition of power because it seems putin has vetoed three u.n. security council resolutions on syria. he's watered down many more. we're not going to get cooperation, it's unrealistic. i think richard is right we haven't had a real discussion about the stakes in syria. and the president has to address this issue. because for all the things she saw on the front lines, this is a regional mess. someone needs to talk through --

>> we only have 30 seconds left. i have not seen any indication from the president that he is willing to go out there and make a case for intervention in syria. >> he doesn't want to. with that toe in the water, he's in. >> thank you very much. up next, a messy week on capitol hill and wall street. and a big week ahead at the supreme court. the round table weighs in on all of that when we come back. all business purchases. so you can capture your receipts, and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can.

help the gulf recover, andnt to learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - capitol hill and wall street. our commitment has never been stronger.

"that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"

[ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ] round table coming up, first the "sunday funnies." >> more political news, the senate immigration bill will reduce the deficit by $200 billion. even republicans were like hola. and obama and putin at the g-8 summit. look at that. look at those guys. wow.

like thanksgiving with your relatives, isn't it? they have nothing to say to one another because they have been bugging each other's phones. ther's phones. is that we get to create our future. you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

a

let me say this, hypothetically speaking, i really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime. and -- whether it's next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process. then the country, our country, has to take that leap of faith. >> not the first time, and not the last hint from hillary clinton. big week in politics leaving and coming up.

to the round table, and republican mike kelly of pennsylvania, democrat joaquin castro from texas, and amity, director of the george w. bush institute. and rebecca jarvis. welcome. i want that start with immigration. we had a tale of two worlds in washington week. a lot of progress in the senate on immigration. appears that they're set up for a vote tomorrow that could lead to an overwhelming majority. but things are bogged down in the house. congressman castro, if the senate is able to pass the immigration bill with the 70 votes that some democrats are saying is possible, does that mean you could get it through the house? >> it's a precondition. has to be strong momentum in the senate to have a chance in the house. nothing really original is going to originate in the house of representatives. so that's really a precondition.

if it does that, i think it has a good chance. i think we can pass it in 2013. >> but many of your colleagues seem to think, the 70 votes doesn't make a difference, the house is going to do what it's going to do. >> if you look at history, we don't do big things well, break it apart, do smaller pieces. have a heavy debate about. not a conversation, a heavy debate. this is a serious issue. we talk about a sovereign nation and the ability to protect our borders. that's number one. from 1986 up to now, we have to look at it carefully. we saw the affordable care act, any time you rush anything through, this is up to 1100 pages, not everybody has read it and gotten through it. border security is a huge issue in northwest pennsylvania. >> and the millions being put into it? >> the border is more secure now

than it is ever been. for example, in 2004, 10,000 border patrol agents along the border. new there are 21,000. the amendment would take that to 40,000 border patrol agents. the number of crossings is at net zero. the migration with mexico. so if there's any time to do it, it's now. >> the cbo looked at this and put out a report with a little something in it for everyone. the congressional budget office looked at it and found deficit reduction, net savings, $175 billion, and help growth, 3.3% more gdp growth over the next decade. but for opponents, there was something in it, a minor down tick in average wages, and also a minor uptick in the near-term in the unemployment rate. >> how does that play out? >> unbalance the growth is more important, the uptick is minor. and about these reports, they do dynamic analysis that shows how

much growth we're going to get. i think generally, with immigration, we get bogged down in the law part and forget whether we have new border guards or not, probably this will be good for the economy. if we settle on immigration and scrutinize it, at the george bush center we have a book about immigrants and growth, a whole book showing almost all the time they help. even with jobs. >> you have been going back to coolidge. the republicans have struggled with this debate. >> yes, the republican party can be sour. that's one of the sour parts of calvin coolidge. he didn't always appreciate immigrants. but he did appreciate once they were here, the whole process of americanization, or the coming part of america, whatever words we use now, whether we came over on the mayflower or in steerage

just a few years ago, we're all in the same boat here. what i emphasize in that book and in this conversation, immigrants make the economy stronger. that's the number one -- it's there. it's true. >> there's no question. i think every mainstream economist agrees that as an economic matter, it is a positive for this country. it was built on immigration. the issue of pressing down on wages has been studied and a minor effect, if at all. so the opposition is more of a social and political issue. and it shouldn't, and i don't believe it is, really, an economic issue. >> and one of the things, you talk about breaking it up, there's a big debate on the farm bill in congress as well. a coalition of conservative republicans and liberal democrats bringing the bill down. a lot of people looked at that and said it means speaker boehner is going to have a hard time getting anything through the congress. he said he's not going to do it.

do you believe him, take him at his word that he's not going to do it unless a majority of the republicans support the legislation? >> i do. from my experience, i've been there one term and part of a second, i've never met anybody more open to the debate than speaker boehner. he has really been a champion of having an open floor. he lets everybody talk. the ag bill is something we should have been able to get done. in the past we were able to get done. heavy debate and amendment process, i was disappointed, it wasn't strong enough to the right for some of my colleagues, and wasn't strong enough to the left for some other folks. i don't understand that. but it was to put something forward to give certainty to where we're going. it's the uncertainty that's driving the problems in the country. >> do you think it passes if he brings it to the floor with majority republicans? >> if he uses the rule that says you have to have a support of the majority of the majority, a

majority of republicans, that means that 25% of the body can control 100% of the agenda and the legislation. it will not pass if he uses that rule. >> i want to move on to the economy. big week, fed chairman ben bernanke gave his outlook for the next year or so on the economy. here's part of what he said. >> generally speaking, financial conditions are improving. the main head wind to growth this year is, as you know, is the federal fiscal policy. given that very heavy headwind, the fact that the economy is moving ahead at a moderate pace is indicative that the underlying factors are improving. >> rebecca, the fed chairman emphasized mostly good news. but, boy, wall street didn't like it one bit. you saw a 500 point drop in two days. >> this is the irony. wall street has become dependent on the federal reserve and the economic stimulus.

pumping $85 billion into the markets, the overall economy for more than four years on a month-to-month basis. and those trillions of dollars, and some are calling those a hotel california. because you can check out, but you can't necessarily leave. you could never leave. >> and steve, you know, the wall street journal and the new york times rarely agree on things, but they both used the word addiction to describe the reaction to the quantitative easing, the funds that the fed has been putting out. even when the fed chairman said it's not all going away, you see the negative reaction. >> there's two points. what bernanke did, i believe saved the economy. call it by funny names. call it crack cocaine and all this, but the economy was collapsing in 2008. he took important steps. and i think they were critical to the economic recovery. i believe this was a positive program that we needed. wall street is worried that when you take the training wheels off the bicycle, it's not clear

the bicycle keeps going. they are worried about the future of the economy. we have 7.5 or 6% unemployment. we have slow growth, and most importantly, we still have a congress that's doing nothing. passed fewer laws than even president truman's do nothing congress. as important as the issues are, the american people say the economy is the most important issue and they're doing nothing. >> coolidge would say fewer laws is good. i want to mention that. one of the things concerning wall street is that there's not enough growth to power the bicycle, if we're sticking to the bicycle metaphor. it's the absence of fiscal freedom. he alluded to it. so why is he here? your we listening to him? >> chairman bernanke said that the fact that the federal budget deficit has been coming down has been restraining growth and causing the economy to grow more slowly than it would.

>> if they were spending more and more the economy would be better? >> that was his point. >> well -- i'll disagree with him. if this is the situation that we're expecting the federal government led by the fed or by the congress to power the economy when the economy needs to be ready to power itself, so it's an inconvenient moment to take off training wheels or to cut off the iv of the drug to which the economy is addicted. but it's a very -- it's got to happen eventually. >> one of the points he was making, congressman, it to pick up on the sequester having an impact as well. do you see any prospect that the congress is going to loosen the sequester? >> i'm hopeful. but it's very difficult with the congress. it was never supposed to happen, the budget control act of 2011, the super committee was supposed to solve it. obviously that didn't happen. and it will have a negative impact on the economy. but i would point out, that

despite wall street, we have to remember that over the last few years, wall street has done a lot better than the average american. they're doing well. >> and before you came to congress, you were a car dealer. what are you feeling? >> i feel frustration. we're talking about the economy. look at the economy, look at the potential there. look at the squandered opportunities we have had. we go back to congress did this or didn't do that. if we had an aggressive energy strategy, if we had a way to lift people out of where they are right now. when you see middle income people lost $5,000 a year, why is that? we are so blessed for so long, the only thing missing right now is strong leadership in establishing -- >> what would an aggressive energy strategy mean? the president is going to make a major announcement this week on climate change and energy. i want to know what that would be. >> i don't think that the president needs to make a statement on green energy. with the list of priorities of what's going on, if this is the initiative, i think there's a

lot more things on the plate. to me, it's a pivot away from what's causing the distrust of this government. any relationship you have, whether it's you and i, you and your wife, any of us in a business relationship, when we lose trust in the person, then we don't have faith in the future. that's where we are right now. i think the president would be better to talk about lifting the lower income people and the middle income people and get to where they should be. those are the opportunities right now. >> i think that would be part of it. the president this week, yesterday he put out a youtube video, making a major speech on climate change and energy on tuesday. here it is. >> i pledged that america would respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations. it's a serious challenge, but it's one uniquely suited to america's strengths. there's no single step that can reverse climate change, but when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them

to do what we can. >> it appears this is the president's attempt to move around congress. use executive action to limit greenhouse gases, raise efficiency standards. and have more renewable energy on public lands. can it be effective? >> i think the president has an energy policy. he stated it. it's an all of the above policy. what he's going to say on tuesday is a part of it. i think it can have an effect. the supreme court allowed him to regulate greenhouse gases. and he has a bunch of other authorities. and remember, the keystone xl pipeline, i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't part of a packaging effort by the white house. something for people who care about the environment and -- >> the keystone pipeline. >> it feels like there's a panel come -- package coming. >> and the business world? >> there's people who would benefit, green energy, and those who would have to increase spending to meet the new standards. but the u.n. put out a report

about the food business in particular, and that the food business, in light of some of the changes in our climate has had to move around and move to new locations and spend money in order to make up for crazy weather patterns. >> what unites us this morning, is the people are talking about the economy. this is an area that the president is saying is anti-growth. it might hurt coal, provides a lot of electricity. he should have more regulatory power. regulation, not laws, is often what is dampening growth in the energy sector. what do we care about more? there is an element of tradeoff. a higher gdp and more labor force participation, or do we want us to be about laws? you know, regulating, other sectors, immigration, enforcing the borders. do we want the growth? that's the unity.

>> life is about tradeoffs and there's no question there is tradeoff between the environmental issues and the economy. and you have to find a balance. and i think the time has come for the president to find the balance. he's not violating the law, he's going use it. this is the kind of leadership he's asking for. >> you can move to alternatives and green energies and still be successful and keep things efficient. in san antonio, we closed two coal power plants down about 12 years early and moved to natural gas and alternative energy. and we have among the lowest rates in the country. >> with the president, it would be absolutely crazy to regulate it. but is there anything you in the congress can stop him? >> i don't know what we can do to stop it. i would say this, the president talks about all of the above but leaves out below. we have tremendous and abundant and affordable way of producing

energy in this country. we don't have to rely on anybody to supply us with a barrel of oil. we can do everything we need to do right here. we have tillable soil and potable water. not that the rest of the world has the things we have. you don't have to rely on others, when you can lower the cost of energy, you can compete in a global economy that allows us not just to be part of it, but to dominate it. i just don't understand why. the president's role should be as a uniter and lead us forward. we can't have the divisiveness. we have a great opportunity with nuclear. so my question is why are we concentrating on other things and not using what's abundant. >> i'm not sure what you're referring to? coal? >> every one of the fossil rules. >> we're doing that. >> no, we're not. we're shutting down coal plants, we're shutting down power --

electric power -- >> we are -- we are trying to reduce our reliance on coal because of the adverse economic effect. we now have an enormous surplus of natural gas that can take the place on a cost effective and environmentally sound basis. we have had an enormous oil production increase, the fastest in history i think. and reduction in imports. i'm not sure what you want the president to do that we're not doing. >> all the growth has taken place in the private sector, not the public sector. the president was -- yes, of course i do. but i also know there's a great potential in the public sector. there is an answer to the problems. that is the dynamic economy. it's just idle chatter otherwise. >> i wish we had time for real talk. not idle chatter. rebecca sticking around at abc news.com/this week. and when we come back, the surfer combat veteran who's now the youngest woman in congress.

tulsi gabbard is on "this week."

there is a pursuit we all share. the pursuit of something better. a better life for your family, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave the world. for over 75 years, through war and crisis, we have never stopped helping our clients succeed and succeed the right way. striving to bring insight to every investment, intelligence to every trade and integrity to every plan. because as long as we stay true to these principles, the promise of capitalism will always prosper. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you.

the pentagon unveiled plans to fully integrate women into frontline combat. it is a topic that tulsi gabbard knows well. the 32-year-old hawaii native is the youngest woman in congress,

the first hindu, and saw combat in iraq. she is this week's spotlight. >> as long as we've had a united states military in place, women have been raising their hands to serve our country. during my deployment, there were missions i volunteered for and was not allowed to go on because i'm a woman. that said sorry, no girls allowed. if you can pull your weight and do the job, you should be able to do it. what we see in the policy change that we're seeing starting to be executed is a reflection of what women have been doing in the military. >> if you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign women to it. it's uncivilized, and women can't do it. >> i've seen women who are highly capable and dispel every single word some of the so-called uncivilized parts of what occurs when you are in combat. when you're at war. that's the reality that we train for. this is not something new. and it's not something that any

woman who raises her hand to serve in uniform finds as a surprise. we know what we sign up for. >> i cannot overstate my disgust and disappointment over the continued reports of sexual misconduct in our military. last night, a woman came to me and said her daughter wanted to join in the military, and could i give my unqualified support for her doing so. i could not. >> the issue of military sexual assault and the skyrocketing numbers we have seen reported. they have shocked us. when i was deployed to iraq, we heard and saw incidents that were being reported, or accidents that were occurring within our camp. we got issued rape whistles so as we walk out of our tent, or walk out of our hooch, we've got our body armor, our helmet, our weapon and we've got our

rape whistle. it was an eye-opening experience to consider that fact overseas in iraq. that places a greater responsibility on those in leadership to do something about this. we have to do something about this now. aloha. i'm tulsi gabbard, candidate for congress in hawaii, and a captain in the army national guard. someone asked me recently when i went back to hawaii, how's it going in congress? are you fitting in there? i told them, not fitting in is actually a good thing. catching that ten and a half flight to hawaii is my commute to and from work. you can smell the ocean breezes as soon as you get off the plane. immediately i feel my shoulders drop, the stress goes away. it's incredible. i hold on tightly to my surf board when i'm home and on to the aloha spirit. i appreciate the opportunity to not only be home, but to understand why i'm working in washington. it's always a little bit sad when i have to board the plane a

few days later. but it is absolutely energizing, inspiring and gives a great sense of clarity. >> and our thanks to tulsi michigan guard. you can see more of the interview by going to this week at abc news.com. she is also in vogue on news stands june 25th. we'll be right back. i want to make things more secure. [ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

help the gulf recover, andnt to. learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

so you can capture your receipts, ink for all business purchases. and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪

and now, we honor our fellow americans who serve and sacrifice. this week, the pentagon released the names of five soldiers and marines killed in afghanistan. and that is all for us today. thanks for sharing part of your sunday with us. and a special to our newest viewer, sean evans heath, the new baby boy from our producer kendall heath and her husband, mike. he looks like he's paying attention. watch ""world news tonight" with david muir, and i'll see you tomorrow on "gma."

officials say edward snowden has left hong kong. we'll tell you who has claimed to help the former nsa contractor and where he may be heading. good morning. live doppler 7 hd is coming up, but first a look at mt. tam. the clouds have surged in overnight. 50s and 60s right now and a rare summer june rain on the way for several days. we'll take a look a