Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Options Explored for Containing Oil Rig Leak; Mississippi Recovers from Tornado; Goldman Sachs to Face Congressional Grilling; Patients Shopping for Cheaper Surgeries
Aired April 26, 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: I'm totally looking into that. We're talking about what we're going to be talking about tomorrow. But you've got a full show -- boy, I took a peek at your rundown. You are stacked.
ALI VELSHI, HOST: We're busy today.
HARRIS: Have a good one.
VELSHI: That's the way it should be. Thanks, buddy.
HARRIS: Yes, sir.
VELSHI: I'll see you -- and tomorrow I'll be in Washington. I'll see you on your show from there.
HARRIS: Terrific. Terrific.
VELSHI: All right, everybody. Welcome. Thanks very much. I'm Ali Velshi. I'm going to be with you for the next two hours today and every weekday. I'm going to take every important topic we cover, and I'm going to break it down for you, try and give you a level of detail that's going to help you put your world in context.
Let's get started right now. Here's what I've got on the rundown.
A sunken oil rig is bleeding crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Authorities know they've got to do something quickly to plug it up and to prevent a potential environmental disaster. But are time and technology on their side? We'll get into the details.
Plus, damage teams are fanning out across the south. They've got a lot of work on their hands. Tornado-filled storms have taken lives, leveled neighborhoods and caused what Mississippi's governor calls utter obliteration. Reynolds Wolf is live on the scene.
And it could be a grueling day on Capitol Hill tomorrow for Goldman Sachs. I'm heading to Washington myself to cover the hearings into the fraud case against the banks. Some say Goldman is Wall Street's boogieman. Others say it's Washington's scapegoat. Today I'm going to try and give you some perspective.
And by the way, tell me what you think. Post to my Facebook or Twitter accounts.
The race against time right now in the Gulf of Mexico to stop a huge oil spill triggered by the explosion and the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig last week. What you see in this amazing picture is oil gushing out of the rig's drill pipe. The leak is spilling about 42,000 gallons of oil into the gulf each day. That's 1,000 barrels.
The cause of last week's explosion is still a mystery. The good news, such as it is, is that the situation could have been much worse. Right now the spill is not heading towards shore too much. You can see it there. You can actually see the oil spill in this video.
At its current rate, the leak would have to continue for 262 days to match the $11 million-gallon -- 11-million-gallon spill from the Exxon Valdez in 1989. That's the worst spill in U.S. history. But that's really not something we want to aim for.
This diagram that you're looking at gives you an idea of what's being done right now to try and plug it up. Robot subs are trying to trigger a so-called blowout preventer, which by the way, may have been the reason this thing exploded in the first place. The blowout preventer may have failed. If they can trigger the blowout preventer, it would seal off the well. That could take 24 to 36 hours.
Now, here's the problem. If those efforts to do that fail, the other alternative, as you can see in this diagram, is to really put another rig about a mile away from this spill and dig an alternative well, a relief well as they call it, to get the oil out of there and contain it. The well would drill down and attempt to enter the damaged rig at an angle, help to plug -- help to plug it, and that process -- here's the bad news -- would take two to three months.
Joining us from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his take on all of this is environmental sciences expert Ed Overton, who was with us last week as we were trying to figure this out.
Ed, good to see you. Thank you for being with us.
ED OVERTON, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EXPERT: Thank you, Ali.
VELSHI: I mean, it's pretty bad when you -- when we talk about how many days it would have to be worse than the Exxon Valdez. The bottom line is most of us, when we think about 1,000 barrels of oil, 42,000 gallons of oil a day going into the ocean, think that's got to be a bad thing. Put this into perspective for us.
OVERTON: Well, remember, the Exxon Valdez spill occurred over a period of a day or two, so it launched an awful lot of oil in a short period of time. The good news about this spill is, it's 1,000 barrels a day is a lot of oil, but it's -- relative to what was done in the Exxon Valdez, it's not all that much. In other words, it's 1/260th of that number of oil. And it's spread out over that number of days.
So when oil gets in the environment, it gets changed and weathered and made less toxic. And of course, this is further offshore than the Exxon Valdez. So the -- we're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare the total volume of these spills. They're done under different conditions.
The good news is this that is a slower spill. No spill is good, but this is certainly not the worst case yet.
VELSHI: Now, let's just get a perspective on this. There's a whole lot of pressure in the earth. When you drill a hole, generally speaking, the oil and the natural gas come out of their own accord, early in a well's life, right? It pushes out. The fact that we're only getting 1,000 barrels a day, what is that -- is that because it's going through the pipe, the drill pipe that was put in there to get this oil out? What's the -- what's happening?
OVERTON: I suspect that the blowout preventer has clogged the lines somewhat, because if this was an open pipe, you'd be getting a lot more oil being gushed out. So this -- I was not able to see the pictures that you showed. But this is certainly not a free-flowing well. It's a restricted flow. And that is good news.
Hopefully, they can -- they can prevent or stop or cut off this restricted flow. If the -- if the well blowout preventer was not doing at least a partial job, then we would see a lot worse spill.
VELSHI: Now, OK. So they're going to try and get the submersible down there. They're going to try and deal with the blowout preventer and plug this thing. What are the chances of success, as far as you can tell, on that?
OVERTON: Well, these guys know what they're doing. The technology is a lot better than it has been in the past. There was a major well blowout in 1981, down in the Bay of Campeche, which was a free-flowing well.
So the technology is a lot better. And we are all cautiously optimistic that they can shut off this flow and even prevent the 1,000-barrel-a-day spill.
VELSHI: What do you do with 1,000 barrels a day that are spilling? That's a separate deal, right? They've got the Coast Guard. They're trying to contain this. What do you actually do to deal with 1,000 barrels of oil going into the ocean right now?
OVERTON: Well, they use basically two procedures. First of all, when the oil gets to the surface, a substantial portion of it will evaporate. That's part of the natural weathering processes.
Then they have ocean skimmers that skim the thicker patches of oil off the water. And they use a soapy material called a dispersant to basically wash the surface of the water and dissolve the oil down into the water column. When it gets down into the water column, then the natural bacteria can start degrading it and turning it back to carbon dioxide.
VELSHI: What's the -- what's the danger to the environment right now? OVERTON: Well, we want to keep it offshore. The danger to the environment is that the weather conditions get bad, strong winds out of the south will push the oil closer to land. And of course, the closest land, there's some fairly fragile coastal areas of Louisiana, some barrier islands, the Chandelier Islands, and then you've got the recreational beaches along the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida panhandle.
VELSHI: All right. We're going to keep an eye on that with you, Ed. Thanks very much for being with us and giving us the -- this information to us so clearly.
Ed Overton is an environmental scientist expert, joining us from Baton Rouge.
OVERTON: Thank you.
VELSHI: All right. Take a look at this tornado. Look at that. This is incredible. I mean, all last week we were looking at incredible tornado pictures, and I didn't think they were going to get bigger than they were.
This thing traveled 150 miles across Mississippi on Saturday night. Residents now are trying to pick up the pieces. Reynolds Wolf is in Yazoo City. That's the hardest part -- the hardest-hit part of the state. We're going to check in with him right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They always talk about you hear the train. There was no train. There was a bomb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: A bomb. You just heard a Mississippi tornado survivor describe the storm that rolled -- roared through the state on Saturday night.
Rescue teams are out today. They're still digging through the rubble. The tornado tore a path starting at the central western border of Louisiana. It moved 150 miles across Mississippi before it weakened as it moved into Alabama. It hit with speeds of up to 170 miles an hour.
Take a look at this. New video of the tornado as it was moving into Yazoo City, Mississippi. This thing damaged homes; it toppled trees; it destroyed cars. Also blamed for 12 deaths.
Damage assessment teams are arriving in Mississippi today. Our Reynolds Wolf is already there in Yazoo City.
Reynolds, this is quite something. As it was developing, it seemed -- it seemed as big and treacherous as it ended up being. What's the situation now? REYNOLDS WOLF, CNN METEOROLOGIST: The situation now is recovery mode. People are trying to put things back together. And I'm telling you: what an amazing, horribly amazing time it was.
I'm at a location right here where -- this happens to be a church. You see what is left of it. I got a great and very quick story of survival for you.
There's a fellow who's a member of this congregation for the past 12 years, a fellow by the name of Dale Thrasher (ph). Now, the day of the storm, he actually walked up to the front of the church, walked out, took a look on the horizon. Things looked pretty good. Went back inside the church. Came back out about 15 minutes later, and right across the landscape there, he saw the tornado coming.
With seconds to spare, he ran back this direction, right through the main doors of the church, tried to make his way back to the kitchen. But for the last moment decided to go back towards the sanctuary, where he got underneath a table. And there's where he stayed as the storm came through.
He said -- he described it as just pandemonium in here. Things -- debris spinning around like crazy. And actually as the storm passed, he came out to this, girders everywhere. You see things all disjointed. Two-by-fours, pieces of steel, glass, everything, scattered all over the place. Little mementos of the church itself -- Bibles, hymnals -- all here.
And one thing he came away with was his life with only a few scratches, Ali, right on his wrist and one down on his elbow. Unfortunately, other people were not so lucky, killing 10 people here in the state of Mississippi. Two more over in Alabama.
But today is going to be a day of cleanup. And they certainly have a huge mess to deal with, no question about it -- Ali.
VELSHI: Reynolds, I was looking at those pictures that we saw, remarkable pictures. And last week you and I were talking about the pictures from Texas. I never know when I'm looking at a picture of a tornado whether the perspective is different, whether someone is closer or further. Was this really big? Is this an anomaly?
WOLF: Just tremendous. Yes, they really -- this particular storm was indeed an anomaly. I mean, you have to remember that most of these storms, most of the tornadoes when they form, one, they don't last very long. Second, well, they're not that big. Usually just -- at times they can be very thin. They can be almost rope-like. This one, having one this big, this wide, moving this far, this great a distance, certainly is an anomaly. Very unusual.
VELSHI: What about the warning? This thing -- I saw something about the wind speed in this tornado. I don't know if that relates to how fast it moves. But did people have enough warning to try and get out of this? Obviously, some people didn't.
WOLF: You know, my friend Jacqui Jeras, who was here during the weekend, made an excellent point on-air. She mentioned that, you know, they did have plenty of warning.
But we actually have been talking about this for quite some time. The week leading up to this event, we had a pretty good handle that there was going to be a severe weather outbreak. In fact, the Storm Prediction Center out of Norman, Oklahoma, gave us an idea that there would be a moderate risk.
So having storms like this, not out of the question. Now having tornadoes that are going to hit this exact spot, unfortunately, we don't have the technology to know how just yet, science-wise, really to determine where these things are going to strike, precisely where.
VELSHI: Right.
WOLF: They tend to still be very random. You know, it's not like following a hurricane develop...
VELSHI: Right.
WOLF: ... and build across the Atlantic Ocean and then come slamming along the coast. It's tough enough scientifically to follow one of those with tornadoes. It can be very random and very tough.
This one, they say when it came through here, moved at a rate of speed around 50 miles an hour.
VELSHI: Wow.
WOLF: So on foot, you can't outrun something like that. And when that hit, it hit very hard, as you can see here.
VELSHI: All right. Reynolds, we'll check in with you again. Reynolds Wolf in -- I misspoke, by the way. It's Yazoo City, obviously. We've been covering that. Yazoo City.
WOLF: Yazoo.
VELSHI: We'll see you in a bit, Reynolds. Thanks very much.
All right. For those of you who are puzzled by the SEC investigation into Goldman Sachs, get this: the SEC is investigating itself now. The fraud charges that it brought against Goldman Sachs have now prompted an internal investigation, and it's going to be a big week on Capitol Hill for Goldman Sachs. Christine Romans and I are going to break down all the angles in this rapidly-developing story when we come back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: I don't know where to start, because I don't know what everybody actually knows about Goldman Sachs. There's been so much news about this company in the last couple of weeks...
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.
VELSHI: ... and actually it's -- in many cases they're related; in some cases they're unrelated.
ROMANS: Right.
VELSHI: So the next 24 hours or so, Christine, are going to be very busy. You and I are going to be very busy, because there are going to be hearings on Capitol Hill into Goldman. Which, by the way, are not entirely related to the charges against Capitol Hill, because they planned these hearings before these charges were laid. But they are kind of.
ROMANS: Yes. They are kind of. And it's going to be a full airing of the populist grievances against Goldman Sachs.
VELSHI: Right.
ROMANS: Goldman Sachs is going to come out swinging, saying that, "Look, we did our job as an investment bank. We stood there, and we had bets on one side. We had bets on the other. We hedged ourselves," and that is the narrative here. That "we came out in a little better position than anybody else after the mortgage crisis, because we, frankly, didn't put all our eggs in one basket."
Critics of Goldman say, "Oh, no, we think some of the stuff you were making helped worsen the housing crisis."
So you're going to see a lot of different things and a lot of charges, and I think some tough talk from Goldman Sachs tomorrow, Ali.
VELSHI: Well, this is our opportunity, Christine. Today and tomorrow are going to be our opportunity, because all eyes will be on them, to add a little bit of context to the story, some clarity. I mean, bottom line is, to many, many people, we need someone to blame for this recession.
ROMANS: Yes.
VELSHI: And Goldman does seem to fit the bill to a lot of people.
ROMANS: It's interesting, because a year and a half ago or two years ago, there were those on Wall Street who were saying, "Wow, Goldman. They -- you know, they lost less money than anybody else on the mortgage crisis. They made some pretty smart moves hedging themselves."
And now, two years later, instead of being hailed for escaping the bulk of the mortgage mess, they're being blamed for it. So it's been an interesting turnaround for Goldman Sachs.
Part it is this optic that plays, Ali, that America was suffering. And then you have these e-mails that are surfacing from Goldman Sachs executives whoa re talking about certain subprime mortgage bets that they had been hedging themselves against and how they were starting to make money as some of these things were starting to go south. And that's -- that's one of the things that plays into that optic of Main Street versus, you know, the Goldman -- the Goldman golden machine on Wall Street.
VELSHI: And Carl Levin, Senator Carl Levin released some of these e-mails.
ROMANS: Yes.
VELSHI: Goldman Sachs responded by saying that they have submitted some 20 million pages of evidence, and Carl Levin decided to -- to cherry-pick and pick...
ROMANS: Four. Yes.
VELSHI: ... a few that look -- four e-mails that, by the way, if you're reading those four e-mails, tell us a bit about these.
ROMANS: OK.
VELSHI: They definitely make you feel like Goldman was up to something.
ROMANS: Well, yes. I mean, look, here's one from Lloyd Blankfein. He's the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And he's responding to an e-mail from one of their top, sort of, image people at Goldman, who handled the media, was talking about a story in "The New York Times" that we're going to talk about, how Goldman dodged the mortgage mess.
And Lloyd Blankfein wrote back, "Of course, we didn't dodge the mortgage mess. We lost money. Then we made money. We made more than we lost because of the shorts." Then he goes on to say, also, "It's not over. So who knows how it will turn out in the end?"
But critics point out that, "Oh, look, you know, I mean they made money on the mortgage mess."
There's another one, there was a downgrade of mortgage securities, and a senior Goldman Sachs manager says, "Wow, sounds like -- sounds like we're going to make some serious money." There's about four e-mails like that, essentially, which show that there were positions that Goldman Sachs had on in 2007, positions that, as things got worse for subprime borrowers, things got better in those specific positions.
But you know, Ali, here's the thing. And I have a lot of stuff here from Goldman Sachs that they have released themselves.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: They insist that they lost $1.2 billion in 2007 and 2008 on their exposure to the mortgage crisis. They lost less than most people, they said, because they said they were just better risk managers.
But there are a lot of people who say, "No, they were selling toxic stuff to other people, and then taking out insurance, or playing the other side for their own accounts. And that's just not fair."
VELSHI: The question is -- the question is whether or not that's good, bad, illegal...
ROMANS: Immoral.
VELSHI: ... or unethical or immoral. I mean, that's what it comes down to.
ROMANS: That's right. That's right. And this is all separate from that other SEC fraud charge that you've been hearing about...
VELSHI: Right.
ROMANS: ... which is separate from the AIG scandal, where they were paid for their 100 percent -- 100 cents on the dollar for their exposure to AIG, which is separate from the initial TARP Or bank bailout money that they accepted that they said they didn't need. And then the government said, no, they did need it.
So one after another, this has been the hit to Goldman all along.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: And corporate America -- or Main Street is sort of saying, "We feel like the deck is stacked. Why do we look around, and we're having trouble getting out of the recession, and these guys, no matter what, they come out on top?"
VELSHI: Well, we're going to be hearing...
ROMANS: That's...
VELSHI: Yes, and I think you're going to hear a lot of that tomorrow.
ROMANS: Yes.
VELSHI: You're going to hear a lot of those questions. We'll be on top of it. Christine, good to see you.
ROMANS: Sure.
VELSHI: Ly the way, later on in the show, Christine is going to -- we're going to get the story from Christine about Goldman Sachs and a lot of the mystery surrounding it.
You can also watch Christine and me. She's my co-host on "YOUR $$$$$," Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern and Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern. We get to be our geeky selves and talk about this in greater detail.
All right. Let me give you a look at some of the top stories that we're following right now.
A massive cleanup is underway after several twisters ripped through the south this weekend. At least 12 people died, including three children. Parts of Mississippi were among the hardest hit. Governor Haley Barbour says he's requesting emergency federal aid today. We'll keep you posted on that. A whole lot of oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico from that oil rig that exploded and sunk last week off the coast of Louisiana. About 1,000 barrels. That's 42,000 gallons a day. At last check, officials said the oil slick extends about 600 square miles. And they estimate it could take hours or months to stop the leak, which is about a mile underwater. But if that effort doesn't work, then we might be looking at weeks or months.
And an exclusive look at frightened civilians in Somalia. Islamic rebels advanced on a pirate haven resulting in a clash with government troops. At least ten people have been killed; another 40 are wounded. Those rebels are linked to al Qaeda and are considered by the U.S. to be a terrorist organization. They accuse the pirates of stealing their weapons.
Somalia hasn't had an effective government in 20 years. Wow. So you've got possibly terrorist group fighting with pirates. Which side do you pick on that one?
All right. Forget clipping coupons and shopping at thrift stores. The latest thing for die-hard bargain hunters is saving on surgery. And actually, you can save a lot of money. Senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen breaks it down, where you can get cheaper surgery, after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Well, we all love a bargain. But is it really good to shop for rock-bottom prices when it comes to medical care? Well, with medical costs skyrocketing the way they are -- and by the way, most people think they will -- sniffing out cheap surgery deals is exactly what some people are looking for. Senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now.
I, by the way, am one of these guys. I have bargain-hunted for all sorts of things that I've done in my life in the medical world. Some people think it doesn't make sense. But I like a deal, like a lot of people do.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, exactly.
VELSHI: So you've actually talked to people who have -- who have looked for deals and found them.
COHEN: Remember -- remember you and I did a bunch of medical waste stories about a month or so ago?
VELSHI: Yes, yes, that's right.
COHEN: I got a tweet.
VELSHI: You compared prices in different places.
COHEN: We compared prices.
VELSHI: Yes. COHEN: And we got a tweet from this guy who said, "I just went bargain shopping for surgery, and let me tell you what happened."
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: So the guy's name is Gottfried Davies (ph)...
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: ... who lives in Indianapolis. And he needed to get some nasal polyps removed from his nose, obviously.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: There he is. And I could -- when -- you could hear him wheezing. I mean, the poor guy, his nose was just full of polyps. So we went to one surgeon, and here's what he found. They wanted to charge him $34,000. That's between the doctor and the anesthesia, and the hospital, all of that.
VELSHI: Wow.
COHEN: Yes. That's a wow. This guy has no insurance.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: This was all coming out of his pocket. And he tried to negotiate. That's all he could get.
He then went to Indianapolis surgeon No. 2. And it was going to be $33,000. Whoops -- that actually, is not...
VELSHI: So it's 34 and then it was going to be 33?
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: OK, so ignore the $25,000.
COHEN: Exactly. Ignore the 25. Exactly. So it went from 34 to 33, which is -- obviously, $1,000, who really cares?
VELSHI: Sure.
COHEN: So then he said -- this guy is originally from Wales.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: He's a U.S. citizen but originally from Wales. And he called his sister and he said, "Gee, you know, what do you think?" And they found a clinic that actually kind of caters to Americans in this situation: $3,600 for the whole thing, soup to nuts. Airfare included.
VELSHI: Wow.
COHEN: Airfare included. VELSHI: That's incredible.
COHEN: Isn't that amazing?
VELSHI: Why the difference?
COHEN: Well, you know, in England, they have a totally different system than we have here.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: They have a system that has much more government support.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: You know, people call it socialized health care.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: His clinic was private. But it kind of profited, if you will, from the fact that the entire economy there, the health economy is different.
VELSHI: Right, right. In these single-payer systems, as they call them...
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: ... the government has the economy of scale. So things tend to be cheaper, because they're negotiating with everybody.
COHEN: Right. Although I will say this clinic was private. He was not part -- it was not part of the national health service. But because everything is -- they're so much less expensive...
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: ... they could afford to do it at a much lower price.
VELSHI: How interesting. All right. What else have you got on this?
COHEN: All right. So one of the things that's interesting here is that it's not just nasal polyps that are cheaper.
VELSHI: Sure.
COHEN: Let me tell you about heart bypass surgery.
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: Because Polyps are simple.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: So we wanted something that was kind of complicated. VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: If you want to get bypass surgery in India, it will cost you $8,500. If you want to get it in Costa Rica, it will cost you $25,000. All right. Now, don't put the last one up. What do you think it is in the United States?
VELSHI: Well, if nasal polyp surgery is in the 30s in the U.S., I would think heart bypass surgery is like $150,000.
COHEN: You are good: $144,000. Wow, you're amazing.
VELSHI: Well, I wouldn't have guessed that unless I -- until you told me the nasal polyp surgery was $34,000.
COHEN: OK. So you had something to start off with?
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: OK. But -- so there's another example, and so people are sometimes going to India or Costa Rica.
And what's really interesting is that now insurance companies are sometimes suggesting it.
VELSHI: Really?
COHEN: They'll say, "All right, Mr. Velshi, you need surgery. You can have it in the United States..."
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: "... and have a 20 percent co-pay and you'll end up spending, out of your pocket, thousands of dollars."
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: "Or you can go to Costa Rica for free."
VELSHI: What an interesting thing. And again, you have given advice in the past about how you shop for these things, prices and everything. But you know, that's -- that's wise.
COHEN: Right. And so you want to go to CNNhealth.com. And that's where you'll find advice. This is an article by my colleague, Sabrina Rice. And she goes into what you want to look for. Because obviously, you don't want to go just anywhere. And there are actual, like, specific steps you can take to try to see.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: But guess what you can't do when you go abroad?
VELSHI: What's that?
COHEN: You can't sue anybody. VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: So if they do goof up overseas...
VELSHI: Right, right.
COHEN: ... you're just in trouble. If they goof up here, you can sue.
VELSHI: Well, there are many critics of the health-care reform who say that's actually part of the issue here.
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: Why it costs as much as it does in the U.S.
COHEN: That is true.
VELSHI: Insurance is a big part of it.
Excellent conversation. They always are so good when you come on and do these things for us. So thank you.
COHEN: Well, it's always fun.
VELSHI: The viewers always appreciate it. Elizabeth Cohen, our senior medical correspondent.
OK. As Reynolds promised moments ago, Jacqui Jeras is here. She has been following the tornadoes all week. She's got more on this tornado. The storm that spawned the tornadoes that we saw in Yazoo City all through Mississippi are the same storm -- the same storm system that's now hitting parts of Florida right now, Jacqui?
(WEATHER REPORT)
VELSHI: All right, Jacqui, we'll keep checking in with you. Jacqui Jeras, thank you very much.
Boy, if you were watching TV this weekend, you saw the fury in Phoenix this weekend over Arizona's new immigration law. The legislation, which is likely pushing immigration reform to the top of Washington's agenda -- we're going to have more on the rallies, the fury, the protests coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: With my unwavering signature on this legislation, Arizona strengthens its security within our borders.
Let me be clear, though. My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law. Both against illegal immigration and against racial profiling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: That's the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer. She was signing a controversial bill into law on Friday. The law essentially makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
No surprise, this thing has just blown up. Thousands of people flocking to the Arizona state capital for protests. The president has slammed the law as irresponsible and misguided. Others have called it fundamentally racist. And some folks are calling for economic boycotts of Arizona.
Others say it's about time. A lot of layers to this thing. Not the least the national political implications.
Joining us to hash it out is Professor Mark Jones. He's the chair of the political science department at Rice University in Houston.
Professor, thank you for being with us. We've had endless debates on this topic. You either -- about 70 percent of Arizonans are for it, about 30 percent against it. And by the way, that seems to roughly break down by race in Arizona. Hispanics thinking they are going to get targeted by this, police are going to be able to pull them over if they suspect -- and I put that in air quotes -- that they are in the state illegally. Bottom line is, what do the rest of us outside of Arizona need to be thinking about as this legislation became the law of Arizona?
MARK JONES, CHAIR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPT., RICE UNIVERSITY: Well, I think one thing it signals is something we all know from the left and from the right is our current immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. Where there's considerable disagreement is what to do about it.
What's happened here is the Arizona Republican party has made its biggest proposal regarding where national immigration reform should go by changing state law. They've sort of thrown the ball in President Obama's court saying, if you're not going to do anything, this is what we're going to do. Clearly, that's led to a lot of negative reactions throughout the country, as well as within Arizona. Primarily because I think most people view around the country that Arizona's gone too far with this legislation.
VELSHI: All right. So what does that mean? If Arizona's gone too far -- looks like the governor got advice, even from her own attorney general, that this isn't legislation that's likely to stand up to legal challenge. It's going to cost the state a lot of money in defending lawsuits. Her response to that, according to news reports, is that she said, let's deal with the problem, and worry about the Constitution later. That's a political answer to what could be a legal problem.
JONES: Well, yes. Governor Brewer really had no choice but to sign this legislation in that she has previously proposed a one percent increase in the sales tax. And if she had proposed that as well as blocked legislation that was anti-illegal immigrant, she would have lost the Republican primary in August. What she's trying to do now is essentially send a signal to the United States as well as to the rest of the -- at least the Republican party sending a signal in Arizona that this is the type of legislation that they want passed. And really, it's more symbolic than anything else. As you mentioned, it's going to be challenged on legal grounds and will probably never actually be enforced.
VELSHI: Now, this pushes up to Washington. It's already has percolated up to Washington. There are people angry about how other priorities like climate change are not going to be dealt with because they think the White House is going to push immigration reform to the front. What are the implications? What are we likely to see Washington do with this?
JONES: It's clearly placed immigration reform back at the top of the agenda in D.C. That said, it's very difficult to start such complex legislation during an election year with virtually no prior discussion. So, while it's likely to dominate the agenda for the next month or so, it's still very unlikely any real comprehensive immigration reform will be passed this year.
VELSHI: Good conversation. I suspect we'll have it a lot more. Thanks for joining us. Mark Jones is the chair of the Rice University political science department, joining us from Houston.
All right. Talking about reforms to things, Wall Street reforms. Senate Democrats want to bring a bill to the floor sooner than later. We were talking about this last week. The president was pushing it. They need one Republican to help them do that. More on that and other top stories coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: A check of some of our top stories right now.
Senate Republicans say they're going to block the start of debate on Democrats' financial reform bill as they work to finalize their own proposed legislation. GOP lawmakers say the Democrats' version still has big loopholes in it that need to be closed. They also want to include regulations aimed at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Rock singer Bret Michaels is still in critical condition as doctors try to find the source of bleeding in his brain. The 47-year-old Michaels suffered a massive hemorrhage and was hospitalized on Friday. Michaels was the lead singer for the band Poison. Also appeared on a number of reality TV shows.
And robots in space. It sounds like a sci-fi movie, but it's actually going to happen sooner rather than later. You'll find out about it on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING) VELSHI: OK. If you watch this show a lot, you know that we're into big ideas. We're into things that can change the world. People who are inventing things that are a little outside the news. Not stuff we cover every day. But that are actually things that can change how we think about the world, and by the way, space. We talk a lot about space on this show.
So, what's a robonaut? That's a combination of a robot and an astronaut. And in the future of space travel and exploration, it could be very efficient in exploring things that we can't easily do as humans. I want to talk to you about a robonaut that is being developed by NASA and General Motors.
John Olson is live from Houston right now. He's the director of NASA's exploration systems integration office. Marty Linn is live from D.C. And he is the principal robotics engineer for GM. I guess you guys are what we call rocket scientists.
Let's talk about this. John, I want to talk to you, first of all. Why are we -- why is NASA and GM involved in robotic astronaut?
JOHN OLSON, DIRECTOR, NASA EXPLORATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: This is a partnership leveraging the best of both NASA and General Motors for a win on all sides. We're essentially looking to take robots alongside of our astronauts and further expand the realm of space exploration, both first aboard the space station and then beyond.
VELSHI: What can robots do that humans can't? Or why are we using robots instead of humans?
OLSON: Well, robonaut is designed specifically in a human-sized fashion in order to be able to work side by side with astronauts. So, essentially we can do simple or repetitive or in some cases more dangerous activities that we wouldn't necessarily want to do with an astronaut. Or we can use both of them to do collectively more than either of them could do by themselves. We're using basically the best of each.
VELSHI: Marty, what's the GM role in this?
MARTY LINN, PRINCIPAL ROBOTICS ENGINEER, GENERAL MOTORS: Well, GM is, of course, one of our core values is to be a leader in technology, leader in quality and leader in safety. We really see the development of this robot really as a development platform for us to be able to try out new technologies, both for safety and manufacturing efficiency.
VELSHI: Got anything to do with cars, though? Are we going to see the benefits of that in GM cars?
LYNN: Well, you know, with the electrification of the vehicles, it's getting more and more difficult to distinguish between robots and vehicles. So, we certainly anticipate that the technologies that are being developed in robonaut will be useful for our vehicles as well.
VELSHI: Can you send one of those over? Are there prototypes? How far are we in the development of this, John?
OLSON: We have two units in existence. We're scheduled to launch the first one, Robonaut 2 aboard the space shuttle SCC-1303 in the latter half of this year, 2010.
VELSHI: All right. There was a Robonaut 1. What happened to that?
OLSON: Well, we have Robonaut 1. It was developed initially in about 2000. This represents an entirely new and far more advanced generation. So, we're building through an evolutionary approach. I think you might be surprised at what the future will hold for these marvelous machines.
VELSHI: Well, you guys -- this is your business. Your business is to think bigger than guys like me can think about asking you that question.
Marty, what do you think changes the world because of this? I mean, we all -- I think in 2010, we got our heads around the idea of robots, we certainly got our heads around space. Tell me what kind of things my viewers can think about in terms of how it will change the world?
LINN: Well, I know that people, of course, see Hollywood, they see TV shows on robots. And the imagination to a certain extent goes wild. The science reality is not quite as exotic and elegant as that. But as John said, certainly using robots, and robot technology that can help people, that is going to be able to do ergonomically challenging tasks, and really work safely around people, that's the core essence of the technologies that we're developing.
VELSHI: You think we're going to see one of these in space this year, John, you were saying?
OLSON: That's our hope, absolutely. We'll start out on the inside of the international space station, in the Destiny laboratory module. But who knows? I think we have some aggressive plans, and we'd like to certainly go to the outside next, and we'll see about the surface of something in solar system later.
VELSHI: We'll keep a close eye on it. John Olson from NASA and Marty Linn from General Motors, thank you both for joining us.
LINN: Thank you.
OLSON: Thank you very much.
VELSHI: All right. This sounds too good to be true. U.S. senators from both parties plus an independent working together to transform the nation's energy use and lower our carbon output.
Well, it was too good to be true. I'll look at a major change in the political climate as soon as we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: Okay. Talk about climate change. This time last week, a Democratic senator, an independent senator, and a Republican senator -- this sounds like the beginning of a joke -- were hard at work on what they called a tripartisan approach to a clean energy bill. As you know, this is an unanswered priority so far in the United States. We still don't have some sort of a bill, and that is really affecting business.
Working mostly under the radar, Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham had been partners for months. They were planning to roll out the fruits of their efforts today. It was supposed to be a watershed moment in a key national priority. We on this show were actually prepared to give you lots of information on it.
But, no. Over the weekend, Graham, a Republican, pulled out. Not because of anything pertaining to energy or a disagreement or climate or to the legislation, but because of the Senate calendar. Because immigration reform may take precedence ahead of midterm elections.
Senior political analyst, Gloria Borger joins me now to talk about what could have been, what may ultimately be, and why this is happening. Gloria, has truly got me scratching my head. First of all, I'm not understanding, and maybe this is just naivete on my part, and the viewers' part. I'm not understanding why we can't do immigration and climate change at the same time.
But basically, what happened is, Lindsay Graham said this was supposed to be a priority, and now the administration is focusing on immigration or is likely to focus on immigration and will not have time to deal with climate.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Today, the White House is saying exactly what you're saying, Ali, which is you can do both.
But in talking to people from each one of these senator's offices as well as Harry Reid's office, the best we can piece together is that Senator Lindsay Graham -- not because of substance, as you pointed out -- he has been working on this issue for more than six months. He has taken a lot of flack for it back home in South Carolina. If he was going to pull out, the politically smart thing might have been to pull out six months ago.
VELSHI: Right.
BORGER: But he felt that Harry Reid pulled the rug out from him. And when it was very clear, coming from Senator Reid's office, that they wanted to take up immigration before climate change, the sense is, there's only so much time on the Senate calendar before the election, and only so much political will and tough votes that you can get people to take.
VELSHI: Right.
BORGER: So his feeling is, they chose immigration over energy, and that got him really angry. VELSHI: And when did that change happen? When did they decide it was about immigration? Is this because of Arizona?
BORGER: Well, it actually may have happened at about the same time. I'm told there was a meeting at the White House last Wednesday, with these senators, with Rahm Emanual, with David Axelrod, in which I'm told everything was on track for this climate change announcement that you were talking about that was supposed to happen today --
VELSHI: Let's listen to what --
BORGER: Sometime around -- go ahead.
VELSHI: Well, let's -- let me just put this up. This is the letter that Senator Graham, it's an excerpt from it. It says, "Moving forward on immigration in this hurried, panicked manner is nothing more than a cynical political ploy. I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amount of time, energy and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress" --
BORGER: Right.
VELSHI: And then Senator Reid says -- I'm just going read a quote from his response. "I am committed to try to enact comprehensive clean energy legislation this session of Congress, but I will not allow Graham to play one issue off another, and neither will the American people. They will not" -- I've got to turn my page here - "accept the notion that trying to act on one is an excuse for not acting on the other."
Who is right here?
BORGER: Well, look, honestly, let me give you a back story here. As you know very well, Ali, this climate change legislation may require some tax increases, okay? You think there's a lot of political will after health care reform, after the bailouts of the banks, to do anything that requires raising revenue on the part of Congress? --
VELSHI: The problem is here --
BORGER: Absolutely not.
VELSHI: You know what CEOs I talk to tell me? They say, "We understand there will be climate legislation. We can't make plans until we know what those are."
BORGER: Exactly.
VELSHI: "We can build a climate-efficient plant, a carbon-efficient plant, but we need to know what the rules are going to be."
BORGER: Right. And there may be more will in the House, for example than in the Senate, on immigration reform. And by the way, neither of these bills might pass at all, okay? But on immigration reform, politically, the Democrats have Hispanics who were very upset that the president has done nothing on immigration reform. They don't have a bill written.
Lindsay Graham is absolutely right. They do not have a bill written. But is it better for the Democrats, and Harry Reid in particular, who's running a tough race in Nevada, to bring up immigration reform, even if they were to lose it? To bring it up and satisfy that constituency and get that base energized to go out and vote in November.
So, if I were to tell you this was about politics, Ali, would you be shocked?
VELSHI: That's why we have you here, helping us out. Gloria, thanks a million. Always a pleasure to see you .
BORGER: Sure.
VELSHI: CNN political analyst, Gloria Borger.
Listen, you've heard this story before. Deadly crime surges sweeping through parts of Chicago. Now two state lawmakers say it's time to bring in military muscle to bulk up the thin blue line. Should the governor call in the National Guard? We're breaking it down.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
