Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

BP Plans New Attempt After Top Kill Failure; Critics Argue it's Time to Let Gay Men Give Blood; Combat Missions Share Firsthand Account of World War II

Aired May 30, 2010 - 16:00   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: BP plans a new attempt to cap the gulf coast oil spill after the top kill tactic fails.

Critics say it's time to let gay men give blood. Should the 27- year-old ban be lifted?

And on this Memorial Day weekend a veteran of 87 combat missions shares a firsthand account of World War II.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM where the news unfold live this Sunday, May 30th. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Our top stories. The oil is still flowing and so is the anger. Protesters now gathering in Jackson Square in New Orleans today, one day after the failure of the latest attempt to stop the gulf coast oil spill. BP gave up on its top kill strategy, which involved pumping a mud like mixture into the leak. It is now returning to an earlier tactic, trying to put a cap over the leak.

In the meantime, BP managing director Robert Dudley says his company will step up efforts to contain the spill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT DUDLEY, BP MANAGING DIRECTOR: We are disappointed. We didn't wrestle the well to the ground last night. We're disappointed the oil is going to flow for a while and we're going to redouble our efforts to make sure it's kept off the beaches.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. So far BP has tried a top hat, a top kill, a junk shot, and all have failed. Now the oil giant is turning to something called an LMRP. That stands for lower marine riser package. And our Josh Levs is here to explain exactly what that is, how it works and why it's given that lingo when it really is simply something we've seen them attempt before.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, in a way it is. This is the latest step, Fred, in the brand-new lexicon that we have to wrap our minds around. And you're right what we're describing is a similar idea to what they've been trying to do all along, creating a cap. But what they're doing now is new. It's never been done this far below. Let's start with this. We have a video. I want to show you the animation of how BP is presenting this. What you're going to see is a basic, simple idea at first. You're going to see a couple of pieces disappear from that oil well right now. Then you're going to see a cap come down from where the oil gushes out. This is the idea behind the LMRP. If they can get that cap on, then all of a sudden it could do a lot.

However, that's not the reality of what it looks like right now. That's what BP is up against. To explain this I have an image behind me right here. Let's start off right here. The problem has been at the blowout preventer. So what you need to see in the first place is that they don't have the little stub to cap instead they have this. So what they have now are these operating vehicles that operate remotely like these little mini robots.

And this one has hydraulic sheers. It would along and make a cut right here. Then come way over here to this side, after that cut is made, there was another robot basically that goes way down and it uses a diamond wire cutter to cut right here. And the hope is that those cuts both go really well. It's like surgery. It's like surgery 5,000 feet under water. We can imagine the problems that could happen. Obviously it's hard to be that precise.

But the goal that BP has is to ultimately create - I'm going to make this big - ultimately create this right here. A stub that they could then come along and cap. Let's get way in here. This is if the cuts work out really well. This is what it will look like. It will be this stub. The oil is coming out of there. Then they take this cap, they lower it down. It fits right on top.

Now with that in mind, now that you see how tricky this is, this surgery under water to get rid of those pieces and put the cap on, let's now go back to that animation I just showed you. Because I want you to see it again. Understand what they're actually showing you here. You see that well. Then they zoom up and they show you the pieces that would need to come off. And then you see the cap come down.

Here's what I want you to think about. While we're seeing this, even if the cap works, even if this whole thing that they try actually pays off, it's not even designed to be 100% sealed. It's actually designed to decrease the flow. BP says it should be able to capture most of the oil, but at the same time, there's something else going on that would help.

There's something it would carry into the oil well which is methanol. And here's why. I want to go back to the first thing they tried weeks ago. This was called the containment dome. A lot of you remember this. This is the first time we were talking in early May, this effort to put a cap on it.

WHITFIELD: I remember that.

LEVS: Well, the problem at the time and Fred, you know this, the problem at that time was when they got that cap on, these ice-like hydrate crystals formed inside the dome. Because that's what happens when gas combines with water. It formed these crystals that are like ice crystals and that prevented it from working. So since then, that's been one of the challenges that BP has been up against.

So this new cap, in addition to trying to stop the flow, will also create an opportunity to get in some methanol in the hopes that it will reduce those ice crystals. One more thing to keep in mind on this, Fred, they can't even get to trying this for between four and seven days. So it'll be four to seven days before it starts. And then comes the complicated under water surgery of making it happen all in the hopes that ultimately they can contain that oil.

WHITFIELD: Because it's going to take at least that long to finish constructing it, correct? And in the meantime, the oil or the mud or the gas, whatever it is that's coming out of that leak, continues to spew. So what, if anything, do we know that BP will be doing in the interim?

LEVS: Yes. They got two other things I'm going to tell you about. One of them is they're going to try to create a second blowout preventer. We have some video here. The problem here as we all know goes back to this blowout preventer while they're trying to create a second one at the same time.

Just to give you an understanding of dimensions, we're talking about 450 tons, and it's almost 5,000 feet under water. They should have that. They're also doing this thing here. They're trying to create another well, a relief well, we can zoom in here. I'll tie up with that. The idea behind a relief well is if you have a second well that it kind of takes the pressure out of the first one, right, stops some of the flow. And it's actually built on an intersection so that it pulls some of that out.

And they use some special liquid to push some the oil from the one that's a problem right now into another well. That can take months. So that's why we're talking about. It could be, you know, summer, it could be August before some of this is even through. So for now, all those hopes on the new lingo of this crisis, the LMRP, Fred.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And all this a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

LEVS: Unbelievable.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks so much, Josh Levs.

LEVS: You got it. Thanks.

WHITFIELD: Well, BP's initial estimates of the size of the gulf coast oil spill were much too low. And today a White House adviser suggested that those lowball estimates may have been deliberate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROL BROWNER, W.. ADVISER, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE; We do realize there was some places where we could have moved more aggressively. One of them was asking for all of the data which we needed to do these. But it is important for people to understand. BP has a vested financial interest in downplaying the size of this. We are on top of it. We have the best minds looking at it.

And we're not just looking at a video. We're looking at satellite imagery. We're looking at what's actually being brought up through the risers, into the boat that was there. And we will continue to monitor the situation. We want to know and the American people have a right to know how much oil is spilling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN White House correspondent Dan Lothian is in Chicago where the president has been spending this holiday weekend. So, Dan, the administration appears to be putting more pressure on BP, saying we want more information from you. But it would still seem that BP has the upper hand.

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And, you know, what Carol Brown has said today, we heard that from the president during his press conference last week, pointing out that BP hasn't always been sort of transparent in terms of laying out the full extent of this situation.

How much was coming out, how much oil was actually pouring out? They haven't laid out all the information because it wasn't in their best interest. So that is one area where this administration, the Obama administration, will be putting a lot of pressure on BP.

But the world that you're hearing from Washington all the way to the gulf is frustration. People there are frustrated. People in the administration are frustrated as well. Because really there's not much more that this administration can do. It really is up to BP and the industry itself. They have the tools, the technology to actually drive this operation.

What the administration will continue to do is to have their experts such as Secretary Chu to stay on top of all of the decisions that are being made. Secretary Chu was there during the entire process of the top kill. He will continue to be there. Salazar, Secretary Salazar and other officials will be back in the gulf region again this week.

And the idea is that they not only will be there to sort of watch over this operation, but to continue to put pressure on BP so that all of the information, the full extent of what is going on, is made known, Fredricka.

So I wonder, Dan, if the White House is acknowledging that BP really has the technology to address this problem and the federal government does not, how is it the White House feels that it's making a convincing argument to the Gulf Cast Coast residents that they won't be abandoned? That ultimately this region will be made whole?

LOTHIAN: Right. Well, you know, that's a very good question. And you have to take the administration's word. When they say something like that. Because really, again, you know, there have been calls for the White House, for the president to essentially push BP aside and to take over this operation.

Well, they've said that, you know, the president has said that he is in charge, but beyond that, I mean, there's nothing that this administration can do. They're now calling in the military to try to go down there and do anything. What you're seeing from the administration is really this show of force to say, "listen, we're really on top of this situation." That's why the president went to the gulf. That's why additional administration officials will be there again this week.

And they're showing kind of this show of confidence. You heard the president say that long after the cameras leave, this administration will not abandon you. Secretary Salazar as well pointing out today, "that the administration is resolute and confident that we will see a better day ahead."

But, you know, some people will see that as some comfort. But others are tired of the words. They want to see some action. They want to see that leak plugged. And they want to see their shoreline cleaned up.

WHITFIELD: Dan Lothian in Chicago, traveling with the president. Thanks so much.

All right. BP insists that it is providing protective equipment to local fishermen helping with the recovery efforts. The company also says that it is conducting 250 air quality tests every day. But the head of the shrimpers association claims that that's not the case.

Clint Guidry says at least two more workers were hospitalized with nausea and headaches after low-lying planes dropped chemical dispersants within a mile of their vessels. Guidry is also blasting BP's safety record.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINT GUIDRY, LOUISIANA SHRIMP ASSOCIATION: On any job in this country that I've been on, if I had nine loss time accidents in a 36- day period, I wouldn't be on the job very long. And probably if I had 11 kill to go along I'd be behind bars. That's where these people need to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Federal officials say seven other recovery workers who were hospitalized after complaining of feeling ill did have protective gear on.

All right. We're covering the gulf oil spill from all angles. CNN's Carol Costello is talking to people directly affected.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fredricka. They're very angry. In fact, we visited a Catholic church this morning where the priest is struggling to find the right words to calm the anger. More on that when we come back.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks so much, Carol.

Up next, say a decades' old ban on gays donating blood. Could that ban be coming to an end?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Blood, sex and the FDA. Next week a federal panel will reconsider the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood. The Food and Drug Administration instituted the rule during the height of the AIDS epidemic back in 1983. Officials then feared that HIV infected blood was tainting the blood supply. But now with better testing, blood organizations and several U.S. senators are blasting the ban, calling it outdated, even homophobic. They want change.

Well, joining me now is Brian Moulton, chief legal counsel for the human rights campaign and Dr. Jay Brooks, pathology professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio. Good to see both of you. Brian, let me begin with you. Why is the human rights campaign, the American Red Cross, as well as America's blood center all calling for this ban to be lifted after 27 years?

BRIAN MOULTON, THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Well, I think it's two things. It's that the science has really changed in terms of our understanding of how HIV is transmitted. And the science has changed in terms of testing. So that there's a very small window where a blood donation might get through, past testing, without testing positive.

And so really a lifetime ban for gay and bisexual men, it just isn't, you know, matching up with what the science tells us today.

WHITFIELD: So you say the testing is more sophisticated now. The screening of the blood has much improved. So Dr. Brooks, why would anyone continue to believe that this ban is the necessary tool to be in place?

PROF. JAY BROOKS, UNIV. OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CTR.: Well, first, I'd like to point out that the American Red Cross and the ABB are calling for a lifting of the ban, but they're calling for a one- year deferral. So the ABB and the ARC's position is only gay men who have been celibate for at least one year would be allowed to donate blood.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: But that would be a change and that would be a modification in the law.

BROOKS: That's true.

WHITFIELD: But there are some who still argue that even that isn't appropriate. Why? BROOKS: Well, I'm not going to - that's not the position that I hold. So I'm not going to articulate that position. As I see it, the prevalence of HIV in the community of men having sex with men is 60 times higher than in the general population. 800 times higher in first-time blood donors. And 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

So the prevalence of HIV infection amongst those groups are much higher. Even though we have better testing, laboratory errors do occur. There can be a release of blood that has been inappropriately tested. One study in the United Kingdom showed that if we go to a one-year deferral there will be a 60 percent increase of HIV in the blood supply. If we go to no deferral whatsoever, it will be a 500 percent increase of HIV in the blood supply.

WHITFIELD: OK. So Dr. Brooks and Brian, along the way during that conversation, we saw the supported thoughts and acts by the FD. So Brian, isn't that a pretty good argument? That perhaps there might be some blood that isn't getting that sophisticated screening and there is a probability that some tainted blood might get through and get into the general supply and thereby it's not safe?

MOULTON: Well, I think the rule needs to be based on risk behavior. So there certainly are people, including gay and bisexual men who engage in risk behaviors. That are, you know, high for HIV transmission. But right now, the policy just have a blanket ban. We don't ask the question. Do you engage in protected sex? Are you in a long-term monogamous relationship. And so we allow a heterosexual donor who's had, you know, 50 sex partners in the last year and doesn't necessarily know their HIV status to donate and rely on the testing to screen that but we don't do the same sort of treatment for gay and bisexual men.

We assume all of those men are at risk for HIV transmission.

WHITFIELD: In fact.

MOULTON: And certainly -

WHITFIELD: Go ahead.

MOULTON: Well, there are other studies. You know, there was a study that was put forward to the FDA the last time they evaluated this that indicated the risk of you know, increased risk with a one- year deferral for HIV in the blood donation system was one in 46 million. So we're talking about, you know, potentially a pretty minuscule risk. And there's going to be risk. There's risk in the system as it is today. But we don't ever talk about, you know, more blood donors coming to the system, more people being willing to donate blood because they don't perceive the system as being built on a discriminatory premise -

WHITFIELD: And in fact, Brian, Senator John Kerry kind of underscores the contradiction that you are also stating, this is something that he said in a letter dated March 9th. A heterosexual who has had sex with a prostitute need only wait a year before giving blood. That does not strike me as a sound scientific conclusion. Dr. Brooks, so do you think that's a fair analogy to make, a good comparison to make?

BROOKS: No. Senator Kerry said that there was no scientific evidence to support the ban. Senator Kerry is just wrong. I don't know of any blood bank physician who would say anything but that HIV in the blood supply will increase. Now Mr. Moulton quoted some study that one in 46 million, that would be the additional risk. I'm aware of no peer reviewed medical study anything approaching that. I think there's definitely going to be an increase in the HIV in the blood supply. The question is how much. Is it worth the risk?

WHITFIELD: And is there a shortage of blood donations? Is that why we're at this juncture in part of having this discussion?

BROOKS: There are sporadic shortages. But there have been two studies. One study showed that the additional number of donors would be small. The other said the additional donors would be negligible. For a one-year deferral, again, we're talking about allowing men who have not had sex with men for the past year, gay men who are celibate, that's where these numbers come from.

WHITFIELD: OK.

BROOKS: I'm aware of no one in the blood bank community that's calling for men who've been in a monogamous relationship for a year be allowed to donate. That's certainly not the position of the American Red Cross or ABB.

WHITFIELD: OK. And Dr. Jay Brooks, thank you. And so Brian, is it your feeling that this argument or this issue is about more than blood safety, and it is about being homophobic.

MOULTON: I think that, you know, because we're painting all gay and bisexual men with a broad brush knowing full well that many of them engage in low risk behaviors, that they could give blood safely and that we don't ask questions about risk behavior in the blood donation questionnaire, there's got to be something else there. There are assumptions being made. And I think we need to take a really hard look at those.

WHITFIELD: OK. Brian Moulton -

BROOKS: The assumption -

WHITFIELD: OK. Real quick.

BROOKS: Yes, the assumptions are based on epidemiology. And I think homophobia is a very low shot. That I do not see that as the prime motivation. I think it's based on science, not homophobia.

WHITFIELD: Dr. Jay Brooks, pathology professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio and Brian Moulton, chief legal counsel for the Human Rights Campaign. Thanks to both of you, gentlemen for your time.

BROOKS: Thank you.

MOULTON: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. Coming to terms with an environmental catastrophe. A difficult challenge for everyone. But especially the people directly affected. Here how one hard-hit community is coping.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: BP is scrambling to find a new fix for their massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Up next, they'll try a new kind of cap after the top kill try failed. Even if the new cap plan works, it won't capture all the oil pouring into the gulf.

And chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen wants Congress to wait on legislation repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" until after the military completes a review. The House voted Friday to end the ban of gays to serve openly in the military. The full Senate still has to vote. The review Mullen is talking about is expected to be finished in December.

And British Airways cabin crew kicked off a new five-day strike today. Stranding thousands of travelers. Talks between the airline and union broke down on Friday. British Airways say they will only cancel about 30 percent of their long haul flights.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The BP oil spill is triggering outrage, frustration and sadness across the country. But nowhere is the crisis felt more acutely than in the communities that are directly affected along the gulf coast.

CNN's Carol Costello joins us live from hard hit Grand Isle, Louisiana. So Carol, what do people feel like they can actually do?

COSTELLO: Well, that's just the thing, Fredricka. They don't know what to do. They can just sit and wait for something to happen if it does happen. I think they're beyond anger right now. We visited one Catholic church and talked to Father Michael Tran. He was trying to think of a way in his sermon to calm people down. There is one word that he rarely says in mass these days.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (on camera): When you talk about BP, how do you talk about that company, you know, during your sermon?

REV. MIKE TRAN, OUR LADY OF THE ISLE CHURCH: Well, I try not to use it, you know. It's obvious. People are going to say BP and use their name, but I try to not use it as much as I can.

COSTELLO: So you don't invoke BP's name in church?

TRAN: I try not to, yes.

COSTELLO: Because you don't want to incite people any more than they are already.

TRAN: Correct. They're already upset and they're frustrated. I don't want to make it worse, yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: Father Tran wants to find a way to enable people to deal with BP in a more Christian way. It's a very complicated relationship, Fredricka, between the oil industry and neighbors. On one hand, neighbors want to throw the bums out. On the other hand, they know they need the oil industry for Louisiana's economy. This is sort of how they grapple with it. I asked parishioners as they walked into church.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA FAKIER, RESIDENT: I just think that something needs to be done, and I don't think they're really trying. They need to do something. The people down here are really in bad shape especially the fishermen. They can't fish. They can't shrimp. That's their livelihood.

PEGGY AUTHEMENT, RESIDENT: It's very depressing. It's very depressing. We grew up coming down here. We've had a camp down here my whole life. It just breaks your heart.

COSTELLO (on camera): Do you think it'll ever be stopped?

AUTHEMENT: Yes, yes. It'll eventually stop. And they'll clean up. That's not the question. The question is how much damage there'll be in the meantime.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: You know, there's a real sense that BP is just not being a good neighbor. People trusted BP to do the right thing, not to sell the environment. Because so many people make their living off the beauty of this place. And you know, therein lies the frustration. You know, they need the oil industry, but they want the oil industry to be a good neighbor, Fredricka, and they want to be able to trust BP again. And who knows if that will ever happen.

WHITFIELD: All right. Carol Costello, thanks so much, from Grand Isle, Louisiana.

All right. Stories of life and death on the battlefield. In the words of the people who were there. Witnesses to war, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: This Memorial Day weekend, Americans across the country are paying tribute to servicemen and women who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. Overseas in Iraq U.S. troops are honoring their fallen brothers and sisters. Thirty one U.S. troops have died in Iraq this year alone. The soldiers at this military base near Nigeria were also treated to a cookout today. Preserve, honor, respect, this is the mission of the Witness to War Foundation, an organization dedicated to sharing the experiences of our combat veterans in their own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know with a whole just about that big in his stomach, he could still call for his mother, amazing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can see it just as plain today as I did that night. Shooting at him so much until his body, his hips looked like it was on fire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we approached him, he took his bandit and stuck it in through his stomach. He committed suicide, so to speak. That was an eye opener. I didn't know people were quite that desperate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Beautiful, poignant first-person accounts. Joining me right now is Tom Beaty, founder of the Witness to war Foundation and World War II fighter pilot Bob Powell.

Good to see both of you gentlemen.

TOM BEATY, FOUNDER, WITNESS TO WAR.ORG: Good to see you.

Mr. Beaty let me begin with you. Why did you feel that this -- there was a great need to hear these stories first person like this?

Sure. Well, my interest in World War II began when I was young. Just a tremendous interest in history. In classrooms they were often taught at a high level, the dates and names and places. My interest was really in the fox hole point of view or the cockpit point of view. There are over 2 million veterans still from World War II in the United States. The vast majority haven't had their stories recorded. We capture those stories to reserve them and then we honor them by sharing those stories on our website. Another thing that's unique about Witness to War, we organize the stories based on the type of experience.

ROMANS: It's incredible. You go to that website and you can click on in so many different ways to hear these first-person accounts. One of them, by you, Mr. Powell. Let's take a listen to what you had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT POWELL, WORLD WAR II VET: When I got my tail partly blown away, a hole about the size of a bushel basket in my horizontal stabilizer, I thought I was going to have to bail out. My wing man got hit at the same time. He took a bullet in the radiator and he managed to get about 15 miles from the airfield before he had to bail out. He was a prisoner of war for the rest of the war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So Mr. Powell, what was it like for you to reach back, relive, tell about this story? Was it cathartic? Was it difficult?

POWELL: No. Really it wasn't. I'm very pleased that I've had an opportunity to be on Witness of War. Because Tom's doing a great job of perpetuating the history of World War II. And because most of us aren't going to be around very long and these stories need to be told. Because World War II had a tremendous impact on our country and still does.

WHITFIELD: Did you suppress the memories of your experience as a fighter pilot, or have you been sharing it with your family for a long time? My dad's a vet and for a long time he just didn't want to share these stories. It was just too painful, too difficult. Really only in recent years, he's 85, is he now talking about that memory openly. Has that been the way it is for you?

POWELL: That's true of a lot of people. But I -- I feel that today's generation should know all about World War II. That's what Tom is, of course, bringing to them. I have talked to my family about it for many years. I've written two books about it. So I think it's important. And Tom and I are really doing the same thing, just in a different way.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Beaty, what an honor it has been, right, to be able to reach out to these 200 men you were talking about and get them to reveal and share these stories? What have you learned about this war, what have you learned about your own life experiences and theirs just by hearing about their life experiences?

BEATY: Well, it has, indeed, been an honor. I've interviewed over 300 now. And we've learned -- one thing, I've also started a business at the same time. It is a lot of stress incumbent in that. But when you hear what real stress is, what these guys went through, I will tell you it really puts things in perspective. We're just so extraordinarily fortunate here in America to have the freedoms that we have, and be able to enjoy Memorial Day as a holiday where so many didn't come back. It's a tremendous honor for me to be able to meet these guys, first of all, and then capture their stories.

WHITFIELD: What do you hoping people are going to learn through their stories that perhaps they didn't know about their lives, their battles, this fight?

BEATY: You know it's interesting. World War II often is painted in glamorous light. Most of the guys I have interviewed were scared to death. And they often say that they wouldn't trade the experience for anything, but they'd never want to go back and do it again. I just think the price that was paid; these are everyday, average Americans that were called upon to do just extraordinary things. And they did it well; thank goodness for all of us.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Powell, how old were you at the time when you were a fighter pilot during this war? POWELL: When I went into combat I was 22. Of course, I went into service before that to learn to fly and so forth. But I was 22 when I went into combat.

WHITFIELD: And this is a picture of you.

POWELL: Yes.

WHITFIELD: So how do you suppose this experience shaped you for the rest of your life? How often during your lifetime have you kind of called upon that experience, being fired at, being able to by the grace of god be able to land back in England in your jet?

POWELL: Well, Winston Churchill said the biggest thrill you'll ever have in your life is to be shot at and missed. I'd have to agree with that. But it has impacted my whole life. I grew up in the coal fields of West Virginia. I didn't know anything at all. If I have any character or I have any knowledge at all, it came from that World War II experience.

WHITFIELD: What are you hoping your grand kids, great grandkids, your children are learning from your testimony and the testimony of other men at this website?

POWELL: Well, my children, of course, are very interested in this. And they've followed me through the years in things that I've talked about, talking to schools and civic groups and so forth. And they're very excited that I was going to be here with Tom today. And on the Witness to War program. Because they feel that this is important. They have enjoyed knowing some of the things that I've brought to them, not only my own experiences, but the experiences of some of our men. I flew with some of the greatest pilots of World War II. I'm very proud of that. This opportunity to pay them some tribute is very pleasing to me. Thank you, Tom.

BEATY: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Well I'm excited, too, that you all are here and were able to share these stories and really kind of open the eyes of so many people to learn more about what your experience meant to you as a young person, early 20s, and how it carried on throughout your lifetime. And how your sacrifices impacted all of our lives and so generations to come. Witnesstowar.org or witnesstowar.com. Covered all the bases. Lots of information out there for everyone to learn from. Thanks so much. Nice to meet you.

POWELL: Thank you.

BEATY: Thank you for what your father did as well.

WHITFIELD: Thank you, appreciate it.

The money meter is running on Bp's oil spill. Josh Levs is tallying the cost plus the oil giant's profits to see if Bp can afford what many are calling an environmental and human catastrophe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Now more on Bp's safety record. There's an alarming report from the Center for Public Safety. It says two Bp owned refineries are responsible for 97 percent of all flagrant safety violations in the industry over the last several years. I spoke with Jim Morris, a staff writer with the Center for Public Integrity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM MORRIS, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: It's not just the sheer number. It's that the vast majority of these violations were the most serious type. OSHA calls them egregious, willful violations.

WHITFIELD: What does that mean if you can stop there? You know, what are the characteristics of egregious? What are the characteristic of willful? Because it was broken down separately.

MORRIS: Yes. I mean egregious, willful are, again, considered so serious, so severe that OSHA can actually penalize a company each time, for each single violation, as opposed to willful, where they tend to lump violations in. Again, all those goes back to the 2005 explosion. And there was a $21 million OSHA fine as a result of that incident. Bp promised to make the necessary changes. They obviously did not. And so OSHA came back with an $87 million fine last October, primarily because Bp didn't make the changes that they promised to make.

WHITFIELD: So the fines seem to be a drop in the bucket that Bp doesn't seem to be impacted by these fines. If, indeed, the case based on this research, Bp continues to do some of the same things despite the fact they are given these citations and that they are fined?

MORRIS: Bp is contesting both the $87 million fine proposed against Texas City and a $3 million fine proposed just a couple months ago imposed against the Toledo facility. The mere fact they're contesting those penalties, and the $87 million one is a record one, by the way, suggests they don't think they did anything wrong or at least what they did wrong isn't as serious as OSHA says it is.

WHITFIELD: What's your best view as to why Bp continues to be able to get the kinds of permits granted by OSHA, by any other federal agency if there's this track record?

MORRIS: I really don't know. I think that's a good question for OSHA. The real test I think is going to be not that OSHA proposed an $87 million fine against them but how much Bp ends up paying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Well the oil business has been good to Bp. In the first quarter of this year the oil giant reported earnings of $5.6 billion. That's billion with a "b." But for Bp the money meter is running on this oil spill. Our Josh Levs is looking at how the mounting costs compare with the company's huge profits. Josh.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. There's actually a couple ways to look at that figure. It's interesting. The actual raw profits are even a little bit higher, $6.1 billion. What we're going to do now is show you the cost of this spill for Bp and we're going to compare it to the profits that Bp collects and show you how all that plays out. Let's start off with what Bp is saying lately. The last time we heard a figure was on Friday. They said that their costs so far for this oil spill are getting up near a billion dollars, $930 million. The procedures they're undergoing, all these people they have to hire, also some claims that they're paying out, we will talk more about that.

$930 million so far in this process as of Friday. This was just before -- obviously the day before they announced ending the top kill. Let's take a look, so the profit figures, about $6.1 billion for the first quarter of 2010. Those are the raw profits. Let's take a look at how much that is per day, $67million a day in profits. By the way, even outside of this whole process in the Gulf, it's really helping to stop once in a while and remember the massive size of these oil companies and how much money they pull in and how much we all depend on oil.

So $67 million a day. Fred, at that rate it's only about 14 days of profits so far so cover that $930 million cost that Bp is talking about. So we're talking about a company that can handle massive expenses. That said, when we look at this figure, $930 million, this really could just be the beginning. They have a lot of claims that are a head of them. It could last months and months. When you're talking about all these billions in profits obviously it's something that they can handle.

Before we go, a couple other things I should mention. Their stock down, CNN Money is reporting the stock is down nearly 30 percent since the rig explosion that started this whole thing. Clearly there are ways that they're being hit. I said I would tell you a little bit more, 26,000 claims so far for lost income. Bp is begun paying them out. About $35 million paid so far. Expenses so far a drop in the bucket compared to what it might be. Still kind of drops in the bucket compared to their profits, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Josh Levs, thanks for breaking it down for us.

So a lot of people along the Gulf of Mexico don't have enough to worry about, forecasters are predicting an active hurricane season. We look at the possible impact of this troubling mix.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: In a couple days, the Atlantic hurricane season begins. But already the Pacific hurricane season is under way. Jacqui, what's going on? We have the first named storm, what happens with it?

JACQUI JERAS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Agatha yesterday came and went. But boy what an impact with this storm, let's go ahead and roll the video and show you how the devastation here in Guatemala. There was so much rain, up to 17 inches fell in less than 24 hours. See all of the flooding. A number of people died. I believe the number is up to 17 now in the flooding. People had to be evacuated as well. And the rain continues to come down. Here you can see that system, Fredricka, is no longer even a tropical depression. It's just an area of low pressure. We're watching it continue to bring heavy rain across the area.

There was some speculation that maybe this thing could get up toward the Gulf of Mexico or maybe into the Caribbean. We don't think that's going to happen. This is so mountainous. It's going to sheer this thing apart. We think there'll be nothing left of it.

WHITFIELD: Can we talk about a what if? What were to happen if it had taken a turn and stayed a little strong and found its way into the Gulf of Mexico?

JERAS: Yes, well a lot of people have had that question. With an oil slick what kind of impact would the oil have on hurricanes or what kind of impact would hurricanes have on oil? And the main thing to keep in mind with this is that oil is really not going to impact the hurricane. At least not a well developed one. We took Katrina, the satellite image of Katrina and put it over the oil spill to give you an idea. Katrina filled up pretty much the entire Gulf of Mexico. This was a monster storm.

It really won't do a whole lot to the hurricane. But the hurricane certainly will do a lot to oil. Let's take a look at some of these impacts. First of all, what it's going to do, it's going to churn up the ocean. Whenever you get those high winds, you start to get those high seas. Two good things out of it, OK, that churning will help to dilute the oil a little bit. It will also help speed up the biodegration process. That oil will get into places where it normally wouldn't go, much farther down along the beach and potentially inland. That could damage some of the marshy areas that already damaged from the oil.

WHITFIELD: Good thing that was just a hypothetical, not going to happen. Agatha is breaking up.

Bye-bye.

JERAS: Not with Agatha. We'll see what happens down the line.

WHITFIELD: I know it is early. All right. Thanks so much Jacqui, appreciate that. When we come back, we'll tell you how paying tribute to the war dead is taking place.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Tomorrow is Memorial Day, a day to honor the fallen soldiers of our nation's wars. At Arlington National Cemetery, there's a nearly invisible army of workers working behind the scenes to prepare the sacred ground.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARRELL STANFORD, INTERMENT FOREMAN: Yes. Meet me at Patton and -- Eisenhower and Patton. My name is Darrell Stanford. I'm the internment informant at Arlington National Cemetery. I've been working at Arlington Cemetery 27 years, going on into my 28th year. They place grave liners into the grave sites, following that, ladders, grave boards, grass greens, chairs.

We rotate it from grave site to grave site. I think we probably have completed at least eight of the 20 or 30 we have today.

Coming into Memorial Day, we have a whole lot of visitors. We have a whole lot of ceremonies.

Section 60. It's the current war that we're involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To see a funeral of an active duty soldier, most of the people paying their respects are teenagers and college kids versus some of the other funerals where you have elderly and middle-aged people. Everybody's a VA at Arlington Cemetery. Whether it's a private or a general, we look at them the same. Someone loved has passed on. We should do our best to make their departure or their last moments with their loved one the best that we can give them. Doing something to bring closure to, I guess, a sad time of people's lives. I don't think if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here this long if I didn't care (INAUDIBLE).