Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Hurricane Headed for Texas, Mexico; NASA Tracking Effects of Oil Leak; Real-Estate Report, Jobless Numbers Could Lead to Wall Street Dip; Florida Art Fest Features Digital Projection; Key Day For Kagan; Living & Working Under Water

Aired June 30, 2010 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: It is go time. CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with the man, T.J. Holmes, in for Ali Velshi.

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: And when you say "go time," folks, he means, "We have to go" is what he means. Thank you, Tony. Appreciate you as always.

Hello there, everybody. I'm T.J. Holmes in today for my good friend Ali Velshi. This is what we've got on the rundown for you today.

We're keeping an eye on this now Hurricane Alex. It's on the way. The threat of tornadoes, flash floods coming along with it. Folks in southeast Texas, northeast Mexico, everybody is hunkering down. A lot of them boarding up, some of them just getting the heck out of there. Even though Alex is a ways away right now from the oil disaster, it's not quite far enough. We'll explain how it could still have an impact on the oil.

Also, on the oil, this big disaster. Just how big is it now? How much has been cleaned up? NASA -- yes, they're getting involved now, hoping to get a clear answer by using some souped-up radar that we can't really explain. But we'll have somebody along to explain to you.

Also, you can breathe it in; you could live it in; you could work in it. It's underwater. We'll have to explain this. It's called Water World for the future. Something we've got to show you.

But for now, let's talk about this hurricane right now, Hurricane Alex churning through the Gulf right now. All right, folks in this area. Chad Myers here with us first of all. But it's going to have an impact on the oil. We'll get to all that in a bit. But right now, what do we need to know about this storm? Hurricane one right now, and who is it targeting, if you will?

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yes. Hurricane, first hurricane of the year. And it's the first hurricane we've had in June since the middle '90s. So we're talking 15 years worth of Junes where no hurricanes have ever happened. Yes, we have tropical storms and tropical depressions, but does that make a busy year? Probably.

HOLMES: Is this the first indication, because they predicted? MYERS: It's a pretty good first indication.

So this thing has been wobbling back and forth, past couple of hours. It's tried to turn a little bit farther to the north. You can just kind of see it northward drift to the eye. I don't believe that has anything to do with any type of a turn back toward the oil field. I just don't think that's going to happen. It will eventually turn left again and get onto the shore in Mexico later tonight. Probably sometime after dark.

One thing we're worried about now, at least for the time being, is this red box. And right here, red box means that the storms are kind of coming on shore, and some of them are twisting. The entire storm is twisting. It's a hurricane. So as the storms come on shore, they also can twist.

So let's pop this up, because we can. Corpus Christi. This is -- there are a couple tornado warnings near there, which means that some of these storms, are, in fact, spinning. Some of them near the Corpus Christi area are spinning enough that the weather service is concerned enough that said, "Hey, you know what? You see something coming, you need to be inside. You need to be able to get away from the windows, get away from here." This is near Gregory. It was, at least for a while, traveling to the south at about 15 or 20 miles per hour.

The story today is where does it go from here? This is a big storm. This is impressive. I just want to tell you, for this early in the season, we talk about storms or arms of this all the way down to the Yucatan Peninsula. And then arms all the way back over here toward New Orleans.

HOLMES: Wow.

MYERS: That is a large storm, almost filling the entire western half of the Gulf of Mexico.

HOLMES: We get a bit desensitized, because we hear a Category 1, and it's not the 4 or the 5, and you think it's not that big of a deal, but this is a big, impressive storm. It's a hurricane, folks.

MYERS: It's a hurricane. And the problem here -- let me here, T.J. The problem is that we -- even though we're not exactly close and the winds here are 80, and the winds here are 70 and 60 and 50, the winds here in the oil field are still 30. And the winds up in the oil are still pushing the oil onto the shore, into the bayous, into the Mississippi and Alabama, away from Florida, but still pushing it in the wrong direction.

HOLMES: OK. I'm going to come back to you in just a second to talk more about exactly what's going to happen. Still a little ways away from the oil. So we think everything is all good, but it's not quite. All right, Chad, thank you so much.

We want to -- again, taking a look at the area that's in danger here, 140,000 people live in the Brownsville, Texas -- that area, South Padre Island is, of course, a big tourist destination. You probably know that one well. Port Isabelle also, it's home to many of the area's shrimpers.

Now, Cameron and Hidalgo counties, they are right on the border there. They are two of the poorest counties in this country. Now, Hurricane Dolly, that was back in 2008, hit this area just a little further north. Now, many people still rebuilding from that storm. That, too, was a Category 1 storm. It caused a lot of damage. They're still rebuilding from it, $1 billion in damage.

So we're talking about this storm now, Alex. We're looking at a Category 1; can do some serious damage.

Now, state emergency resources are based in McAllen. That's a little inland about 40 miles. It's a shelter area for a lot of the coastal residents. Kevin Pagan is an emergency operations coordinator for McAllen, Texas. He is on the line with us now.

Sir, thank you for being with us. What are you seeing so far? Are people heeding the warning, and coming your direction and trying to get a little further inland?

KEVIN PAGAN, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COORDINATOR, MCALLEN, TEXAS (via phone): We are getting some folks coming from the coastal communities over a little further inland. As of early this morning, we already had, I think, 100 or so people in Hidalgo County shelters, and we are expecting that to ramp up a little bit today, as these bands come -- you know, come on shore.

As you all can probably see on the radar from where you are there, we are already starting to get some heavy downpours, and some of these outer bands come across the coastline into the valley. So we do expect those shelter populations to increase throughout the day.

HOLMES: How many are you prepared for?

PAGAN: Well, we can shelter several thousand here in Hidalgo County without too much problem. We open our shelters on sort of an on-demand basis, so at the moment, we have 10 or 12 shelters that are open that could easily accommodate 6 or 8,000 people. And, of course, we are on standby to open many more if it becomes necessary.

We hope, of course, that that doesn't happen. But we are prepared to accommodate people as they try to get out of the way of the storm.

HOLMES: Well, sir, I know you're kind of a staging area. It's a place a little further inland for people to come. But what about your people? What about the people there in your own town? What do you all expect to get yourself? Because quite frankly, even though you're a little inland, you still could get a lot. We talk about storms and rotations and tornadoes that could hit, and certainly the threat of flooding. So are you trying to prepare your own citizens, as well?

PAGAN: Yes, of course of, we do that. And in the Rio Grande Valley across the area is pretty flat, as you know, and a lot of low- lying areas. And so if we do get a lot of rain in a short period of time, then folks even certainly as far inland as far as McAllen may experience some -- some flooding.

And we do let those folks know that shelters are available for them. And that they should, you know, keep out of harm's way and move to either a shelter or a place that they -- that they know is not quite as prone to flooding and take care of them as well.

But, yes, we're prepared all across what we call the lower Rio Grande Valley, the three-county area of Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy County. And then you end up a little further into Starr County.

HOLMES: All right. Mr. Kevin Pagan, again emergency operations coordinator there in McAllen, Texas, where they're expecting people to start showing up, more and more trying to get out of harm's way.

Mr. Pagan, thank you for your time and good luck to you and your citizens there. Thanks so much.

PAGAN: Thank you.

HOLMES: Now, going to head back over to Chad here.

Chad, we're talking about this storm, and you know, this is the heart of it. This is the meat of it. Now --

MYERS: Yes.

HOLMES: -- you look at it --

MYERS: Look at the tails.

HOLMES: Yes, the tails there. Now, what should we be worried about? Because everybody was quite frankly, a little relieved. Oh, OK. It's heading a little west. We should be OK, because this is the Deepwater Horizon area here. But still, what do we need to be worried about with these quite -- arms, these outer, outer, outer bands of this?

MYERS: Exactly. You've got convection right over these boats that are out there trying to suck the oil and natural gas out. You have lightning everywhere out there. Now, hail storms don't really happen in hurricanes, because it's a warm thing.

So we're not worried about really severe weather. But certainly, you could get wind. And we do know that there are waves out there, waves that are 6 to 9 feet. When they get to 12 feet, all operations have to stop, so at least not everything is done right now.

But the oil burn. You know, they try to round up the oil and burn it off. That's -- that's stopped. The guys that are out there with the skimming boats. The little booms are a foot, a foot and a half high. The waves are six feet. How much are you going to scoop when you've got the waves going over the top of your booms, right? So that's now completely stopped. And even though we're talking about almost 400 miles from the eye to where this really -- this effort is taking place, there is still an awful lot of wave action going around here. You've got to think, this is 80 mile, 90 mile-per-hour storms. The waves going to be coming in this way for days.

This isn't -- as soon as this comes on shore tonight, we're thinking, oh, the hurricane is over, no problem. Think how long it takes for those waves to propagate across 400 miles to get there. These waves will be coming for probably another week. That's going to slow down the operation for at least that long.

HOLMES: Where are we seeing this now? We see these reports of 12-foot waves. Where are we seeing these now?

MYERS: Closer to the buoys that are over here. Now there are -- there are a few -- and it matters what the bathymetry (ph) of the underwater looks like. If it's a very shallow bay, the waves can get up very fast. Because even though it's a six-foot swell, you push that up into shallow water, those waves can be very sharp and they can get 12 feet.

But that's not where the Deepwater Horizon is, right? That's why it's deep water. So there are only swells out there. There aren't the 12-footers out there.

HOLMES: And they told us, Admiral Allen, if they would have to shut all this down for a while, to shut down the siphoning up oil, it would take them 14 days to get everybody and everything back in place. That's two weeks we can't afford to have this oil going unabated.

MYERS: That's unabated oil, right?

HOLMES: Yes.

MYERS: You -- we saw unabated oil for, what, 12 hours, when they had to turn it off because the little rove bumped into it. I can't imagine shutting that thing off for 14 days.

HOLMES: Thirty-five to 60,000 gallons a day would be going into it -- into the Gulf once again.

Chad, thank you.

MYERS: Let's hope that doesn't happen.

HOLMES: We hope that does not happen. But thank you for the explanation again.

MYERS: Absolutely.

HOLMES: Good way to map it out here for everybody.

How do you exactly measure the spill, the impact on the shoreline? The progress of the cleanup? NASA, they've got some answers. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Welcome back.

NASA not just flying into space these days. They're flying over the oil disaster. NASA, of course, is always on the cutting edge of technology, but some new technology they have, as well, is helping out, trying to image, trying to track this oil slick.

Let's bring in my next guest, who is with NASA, Cathleen Jones, here to explain to us what this new technology is.

Ma'am, thank you so much for being here with us. And I will let you tell everybody the name of this new radar, this new technology, and then we'll explain exactly what it is. But, please, tell us what it's called, first of all, which I found fascinating, as well.

CATHLEEN JONES, NASA: It's called the UAV SAR. That stands for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar.

HOLMES: All right. I always love you guys with the names. Now, this is fairly new technology, only been in use, I believe you said, over the past year and a half. So how does this help? I know you used it with other disasters, but let's talk specifically oil right now. How can this help us understand what this oil is doing?

JONES: Well, this is a radar instrument, and so you're looking at scattered radiation from the surface. And oil on water actually comes back as a very dark scatter. So you can try to track the extent of the oil as it moves on the water. And then, once it hits the coastline, the oil also changes the scattering from the ground, and so you can track as it moves inland, once it hits the surface.

Also, if oil changes the vegetation, then the vegetation, for example, might die and fall over, and then the scattering would be different. So you can track changes to the vegetation.

HOLMES: Now, what have -- you all have gone up already with this radar on one flight, but you're going up again. And you hope to learn a lot more this second time around.

JONES: Well, we went up last week, and we got what's called a baseline. We imaged the coast from the Florida Keys all the way to Corpus Christi, Texas. And a lot of that has been oil, but not all of it.

And so we're going to go out and go back later once, you know, the oil has stopped coming out and once it -- a lot of it has hit the coastline, and try to track where the oil has gone, you know, after a storm, whether it's been pushed inland, what vegetation has been affected, and see if we can tell what's been impacted from this spill.

HOLMES: Now, have you all been asked by either BP or the federal government to do this, or are you all kind of doing this on -- on your own to try to collect some research with this new radar technology? And what do you plan to do with your findings? Do you plan to, certainly, pass it on, and do you think it will be helpful?

JONES: Well, we're not actually going to be able to help the really immediate response and recovery kind of effort. We're trying to get scientific data so that we can assess what's going on, maybe help in the assessing what vegetation has been impacted and what vegetation is most susceptible to the oil for this effort, but also just provide data so that in a future we would have that information for the response and recovery kind of effort. So we're doing science.

HOLMES: Doing science, and give us an idea of maybe how, God forbid, something like this happened again, but how it might react and how we should react at the very beginning. Always fascinating.

Cathleen Jones, again with NASA, this new -- new technology. We will see what comes of your second trip up. When did you say the next flight is?

JONES: Well, it's not scheduled yet. We will probably wait until after the storm season has really moved the oil inland and perhaps, you know, into the wetlands where the maximum ecological damage would be done.

HOLMES: Cathleen Jones, we appreciate you as always. It's good to talk to you folks over at NASA. Always got some neat stuff, some neat technology, and sounds like this one can help out. So thank you for being with us today.

JONES: Sure.

HOLMES: All right. We've got a lot going on that might be affecting your wallet. You just bought a home, maybe. Maybe you're looking to get one. You don't want to miss what Christine Romans has to say to you. Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Well, not exactly rolling in the dough today. A little flat, up about 2 points. You see the Dow over my shoulder here.

Christine Romans is here with us, co-host of "YOUR $$$$$." She's joining me from New York.

Christine, always a pleasure to see you. We know the president is going to be in Wisconsin today, doing kind of a town hall, talking about the economy. Given what we're seeing with the stock market today, what is one of those topics he's probably going to be talking about?

ROMANS: Well, you know, look, I mean, you've got the stock market, not necessarily rolling today. But that's good. That's a good thing, because it's down about 5 percent, 4 or 5 percent over the past few days. So it's been -- it's been a rough go this week.

Look, we've got a good gauge of the housing market. Housing and jobs are the two things that the middle class, you and I feel better -- better than anything else. This is what defines our personal economies, right?

The housing market, interesting foreclosure number from Realty Tracker, an online tracker, I want to tell you about. Anybody who has any exposure to the real-estate market is interested in this, because in the first quarter of the year, T.J., of all of the homes sold in this country for three months, 31 percent of them were foreclosures, some part of the foreclosure process. I mean, that is a staggering number. And those homes sold a 27 percent discount, which means even if you're sitting there in your house, and your neighbor's house just sold in foreclosure at a 27 percent discount, that's going to affect your neighborhood.

So watching these foreclosure numbers. And in places like Nevada and Florida, I mean, it's been amazing how cheaply some of these condos are turning up. You know, they built up these big, speculative bubbles, and then now that bubble has popped, and so you're still seeing the fallout from that.

Second thing I wanted to tell you about is the jobs market, because Friday we're going to get this big jobs report. It will be interesting to see if the president has anything to say about jobs today, because you know, we'd seen private sector employment begin, T.J. , but you know, now we've got this new ADP, payroll services report out today that was a little bit pessimistic. Showed job gains of just 13,000 in June. You're probably going to have government jobs decline. So you could have a negative jobs report on Friday. And that, you know -- that could be something that's going to play into the psychology of Wall Street and the consumer.

HOLMES: Yes, I couldn't believe some of those -- the housing numbers. A third of the homes sold were foreclosures. Do we have any idea in those numbers? You know, some people buy them up to make investments. Do we have any idea how many people are buying to actually live in them versus people just having an investment property?

ROMANS: That's a good -- that's a very good question. Because we know in the beginning of this foreclosure process, there were an awful lot of investors who were trying to buy into these homes. You know, I don't know how many of them are actually going to live in the house versus going to invest in the house, how many are flippers.

I know there are people out there who are investing in real estate again. And I know that, for the average home buyer or homeowner, it's still a pretty risky game to be trying to play again. I mean, it was, after all, you know, speculating and housing that got us in this mess in the first place. Right?

HOLMES: All right. And last thing, before I let you go here, if you can do this for me quickly. People are waiting possibly on Congress to make a move that could affect them, quite frankly. One in the homebuyer tax credit which was very popular. People like this.

HOLMES: Right.

HOLMES: And also on unemployment benefits, which affects a lot of folks.

ROMANS: Both of these things revived again. Quickly, Senate Democrats, I'll tell you, are working on another, trying to extend again jobless benefits. They've -- this has been sort of falling through three times now. The Senate Democrats are working on it again.

And the homebuyer tax credit, the House actually included in their bill. If you -- if you've already signed the contract but you haven't closed yet, today is the deadline to close on that house to get the first-time homebuyer tax credit. I mean, you've got to be -- got to get it done.

Well, they're going to try to extend that deadline to September 30; would be the new deadline to close. That could help an awful lot of people who are, you know, racing against the clock, trying to get these deals done so that they can get that tax buyer -- that tax -- homebuyer tax credit.

So both of those things are alive again here at the end of this week.

HOLMES: Christine, thank you. Good to see you, as always.

ROMANS: You're welcome. Bye, T.J.

HOLMES: And anybody else who wants to see any more of Christine, you can see her -- you have to watch her with Ali, though. But it's OK. That's on "YOUR $$$$$," Saturdays at 1 p.m., Sundays, 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

We've got a festival to tell you about that's painting a new picture for the art lovers out there. It's happening in one Florida town. But the fun doesn't start until the sun goes down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: And keeping an eye on what's happening. Racine, Wisconsin, expecting the president there in just a bit. Stepping out, going to have a town-hall meeting. He's going to be talking about the economy, talking about jobs, talking about the future. And he's in an area where they certainly need some good news. The city itself has a 14.2 percent unemployment rate. So they could certainly take some good news from the president. Unfortunately, it hasn't been good news when it comes to the economy.

But the president expected to take some questions at this town hall, as well as always, as a town hall does. And when he does, we will be dipping into that live for you. But the president is expected in Racine, Wisconsin, here shortly.

Well, it's art like you've never seen before. And it's shining a light, literally, on one Florida town. Our Gary Tuchman is on the "Edge of Discovery."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If this is what a typical art show looks like, then you might consider this Art 2.0.

MIKE RAGSDALE, FOUNDER, DIGITAL GRAFFITI: Digital graffiti is the world's first projection art festival.

TUCHMAN: And it's an event that transforms the quiet beach town of Alice Beach, Florida, into a new kind of art movement.

CHRISTINA PIERSON, ARTIST: It's amazing what it does to the projections as they go and they bend around the corners and sort of climb up the walls and get into the crevices.

RAGSDALE: The projections really come to life, because we do have all of this amazing white space. The architecture here is inspired by the architecture of Bermuda, the white homes there. Let's turn our town into the world's first blank canvas.

TUCHMAN: Once the sun goes down, the town-size canvas creates a whole new experience.

RAGSDALE: Digital Graffiti fuses together three things that have never been fused together before: art, architecture and technology.

TUCHMAN: It's a combination that is shining light not only on new artists, but hopefully painting a new picture for art lovers.

PIERSON: I'd love to see people connect with digital art and video art this way. It's great to come out here and to be able to actually experience how different it is, to see artwork that is not on paper that, that's not static, something that's moving and engaging this way. I really think it's exciting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: All right. And, of course, here we are, as well on this day 72 of the oil disaster. Enough to worry about when it comes to just the oil and the clean-up. Well, we've got to worry about weather, as well.

Keeping an eye on what is now Hurricane Alex. You see it there. It is a Category 1. But don't let the low number fool you. It is taking up a lot of space and causing a lot of problems down there in the Gulf. We will keep an eye on it.

Chad Myers here, helping us with that.

Also, pretty tough job interview. Maybe you've had some tough ones, but whew! This one has been something special. Well, those three. You don't have to interview with those three, actually. But might be just as tough as sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We're talking about Elena Kagan. Today is the third day of her job interview. We're going to be checking in with those three -- Donna, Toobin, Gloria -- in just a moment to see how she's doing on this day three. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Welcome back.

It is day three of one of the toughest job interviews you will ever get to see. Elena Kagan on day three, expected to possibly be the final day of her job interview. Of course, the confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has been getting a lot of attention because of her sense of humor, but let's get a sense now of what else we should be paying attention to.

Let's bring in our Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger, our CNN contributor Donna Brazile, and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Guys, good to see you all. We have been talking about her sense of humor. Those were the entertaining parts, if you will. But let me start with the ladies here for us, Gloria and Donna.

Donna, to you first, what else jumps out to you that people should be paying attention to, maybe on this day, day three? Or maybe even something you saw yesterday that maybe people aren't paying enough attention to?

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think Elena Kagan has been very forthcoming in her answers on some really difficult questions, whether it's the Second Amendment, campaign finance reform. You saw the exchange earlier with Senator Specter where I thought she was a little testy, where she clearly is able to do the back and forth with these senators. She is comfortable, she is confident. But she is being a lot more forthcoming than I believe the last couple of Supreme Court nominees have been.

HOLMES: Now, we hear forthcoming there, Gloria, and even Kagan herself talked about -- and the comment came up, she talked about in years past that maybe they should be -- the nominees should be more forthcoming and maybe the senators should a better job.

Now would you agree with Donna, that, in fact, that's what we're seeing, that she is being more forthcoming than we are used to seeing in these hearings?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know --

HOLMES: That's a no.

BORGER: It depends. Look, she is not giving -- it's very clear she came out and said yesterday she is a democrat, she has worked in democratic administrations, but she says that she's going to, you know, be a fair judge.

She agrees with the Roberts standard, which essentially says that a judge calls the balls and the strikes, but you're not pitching or at bat. But she also said that you have to apply a certain amount of wisdom to that. That you're just not an automaton when you do -- when you do judge. But I think she has been interesting, because in many ways when senators have come at her, particularly republicans, she has been kind of disarming, conversational, more fun, if that's what you want to call it, as a nominee here than one would normally expect, really.

HOLMES: And you mentioned, and you teed it up as you always do right for me and making my job easy, you talk about the balls and strikes. That comment we have, that particular bit of sound. And when we come out of it, I'll ask you about it, Jeffrey, but here she is talking about just that topic.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: We do know that not every case is decided 9-0. And that's not because anybody is acting in it bad faith, it's because those legal judgments are ones in which reasonable people can reasonably disagree sometimes. And so in that sense, law does require a kind of judgment, a kind of wisdom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And, Jeffrey, you watch these things closely. Now, from what we are seeing so far, has she been as masterful as we're used to seeing, quite frankly, with a lot of nominees in their answers? And does this pretty much follow the playbook when it comes to these confirmation hearings -- we're going to see the same back and forth, you're only going to get so much from the nominee?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think it does follow one nomination in particular, and that's Chief Justice Roberts' testimony. I see a lot of similarities because every time she is asked a question about a subject area in the law, say separation of church and state, which is a subject she dealt with this morning, she displays enormous mastery of the subject.

That's been a very controversial area of the law. Different justices have approached that question in different ways, and she describes the different approaches, showing real knowledge of the law. And then the senators will ask, well, which one do you favor? And she says, well, I can't answer that.

So I would not describe her as forthcoming. I would describe her as knowledgeable. I think that --

BORGER: She is academic, you know, don't you think?

TOOBIN: Well --

BORGER: She comes at it from an academic point of view, because she has never been a judge before.

TOOBIN: No, I think she is just not saying what she thinks.

(LAUGHTER) TOOBIN: I think that's the privilege she has in this process. The senators give her the privilege not to answer the questions and she is taking that. And I just think, you know -- this is obviously a highly intelligent woman, but what she thinks about many of these legal issues we don't know yet.

HOLMES: Now which one of those suit, Donna -- ? Yes, there you go --

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: Maybe she's like Victoria. Maybe she's like Victoria, she has to keep some secrets, you know?

(LAUGHTER)

BRAZILE: But -- but also, I believe that she has reaffirmed her commitment that as a judge, she will, you know, apply the facts to the law. But her own personal views, she -- I think repeatedly said that her own personal philosophy, her personal feelings, somehow or another, that's not relevant to being a judge.

So I think she is really -- she has walked the line very carefully, but I believe that I have learned more about Elena Kagan in these last two days of hearings than I knew about her previously.

HOLMES: All right. Well, we certainly are going to be hearing, it seems, a lot more, and learning a lot more about what she was doing when she was a dean of Harvard Law School.

We're going to take a quick break, coming back with you three, don't go anywhere. But one thing that some of the senators have been going back to over and over again, which some might say is the only bit of controversy that has come up in any of these hearings, her behavior and attitude towards the military when she was at Harvard Law School.

Quick break. We're back with the panel. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Like we said, it's day three of Elena Kagan's job interview. She is in a lunch break right now, Senate Judiciary Committee expected back in the next 30 minutes or so to continue day three of the questioning, expected to possibly wrap-up today, as well.

Let's continue our conversation with Gloria, with Jeffrey, with Donna, who is with us in D.C. And, Donna, I'll start back up with you here.

We're going to listen to Senator Orrin Hatch, the republican, talking to or asking questions about something that continues to come up in these hearings. If there is any bit of controversy, it seems like this is one thing that certainly republicans are wanting to drill down and harp on. But it's about her keeping away military recruiters from the campus of Harvard University when she was -- Harvard Law School when she was there.

Let's take a listen and then I'll ask you about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I'm not asking whether recruiting went up or down or whether there was some access to something at all times. The law requires the same access for the military as other employers, not access that the dean may consider good. Do you disagree with this description of the situation by Office of the Judge Advocate General?

KAGAN: Senator Hatch, I appreciate that reasonable people can disagree about this issue. But I do think that the military at all times, regardless whether it was -- whether the Office of Career Services was sponsoring or the Veterans Association was sponsoring, had excellent access to our students, and over many years prior to my deanship, the Veterans Association had sponsored. The Department of Defense had thought that that sponsorship was fully adequate to their needs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Donna, how are you seeing this play out? Because it continues to come up, it continues to get questioned. Is this one thing that one bit of controversy, if you will, and they can pit this as a democratic nominee, of a democratic president being anti- military?

BRAZILE: Well, I think that is what the frame is, but clearly, and Jeffrey probably knows all of the particulars in terms of the law and whether or not OCS had an obligation to allow recruiters on campus while she was dean versus utilizing the services of some of the veterans organization.

The bottom line is that Elena Kagan is pro-military, she is pro- veteran. She -- the one -- one of the veterans who receive a JD while she was dean at Harvard, Mr. Mare (ph) wrote in "The Washington Post" that she was very supportive of the military and those who under her leadership and tutelage.

So I just think it's a talking point and an argument. But I don't see the facts out there that would in any way, you know, prevent her from becoming a justice on the Supreme Court.

HOLMES: And, Jeffrey, she talked favorably about you, Donna just did, saying you would know more about the legal side of this.

BRAZILE: He's is a lawyer.

HOLMES: So do they have -- are they making any kind of a point as far as a legal argument about what she did at Harvard?

TOOBIN: Well, I don't think there is any question that Elena Kagan followed the law, that's not the issue. The issue is, did she somehow disrespect the military. And as Kagan has several times in this testimony, it was a hard balance to strike. Because on the one hand, she did want to welcome the military. Clearly, she wanted the military to be able to interview and possibly hire students at Harvard Law School. But she also wanted to honor the Harvard University policy that says only employers who don't discriminate are allowed to go on campus.

So they set up this compromise that they could have access to the students, but not through the official channel, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me, perhaps, but you can also see why republicans think it's treating military a as second class citizens.

HOLMES: Gloria, who is getting their point across more? Because we know these Q&A's aren't meant for the average citizen. It's for the base of the Republican Party or the base of the Democratic Party. Who is winning in that regard then?

BRAZILE: I think no one is winning on this. You know, I think they're going to have to agree to disagree.

But if you take a step back for a minute, T.J., I think the larger question here about Elena Kagan on this issue and on others that republicans are asking is, will she be driven by her politics more than she is driven by the law, OK? Because she has already come out and said she is a democrat, she has worked for democrats going back to Michael Dukakis for heaven's sake, right?

So they're saying, was this a political statement on your part more than it was a legal statement on your part. And is that the way you're going to judge in the future? And she has come back at that them and said, absolutely not. She will judge by what the law allows, by precedent, et cetera, et cetera.

So, you know, she is saying, no, here are my politics, which, by the way, she is talking a lot more about it than other nominees we have seen because actually she has been a political appointee in the Clinton White House, for example, on the domestic policy side. So she said, look, I'm a democrat, but that's not going to drive me when I make my decisions. And republicans, some of them, will choose to believe that that will not be the case.

HOLMES: All right. Well, one more thing here, and I know I'm coming back, I'm going to talk to all three of you again in about 45 minutes or the bottom of the next hour. But, Jeffrey, one quick question to you, and we'll certainly going to get into it more, about her personality.

How does a woman like this with that kind of wit that we've been talking about, that dry sense of humor, how does someone like that fit in, quite frankly, with the rest of the justices? Is that going to be welcomed with open arms, that kind of attitude, quite frankly, and that kind of humor?

TOOBIN: You know, the court is full of very different characters. People who are -- David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are very kind of quiet people. Scalia, Steven Breyer, outgoing people. I think she will be among the more outgoing members of the court. HOLMES: You think?

TOOBIN: And I think this is very intentional on the part of the White House. They want someone who they think can mix it up, politic with her colleagues, build coalitions, and so this is -- it is no coincidence that her personality is what it is. It is one of the main reasons along with her intelligence and accomplishments that she was nominated.

BORGER: T.J., and one thing I have to say here that Donna and I both relate to. When she was answering the question about cameras in the courtroom and how that would affect her and she said, well, I guess I would have to go to the hairdresser more often. Right, Donna? We can relate to that one.

(LAUGHTER)

BRAZILE: Absolutely. And the salon, too. So -- there you have it.

(LAUGHTER)

HOLMES: Well, ladies, I appreciate you all getting dolled up for us today.

(LAUGHTER)

HOLMES: You look great.

TOOBIN: Great hair.

HOLMES: You both have great hair.

TOOBIN: I'm surrounded by great hair.

BORGER: Good hair day, right?

HOLMES: Donna, Jeffrey, Gloria, I'll see you guys here in about 45 minutes, bottom of the hour. We will talk more about her temperament and personality and how that will make a deal -- make a difference as well on the court. Thanks, guys. See you here shortly.

And coming up, it's a Venice, Italy for the future. After the break, the story behind some incredible pictures we're going to show you of a self-sustaining city on water. You've seen that movie, "Waterworld"? Yes, wasn't the greatest, but still I'm just trying giving you an idea.

Quick break. We're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Time for our "Big Idea" today. This is a big, big idea. We talked about "Waterworld" a second ago, but this is kind of an underwater world, if you will. This is what's called Sub Biosphere 2. Now let me explain what this thing is and some of the pictures here give you a demonstration, or an illustration I should say of just what I'm talking about. But this is a habitat where people could literally live under water.

Now, it's -- why would you do this? Well, they're going to do it for the purpose of science, possibly. But it's an underwater habitat designed for aquanauts, is what you would call them. This could be used for tourism, as well. Create life sciences and long-term human, plant and animal habitation.

Now it is self-sustaining, so you could actually live here, you have your own air, water, food, electricity, all those resources actually designed by a guy named Phil Pauly who is getting or trying to get an X Prize. You know, that competition in order to get some funding for this thing.

But take a look at it. To give auto an idea, it literally is an underwater city. Now to give you an idea of the size of this things, the diameter is about 1,100 feet, that's about three football fields. Those individual pods you saw around the larger one in the middle, that gives you an idea of it there, those are about half a football field. You could have 20 stories that would be below water, another 40 stories that would be above water, and it's all glass enclosure. It would sink down into it would sink down into the water.

Now it's not up and running just yet. It's just a big idea, but they need some big funding for this thing.

Another something I could tell you about. There's another biosphere out there built on land. This one was built out in Arizona back in the 1980s, you can see it there on the screen as well. This is a research and development facility for a self-sustaining station colonization technology.

Now people have spend two years in this thing. Pretty public exercise they went through. It's owned now by the University of Arizona. So that's the on-land version of what they're trying to do with Biosphere 2 which could take you underwater to live for just a little while.

Millions of feet of boom, millions of gallons of dispersants, millions of gallons of oil burned all to clean up the oil disaster in the Gulf. But we have an ocean expert who says it's not working and it's not going to work, ever. Hear from him coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: We are on day 72 of the Gulf oil disaster and just about everything we can come up with has been thrown at this oil disaster. To first try to stop the leak and also try to clean it up. Give you an idea of the numbers here.

You hear so much about this boom that's supposed to keep this oil contained. Some 1,400 miles of it has been sent out, used in this whole oil disaster so far. Also, 1.6 million gallons, that's how much dispersant has been used, you know, the stuff to break it all up. Also, 10 million gallons, that's the amount of oil that has been burned trying to get rid of it that way.

I want to bring in Carl Safina now who is president of Blue Ocean Institute. And, Carl, you hear some of those numbers I just talked about there, all this stuff we're throwing at the oil, supposed to be helping out. Do you think all those things are doing more harm than good?

CARL SAFINA, PRESIDENT, BLUE OCEAN INSTITUTE: I think they are doing more harm than good, and all the things they're throwing at it are not what they should have prepared to throw at it. They are very unprepared. It's a world record of unpreparedness.

The booms are a joke. They're not made for open water. They cannot contain the oil. Everywhere you see booms, you also see breaks in the booms. Those booms are made for inside harbors if a boat is at a dock and it spills some oil when it's fueling, you put a booms around it. They're not made for open water or conditions where there are waves or wind. And the proof is you can see oil getting under and around it.

The other thing is dispersants, they're using booms and dispersants. The dispersants defeat the idea of booms. Booms are work based on the fact that oil and water don't mix and oil stays on the surface. The dispersant dissolves the oil so it pollutes all of the water. It's under the surface, it's still oil. It's still as toxic. The dispersant makes it more available to things like plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae. It makes the oil worse and it itself is toxic.

HOLMES: Well, we hear you there making the case, Carl, and that is just getting you started.

We're going to take a quick break. Wanted our viewers to have an idea why we brought Carl in and hear from him. But he's going to explain further after the break what he thinks about these dispersants and booms, why he thinks it and why that's all we have to use. Why is it, if he thinks he's so sure these things aren't working, why is the government and BP going to these as the go-to methods of trying to clean it up?

Quick break, we're going to continue it with Carl.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)