Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Future of Natural Gas
Aired June 29, 2010 - 13:48 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: What we've got here is an empty room. They've taken a lunch break in the Elena Kagan hearings. She, of course, nominated to be the next Supreme Court justice.
And guess what? On the other hearing that they were doing over General David Petraeus to be the commander in Afghanistan, they are done. So a pretty quick turnaround for both of the -- for Petraeus, not so much for Kagan.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: General Petraeus is done for the day. The questions were much more about Afghanistan policy than about the new commander. He will be confirmed by the full Senate most likely by the end of the week.
Elena Kagan will be back, Candy, at 2:15. She will have more questions. She seems on her way to confirmation, but it did get a little contentious today. It's interesting to watch. We will stay on top of it.
Now, though, we want to go to Richard Lui in Atlanta, who is tracking the day's other big stories, including Iraqi day on Wall Street and severe weather in the Gulf of Mexico -- Richard.
RICHARD LUI, CNN ANCHOR: All right, John. Back to you in just a little bit. Yes, I'm Richard Lui in for Ali Velshi on this day. Here's what we've got on the rundown for you.
First off, war, law and politics, all swirling around and Capitol Hill today in twin hearings that we've been watching for David Petraeus, which they were saying just ended as well as for Elena Kagan. He's seeking the top post in Afghanistan. We're talking about General David Petraeus. She is seeking the top court in the U.S. We're covering it from every angle for you, right here.
Plus, we've brought you the story of a boat captain, not too long ago, who lost $100,000 to the Gulf oil disaster. But he got only a fraction of that back so far from BP. And he's not the only one, unfortunately. We are following up with him for you.
Also, who says it's a man's world? "Forbes" is out with its list of most powerful celebs, and my friends, women rule.
OK. Our top story, first. Hurricane warnings now up along the western Gulf shore, as Alex picks up speed. That's been a concern over the weekend. And right now, it's heading its way away, away from the oil spill, possibly taking aim at southeast Texas. Also, let's get straight to Chad Myers on this. And Chad, are you concerned about this as it sort of moves toward the southern parts of Texas and Mexico?
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yes, from Brownsville all the way up to Bath and Bay. That's where our hurricane warning is right now for Texas. And there's a tropical storm warning a little bit farther north from there. But really, from Monterey, Mexico, all the way back down to about Le Cruz, you're seeing a very big flare up in the storm today. This is what we expected when we talked about the warm water that we're going to see.
Here's the Yucatan Peninsula, hard to see under this map. But they're over there. Cancun would be right there. As it traveled over Belize and over the Yucatan, storms only get bigger. Hurricanes only get bigger when they're over water. It was over land for a while. As it was over land, it lost a lot of punch. That's good.
Let me make this smaller, so you can begin to see where the rest of the Gulf of Mexico is: Brownsville to Houston to New Orleans to Pensacola. What's going to happen, even though we're not going to see any landfall or anything close to the oil slick, the winds are going to be coming in from the east and from the southeast for days. Literally for 72 hours. Three days.
That will take this oil slick and push it back into the marshes of Louisiana, back into the Chandelier Islands, back into Mississippi and Alabama, but moving it away from Florida, moving it away from Pensacola, moving it away from Panama City, from Cape Sandblast, and pushing it back off to the west.
That's a decent scenario for Florida. The better scenario for everyone would have been had it turned off, gone through the Florida Straits and then up and away as a 35-miles-per-hour tropical storm, because then the winds would have been this way, and they would have taken the oil and pushed it off shore. That's not likely at this point in time. I believe every single model is doing this, somewhere just south of Brownsville. I had one model earlier to Corpus Christi, but I don't know that I believe that.
So whatever, irrelevant. It's going to be a hurricane. It will be at 85, maybe a 95 mile-per-hour hurricane as it comes on shore, and that will be somewhere between Corpus Christi and all the way down here into Mexico. We always want to focus on the cone. It's the first storm of the year. Have a lot of focus on the line already. We know it's only 300 miles away from shore. It's not going to wobble too far left and right.
LUI: You bring up a good point. We're early in the season, but you were watching the water temperatures about a week and a half, two weeks ago. And you said, "Richard, it's warm."
MYERS: Record. Record heat.
LUI: It could be a tough season. MYERS: Oh, absolutely. Now, the forecast office -- the hurricane center saying maybe up to 20 named storms. Yes, I mean, it's dodging a bullet, if you have 20 different things going by this oil slick, something is going to hit. We're on Alex right now.
LUI: Chad Myers watching that for us over the next couple days. We appreciate that.
Also, we're watching for you what's happening on the Gulf and how BP is trying to combat the possibility of a hurricane that may be coming close to the oil spill. This is some of the things that they're doing right behind us. This is the plan that BP has published now.
What you can see is two strategies. First off, you have on the left-hand side here, this is a free-standing riser. Basically, it sits about 300 feet underneath the surface. So that when a hurricane comes through, if a surge passes through, they can quickly disconnect the surface equipment and then move away.
Unfortunately, because of Alex, they've had to push that off a little bit. It's been delayed slightly. That's one mitigating strategy.
The second mitigating strategy is this, the Q-4000 on the right- hand side there. That Q-4000 also has flexible piping. That means, with the flexible piping, they can remove the equipment in some 100 hours. If they didn't have, if they had rigid piping, it would be 100 hours. Rather, with this flexible ping, it is 50 hours.
And then we have the LMRP cap, which is also recovering some of that oil.
So that's what they're trying to do at the moment to deploy, should Alex or any other hurricane come close to what you see right here, which are live pictures, as we watch that LMRP cap with its fins on the end sitting on top of that BOP that has been cut off.
So far the numbers that we've got for you, 23,395 barrels is what has been captured for just yesterday. Also in those numbers, when we take a look at, in total captured to date, 483,500 barrels. That is a lot of oil.
Now, the comments that have been coming in all across the world, of course, as this leak continues. And former president Bill Clinton, who was at the scene and global forum in South Africa actually said, you know, in terms of solutions he had said the Navy has to go down, and I'm quoting here, deep, to blow up the well, and cover the leak with piles of rocks and debris. He was not alluding here to using nuclear weapons. But he was saying, that might be a solution, given that this oil continues to leak. We're now looking at day 71.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden went down to New Orleans, was visiting earlier today, and he has just finished a touring of central command, and he had just said, quote, "I just came to say thanks. I appreciate it. You're probably missing out on vacation," end quote. So the vice president down there in New Orleans.
And with him, we also have our reporter, CNN correspondent, Allan Chernoff, who is there following the vice president.
Allan, you're on the phone with us right now. What is the vice president doing?
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via phone): Right, Richard. This is actually the vice president's first visit to the Gulf region since deep water disaster. He did tour central command in downtown New Orleans. And met with response leaders for about an hour, including Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard. Then he received a brief tour of the operation center from the on-scene coordinator, James Watson, also of the Coast Guard.
And he said that the vice president told the workers that he really appreciates their effort. He thanked them, and then he said, "My mother would say, 'God loves you'."
Now he's headed to Hamid (ph) Seafood. It's a wholesaler in New Orleans, and he'll be meeting with local fishermen over there to talk about the situation and how they're coping -- Richard.
LUI: Yes, and they've been hit so hard, all of these restaurants, as well as the seafood suppliers and the residents. You're there right now. What's the reaction to the vice president there now and his first trip?
CHERNOFF: Well, the people who actually did see the vice president were the 400 or so employees at central command, and they certainly seemed very appreciative. Keep in mind, most of them are federal government employees. It seems the vast majority at central command were working for the Coast Guard. And certainly that is -- his visit seems to raise morale and not that morale was slacking in the least. It's a very intense place. People hard at work, doing whatever they can to mitigate the effects of this terrible disaster.
LUI: Allan Chernoff, our correspondent there, watching the vice president's first trip down to the Gulf area after this oil spill started 71 days ago. Thank you so much.
And then after a break, we're going back to the Gulf where fishermen are losing big money, and BP is offering, in many cases, small change. We've told you the story. We're going to follow the dollars and updating a story that we brought you last week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: The stories of all the fishermen down in the Gulf who have been hit so hard financially is something that we've told many a time. We wanted to update you on the plight of one Louisiana charter boat captain who was getting a refund that only 30 cents on a dollar was his offer for his losses. He's now hoping he'll get a large lump sum from the administrator who's handling this assistance for all of those that are hurt there in the Gulf are region.
Let's go to Chris Lawrence with an update now on that captain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): We first met Stu Shear on one of his charter boats.
(on camera) Six boats, right?
(voice-over) His customers scared off by the oil spill. Stu filed a claim with BP for damage done to his fishing business.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They wanted 2007, '08, '09 returns. They wanted my log books. They wanted my bank statements. They wanted all my license, P&L statement.
LAWRENCE (on camera): So you laid out --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything.
LAWRENCE: -- all this paperwork for them?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything.
LAWRENCE: To the number?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To the penny, virtually. My bookings for this year amounted to a gross net of $107,000. And they basically offered me $33,000.
LAWRENCE: We've learned that BP is using a process called "forensic accounting." Technically, it means the application of scientific knowledge to a legal problem, and it's usable in a court of law. But to a lot of businesses down here like Stu's, forensic just means death.
(voice-over) This investigative approach prevents fraud, but in Stu's case, only covers partial losses from months past.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With that type of a formula, you know, if they get the well cap, they may come back in two or three months and say, well, you can fish now, you see? But it doesn't quite work that way.
LAWRENCE: Those people who had booked out of state charter boat trips, they're just -- they've already cancelled.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. I mean, here to give you an example, actual bookings. In October it was $13,400 gross. You know, I can't say, well, let's look at in October. The estimate flattens out (ph). So we've lost that business.
LAWRENCE: So we went back to BP where an official told us Stu's claim is now being recalculated.
And what about having to come back to the adjuster every 30 days? We took that concern to the man about to take charge of the whole claims process. Some of the folks have complained to us that they're being forced to file their claims every single month. They feel like they're being treated like children, handed an allowance.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm sympathetic to that complaint. Senator Landrieu suggested to me to consider the idea of an emergency lump sum payment maybe over three to six months, rather than one month. And I think that I'll give that serious consideration. I'm inclined to do it.
LAWRENCE (on camera): So if Ken Feinberg keeps his word and follows through and you were to get a payment from July through December in addition to that $33,000 that they have already offered you --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that would probably, you know, be pretty good. You know, I'm hopeful that everything that he said, you know, will come about. And I think that with him in charge, I'm a lot more optimistic.
LAWRENCE: And, again, when you've got $100,000 in losses and you're offering $33, optimistic is pretty good at this point. But that decision potentially to offer a six-month payment instead of every 30 days, that can have big implications, not just for Stu, but for a lot of people here. He's just one of 80,000 claims that are out there right now.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, New Orleans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LUI: All right. "Forbes" just ranking this year's most powerful celebrities. And if you think it's still a man's world, you're going to have to think again, my friends.
Plus, it's not all about money.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: All right. We are watching the Dow today. This is the concern as you can see, right over my soldier -- shoulder, rather. Down over 2.5 percent today. This followed what was happening in Asia and Europe. So what's happening? We're reading global jitters. But what does that mean?
Christine Romans in New York has been following this for us today.
So Christine, what is happening?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's happening here is you had concerns in stocks overnight. All of the major stock averages in Asia and Europe were down. And then we open lower.
And then you have this consumer confidence report in the U.S. that was really disappointing. I mean, it showed that people are very jittery in June. Something happened in June to make people nervous, consumers nervous.
Most likely, they're seeing that there still is an unemployment rate in this country close to 10 percent, and that's a problem. You also had some concerns overnight about China and the strength of the Chinese recovery. You know, China has been a driver of the global economic recovery and if China slows down that -- you know, that's something that people are closely watching. So a 2.5 percent decline almost to the Dow Jones industrial average and all 30, Richard, Dow stocks are getting hit today. So Dow back below 10,000.
LUI: Below 10,000. Just psychological, I guess?
ROMANS: It is psychological. But what it also tells us, you look at the S&P and the NASDAQ, they're below their closing lows for this year. So they're below, you know -- you're negative, your investment in the S&P and the NASDAQ are negative for the year. Not yet for the Dow, but negative in those.
So psychological on the Dow, yes. But that psychological level means, you know, the value of your stock investments is going down here today.
LUI: All right. Well, you know with that happening, let's have some fun, won't we, for a couple minutes.
ROMANS: Let's.
LUI: Let's talk about the most powerful celebrities in the world. And "Forbes" just came out with their list. And you know, Christine, a lot of women on this list at the top.
ROMANS: That's right. Six of the top ten on the "Forbes" celebrity 100 list are women. And the top two are African-American women. Oprah Winfrey tops the list. She made just over 310, $315 million last year. One of the reasons why -- Oprah knocked Angelina Jolie off the No. 1 spot, by the way. Angelina Jolie is now No. 18. Beyonce Knowles is No. 2, $87 million is how "Forbes" estimates her worth from last year, her earnings from last year.
James Cameron, of course "Avatar," $210 million.
Lady Gaga debuting at No. 4. Very rare to debut in the very top.
LUI: Yes.
ROMANS: She had a very successful -- yes, she had a very successful campaign. Campaign? You can tell it's a midterm election year, right?
LUI: Yes, exactly.
ROMANS: She had a successful tour. And Tiger Woods stays No. five, most likely because many of his endorsements and contracts paid out no matter what last year, but he could slip, many suspect, this year. Really, an interesting list. It doesn't just measure earnings. Because it also measures that je ne sais quoi of celebrities, their ability to harness their name for other kinds of issues and other kinds of businesses.
Beyonce, for example, has a lot of different endorsements from L'Oreal to Nintendo. She has a clothing line. She's -- she's very broad-based.
And when you look at Oprah, she's a self-made billionaire, Richard. But it's not just her. She is also a star-maker. Other people who come on her show, who then spin off into their own very successful and profitable enterprises, too. So she's No. 1 on the list.
Also, if you're a "Twilight" fan, I don't know if you like those vampire movies.
LUI: I liked the first one.
ROMANS: Robert Pattinson and oh, what's -- I'm showing my age. But the -- Stewart, Kristin Stewart. They both made the top 100 this year, as well. So they debuted for the first time in the top 100 of the celebrity 100 list.
LUI: And they're young and very well-loved. But Oprah, I was reading $1 million a day or something close to that. We were discussing that earlier, my producer and I.
ROMANS: I figured it out. I figured it out. And it looks like if "Forbes" is right, she makes about $863,000 every single day. Rain or shine.
LUI: Boy, she picked right profession. And like you said, she's a market-maker. She's also a network-maker with O.
OK. Christine Romans, thanks so much.
ROMANS: Sure.
LUI: A little fun there, when the market takes a dip on this day.
And you can catch more of Christine, along with our own Ali Velshi, on "YOUR $$$$$," Saturdays at 1 p.m. and Sundays at 3 p.m. Eastern Time, as well.
All right. Let's check out our top stories for you at the moment.
Day 71 of the Gulf oil disaster, and all eyes are on Tropical Storm Alex as it moves through Gulf. Forecasts showing it could make landfall tomorrow near the Texas/Mexico border as a hurricane. And even though it's hundreds of miles from the spill zone, the storm still affecting clean-up. BP's delayed bringing a third containment ship out to its well head because of potential rough seas.
And let the Q and A begin. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee today. The first real heat of the confirmation hearing coming very early on. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions challenging her opinion of the military, focusing on one specific policy position. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I do oppose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: And you did then.
KAGAN: And I did then.
SESSIONS: And you -- in '03, not long after you had been -- became president, you said, quote, "I abhor the military's discrimination recruitment policy." Close quote. "I consider it," quote, "a profound wrong. A moral injustice of the first order," close quote. And you said that not within six months or so of becoming dean. And that was an e-mail you sent to the entire law school.
KAGAN: Senator Sessions, I have repeatedly said that I believe that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then, and I believe it now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LUI: There you have it. The nominee being very specific.
Also for you today, Tampa, Florida, police mounting a huge manhunt, even as they mourn two colleagues. The officers were fatally shot during a traffic stop overnight. Officer Dave Curtis was the father of four boys. Officer Jeffrey Kocab due to become a first-time dad.
We've just gotten word that police have apprehended their female person of interest in the shooting. Her male passenger is still at large.
And it is one of the most popular diabetes drugs on market. And, it's again being linked to a possible heart attack risk. Details straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: All right. Two new studies are raising some safety questions about the type two diabetes drug, Avandia. Now senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is here with more details on that.
What's the latest on this? Wasn't it already taken off market?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: No, it wasn't taken off the market, much to many people's surprise. More data showing that it's more dangerous than other drugs that do the same thing.
Let's take a look at these numbers, because they're actually pretty stunning.
This study that's just out says that elderly people taking this diabetes drug, Avandia, have a 27 percent increased risk of having a stroke; a 25 percent increased risk of heart failure; and a 14 percent increased risk of death.
And that when you add that all together, sort of across the country, if people stopped taking Avandia, like this minute, there would be 500 fewer heart attacks per month and 300 fewer cases of heart failure per month.
But GlaxoSmithKline, the company that makes Avandia, says Avandia is not more risky than other drugs. They say other studies, better studies, show it's not more risky.
LUI: All right. Those numbers, though, are quite conclusive, depending on your point of view. But those are big numbers. Why hasn't it been taken off the market?
COHEN: Well, the FDA says they need to do more studies. But it's interesting, because the FDA, which, of course, controls whether or not it stays on the market, is having a meeting next month, and some say that may be not such great news for Avandia. So a lot of people want it off the market.
LUI: OK. So what should you do? Should you just stop all together if you have one of those bottles with the pink label on it?
COHEN: No, you shouldn't stop all together. You want to talk to your doctor. And keep in mind, there are other drugs that are -- that will give you the same good effect that Avandia gives you, that will do the good things that Avandia does without the risk. And that's important to keep in mind. That's why the American Diabetes Association says people should stop taking it.
LUI: All right. Thanks for the data. Very latest on Avandia right now with Elizabeth Cohen.
Straight ahead for you, we go live to Washington and the best political team on television. Twin hearings we're watching today for General David Petraeus and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, the former ending just recently. We're covering them from every angle for you. Plus, you catch even more of the back and forth on CNN.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: The United States Capitol there. A busy and important day here in Washington, D.C. Normally, Washington gets a little sleepy in the summertime, but not just quite yet today. We're covering two big confirmation hearings.
That room dark at the moment, but that's where the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next and 112th Supreme Court justice in our hospital. She will be back at the witness table taking questions from senators in a moment. I'm John King in Washington, welcome back to our continuing coverage and let's focus for now on Elena Kagan. There was another big confirmation hearing today, we will get to that one momentarily.
The big question is, she is the president's nominee, she's never been a judge before. And so, as we begin a conversation around the table here in the room, one of the questions is, who is she? Can we learn anything about her judicial philosophy?
The lead republican on the committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, gave it his best effort this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Do you agree with the characterization that you are a legal progressive?
ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Senator Sessions, I honestly don't know what that label means. I have worked in two democratic administrations. Senator Graham suggested yesterday, and I think he's right, that you can tell something about me and my political views from that. But as I suggested to you, that my political views are one thing --
SESSIONS: Well, but I would agree with you exactly, that you should not be condemned for being a political believer and taking part the in the process and having views. But I'm -- asking about his firm statement that you are a legal progressive, which means something.
I think he knew what he was talking about. He's a skilled lawyer. He has been in the midst of the great debates of this country about law and politics, just as you have.
And so I ask you again, do you think that is a fair characterization of your views? Certainly, you don't think he was attempting to embarrass you or hurt you in that process, do you?
KAGAN: I love my good friend, Ron Klain, but I guess I think that people should be allowed to label themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Point of reference there, Ron Klain the long time counselor to Al Gore, the former vice president, currently the chief of staff to Joe Biden, the current vice president.
Ed Rollins, let me start with you since you had to work at that crossroads between legal and political when you helped Ronald Reagan pick judges. Was that the right answer?
ED ROLLINS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, she could come out and say whatever she is. I mean, at the end of the day, she is a liberal democrat, she is expected to serve that role in the court. And I think all this dancing around that we're doing today -- I mean, you would not be there. There is no judge today on either side that gets appointed who is not a democrat or republican, somewhat activist. It's not because you have the greatest legal mind in the world, it's because you have participated in the process as auto U.S. attorney or something before that.
I think at the end of the day here, you know, she is going to -- it's always our side that loses. Our side names people that end up going south on us. Democrats pretty much have a record, they name good democrats.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's a myth. That hasn't happened for years.
Souter, if it you looked at David Souter's record, he was not a surprise. George Herbert Walker Bush, who appointed him, didn't care what his record was.
ROLLINS: Well he certainly didn't expect him to -- the most liberal member for the whole time he was there. And I don't think --
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: I don't think Gerald Ford exactly thought John Paul Stevens was going to be one of the great liberal giants.
TOOBIN: But John Paul -- but Gerald Ford said that he would like to have his presidency evaluated by his appointment of John Paul Stevens.
ROLLINS: It was.
TOOBIN: So I think what it illustrates --
(LAUGHTER)
TOOBIN: That's right, but I think one of the things -- one of the things the Supreme Court debate illustrates is the shift in the Republican Party. Because the party of Anthony Kennedy, of Sandra Day O'Connor, of John Paul Stevens, of David Souter, that party is gone and the party is of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. That's the difference between the party of the '70th and '80s to the party of today.
ROLLINS: I think you could go back and argue the '70s was the Ronald Reagan party which pretty much was the preset -- the predecessor of --
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But there are some liberals who are arguing that she is not liberal enough. That there are questions about her on issues of abortion, on issues of executive power. And so they're raising -- you know, they're raising questions about her. So, you know, your description of her as a liberal is not what lots of liberals think.
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY: Well, liberals are afraid they're going to have a Souter moment.
BORGER: Right. There you go. KING: What is a legal progressive? If Ron Klain is right, she doesn't want to be labeled by others, but if he is right -- Candy, maybe you can help me maybe on this one -- if he's right, what is a legal progressive?
TOENSING: Well, no lawyer is going to know.
CROWLEY: I mean, you know, that is code for they're going to take social causes and codify them somehow on the Supreme Court. That's the definition that republicans have.
No, I mean -- but when republicans say -- we're talking politics here. When republicans say it, what they mean is, this person isn't going to interpret the law. They're going to try to make law and they're particularly worried about social issues.
TOOBIN: Yes, and I think it's more specific. I think when he says Elena Kagan is a legal progressive, he means support abortion rights, support affirmative action, believe in the power of the federal government regular campaign finance. There is a list of issues that the court deals with, and the progressives take one side and the conservatives take the other.
TOENSING: And what a shock that Barack Obama would nominate somebody like that, right?
KING: One question was would she be specific on the issues. And one issue where she was fairly specific was on the issue of gay rights, particularly in the context of homosexuals serving openly in the military. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SESSIONS: Now when you became dean, you personally opposed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and felt strongly about it, did you not?
KAGAN: I do oppose the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
SESSIONS: And you did then.
KAGAN: And I did then.
SESSIONS: And you -- in '03, not long after you had been -- became president, you said, quote, "I abhor the military's discrimination recruitment policy," close quote. I consider it, quote, "a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order," close quote. And you said that not within six months or so of becoming dean, and that was an e-mail you sent to the entire law school.
KAGAN: Senator Sessions, I have repeatedly said that I believe that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then and I believe it now.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Donna Brazile, this answer, her acknowledging, yes, I have served in democratic administrations, I share their goals on a couple of other points. The White House saying, look, she is being as specific as she can be and the republican argument that she is being vague and avoiding the questions is not true.
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I think she is being very, very clear in had terms of her position. She was on campaign finance, but she said the government has a compelling interest. She was -- she said some things on antitrust where I think she outlined her views. She talked about cameras in the court.
You know, I know republicans, when they lack a coherent attack on someone would just try to put a label on them so they can then paint them as something that they're not. Elena Kagan is a pragmatist. She is in the -- I think, the mold of President Obama. Someone that, you know, takes a little bit from the liberals, a little from the conservatives and if it works and is good and it's legal, that is who she is.
But I think she has been quite good today in answering these tough questions.
ROLLINS: Still waiting for the little bit of conservativism on the part of the president.
(LAUGHTER)
BRAZILE: Excuse me? This is a president that has kept many of President Bush's policies from the war.
(CROSSTALK)
TOENSING: But she opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was a Clinton policy and she worked in the Clinton White House.
TOOBIN: But there is also another thing about what she said and didn't say about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She said she opposes it as a matter of policy. She didn't say she thinks it's unconstitutional. Thurgood Marshall liked to say that the Constitution doesn't top Congress from passing stupid laws, and that just because a law is stupid and you would not vote for it as a legislator, doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional. So that's a line she is walking there, too, as well.
CROWLEY: There was another hearing today -- that one is over, actually -- for General David Petraeus to become the commander in Afghanistan. We're going to take a look at those hearings after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Busy, busy, busy on Capitol Hill today, where we had two sort of competing hearings going on; one for Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice, that is in a lunch break, the other for General David Petraeus to take over command in Afghanistan, that one is over.
They certainly brought to the table in the Petraeus hearings a lot of concerns, but they were not about David Petraeus, they were about what's going on in Afghanistan. Republicans in particular had a number of questions about, A, the rules of engagement, that is what soldiers are allowed and not allowed to do in the field, and B, that timeline the president has set for July of 2011 to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.
Here is Lindsey Graham talking about those concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I don't know how this translates in Pashtun, but it is not translating well for me in English in this terms of where we're at and where we're going. And I would not use the word relentless, General, in terms of the policy we're embarking on. That's just my two cents worth.
From what I can take, here is the summary of your testimony from my point of view, and I may be wrong. It doesn't appear there are going to be any civilian changes in terms of the team in Afghanistan, is that correct?
PETRAEUS: That's beyond my purview, Senator.
GRAHAM: OK. From what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any contemplated.
From your testimony, I think you've created an expectation by the American people in July 2011 we will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan. Is that a correct assumption I have made or not?
PETRAEUS: What I have done is restate the policy as it currently exists, Senator. And the policy, again, that as I stated, I supported and agreed to back last fall to begin a process in it July 2011 by under which tasks are transferred to Afghan Security Forces and government officials, and a, quote, "responsible drawdown of the surge forces begins pace to be determined by conditions."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: So we'll try to break all of this down here with our panel.
I mean, it seems to me, there were a couple of things that the general wanted to get across, because this was not just about the Senate agenda, it's about the general's agenda.
He first sort of pushed back against the notion over the last two, three months that the war is going very badly. In his opening statement, it was all about here is where we have succeeded, here is what we have done right, while conceding that it's been more difficult than they thought it would be, particularly in Marjah, which is where they made their first sort of big offensive against a Taliban stronghold. The other was about the rules of engagement in which he said, I'm going to look at them. That is, the soldiers felt constricted by what they could and couldn't do, the rules on the field.
And the third one is this darn deadline. And it seems to me, that's where he walked sort of the finest line there, because you don't want to say, well, we're not going to pay any attention to it, nor do you want to say hard and fast we're out.
BORGER: Right. The word that just jumped out at me is responsible drawdown. No one ever thought we were going to have an irresponsible drawdown, but it clearly gives them some wiggle room, giving conditions on the ground, which is what John McCain clearly wants to hear. He doesn't want to have a timeline at all.
And then you've got your democrats who want a serious drawdown starting in July 2011. So it's very clear that the general understands how to be political when he needs to be. And he was.
TOENSING: Democrats like Joe Biden who says, for sure you can bet on it, we're out of here.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the speech of July 11th.
BORGER: You know, there's going to be a vote in the House on funding for the war. And there are lots of democrats who have said, well, they're not going to stop the funding for the war, they're going to send a message to this president by voting against it because they're very worried that the administration is not going to stick to this.
ROLLINS: The message here is, we're glad you're in the fight. We're glad you're the guy and we'll hold your coat, but we're not sure it's a fight you can win. And I think to a certain extent, he walked the line. He doesn't get to make the president's policy, and I think the combination of the -- and I repeat, the vice president out there, basically, emphatically stating we're out of there July 1st, a year from now, more so even than the president, has sent mixed messages.
BRAZILE: Well, how do you define victory? And I think one of the complications with all of this is making sure that the Afghan people, the government are on target to meet their goals.
There's no way we're going to win this war without having the government and the people and the tribes and the villages all working together with the U.S. in coalition forces to ensure that once we clear the Taliban, clear the bad people or bad persons, then we can hold that territory so they don't come back.
(CROSSTALK)
ROLLINS: I don't think win has been in this definition for a long period of time.
TOENSING: The president doesn't use the word "victory." It's not in his vocabulary. CROWLEY: I hate to cut you all after here. We will be back later this afternoon on the Kagan hearings. They're on lunch break right now.
Right now, we want to take a quick break. When we come back, we will take you to Atlanta and Richard Lui.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: Now to our top stories.
We begin with an update on the oil disaster. Vice President Biden arriving in New Orleans for an up-close look at the cleanup. BP saying nearly 500,000 barrels of oil have been collected so far. Later, Biden plans to visit the Florida panhandle.
Our General David Petraeus is warning senators not to expect a quick withdraw of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. President Obama nominated him to be the top U.S. commander there. Testifying at his confirmation hearing today, Petraeus said withdrawal will be determined by conditions on the ground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY: It is important to note the president's reminder in recent days that July 2011 will mark the beginning of a process, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits and turns out the lights. As he explained this past Sunday, in fact, we'll need to provide assistance to Afghanistan for a long time to come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LUI: Also in our top stories, we are hearing from Lance Armstrong, who says this will be his last year competing in the Tour de France. The announcement appears on Armstrong's Twitter site. Armstrong won the French bicycle race seven times in a row from 1999 to 2005. He skipped it for four years, and then came in third last year on his return. This year's Tour de France begins on Saturday.
So how do we prevent future oil disasters? A lot of people say, hey, just stop using so much oil. A possible solution here could be natural gas. You'll never look at natural gas the same way again.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: In "The Big 'I'" on this Tuesday we are talking about energy independence. The debate is on about oil because of the current leak that is now in day 71 in the Gulf. There's also the debate of coal, is that a solution? And then there's natural gas. So before we get into natural gas today, cause that's our "Big 'I'", let's break it down for you a little bit here to understand how we consume energy here in the United States.
In 2008, this is the way it is -- Oil is 37 percent, natural gas is about a quarter of what we use here in the United States, coal also close to a quarter, nuclear, and then renewable energy at 7 percent at the end. Of note, you total all that up, 93 percent nonrenewable. But I want to drill down on natural gas specifically.
When you look at natural gas, this is the way we use it across the country -- 30 percent goes to electric power, 27 percent to industrial, 21 percent to residential. Remember that, and I'll swing you all the way to the right side here, 1 percent for vehicles. So natural gas, it does offer a clean solution perhaps depending on your perspective.
Let's go to a new study that was put out by MIT and we'll talk to Melanie Kenderdine the executive director of the MIT Energy Initiative. And we talk about this new study that you came out with here, Melanie. The first thing is, when you look at natural gas, is it the cleaner alternative?
MELANIE KENDERDINE, MIT ENERGY INITIATIVE: Natural gas is -- when you combust natural gas, it's much cleaner than coal. Kind of a rule of thumb that the CO2 emissions from natural gas are about 50 percent of what you get from coal and from oil it's about 30 percent.
So from a CO2 perspective, natural gas is much cleaner. Also, from a criteria pollutant are particulates -- socks (ph), knocks (ph), things that are regulated under the Clean Air Act. And particulates, for example, natural gas, the ratio of particulates in natural gas to coal is 1 to 400.
LUI: Just for you and me and also for our viewers, particulates are little particles put out into the atmosphere, is that what you are talking about?
KENDERDINE: Right, when you combust a fuel.
LUI: And that's negative, that's not good and that's the way it's measured in terms of the amount of emissions that are generated by these different fuels?
KENDERDINE: Right. Right. Right. Right.
LUI: An interesting fact, I was reading through your study, 92 years' supply of natural gas at our current rate of consumption. We've got a lot of natural gas here in the United States.
KENDERDINE: We have a significant amount of natural gas. I would say that the 92 years is the midpoint range.
LUI: Right.
KENDERDINE: There's a range of uncertainty in those supplies. So it could be much higher, it could be lower, but there is a substantial amount of gas reserves that are affordably produced, say, under $4.
And so, there is a significance resource base, and that has grown substantially in the last several years because of new technologies that have enabled the affordable production of unconventional gas as opposed to conventional gas. Unconventionals are coal bed methane, tight gas sands and shales, which everyone is talking about a lot lately because shales are very, very prolific.
LUI: Really quickly here cause we're running low on time, but there's also coal, which you bring up. There have been some studies that say we've got a couple of hundred years' worth of coal. Why not coal instead of natural gas?
KENDERDINE: Well, the environmental concerns about CO2. The study we looked at was looking at natural gas in a carbon constrained environment. So we were looking very specifically at carbon. So when you compare gas to coal, you obviously get the carbon benefits.
We looked very specifically at the opportunities for increased gas demand and the two areas where we saw the greatest opportunity for increased use of gas was in power generation. Currently, 51 percent of our power generation is from coal and 21 percent is from gas.
And the other opportunity space for increased gas demand is in transportation, where, as you said, we're only using about 1 percent of our transportation using gas.
So we looked at those two areas and what we found in a carbon constrained environment, by 2050, natural gas largely drives coal generation out of the system if you have at 50 percent emissions limit.
LUI: At that time frame.
What about gas and some of the dangers of using it? What are the downsides and risks of natural gas?
KENDERDINE: Natural gas, you have to extract it, you have to explore for it and you have to produce it. All extractive industries -- gas, oil, coal -- there are environmental issues, there are water use issues.
Natural gas, there's been a lot of discussion and concern about the use of hydraulic fracturing. To produce shales, there are water issues associated with that. The study said and as we found, those water issues are manageable, but they're challenging. And just like all extractive industry, you have to regulate and manage the issues.
LUI: Right, you have these byproducts. And so for -- when we make our decisions, when we're in our house and looking at our oven, gas versus electric or we're buying that barbecue, gas versus electric, should we be choosing natural gas cause this assists in what you're saying is good, natural gas?
KENDERDINE: There are a lot of benefits to using gas in your home. Where you have dual fuel appliances, where you can use either electricity or gas -- say, for heating, gas is much more efficient than electric heating because electricity is inherently inefficient. You lose about 70 percent of the electricity in transmission, where gas you don't have that kind of los as you transmit it.
So some appliances, it's much more efficient to use natural gas. Heating is one example.
LUI: Melanie Kenderdine, the executive director at the MIT Energy Initiative, thank you so much. A little bit of background on why natural gas might be one of the solutions to consider as we look for energy independence in the United States. Thank you so much.
KENDERDINE: Great. Thank you, Richard.
LUI: Tropical Storm Alex could become a hurricane today, moving through the Gulf, threatening southern Texas. We'll have that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
