Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
The Unfriendly Skies; Two Western Journalists Killed in Libya; Mission Creep in Libya?; The Schizophrenic U.S. Economy
Aired April 20, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRANT: Just an eerie feeling of how there was once life and then nothing.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: Nothing. That's all from us tonight. "IN THE ARENA" starts now.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Breaking news tonight. Right now, there are about 6,000 planes in the air over the United States. This real-time tracking map shows you just how crowded the skies are. But of course, the question is, how safe?
Well, fasten your seatbelts because the FAA has snapped into action tonight. The agency has announced that they finally fired two air traffic controllers who fell asleep in the last few weeks. That came on the heels of this announcement.
If you're the president's wife or his vice president, you will now have a supervisor tracking your every flight. Great news for two very important people. But for the rest of us, not so much.
This blizzard of activity comes one day after First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden were heading back to Washington after an appearance on the TV program "The View." The plane they were in flew dangerously close to a giant C-17 cargo plane. This, while they were preparing to land at Andrews Air Force Base.
Tonight, as we learn more about the incident, we come face-to- face with an ugly reality. We just don't have enough air traffic controllers. To keep the skies safe, New York's JFK airport should have 270 controllers on staff in the tower. Instead, they have about 150. Our air traffic controllers can't keep up which may be why we saw such a close call.
FAA rules say that no plane should be within five miles of a C-17 cargo plane. And here's why. Such a heavy plane flying at low speed and close to the ground creates major turbulence in its wake. It's like flying straight into two tornadoes. Joining me now to discuss all this is former inspector general for the Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo. She's also a lawyer representing victims in aviation related lawsuits. She's in Charleston.
And back with me tonight is Michael Goldfarb, the former chief of staff for the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration.
Welcome to you both.
Michael, let me start with you. And I just got to ask, air traffic controllers falling asleep at the switch, errors up 50 percent. The first lady's plane -- of all planes -- just about in a dangerous situation -- in a dangerous situation, almost a tragic one.
Is this emblematic of what's going on up there in the skies? And as the old question is, how scared should we be?
MICHAEL GOLDFARB, FORMER FAA CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, Eliot, it remains the safest system in the world but that does little justice to the kinds of problems we're seeing.
The system is under enormous stress. The controllers are fatigued. There's not enough bench strength. They don't have the reserves to fully staff the towers. So what we're seeing is the normal symptoms of somebody under enormous stress. Somebody happens to be the entire air traffic control system.
SPITZER: You know, let me turn to Mary. But you know, Michael, not to quibble the -- I love everything you say, but it's not as though there's not just a bench that's lacking. We're putting only eight guys in the field when you're supposed to have nine or -- you know, in a baseball metaphor. It's baseball season.
Mary, tell me. You were the IG for the system. Are things getting worse right now based on everything you're seeing and hearing?
MARY SCHIAVO, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Well, yes, they are for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is this problem has been brewing for a very long time and the FAA has not taken strong action where there are problems.
For example, the sleeping controllers, that was around when I was inspector general in the '90s. We addressed those issues. But the FAA didn't react. And it took the secretary of transportation and some serious very incidents including with the first lady's plane to really get action.
It shouldn't have come to this. But it's been a long time coming to this.
SPITZER: But look, I just got to raise this issue because I know there's a debate going back and forth about whether air traffic controllers should nap on the job.
Now, look, I don't mean to be simplistic about this, but I've been a boss in a whole lot of different contexts. I've never been a boss in a situation where I, if saw somebody sleeping, I'd say that's a good thing.
What is the possible rationale for saying that these air traffic controllers should take naps during their shifts?
Michael, why don't you head into this one?
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDFARB: Sorry, Mary. Absolutely, Eliot. I mean operational people working the midnight shifts, all the scientists, all the researchers agree, it's a very difficult shift to stay awake.
Remember now, we're not talking about someone coming for an eight-hour shift and taking a nap. We're talking about controllers that have backlog, they've worked three to four days. They're coming in many times to a dark radar room after midnight, not a lot of traffic. They can't listen to music. They can't play DVDs except for the case of the Cleveland controller.
SPITZER: Yes. Yes. I hear they're watching movies, that's the problem.
GOLDFARB: Right. Many probably are. And the only thing they're allowed to do, if there's not air traffic coming in, is to read the FAA policy manual. That alone would put you to sleep.
SPITZER: Yes. Well, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
GOLDFARB: So in effect, many countries -- Canada, NAV CANADA has 10-hour shifts. They have two controllers after midnight. They encourage napping. EUROCONTROL, all the European nations, Australia, because everybody has come to realize that that sleep enables safety as opposed to takes away from safety so --
SPITZER: All right. I hear -- Michael, I hear the logic of it. I still don't quite have my arms around the notion that we want these guys sleeping on the job. But it sounds to me as though what you're really saying is that because of the backlog, and the sequence of 10- hour, 12-hour shifts, back to back.
GOLDFARB: Eliot --
SPITZER: Compressing their workweek, it sounds to me like the real problem is not one we said at the top of the show. Not enough controllers to create a schedule that is optimal for safety.
Mary, is that really what we've got here?
SCHIAVO: Well, partially. That is certainly one concern, and we're still 30-some years later since the 1990 -- 1982 firing of the PATCO controllers when they went on strike, we had to go through a period of time where most of those -- not all of them, but a number of them retired a couple of years ago. That started a trend as well. And we had to replace those. But the FAA also allowed controllers to command their own schedules and so they could have four-day workweeks instead of five- day workweeks. So they had this thing called the rattler schedule where they would schedule four days of regular work and then their fifth day, right after their fourth day schedule. So they'd have back-to-back schedules. And that was allowed.
Secretary LaHood said no more of that last week.
SPITZER: Can I interrupt you for one second?
SCHIAVO: And so controllers who were some of their own problems --
SPITZER: Mary, can I interrupt you? Why was it called the rattler schedule?
SCHIAVO: Because it comes back to bite you.
SPITZER: All right. And then -- you know, which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
SCHIAVO: Exactly.
SPITZER: This is the rattlesnake metaphor. You're going to do something and it seems good in the short term. You know, who wouldn't want a four-day work week and then you get a three-day weekend every week.
SCHIAVO: Right.
SPITZER: But hey, guys, if safety is on the line, we shouldn't be doing that.
Michael, do you agree with that?
GOLDFARB: Yes, but we're in the weeds here. We're not dealing with the larger issue.
SPITZER: Which is what?
GOLDFARB: I don't think -- I don't think -- you know, we almost have a rule -- it's almost a rule de jure. Every day, there's another reaction. Today -- I mean, most people would have thought that there's not that many presidential, vice presidential flights. Most people would have thought that an air traffic control supervisor would have an eye on a controller guiding that flight.
So we're changing the rules. We're talking about no sleeping. It doesn't deal with the heart of the problem.
You said it, Eliot, the heart of the problem is there are not enough controllers. There's a backlog of trainees and they can't staff the critical facilities. So all the sleeping, all the fatigue, not to excuse it, but all that symptomatic of an agency playing catch up from a decade's long problem. As Mary described, it's been going on for a long time. But I think it's coming to a head right now.
SPITZER: Look, it seems to me that there's, A, there's a need based on what I've read on the FAA system. There's a need to implement a whole new technology. And that has not been funded. And so we're stuck with an old technology, without the people to man the system -- you know or woman the system, whatever the gender term should be.
But let me throw this out. I just saw the House of Representatives at least cut, cut $4 billion out of the FAA budget over four years. What will that cut do to the capacity to bring in the additional controllers that we need?
Mary, is this going to have a real impact?
SCHIAVO: Yes, it is going to have a real impact. It's not going to hurt -- it's not going to show up this year because we're already foraging ahead into the budget. But what it's going to do, it's going to do two bad things. One, it's going to hurt our build-out of the NextGen air traffic control system. That system we must have. We're taking down the old system. It's not going to be finished as it is until 2020.
It is a beautiful system. It has the potential to make midair collisions a thing of the past. But we have to have the funding to finish it. All aircraft in the system have to be equipped to be seen in the system and we're going to need more controllers, not less, just because we have the new system, because we're going to have 3.5 increase in traffic, in air traffic, every year until then.
SPITZER: OK.
SCHIAVO: We're having very crowded skies.
SPITZER: Michael, you were the chief of staff for the FAA. And so you were intimately involved in this budget. In 30 seconds, tell me, what would you see happening because of this budget cut that has just been voted by the House? It's not yet the final budget, obviously. You've got to have the Senate and then --
GOLDFARB: It's a --
SPITZER: What's going to happen?
GOLDFARB: It's a devastating budget cut because anybody who works in the organization, what's the first thing you cut? Not the employees, you cut the training. You cut the human resources. So if we're talking about controller training and accelerating, it cuts that.
It cuts aviation safety inspectors. Imagine being on that Southwest jet. I wonder how many members of Congress on that plane would vote for less aviation safety inspectors. I don't think so. So it's a huge cut for the FAA to take at a critical time when we're trying to catch up to better fund air traffic control and better -- you know, keep the skies safe.
SPITZER: Although, Michael, you know, on the other side of the ledge, you told us important tonight in their downtime between planes landing they're supposed to read that FAA manual.
GOLDFARB: Yes.
SPITZER: That's all the training they need, obviously. So we're all set. I'm not worried about this at all. I'm going to go fly tomorrow just for fun.
All right, Mary and Michael, thanks so much for being with us.
Still to come, here are some of the questions we'll be drilling down on. The U.S. plans on sending $25 million in aid directly to the rebels in Libya. Is this a deepening involvement for U.S. forces? And where will it take us?
Plus, Wall Street continues to bask in profits as the market hits a three-year high. So why isn't mainstream enjoying -- Main Street, excuse me, enjoying the windfall?
And thousands fled for their lives from certain death in Japan. What does a modern day ghost town look like and the memories that it carries?
And E.D., you're continuing our coverage of what's going on with air traffic controllers. What have you got for us?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I didn't get the chance to read the FAA manual.
SPITZER: But you will in a down --
HILL: I understand that's scintillating.
SPITZER: Over the break, you will.
HILL: Yes.
SPITZER: We both will.
HILL: I have been reading the contract between the federal government and the union -- air traffic controllers union. And it's interesting. Everybody now is acknowledging that the work rules they set up led to problems. That they were in essence dangerous.
So why did everyone agree to them? And what else is in here that needs to change before we have a problem?
SPITZER: All right. Seems to be the Republicans cutting the budget is the bigger problem. Anyway, we're going to have that debate later on.
Tragic news from Libya as two western journalists were killed trying to cover the civil war. We'll be right back with that traffic, horrific story. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Turning now to Libya.
NATO issued a pointed warning today to civilians to stay clear of Gadhafi forces in order to give NATO planes a better target to shoot at.
For two months, those forces have pummeled rebels in the city of Misrata with horrific results. It has been a bloodbath, but despite overwhelming fire power, the rebels are hanging on. So many civilians have died there. And today, word that two journalists are among them.
One, Chris Hondros, a still photographer for the Getty News Agency, and also acclaimed photo journalist Tim Hetherington, co- producer of the amazing documentary "Restrepo," a riveting look at the Afghanistan war.
CNN's Fred Pleitgen is one of the few journalists who recently reported from Misrata. He's with us tonight from Tripoli.
Fred, first, I just got to say, you're there, you're at risk. We have seen all too vividly today the danger that you as a journalist are in. Certainly when you're in Misrata yesterday and the days before, and even when you're in Tripoli. So I -- all I can ell you is thank you for your remarkable reporting in this dangerous war zone.
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, thank you. And we also have some new information on what actually happened in that incident today in Misrata. And I can tell you from my time on the ground that this is really something that we were afraid of when we were there as well.
It seems as though Tim Hetherington and his crew and those three other photojournalists that they were on the western fringes of Misrata when this happened. They were in an area that was sort of contested. They were out there with a couple of the rebel fighters when their group got hit by -- was either an RPG or a rocket propelled grenade or a mortar.
It seemed that Tim Hetherington, he died pretty much on arrival at one of the few makeshift clinics. Chris Hondros, he died about two hours later also at that makeshift clinic.
And I can tell you from having been on the ground there, that's pretty much the worst nightmare that can happen to you, is to get wounded in a place like Misrata at this point in time, Eliot, because the few clinics that you have there that are still functioning there are very low on medication. They have almost no operating space. Almost no operating time. Almost no operating tools. And there's almost no way to medevac you out of there if you do get hit.
The only way to get out of there is by boat. And the shortest boat trip out of there is about 20 hours -- Eliot. SPITZER: You know, Fred, the only good news perhaps of the past 24 hours is that NATO troops and the NATO leadership finally seems to be ramping up what it says it's going to do.
Word that three of the NATO nations, Italy, France and the U.K., are going to send senior officers to help train and take a leadership role perhaps with the opposition forces. And the NATO planes seem to be coming back to life.
Have you seen evidence of this? Have you seen the NATO striking once again at Gadhafi's forces both in Tripoli and in the area surrounding Misrata.
PLEITGEN: I have indeed and I can tell you there were airstrikes here just a couple of minutes here. Three or four loud explosions around the Tripoli area. To us, it seemed as though it might have been an ammunition dump or some others of military targets that was hit here and around the Tripoli area.
That didn't target any anti-aircraft fire. But you can see that the NATO strikes are still going on. And what we're hearing from NATO is that they're doing -- two things. They're trying to hit strategic targets like, for instance, headquarters of Gadhafi's brigades here and around the Tripoli area.
They're also trying to hit telecommunications installations. And the other thing that they're doing is they're having their pilots go up in the air and try and scout out targets that they believe have been firing at civilians. Things like artillery pieces that they seem those fired if they believe that they're aiming towards civilians. Things like tanks, so it does appear as though NATO is ramping up.
And at the same time, you're absolutely right. They are also doing it seems more, short of putting combat boots on the ground. You mentioned the military advisers from Italy, France and U.K. and of course the U.S. is now saying that it also wants to provide about $25 million in what it called non-lethal aid to the rebels to bolster their governance.
But the main thing that NATO is trying to do is just trying to make the rebels a better equipped and more coherent fighting force especially in the east of the country where they're having so much trouble and are getting pounded so badly by Gadhafi's forces -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Exactly. All right. Fred Pleitgen, thank you so much for your excellent reporting. We'll be talking with you later.
What can the U.S. do to prevent these indiscriminate killings? Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed sending $25 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels, radios, body armors, vehicles.
Is this mission creep? And is it something we should be doing? In fact, should we be doing more?
Former NATO supreme allied commander and CNN contributor General Wesley Clark joins me now from Los Angeles. General Clark, thanks so much for being with us tonight.
WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Thank you, Eliot.
SPITZER: First, I guess I just have to ask, how do you assess the military situation? You have enormous experience of this. You've overseen combat. You have won the battles you've waged.
Can the opposition forces in Misrata survive based upon what you know that's going on right now?
CLARK: I think they can. I think that there'll be more support coming into them from Italy, France, U.K. Maybe some of that non- lethal equipment from the United States will be coming in to help them as well.
They do have the seaport there. I think they will survive. Remember they're fighting essentially a group of mercenaries under Gadhafi's aim that's equipped with heavy weaponry. Maybe superior weaponry. But they don't have the city. And they haven't been able to take it to date. So I think they've got a good chance of holding on Misrata.
SPITZER: You're a bit oblique and you're a very diplomatic sort, but I want to push you a little bit for the benefit of our viewers.
When you say they'll be getting more assistance, what type of assistance do you think they're going to be getting? Are you envisioning that some of the NATO countries, France, in particular, has a bit more -- been a bit more bellicose than President Sarkozy, certainly, than other leaders -- will they send troops in if it appears that Misrata is about to fall to Gadhafi?
CLARK: I wouldn't be surprised to see some adviser teams go in there from these countries. That's certainly permitted under the U.N. Security Council resolution.
And I think what Moammar Gadhafi probably doesn't understand is he really doesn't understand that the leaders of France, U.K., Italy, the United States, NATO, they're not going to allow him to survive.
So it may look like his forces are superior at some point but Gadhafi's lifeline will be choked off. The rebels will be strengthened politically, economically and militarily. NATO will maintain an iron-clad grip on the skies above.
And Gadhafi has to go. That's the policy goal. And he will go.
SPITZER: Look, you're exactly right. The political imperative behind ensuring that Gadhafi is gone within some reasonably short time frame is overwhelming. On the other hand, the military tableau that we see playing out here has not been so encouraging recently.
And then, you know, you, I have to give you enormous credit. You were very prescient several weeks ago when this began. And you said -- and I don't want to call it mission creep, I think you rightly say that's not really what this is. The mission has always been the same.
But the creeping escalation of our military engagement has been visible just as you predicted. Where will this take us? Now we're sending so-called non-lethal aid. There'll be advisers. This is what you foresaw. What happens from here on in?
CLARK: Well, the president has always been very candid for the United States at least. What he said is that the purpose of the U.S. military involvement was to protect civilians but he had a policy goal that went beyond the military mission.
And I think that's exactly what you're seeing play out here. Now to reach that policy goal, you can provide non-lethal aid, you can provide assistance in the rebel governing areas so you can get better governance. You can provide hospital support.
And allies can certainly do more than that as they're preparing to do. I think all of that will be ratcheted up against Gadhafi. Gadhafi is going to try to stall for time. He's going to believe he can get extra mercenaries to come in there. He's going to try to bribe and threaten and coerce the rebel groups.
But all of this is going to fail because he's up against overwhelming power. He just doesn't see it yet.
SPITZER: I think the question is one of time frame. And certainly is the case that the power arrayed against him is overwhelming, but until now, as I think we're seeing in the fight in Misrata, in the fight -- outside Benghazi, so far militarily, he's been able to hold his own, even -- we're standing -- I mean, I saw the list of what's included in the $25 million of non-lethal aid, binoculars, body armor, some trucks.
All of that is fine but if they don't have the troops to get into the field to use that stuff, what good is it? So don't they just need more troops and firepower in the field ultimately to get this over the finish line?
CLARK: Well, they'll get the troops and other countries probably will provide them with the firepower. I think some of that is already coming in. And it's a matter of getting the organization, the training right. Taking small steps and trying to -- instead of trying to take their whole country all at once.
And it would not surprise me to see that these trainers on the ground from our allies also can communicate with the aircraft overhead. I think that's inevitable. That's going to happen. They're going to do whatever it takes to be effective against Gadhafi and he's going to go.
So we're watching the policy unfold. I think the United States has been very adroit thus far in avoiding mission creep with the military action of the United States. So it's up to the other elements of power than to apply the pressure and force Gadhafi out.
SPITZER: All right, General Clark, as always, thank you for your wisdom on this, your counsel and patience, something most of us are not terribly good at.
Thanks so much for coming on the show.
CLARK: Thank you.
SPITZER: Coming up, Wall Street is rolling in profits. What exactly is wrong with that picture? Our schizophrenic economy when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Today, the Dow Jones Industrials average surged to hit its highest level since June 2008. But the economy is schizophrenic. Our government is going bankrupt. Jobs are scarce. And the middle class is getting punched in the gut.
Here's what President Obama said just last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: So is America's economy booming or tanking?
I asked CNN's Richard Quest a short time ago from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Richard, thanks so much for joining us.
RICHARD QUEST, HOST, CNN'S QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: Eliot, good evening to you.
SPITZER: Explain to me the schizophrenia that I see in our economy. You can't turn on the TV, you can't turn on the radio without hearing about how our government here is bankrupt and how the middle class is just suffering every day.
And yet this afternoon the stock market hit a -- you know, a high, hasn't been this high, this robust, for years. Explain to me this dichotomy.
QUEST: It's very simple. Overseas business. The companies that are doing well are those like Intel that have more than 50 percent of their revenues coming from overseas.
If you look at the earnings numbers that we are seeing in the first quarter of this year, time and again, it is the same story. It is China, India, Brazil, emerging markets. Those are the places where General Motors, where Ford, where Intel, where all the big companies are making big bucks. Even Boeing.
You're looking at overseas markets to make money.
Now that is not the case, Eliot, in the United States. Deficit, debt, leverage, worries about interest rates, worries about the future of the economy, worries about the jobs. They have a corrosive effect on consumers and that's why you have schizophrenia.
SPITZER: So, Richard, I -- you know, I love it when anybody who's an economist tells me something as simple because usually it's 18 parts to an answer. But you're exactly right.
What you're saying is that the globalization of the world economy has been great for multinationals and has been terrible for the American middle class.
If you talk about jobs -- I want to put a chart up here that shows where the jobs have gone over the last decade. U.S. multinationals have cut U.S. jobs by 2.9 million. Those same U.S. multinationals have added 2.4 million jobs overseas.
That's just what you're saying, whether it's Intel or General Motors. They're doing great overseas and collapsing over here. So what you're telling me is the trade may be bad for the American middle class.
QUEST: No, come on, it's not as simple as that and you know it.
SPITZER: I'm just trying to bait you a little bit.
QUEST: Right, you've succeeded. Firstly, those profits that those companies are making overseas get plowed back into dividends that are paid into 401(k)s, into investments, into mutual funds, so it's not a zero sum game as some would have you believe.
If a -- a U.S. company does well overseas, then people back in the United States do of course benefit from higher dividends. But there is a -- there's a revolution going on at the moment in economies like the U.K., European Union, in the United States, a shift from manufacturing, which has been on the downturn for a long time, even from high tech, into services and new forms of economic growth.
SPITZER: I want to interrupt you for a second, go back to something you said just a moment ago. You are absolutely right. When Intel or General Motors makes money, those monies get distributed in dividends to the stockholder. But here's the point. And this is what we said in the introduction. As President Obama said the other day, the one percent of the top that controls capital, that owns those stocks, are doing really well. Their average income up 250,000 bucks over the last decade. But the people who work with their hands day in, day out, who don't control capital, have seen their income going down because they sell their labor. And as they sell labor, they're competing with the workers in China or Vietnam or Brazil, right? Isn't that so much -- isn't that true?
QUEST: Yes. But the moment I now bring my argument, you're going to run the socialist flag up the --
SPITZER: Oh, no, no.
QUEST: But, Eliot, yes, of course. Of course, it's true. But then for instance, you raise the taxes on the richest part of the population. That's what's happened in the U.K., where there's a 50 percent tax on people earning more than 150,000 pounds a year. You do that across the board. Of course, you start doing that. When times are bad, those who have most have to pay. But there's an argument, and you know it as well as I do, that will say, well, they are the wealth producers.
SPITZER: I'm not saying anything about taxes now. I'm just describing the globalization of the economy because as you know, which is a good thing for a lot of people. But as you said, if the jobs are going overseas, the profits are being made overseas, the people who control capital are doing great, but the people who are working here have to compete against those workers overseas. That's a stark reality. Now we have to figure out how we deal with it.
QUEST: Yes. Hang on, hang on, hang on. An economist in the United States wrote brilliantly in a book, the day Americans are prepared to pay more for for shoes is the day that they'll be a shoe industry in America. And that can go across the whole board. The day that people are prepared to pay for higher cost production, then you're going to have an industry. But as long as -- Eliot, as long as the Targets, the Wal-Mart, as long as it means pushing prices, pushing supplies, pushing everything down, down, down, then you're going to have it down to the lowest common denominator of costs.
SPITZER: Then what you're saying is exactly right. That's what I'm saying. The benefits of trade, of trade come into consumers here with lower cost products out of Wal-Mart. But the workers here who used to make those products have seen those jobs go overseas.
QUEST: But much more serious, much more serious. As long as the United States is saddled with $1 trillion worth of debt and the trillions of dollars worth of interest payments that have to go to service, billions of dollars that service that debt, and that the two sides cannot agree on a serious, sensible (ph) -- think of the austerity measures being implemented in Greece, in Ireland, in Portugal, in the United Kingdom. Now, when you put that into the context of the picture, you start to see.
Yes, you're right, Eliot, the moment anybody like me says the answer is simple, it's time to head for the hills.
SPITZER: I love we're back to where it is. It's simple.
Richard, you have the answers for all of us. I thank you for that. Look, this is, again, I love getting you on. Our tutorial in international economics, Richard Quest has solved it all. Thank you for coming on the show.
QUEST: Thank you.
SPITZER: Never a dull moment talking to Richard Quest. And he's right about most of what he says about international economists.
All right. E.D., what have you got for us tonight in terms of air traffic controllers?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, what's it like when you're in one of those planes trailing another plane and it's too close. You start feeling the effects of that wind turbulence.
We've got a guy coming up who has not only worked in the control tower, he has also piloted those planes, and he's going to explain to us exactly what the first lady and Dr. Biden went through.
SPITZER: All right. Can't wait for that. All right. Look forward to it.
Also later in the show, an amazing exclusive from Japan. CNN, the only network allowed inside the radioactive evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear power plant. It's unforgettable. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Under new rules put in place by the FAA, air traffic controllers are now guaranteed an extra hour off between shifts. But is that enough? Our next guest has been both a pilot and a controller and knows firsthand what goes on both in the tower and in the cockpit. He says the new rule by the FAA is the stupidest thing he's ever heard. Rob Mark joins us from Chicago. Explain why.
ROB MARK, FORMER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: Well, the problem is the way that the schedules rotate. And they are very fatigue inducing the way they're set up right now. And one extra hour is not going to make any difference. It's a good sound bite but not much else.
HILL: Rob, whose fault is that? I'm looking through the union contract. And it allows for a basic workweek, eight hours a day, five days a week, and a compressed workweek, 10 hours a day, four days a week. It's my understanding that the controllers bid for these workloads. Is the government forcing them to work these compressed shifts where they may not have enough sleep? Or are they choosing to do that so they get three-day weekends? Or is it a little of both?
MARK: On the latter really, I mean -- well, I'd say it's probably the latter, E.D. I mean, these schedules have been this way since I can remember. I mean, it's a long time. And again, most of the time, you know, everybody realizes that they make you very tired but there really haven't been any issues and anybody has noticed and honestly everybody's kind of looked the other way. The FAA has looked the other way and the controllers union has said, well, there's really nothing broken here, at least not very much. So why get in the middle of it?
HILL: They're making one other, I think more substantial change. And you've been on both sides of this. The FAA says they're not going to put the controllers back up in the skies, that they're going to let them go and sit in those jump seats in the cockpit so that they get an idea of what really is going on in the cockpit as they're being guided into landing. Will that help? Does that help in the understanding of how to better communicate?
MARK: I think that's always been a very important point. I know FAA pulled them out a long time ago because some controllers were abusing it. They were using it as free flights or vacations. But the people I've had in the cockpit have always come away with their eyes very much open, especially when we went into a busy city and they saw how hard we worked, depending upon the instructions the controllers gave us. Because, again, you know, they're just sitting in a chair and they don't move and we're in a very dynamic position.
HILL: You know, something else and Eliot was talking about this earlier. And we heard it from a guest actually previously in the week. And that is that we are so low in the staff of air traffic controllers. Eliot was saying in New York City it's about almost half a number of air traffic controllers they are supposed to be there. How do they operate with that few number of workers?
MARK: It's not easy. And one of the issues that we are facing that's really still fallout from the PATCO strike of 1981 is that we have bodies, we have people, but they're not very well trained. And each successive generation knows a little bit less than the people that came before them. And the kinds of things we're seeing now about people just not paying attention, those are some of the direct issues or some of the results that we're going to see if we don't step up the intensity, the training with these new people.
HILL: Well, I understand. And this may be a good thing that there is a high washout rate. That there are a lot of people who start the program and just don't cut it. Is that a good or a bad thing?
MARK: Well, of course, I think high washout rate is always a good thing. No one wants someone there that can't cope. However, I think if we look at the numbers, the FAA washout rate in the last few years, has not been nearly as high as it was, say in my day a long time ago when I was a controller, because they give them much more time. They're a little more lenient in how much time they have to learn the job. And again, anybody can probably do it if you give them long enough but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be good.
HILL: Help us understand what the first lady and Dr. Biden were going through. Again, you've seen it on both sides. When you get -- usually a smaller plane in back of a larger plane and they are too close together, that wind turbulence builds up. What does that do? What does that feel like inside that plane that's behind?
MARK: Well, the issue we're talking about for listeners, the way turbulence are simply sort of horizontal tornadoes that come off the tips of the wings of a very large aircraft as it approaches to land. And the reason the first lady's airplane was supposed to be five miles behind was that it was -- that's the safe distance for an aircraft so that those vortices from the aircraft in front have a chance to dissipate. And when that airplane got too close, there was the chance. It didn't happen the other day, but there's the chance that they may have gotten caught in that turbulence and it can flip an airplane right on its back.
HILL: So it's like if you're standing -- I love going to the airports and watching the planes land. My dad was a pilot. And when you're standing there, you can feel sort of that wind draft coming by you. That's what you're talking about but, of course, a much greater velocity.
MARK: Oh, absolutely. On some of the large aircraft, a 747 or an A-380, I mean, the velocity of some of these wind vortices are just unbelievable, just unbelievable. And they have absolutely flipped airplanes on their back.
HILL: Rob, before we go, is there anything else that you think from your experience you know, just isn't working right in the control tower that they should be taking a look at now before it's a problem?
MARK: Well, I think the research on sleep is a big one. I mean, this is not anything new that these schedules that people work. And some of it's not just the way they rotate. A lot of facilities, Atlanta, for instance, are on six-day weeks. You cannot keep working people indefinitely on crazy schedules and six-day weeks and not have it appear as a problem somewhere. So I think the FAA and the DOT need to look at the research and actually take some actions as opposed to just reading it.
HILL: All right. Rob Mark, thanks for joining us.
MARK: You're welcome.
HILL: Coming up, some amazing pictures from Japan. Basically it looks like a ghost town. That's what's left from the nuclear nightmare there.
Don't go away. You'll want to see this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Westerners have not been allowed inside the 12 1/2 mile exclusion zone around Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear complex until today. CNN was given exclusive access. Our Stan Grant and his crew were allowed inside the zone to witness firsthand the devastation from the earthquake and tsunami. Stan joins us from Tokyo to show us what he saw.
Stan, I just got to ask you, were you worried going inside that zone about exposure to radiation? Nobody else has been permitted back into that proximity to the nuclear facility.
STAN GRANT, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Of course, Eliot, there's always a concern at the back of your mind. You know, we don't want to expose ourselves to a dangerous level of risk. We took our own readings. We had an analyst with us at the time who was monitoring that situation. He deemed it was an acceptably low level. Although when we did go in, we took precautions. Our feet were covered. I wore a mask at all times, so that I didn't inhale any contaminated material. So we were able to work for a limited amount of time in there.
However, there is the ongoing concern about radiation fallout. Tens of thousands of people have been moved from that area. The government has said there is an element of risk. And that's why the place has been abandoned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GRANT: This is a house that has been damaged and abandoned as a result of the earthquake and tsunami that happened here just last month. It's also sitting inside the 20-kilometer exclusion zone that has been established to get people out to protect them from the effects of radiation from the nuclear plant at the Fukushima, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
Now I head inside the 20-kilometer zone so I need to take precautions. As you can see, I'm wearing some face covering here and down at my feet, my shoes are also protected. This is to stop me coming in contact with any potentially contaminated material on the ground or breathing in any contamination.
There you can see there are some cars still moving through this area. We passed through the 20-kilometer exclusion zone checkpoint and they are allowing people to move around, to come in and out. That's why we've been allowed to come in here now.
We are keeping a close watch on any impact, any potential exposure to radiation. We're carrying these devices here. Now these will give me a constant reading of the level of radiation that we're coming into contact with.
Interestingly, as we move around to different parts of this area, it rises and then drops again. I must point out that the levels that we're seeing here are not at a rate that is going to cause any effect to my health now or have any lingering effect later. But as you can see, much destruction throughout this area. Here's a truck that has been picked up by the wave that swept through here and has come to rest against the shed next to the house. Over here are some more houses. Most of them, in fact almost all of them, have been abandoned.
This is a ghost town. It's a very eerie place. You can hear the rustling of the wind as it comes through the house as you can hear the creaking of some of the materials and the tin and timber and so on around here that's been left exposed by the extent of the damage.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GRANT: Now it is a ghost town. As I say, an eerie place. They dealt with the tsunami. The impact of that have had their lives turned upside down. And now they're being stalked by an invisible hand, the invisible hand of radiation. They simply don't know when or if they'll be able to get their lives back together again -- Eliot.
SPITZER: All right. Stan Grant, great reporting. Amazing footage. It is as you say a ghost town. Thanks so much for that.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In the aftermath of the devastating BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and all of the devastation that followed, Kenneth Feinberg was put in charge of a $20 billion fund created by BP to compensate the victims. Now, one year into the oil spill, after the oil spill, that should be, the media is playing up a lot of complaints against Feinberg. Not enough money being given out not fast enough.
Ken Feinberg is joining me from Washington. Ken, thanks so much for coming on the show.
KENNETH FEINBERG, ADMINISTRATOR, GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY: Glad to be here.
SPITZER: Let's start with the basics. You have $20 billion to give away. How many requests have you received and who is eligible for this money?
FEINBERG: I've received in the last nine months alone, 850,000 requests from 50 states, every state in the union. Anybody is eligible for compensation if they can demonstrate damage caused by the spill and that damage has to be linked to the spill. And that's the key.
SPITZER: You said you got requests for damages from all over the country. Somebody in Alaska sent in a claim.
FEINBERG: That's right. We get a restaurant in Las Vegas puts in a claim saying we have the best shrimp scampi in Las Vegas. Now, we can't get gulf shrimp. Pay us, we lost 10 percent of our clientele. Well, that's not a compensable claim.
SPITZER: Now the ugly question here, has there been fraud. I mean, inevitably you say to people here's the $20 billion pool of money. Assuming that 98 percent of the people who submit claims are good honest people, have you found those fraudulent claims that simply defy logic and do not withstand any scrutiny?
FEINBERG: Of course, but you're absolutely right, the number of fraudulent claims, although in absolute terms, very large, we have found internally about 8,000 suspicious claims and we've already sent about a thousand fraudulent claims we think to the Department of Justice criminal division.
SPITZER: Now aggregate numbers, you've given away about, what? $4 billion so far?
FEINBERG: In nine months, we've given away $4 billion satisfied 300,000 claims.
SPITZER: Now the hardest question here seems to be one of that linkage, that causal connection as lawyers would say between the spill and the damages people have suffered. I want to give you an easy example to kind of play for us how you would look at this. Somebody was a shrimper. His whole business depended upon going into the gulf every day and harvesting those shrimp. How do you quantify their damages? Is it their revenue? Is it their profits? What are things you look for?
FEINBERG: What were you earning in the way of profit before the spill? What are you earning now after the spill? How can you -- you tell us, please document, since you're obviously eligible, under your hypothetical you're a shrimper, demonstrate to us the damage you suffered pre-spill, post spill.
SPITZER: But these are the things you look at. Now I want to switch the facts on you. Pretend we're back in law school throwing hypotheticals at you. Imagine you own a lumber company that is 500 miles away from the coast. How do you determine if their sort of business slowed down? Is that causally linked to the spill?
FEINBERG: No, that lumber company 500 miles away is going to have a very difficult challenge because the only way that lumber company is going to recover under the Gulf Coast claims facility is to offer hard specific evidence.
Mr. Feinberg, here is a canceled contract on the beach to build a condominium, cancelled right here because of the spill. Dear lumber company, because of this spill and oil we're not going to build and we don't want your lumber. Other than that, there won't be recovery.
SPITZER: Even as sensible as all this sounds, you're still making assumptions that, using the best evidence, you had to draw some sort of conclusion when would the golf economy recover in trying to quantify the damages? How do you make that sort of assumption?
FEINBERG: This is very, very difficult. You're putting your thumb right on the problem. I spent four months asking all of the experts, everybody I could find, what does the future hold in the gulf for purposes of this program and final payments? And I got back after four months a general view by the experts including Professor Tunnell (ph) at Texas A&M school and nationally known marine biologist. Look, no one knows for sure. But it is reasonable to believe that by the end of 2012, the economy of the gulf will return to normal. Not certain, reasonable to assume. For oyster harvesters, it will be longer. Oysters are more problematic. It may be as late as the end of 2014 before the oyster business will be back to normal.
SPITZER: All right. Well, look, Ken, thank you for coming on the show. And I just want to say what is a clear editorial comment, no good deed goes unpunished. Thank you for what you're doing.
FEINBERG: Thank you.
SPITZER: All right. As you've heard, there are a lot of critics of what Ken Feinberg has been doing. Not enough money, not fast enough. I've got to tell you, he's doing yeoman's work. Inevitably, there'll be complaints but he is doing it the right way in my view, doing everything he can to distribute those funds as quickly and properly as possible.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Join us tomorrow night. Once again, we'll dig into the budget which is driving our economy or not. Where should it be cut if at all?
Thanks so much for joining us. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
