Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Oil Flowing Unimpeded on Louisiana's Marshlands; Flood of Education Legislation; White House Press Briefing
Aired June 01, 2010 - 14:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Let me reset with what's going on, "On the Rundown."
We're expecting a briefing from the White House any minute now. Two topics sure to be on the agenda -- the Gulf Coast oil spill and Israel's deadly raid.
We'll bring it to you live when it happens.
Plus, we're covering every angle of that oil spill, 43 days into the disaster. All sorts of new developments to tell you about, including the latest effort to cap that leak.
And it's our birthday. We're turning 30. I know I don't look it. I'll send my best wishes to CNN in my "XYZ."
Let's get to the big story, though, and that is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Right now, BP's latest effort to try and deal with this oil spill is under way. Let me tell you what's happening.
First of all, in the past day or so, if you've been watching those live pictures from under the sea in the Gulf of Mexico, you have seen something very different. We've been used to just seeing this oil spill, but what you're seeing in many cases, you're not seeing it in this shot right now, but a big wrench, basically, something that is clamping that pipe that is leaking all that oil, getting ready to cut it on top of that riser, getting ready to cut it off.
Let me tell you what the new project is. You'll have heard this term before, LMRP, lower marine riser package cap.
We just heard from Admiral Thad Allen, who is coordinating this effort. He referred to it as a top cap or a top hat. We've heard all the terms. They're all very, very muddled. Let me explain to you what this is.
So, basically, you cut the riser off and put a cap on top of it. This is where the oil is leaking. You put a cap on top of it.
We understand there are two such caps. One has a rubber seal, one doesn't. They don't know which one is going to work.
See the top of that? On top of that cap you see a pipe. That pipe goes to a vehicle called the enterprise. On the surface, the oil, theoretically, doesn't escape. It goes into that thing, up that pipe, gets collected on the surface, and then they continue to wait to drill those. They're working on drilling those wells, relieving the pressure in there.
BP is working on those. Apparently, they are both deployed to the bottom of the sea at this point. And there's been a bigger ban on fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. It's now up to 31 percent.
I want to tell you, Chad was just telling us about how badly the wetlands are damaged in some cases. There are a lot of wetlands. A lot of people associate a coastal state with beaches. In Louisiana, there are a lot of marshes, a lot of wetlands.
Gary Tuchman is on an airboat which, in some ways, is the only way you can get around that marshland. Gary Tuchman is on an airboat in Louisiana, in the Mississippi Delta. He's there now getting a firsthand look of how bad things are.
Gary, are you with us?
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Ali. And six weeks after this disaster happened, we're seeing oil basically flow unimpeded on the marshlands, on these grasslands, south of New Orleans.
We just got off the airboat for the last half hour, Ali. We pulled up to a small boat. On board the boat were four men hired by BP to do this incredible backbreaking and heartbreaking work of trying to clean the marshlands.
It's heartbreaking because they make their living here normally. They're shrimpers, and this is their whole life, recreationally and professionally. And now they're being paid to clean up.
And what they are doing, they're the guys who are putting the absorbent boom down trying to protect the marshlands. And what's happened, the boom is like a sponge, and it's getting brown and black. And they're basically bending down, tearing it off, putting it in big garbage bags on the boat, and then laying down new White boom that's as White as the snow, but it's expected not to be White as the snow for much longer because the oil continues to flow.
When I was here three weeks ago covering this, I was in this basic area, and all the boom -- the boom comes in three different colors, but I've seen White, red, yellow, and basically it stayed White, red and yellow. But now it's quickly turning brown and mucky black. And these guys are just going feet at a time, ,replacing the boom, putting down new boom, trying to replace the land they love so much in the town of Coletree (ph), which is about 90 driving miles southwest of New Orleans -- Ali.
VELSHI: Gary, a lot of people have smelled gasoline at a gas station or from their car. If you smelled heating oil, it's got even a more intense smell to it.
When you're around crude oil, this stuff really, really smells. It can make you dizzy.
TUCHMAN: Yes, it really smells. Although, I will tell you, what I find very interesting is the smell isn't as pungent as I would have expected. But that may have something to do with the direction the wind is going.
The workers we were just talking to say it often gets very pungent. Right now it's not that pungent.
However, you see the oil, ,and that's what's so discouraging, because as I said, just a few weeks ago, when I was here, we really didn't see it. And now we're seeing it come ashore in multitudes.
VELSHI: All right. Well, you're giving us a good sense of it with those pictures that you've been sending in.
I should tell our viewers, these are all fresh pictures. Gary took these 15 minutes ago and sent them into us. So this is what you're seeing, these are the operations that we're seeing.
Gary, stay on top of this for us. We will check in with you continually through the afternoon.
Gary Tuchman is in the marshland of Louisiana for us right now.
We're not going to move away from this story. CNN has led the world's coverage of the Gulf oil spill for 43 days now. We'll be your best source for all the latest developments, wherever and whenever they happen.
All right. More controversy as the nation tries to fix its broken schools. Now a teachers union is asking state legislators to slow down as they fight to win the Race to the Top.
I'll tell you about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: In "Chalk Talk" today, the second round of applications for the federal government's Race to the Top program are due today. The Race to the Top program allows states to compete for shares of close to $4 billion in federal education funds.
Now, in the first round, lots of states applied. Tennessee and Delaware were the only two states to win the money.
This time around, there's a bit of controversy surrounding the fight for the funds. It seems that several states, including Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New York, have passed education bills modifying teacher tenure rules and evaluation rules just in time to meet today's Race to the Top deadline.
Well, this sudden flood of education legislation is not going over so well for everyone. It's creating a bit of a rift between state legislators and teachers unions. Joining us now to dig deeper into this issue is Randi Weingarten. She's the president of the American Federation of Teachers, a familiar name to people who follow the public education debate very closely.
Randi, thank you for joining us here on "Chalk Talk."
RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: It's great to be with you.
VELSHI: Let's just outline what this is. This was an incentive, a contest that the federal government put out there that said if you make substantial changes that will increase the performance of students in your public schools, you can get a chunk of public money.
And it did turn out to be a race. A lot of states really rushed to do all sorts of things, some of them good, maybe, to change public education.
What's the issue? Where are the confrontations coming in mostly with teachers on this issue?
WEINGARTEN: Well, there's a couple things going on at the same time, as you know, Ali. One of the things is that, you know, states are in terrible pain because of the budget cuts and because Main Street has not recovered the way Wall Street may have recovered. So we're seeing states looking for every single dollar they could look for, and so that's part of what's going on here.
But the underlying issue is this -- we need to make sure that schools work for kids in a global economy. And the places that we compete with, who outcompete us, like Finland and Japan, they spend a huge amount of energy and time working on teacher development and evaluation and making sure teachers are the best they can be.
It's not exclusive. There's other things in education that are important, like curriculum and dealing with the barriers that hurt students' success, like students that are impoverished or that are hungry or homeless. But the piece where you see tremendous consensus starting to happen is over teacher evaluation and development.
VELSHI: Right.
WEINGARTEN: And that's what New York and Colorado did in a good way. The New York evaluation plan, which the teachers union signed on to and negotiated, is a terrific plan, because it is focused on what teachers need to do to help kids and how to improve their practice, and how to look at student learning through multiple measures. The same is true in terms of Colorado.
VELSHI: This makes a lot of sense, what you're saying. But if you're just hearing this casually on the news, all of these reports --
WEINGARTEN: Right.
VELSHI: -- what you think of is that states and boards of education and principals are fighting with teachers constantly, nobody's giving an inch on all sorts of things. In fact, the two states, correct me if I'm wrong, that won the first round of Race to the Top were states that involved teachers in the process, and gained concessions, and came to new agreements with them jointly.
Is that correct?
WEINGARTEN: Exactly right, because what happens -- and, you know, if you listen to me, a lot of what I've been saying a lot recently has been that this "blame the teacher" routine has to stop. This "blame the teacher" crowd who is basically building off the fear and anxiety that we have in this country is creating a lot of that polarization.
Now, the bottom line is this -- schools have to change for the global economy. But it's going to take all of us to do it.
And we have complained for years about drive-by evaluations and how they don't work. But what teachers want is a thoughtful evaluation process, because we know that educating kids is hard work, and we know we can't do it alone. But we know there's a lot that needs to be done.
So we've proposed a very thoughtful overhaul of the evaluation process, and that's what the New York State folk have done. In Florida, you're going to see their new Race to the Top application. That's what they have done. In Delaware, that's what they have done.
And so I hope that in this need for dollars, which all states need, what emerges out of this is some real thoughtful ways of helping teachers teach, multiple-measured, thoughtful ways. But let me also say, it's not the only thing we have to do to help kids. We need curriculum and we need to eliminate the barriers for their success.
VELSHI: Let me ask you this. In Colorado, an agreement which you were involved in and supported, they will withhold granting teachers tenure until they've taught effectively for three years. And I don't know enough about education to know how you deal with this tenure issue, but we get e-mails and questions from people about, why are school teachers tenured in the public school system, and why are there -- why are their work hours and things like that as structured as they actually are, when most of us have evolved into a much more flexible type of workforce?
What do you say to that?
WEINGARTEN: Well, look, what happened in Colorado is that there should be a three-year probationary period in terms of -- you know, before someone has that kind of due process rights. That -- we would hope that for literally or virtually every single employee in the United States, there's a period of time where they prove their mettle before they have a due-process right. But Colorado hasn't had that kind of protection for years, and now, basically, they've had some kind of structured due process after three years of proving that they are effective.
But the larger question is this -- we want to make sure that we protect against arbitrary and capriciousness. Take, for example, what just happened in Texas. If a teacher wants to actually teach that slavery should have been abolished and the slave trade should have been abolished, they should not be fired because they are not calling it the "Atlantic Triangular Trade" and not using the word "slavery."
If a teacher has done a really good job for years, they should not be fired because, all of a sudden, they're expensive. That's what tenure was supposed to be about.
It's supposed to be due process to stop arbitrary and capriciousness. It was never intended as a way to stop a focus on performance. And that's part of the reason that we've started to talk, again, about trying to overhaul evaluations.
VELSHI: All right.
WEINGARTEN: And on your second issue --
VELSHI: Sorry. Go ahead.
WEINGARTEN: On the second issue, what is structured is schooling is structured, the time that kids come to school, the time that they leave school. But I don't know a teacher in this country that doesn't bring tons of papers home every night to correct in a way that almost no other employees in the United States do. I'm not saying other people don't work hard, but ultimately take most of us.
We do a lot of our work, you know, during the day. Teachers do a lot of their preparation at night. They do their practice with kids during the day. And they do all the rest of the preparation at night or on weekends.
VELSHI: Randi Weingarten, thank you for bringing your passion to this discussion. It's important that my viewers get to hear all sides of this, and yours is very important.
WEINGARTEN: Thank you.
VELSHI: So thanks for being with us. We appreciate that.
WEINGARTEN: Thank you.
VELSHI: Randi Weingarten is the president of the American Federation of Teachers.
We'll be having "Chalk Talk" here every day on CNN so that you can get a better understanding of the things we can do in public education to try and make things better.
Well, it's day 43 of the oil disaster. We're covering it from every angle. The latest developments when come get back.
We're going to go to the White House.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- simply restate what the international community and the United States --
VELSHI: All right. This is Robert Gibbs. He is the White House press secretary. Let's go right there for the briefing.
GIBBS: -- for a presidential statement.
"The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families. The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships, as well as civilians held by Israel."
QUESTION: So that would seem to cover President Obama's personal feeling as well? Some of the allies are looking for a stronger statement from him directly.
GIBBS: Well, again, I -- this is supported not just by the United States, but by the international community.
QUESTION: And does the president feel like he is still in a position of gathering facts about what happened, or have you ascertained enough to --
GIBBS: Well, the Security Council, the statement that I read, calls for an investigation that is prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent, conforming to international standards of exactly what happened. And we're obviously supportive of that.
QUESTION: On oil, on the spill, was this latest attempt to try to contain the well one that BP came up with, or was this an administrative directive?
GIBBS: Is this the top cap?
QUESTION: Yes.
GIBBS: I believe, in conjunction with a number of scientists, this was one of the options that has been before us for quite some time. Obviously, any action undertaken by BP to deal with the wellbore and to deal with the well itself requires the signoff of the federal on-scene coordinator.
QUESTION: What's the president's level of confidence about this effort, given the lack of success of the ones before it?
GIBBS: You know, I'm not in the odds prediction business in terms of this, as Carol Browner said on television this morning. Obviously, this has gone on far too long. I think everybody is enormously frustrated with that, and rightfully so. We are closely monitoring the events as they start, and are hopeful that this is a situation that will contain the oil coming from the well.
Obviously, we're in a little different situation. This is -- this procedure -- and I don't know if you all had a chance to listen to Admiral Allen's briefing a little while ago. The transcript will be put out by the Joint Information Center, and we will forward that around as well.
You know, the solutions for -- the solution with the top kill, first, in stabilizing the well with heavy drilling mud, ultimately would lead to the cement capping of that well. We're now working on something slightly different in terms of containing, through this cap, what is coming out of that well.
QUESTION: Just a couple more quick ones on this.
The president said when the top kill procedure failed over the weekend, that the leak was as enraging as it is heartbreaking. Have you seen the president enraged about this?
GIBBS: Throughout this process, absolutely.
QUESTION: Do you think that that has come through to the American people?
GIBBS: I think the American people are frustrated. I think the people of the Gulf are frustrated. I think the president is frustrated. I think the White House is frustrated. I don't see how anybody could look at what's happening in the Gulf and not be frustrated and heartbroken, absolutely.
QUESTION: And do you -- was there any consideration given to the president canceling his foreign trip?
QUESTION: Robert, your mike isn't on.
GIBBS: My mike's not on?
QUESTION: I don't think so.
GIBBS: I said all those really important things and --
All right. So, I was going to tell you tomorrow's lottery numbers, but -- can somebody figure out why?
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: Does it work now? Are you sure?
This is sort of awkward. This never happens to Bill at karaoke.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Exactly right. Now there's at least a good excuse.
The first time anybody's ever clapped for what I said.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Yes, exactly.
Sorry. Bill, start from the top.
Lord knows I'll -- Bill will lip-sync the transcript when it comes out.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I'll just go to my last question.
Is there any consideration being given to postponing or canceling the president's upcoming foreign trip?
GIBBS: Let me check on that. I don't know the answer.
Yes?
QUESTION: Returning to the Gaza flotilla incident, I have a quick question about the oil spill.
The president said that if laws were broken, then justice would be done to those responsible. Can you give a sense of when a criminal probe might emerge in this case?
GIBBS: Well, look, obviously the attorney general is in the Gulf today to meet with U.S. attorneys and states' attorneys general. I would refer you to the Department of Justice for those answers.
QUESTION: OK. And in light of what happened with the Gaza aid flotilla, is the president considering at least backing international calls to lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip by the Israeli forces?
GIBBS: Well, look, obviously, as we have said before, we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and continue to work with the Israelis and international partners in order to improve those conditions. And as the U.N. Security Council statement says, obviously it's an untenable situation.
QUESTION: Should the blockade be lifted?
GIBBS: Again, we're working with those to improve the humanitarian conditions. I do think it's helpful to understand that this is a blockade of -- to not allow weapons to get into the hands of Hamas.
QUESTION: Shouldn't humanitarian aid --
GIBBS: And we have said that -- well, I'll just leave it at that.
QUESTION: And what are the president's concerns that the Gaza flotilla incident might -- has poisoned the atmosphere to the extent that indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians won't go forward? Will there be delays of some sort here? GIBBS: Well, look, I would say obviously we're -- the president spoke on three occasions yesterday with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and obviously we regret that, but understand completely why he went back to Israel and had to cancel the meeting. The schedule for Mr. Abbas coming is still the same, and we think more than ever we need a comprehensive Middle East peace plan.
QUESTION: Mitchell's back in the region tomorrow, I believe --
GIBBS: He is.
QUESTION: -- for a Palestine investment conference. Will he be shuffling (ph) between Abbas and Netanyahu?
GIBBS: Let me get -- I don't off the top of my head know his schedule, but let me see if I have anything in addition to that.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Yes.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Does President Obama believe the Israelis' version of events?
GIBBS: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Does President Obama believe the Israeli government's version of events?
GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, I would refer you to the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an investigation so that everybody knows exactly what happened.
QUESTION: As far as the investigation, is it important that it be run by the Israelis? Does the president want the international community to be involved in the investigation?
GIBBS: Right. Well, I would say that -- obviously, what I said earlier -- the resolution calls for a prompt and transparent investigation. Obviously, we are open to ways to assure a credible investigation, including international participation.
QUESTION: And there were Americans on the flotilla. Has there been any -- do you have any information about whether any of them were hurt? There was an unconfirmed report that an American student lost an eye in the incident. Do you know anything?
GIBBS: I -- I think we're in contact with the Israelis in order to get an accounting as to whether any Americans citizens -- well obviously American citizens were -- acting as private citizens -- were -- were on some of these ships.
We're working with the Israelis to determine if any of those individuals were injured, and, as the resolution says, would call on the Israelis to release both the ships and any of those people.
QUESTION: Is the president concerned at all that after all his work to repair relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world that a situation like this destroys overnight?
GIBBS: The U.S. relationship with the Muslim --
QUESTION: U.S. Relationship with the Muslim world, by standing so steadfastly with Israel?
GIBBS: No. Again, I -- again, I would point you to I think it was a pretty clear statement by the international community that the United States --
QUESTION: I wouldn't call it that. I mean, it condemns acts that were taken that led to the loss of life, but it doesn't say whose acts. It could have been the flotilla's acts or it could have been the IDF's acts. It's not clear from that statement.
GIBBS: Well, I think our opinion is this is a pretty clear statement and obviously --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- whose acts are you talking about in that statement? Is it the IDF or is it --
GIBBS: Again, we're talking about a series of facts that will be determined by an appropriate investigation, as I just said.
QUESTION: OK. So there's no specificity as to whose acts it's condemning?
GIBBS: Well, it may be of information as to exactly how this went down that the rest of the international community may not be completely clear on, Jake. But, again, I'm saying -- and let me --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- you don't even know what it (INAUDIBLE) if you don't know what happened.
GIBBS: We can play circular ball all day long, Jake. Obviously we condemn the loss of life and we regret it deeply. I think that is knowable, correct?
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)
GIBBS: OK, good. So I would simply say -- reiterate what is in the statement.
In terms of our relationship with the Muslim world, I think the president has obviously spent a lot of time on improving our relationship with countries throughout the world, and special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world. I do not think that this will have a great impact on that. (CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I just wonder -- I want to talk about oil a little bit. You mentioned that Thad Allen briefed earlier today.
Why did it -- why did it take until day 43 for the administration to decide that you have to speak with one voice and have Thad Allen doing it, not BP briefing?
GIBBS: Well, first of all, I think there were joint briefings that were held at the Joint Information Center in Robert that had a component of both BP and the Coast Guard.
Today's the beginning of hurricane season. Rear Admiral Landry (ph), who was the federal on-scene coordinator, has naturally rotated back to her position of hurricane preparedness in the Gulf.
Obviously, given the prediction by NOAA that this is likely to be a more active season than we've seen in the past, those preparations are enormously important. This is -- this has been a little bit of a difficult situation because, as I've explained here on a number of -- a number of times, there are a lot of different agencies that go into what's made up of the larger federal response.
When Admiral Allen was here last week, we talked about some of the commitments that he had last week in -- in his retirement from the Coast Guard, as he remained as the national incident commander. The briefings that he has won't be at a regular time. They don't be at a regular location. They'll be wherever he is, whenever they're conducive to his schedule, given the enormous amount of work that he has to do in ensuring our response.
QUESTION: Administration officials are also telling us today that part of the problem was that BP was not always giving accurate information in their --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, no, their (INAUDIBLE) officials didn't tell you that today. They told you that on Sunday when Carol Browner on two news shows wanted to ensure that people adequately understood the possible risks involved to the top cap procedure, which --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: -- let me finish this -- which when we cut the cap, our scientists, as part of the flow-rate group, estimate you could see 20 percent increase in the overall outflow of hydrocarbons. This was something that our scientists and others had -- had -- had told us about. Obviously, we were uncomfortable with Saturday's briefing when somebody from BP didn't acknowledge that.
QUESTION: Right, but people have -- critics have for weeks been saying that BP's information was not adding up. You had outside experts saying that it was leaking far more than 5,000 barrels a day. They were saying -- (CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Which is why we set up a flow-rate group to determine adequately, using the best technology possible, Ed --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Right. And it took until Sunday, day 41, for Carol Browner to say, "You know what? BP's information is not accurate." Why did it say so long?
GIBBS: No, no, no, no. Let's not -- I think you're confusing about eight issues into one. Let's understand. No, no, I -- the flow rate is an important aspect to talk about and let's discuss it, because I'm not sure we briefed -- we've briefed since the flow rate group talked about this. The initial estimates that were done used overhead photography to measure the amount of oil on the surface. Right? We know that through the use of sub-sea dispersants it's likely that not everything is going to the top. Right?
So -- and even with the -- the picture that many of you guys are using on television, it's a -- it's not sufficiently of a dimension to fully measure the flow.
Right? We've never been dependent upon BP for information about the flow. In fact, I think you've heard many in the administration discuss accurately that based -- because fines for BP will largely be determined by the amount of pollution emitted, that they may not altogether have the same transparent public interest that we do in ensuring the public knows exactly, to the best of our scientific ability, what's coming from the well.
QUESTION: The president today in the Rose Garden talked about throwing more resources at it (INAUDIBLE) personnel, something he talked about in the region on Friday, about tripling the personnel along the coast, et cetera, in key areas, and yet it still hasn't been capped, despite all those resources. Are you worried --
GIBBS: Those -- again, let's understand (INAUDIBLE) those are resources -- the tripling of resources are in the parishes in which we see the greatest -- where we've seen the greatest amount of oil hit land. Right? So, obviously, there continues to be a frustration with -- with the well not being capped even as we try to do everything in our power.
I think it is important, as many administration officials have said, our interests line up on this. The American people's interests and the company's interest line up on trying to do everything humanly possible to plug that leak.
QUESTION: Right. (INAUDIBLE) the president is saying he's throwing unprecedented resources at it, and yet he still can't solve it. Does that cut into the administration's credibility? The president ran in part on this idea of competence in government being able to solve these big problems? I understand it's unprecedented.
GIBBS: But I think inherent in --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: But you're throwing unprecedented resources and you can't solve it.
GIBBS: No, again -- again, you're -- the unprecedented resources that are referred to are the resources that are on land to deal with the oil that's coming in.
Ed, I think that inherent in the premise of your question is somehow we're not -- there's something that we know that we could do that we're not doing to cap the well. I can dissuade you of that.
QUESTION: So the American people basically are told nobody really knows how to fix this thing?
GIBBS: Well, again, Ed, I don't know if the premise of your question is that somebody in and around this room knows how to do it and we're not doing it.
QUESTION: OK. Last thing. The president in his news conference was talking about how from day one the administration has essentially been in charge, that any big decision you're got to sign off on.
But the previous week, when various people here, starting with Jennifer Loven, were pressing you on why doesn't the government step in, you repeatedly said the government can't, that this is BP's, that the federal government is not in control, legally you can't really be in control. So --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, no, we've always -- no, we've always directed those resources. And as whether it was the top kill, whether it was the top cap, any of the exercises that need to be signed off on by the federal on-scene coordinator in order to make happen, those are done.
Ms. Thomas?
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, the international crime, was pitiful. What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms.
GIBBS: Well --
QUESTION: What is the sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people --
GIBBS: Well, again --
QUESTION: -- and boycotts, and we aid and abets the boycott?
GIBBS: Well, look, I think the initial reaction regretted the loss of life, as we tried and still continue to try to gather the relevant --
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) bring them back.
GIBBS: Nothing can bring them back, Helen. We know that's for sure, because I think if -- if you could, that wouldn't be up for debate.
We are -- we believe that a credible and transparent investigation has to look into the facts.
And as I said earlier, we're open to international participation in that investigation.
QUESTION: Why did you think of it so late?
GIBBS: Why did we think of --
QUESTION: Why didn't you immediately condemn it?
GIBBS: Again, I think the statements that we released speak directly to that.
QUESTION: You've said earlier that the president is enraged. Is he enraged at BP specifically?
GIBBS: I think he's enraged at -- at the -- the time that it's taken, yes. I think he's been enraged over the course of this, as I've discussed, about the fact that, when you're told something is fail-safe and it clearly isn't, that that -- that's the cause for quite a bit of frustration.
I think one of the reasons that -- which is one of the reasons you heard him discuss the setting up of the oil commission in order to create a regulatory framework that ensures something like this doesn't happen again.
QUESTION: Frustration and rage are very different emotions, though. I hadn't -- have we really seen rage from the president on this? I think most people would say no.
GIBBS: I've seen rage from him. I have.
QUESTION: Can you describe it?
Does he yell and scream? what does he do?
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: He said -- he has been in a whole bunch of different meetings -- clenched jaw, even in the midst of these briefings, saying everything has to be done -- I think this was an anecdote shared last week -- "to plug the damn hole."
QUESTION: Does the president still have confidence in BP? Is he losing confidence in BP? Is he trying to separate himself from BP?
GIBBS: Based on what?
QUESTION: Well, based on, number one, Thad Allen basically taking over the daily briefings; number two --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- today, that shot across the bow about prosecution; Eric Holder being sent down there?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I mean -- I mean, he's getting tough with BP. Is that because he is separating himself from BP and making clear that it's their problem?
GIBBS: Well, I would say this. We have -- it has been their problem since day one. It is also our problem. And we're doing everything that we can to both plug the leak as well as to respond at the subsea and on the surface to the pollution that's coming out.
Let's understand the reason that Thad is doing this -- again, I spoke about this with -- with Ed, in terms of being uncomfortable with the nature of their answer as it related to the increased amount of flow --
QUESTION: Well, they, kind of, lied, didn't they?
Why would he be just uncomfortable? That would -- there I can imagine rage. I mean, they said nothing more is going to come out, but all the experts say --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I think, if you look at what Carol said on Sunday, despite the fact that it is not our oil well, we believe that it's tremendously important that the American people have the best information as accurately and as quickly as possible, which is why she said clearly that, one, there was -- there could -- there could be an increase of 20 percent of hydrocarbon coming from the riser when it's sheared off.
We discussed -- look, I think that's the prime example of what she said on Sunday. She also said, I think obviously very accurately, that the long-term solution to this are the drilling of relief wells. Right? And that's like to take until mid-August.
QUESTION: It sounds like you've got this difference over the 20 percent, which the administration you say they're uncomfortable. It seems like that's a pretty mild response to it. And then at the press conference, the president said that they had an interest in minimizing things. That's like you're suggesting --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I didn't say that.
QUESTION: -- but it sounds like you're suggesting BP is lying to the administration. Wouldn't you have a stronger response?
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Do I think -- do I think that BP was forthcoming on what the impact would be of cutting the riser off? No, obviously.
QUESTION: Do you think they're intentionally misleading -- in other words, lying --
GIBBS: I'm not in their meetings -- I'm not in their meetings and what their scientists were telling them. I'm simply conveying to the American people precisely what our scientists are telling us is likely to be the result of cutting the -- the top of the riser.
QUESTION: But does -- does the president overall trust BP?
GIBBS: We will continue to push BP to do whatever we feel is necessary to respond to the leak and to adequately respond to the spread of the oil and to ensure that they pay for all of it so that taxpayers don't bear any of this cost.
QUESTION: Recognizing your (INAUDIBLE) pertaining to (INAUDIBLE), let's take some facts not in dispute. The ship was boarded in international waters. Do you think Israel violated international law doing that?
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I -- I -- I have not asked anybody. I'm not an international law expert.
QUESTION: Correct. Does the administration have a position on that?
GIBBS: I -- I don't know the answer to that.
QUESTION: Was it appropriate, do you think, for -- does the administration think for a humanitarian ship to attempt to break a blockade?
GIBBS: I -- I'm not going to get into the international law implications of all this, Savannah. I think the administration and the international community has spoken on the actions and look forward to a full accounting of the facts.
QUESTION: So -- but rather than the U.S. having an independent reaction, you're aligning yourself with the U.N. Security Council statement. Does that mean that U.S. ratifies and accept everything coming out of the Security Council in this regard?
GIBBS: Things we vote for, yes. I mean, we supported the -- what came out of the U.N. Security Council, so it's --
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) about there being a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the blockade needs to be looked into. GIBBS: Yes. We've -- there's not -- we didn't -- we don't always support the first several paragraphs. We supported and voted for the entire resolution.
QUESTION: Would you concede that the notion of boarding a vessel in order to stop it from breaking the blockade was poorly conceived?
GIBBS: You're -- you're -- you're asking me to be a -- I am many things. I am not an international law expert and I am not a military tactician.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I, again, serve some roles, but neither -- I've never been in a meeting where I've been asked my opinion on international law.
QUESTION: Well, obviously, I'm asking for the administration's position.
GIBBS: I don't have anything to add.
QUESTION: Has the administration considered invoking the Stafford Act regarding the oil spill to speed resources --
GIBBS: Well, the Stafford Act is a set of -- is what is typically done when there's not a responsible party for a disaster. Right? So if a hurricane has caused flooding in Tennessee, governors normally request a Stafford Act declaration to cover damages.
The -- as I understand it with -- in discussing this with the lawyers, the appropriate set of responses is contained in the Oil Pollution Act.
Obviously, I would say -- let me just add -- there are aspects of different types of Stafford -- different types of Stafford responses, such as the program that SBA has began, I think, the 10th of May, offering low-interest loans and providing loan forgiveness for people that have been hurt as an economic consequence of -- of -- of a disaster.
QUESTION: You spoke earlier about the balance of responsibility between the federal government being in charge and -- or perhaps earlier indications that you were relying on BP to run this. Has there been any shift in your mind in the balance between who was controlling this operation between the federal government and BP since it started?
GIBBS: No. Again, I would refer you to what the president said last week.
QUESTION: So you're saying that there has not been any shift since the beginning?
GIBBS: No. We have -- again, and as Thad Allen said here a week -- not a week ago, I guess a week and a day ago -- if there are things that he needs BP to do, then he calls BP And if they don't -- asks them to do them, requires them to do them, and that has the force of law.
QUESTION: Thank you. It's pretty obvious that there was tragic overreaction on both sides, but could you please look into two competing, conflicting reports. One report says Hamas and some terrorist group provided the financing for this flotilla. Another report claims that Israel has actually been giving (ph) a lot of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. If you could look in to both of those reports.
GIBBS: Let me see if there's any direction that we have on -- on either one of those.
QUESTION: Did the U.S. know in advance about the Israeli raid on --
GIBBS: No.
QUESTION: And part of the Indonesia trip is going to be about Muslim outreach.
How will that be shaped given this latest news?
GIBBS: Look, obviously, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. It is important to our efforts, and we work in conjunction with them on counterterrorism and a whole host of issues of mutual concern.
That trip -- I'm not aware of any change in the planning for what will be done on that trip as a result of this.
QUESTION: And Robert Reich says BP should be put under a temporary receivership to ensure that the president is in charge. What do you think of that idea?
GIBBS: What law would that -- I'm not entirely sure what legal mechanism one would have to -- to do that. Do you --
QUESTION: Do you think there should be an effort to --
GIBBS: Maybe I misunderstood. What did -- what did he -- under what law did he ask that be done?
QUESTION: I'm not sure, legally, but there's, you know --
GIBBS: Well, let me -- before I wade in, I just told Savannah I was -- a fact she, I think, readily knew, that I was not an international law expert. I'm probably not a domestic law expert, either, but I'm happy to look at whatever Mr. Reich has. Yes?
QUESTION: On the flow rate projections you guys put together, is it possible that, if this maneuver doesn't succeed and the cutting of the riser, could that increase, for some period of time, the flow rate by 20 percent if it doesn't work?
GIBBS: I think there is --
QUESTION: Is that a possibility that the American people should brace themselves for?
GIBBS: Well, I think, as Carol said clearly on Sunday, that -- well, the flow rate group estimated -- I think this is right -- 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil a day. We believe that that could increase, say, 20 percent with the cut of the riser.
So that puts the bottom at -- I can do that math quicker than I can the other -- 19,000 -- 15,000 for the bottom end of that.
QUESTION: Right.
GIBBS: I think cutting -- and I will -- again, we'll send out Admiral Allen's briefing. There will be a -- there will be a time between the cut of that riser and the placement of a cap.
So I've seen varying estimates, but let's assume several days of increased hydrocarbon pollution in the time in which it takes to install some sort of top cap. Some of that, again, as Thad Allen said, is based on -- based on the cut that's made by the saw.
QUESTION: Right. But it's possible, considering the history of all the other efforts undertaken technologically so far, that the cut won't be as clean as they need --
GIBBS: Right.
QUESTION: -- there will be too much push, too much --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: As Thad said, there's a couple of different caps --
QUESTION: Right.
GIBBS: -- again, based on that cut, that may seal more hydrocarbon pollution than the other. Again, this is not without risk in terms of --
QUESTION: Is it without risk in making things worse?
GIBBS: No, it's not without risk at all, no. It's very -- I mean, I think, as the president statement's said on Saturday, that, look, there's very little that is done now, based on where we are in the efforts to contain the well -- again, understanding that, obviously, we have done things in varying degree of risk. If this was less risky than, say, the top kill, we would have done that before. Again, and I think, just to be completely transparent, I think you've seen Admiral Allen say today that there is also some concern about the condition of the well and the well bore relating to the explosion that happened on the -- on the 20th of April.
QUESTION: Would you say this disagreement over the flow rate is the only incidence in which BP has not been as forthcoming as the federal government would prefer, or is it part of a series of incidents where --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- it has not been as honest as you would --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, look, I mean, Tony Hayward said -- I forget exactly what Tony Hayward said last week in terms of the degree to which -- whether or not there was any real pollution involved. Obviously, I don't -- I don't see anybody -- how anybody could come to that conclusion. We -- I clearly on Saturday did not feel comfortable with their explanation on the possible increase in flow.
QUESTION: Yesterday, it was noted in the daily assessment of things that the -- one of the relief wells being drilled is 10 days ahead of schedule. Are you satisfied with BP's efforts in that regard?
GIBBS: Well, as I understand it, that well is 12,000 -- about, as of last night, about 12,000 feet down. That includes the roughly 5,000 feet of ocean. As you said, that's ahead of schedule and that is the -- that is the long-term permanent solution to the -- the problem that we have at the well site right now.
So regardless of the success of the operation currently ongoing, that's the permanent solution which is, you know, again in top kill, forcing the mud down, creating the stabilizing pressure ultimately would have led to the cementing of the well. Drilling that relief well, placing another blowout preventer obviously on that well as it's drilled, and ultimately cementing it is the long-term solution for what's going on now.
QUESTION: Can you tell us the degree to which internally the conversation (INAUDIBLE) president, hey, can you sketch out for me what this is going to look like if we have to wait until August for this relief well to be the final, ultimate solution? What kind of ecological damage are we talking about? And is there a point at which we (INAUDIBLE) calculated -- no matter how much we legitimately and legally hold BP, Transocean and Halliburton responsible, there may not be enough money to deal with all this and we may need a federal response, a taxpayer response that -- that --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I have not heard -- I have not heard the latter, because the responsible party per the law will pay that amount. We have in sending legislation to improve a number of the regulatory structures around the relationship between oil and the government, one of the things that we called for was the lifting of the economic liability cap to an unlimited level that we feel comfortable -- that's where we feel comfortable, given the enormity of the disaster that we're looking at right now.
In terms of the --
QUESTION: -- talking about both sides of Florida, parts of the mid-Atlantic?
GIBBS: Look, I have --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Has that been conveyed to the president?
GIBBS: I -- I don't know the degree to which the full -- a full damage assessment has been worked up to that -- to that level based on the loop current and the wind direction and things like that.
You know, obviously, Major, we can, taking the flow rate figures that the group came out with last week, understanding, again, the floor now at 15,000 after the riser is cut, look, you can begin to quickly do -- do the math to figure out the millions of gallons of oil that will be in the gulf and could spread. And I think that's a -- it's a -- those are sobering figures. And you can understand, as the president said today, we are dealing with the largest environmental disaster in our country's history.
QUESTION: The long-term, permanent solution, is August the outside date by which that is expected to work or could it be even later?
GIBBS: I -- I -- I assume it could be both earlier and later. I think the target date was mid-August, in terms of drilling to the -- drilling to the level at which you would need to go in order to construct that relief well.
QUESTION: And let me ask you, with the credible report that the Al Qaida number three has been killed in Pakistan, how important a blow is that? Some have described it as being as important or even more important than getting bin Laden.
GIBBS: Well, in talking with -- you know, obviously Al Qaeda has -- has commented on the loss of -- of this individual, and we welcome his demise.
In speaking with John Brennan and others today, I didn't ask specifically the question of in comparison. John was quite clear in saying this is the -- this is the biggest target to be either killed or captured in five years, and it's somebody who intricately understood and was on top of the financing of Al Qaida.
So, it is a -- unquestionably is a severe blow.
QUESTION: When was the president informed?
GIBBS: I believe the answer to that's sometime yesterday, but I will -- I will double-check on that.
QUESTION: Robert, I wonder if you could talk about whether the president is worried that the spill is going to so consume everything until August that the rest of his agenda is hobbled to some extent? He's had a lot of things on his plate. He promised at one point that this year would all be about jobs, jobs, jobs. He's obviously spending --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: The truth is, we'll get -- before you -- you know, look, I think we sort of periodically obviously get economic figures in order to gauge where we are in the recovery. Today an increase in the manufacturing index above what had been expected, and the largest spending increase in construction in 10 years, aided by the Recovery Act. And we'll get a sense of where we are in the continuum of that jobs recovery with the new figures on Friday.
QUESTION: Is there an opportunity cost on (INAUDIBLE) things that the president had in mind for this year that may be --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: I don't. I mean, look, I was asked several weeks ago what did this particular incident do to the likelihood of -- of a clean energy bill or a comprehensive energy bill.
And, look, I think, you -- it becomes clear, the president said this last week, in visiting a solar factory in California, that it becomes clearer that we can -- if we are going to be less dependent on foreign oil, then we're going to be more dependent on domestic oil.
In order to not be -- not simply take the dependence of one and move it to a proximity closer, we have to invest heavily in -- in a clean energy economy, largely what was done through the Recovery Act, but creating a marketplace for that to continue is tremendously important.
So I don't think it -- I think it adds to the urgency of getting something done on energy.
And I would say this, one of the things that we have learned throughout our time here is you -- you do not get to pick what events you deal with. And the president -- the president doesn't have that luxury, including rain yesterday.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) after our last chance with you last week, we received this memo from Bob Bower on the Sestak matter. For three months -- this is the response for three months of questioning.
I'm just wondering, if it's not a big deal, as -- as you guys were saying, then why did we wait for three months to -- to answer that question.
GIBBS: I'd have to ask counsel for a better answer on that. I don't know the answer.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- chance to review that, as the chief spokesman for the White House, you were asked about it (ph) number of occasions. Don't you think that that kind of created a --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: -- bear responsibility for that. I could understand that.
QUESTION: When President Obama spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, did he suggest the time has come to either change or alter the embargo of --
GIBBS: I can check. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.
QUESTION: And was the United States blindsided by this incident? Certainly a lot of other countries, including Turkey knew that this flotilla was headed --
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, I think the question that I took earlier, just to be clear, was did we have knowledge of the military operation? And the answer to that was no.
Obviously, this is not the -- this is not the first flotilla that -- that has happened.
So, again, my answer previously was based on previous knowledge of the military operation, which -- which the president did not have.
