Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senator Byrd Memorial Service Held; Supply Ship Floating Loose Near Space Station; Chicago After the Ban; President Obama Delivers Eulogy For Senator Byrd; Alleged Spies Reveal Real Identities; Let Nature Clean Up the Spill

Aired July 02, 2010 - 13:02   ET

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

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Welcome here, folks. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. T.J. Holmes here sitting in for Ali Velshi. We have been listening, of course, in to President Clinton, who was there speaking at the funeral services for Robert Byrd, who, of course, is the longest-serving member of Congress, who died this week at the age of 92.

We're waiting to hear from President Obama, as well. Going to be speaking at that same event here in just a moment. We will take you back there live when it happens.

I do want to get to a bit of news that we are just getting. A breaking story. And stay with me here on the camera. I need to pick something here up from the printer. I'm away from. But we're just getting this, having to do with something going on in space right now, folks.

An unmanned cargo vessel, we're told, is essentially just floating around somewhere up in space. This is an out-of-control cargo vessel. News we're just getting. It was an attempt to dock at the International Space Station. And right now, that in some way went awry, so now they're trying to capture this thing.

Now, details of this just coming into us. Just a few and far between right now, but we're just getting word about this. Now we're taking a look at a camera here, but again, we're not -- don't exactly know what this vessel was trying to do, where it was trying to go. But, again, this was going to us from mission control.

Again, repeat that to me. Because we're just getting this, folks, and I'm trying to get this to you. Uncontrollable rotation during an attempt to try to dock with the International Space Station.

Now, this is a Russian supply space craft, which was trying. So this is a Russian supply space craft. This is not an American vehicle, apparently. But this is a Russian space craft that was trying to dock with the International Space Station and something went wrong. So now they have this vessel, essentially, up there right now that's floating around. And they don't know what the attempts are right now, try to recapture this thing.

But the news is just coming to us from mission control, is in fact that it is floating around.

I'm told that we have a Ms. Madison with NASA, I do believe. I have that right, ma'am? Forgive me. Just tell me what your title, who you're with. Is it just coming in to us, and I'm trying to hear who I have here on the phone with me. But ma'am, please tell me who you're with, first of all, and also what in the world is going on up there in space?

Forgive me, folks. I'm told she is not there. She's not on the line. This is what we're going to do. We're going to regroup here, folks, and we're going to collect some more information about exactly what's going on up there.

But, again, word we're just getting is that a Russian vessel, a Russian vessel is up in space right now, is attempting to dock with the International Space Station. Something went wrong in this attempt to dock, and now it is essentially floating around at this point. We don't know if any lives are in danger. We're collecting information.

Quick break, we're going to come right back to you. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Again, just collecting information about what we are hearing of something going on in space. An unmanned vehicle, a vessel, I should say, was trying to dock with the International Space Station. Something went wrong and wasn't able to dock, so it's up there right now, if you will.

I'm going to bring in Lynnette Madison, Lynnette Madison, who is a PIO for the Johnson Space Center.

Ma'am, can you put this in perspective for us? First of all, just what happened?

LYNNETTE MADISON, PIO, JOHNSON SPACE CENTER: Well, this morning, as we were making a planned docking of the Progressed vehicle, and that's one of our resupply ships to the International Space Station, as we were making that attempt to dock, about 20 minutes before our planned docking, the Progress lost its telemetry (ph) lock. That's how it locks onto the International Space Station during docking.

So when they lost that telemetry (ph) lock, we were not able to dock, of course. And at that point, the resupply ship flew past the space station. Now, it flew past at, you know, a distance of about 2 miles, 3 kilometers, is what we were saying. That's about 2 miles.

So everything at this point is the managers are looking at the situation, making an assessment of whether or not we'll make another attempt today to dock or what the plan is. So things are right in Progress right now. Also with the Progress vehicle. So...

HOLMES: Is there any -- frankly, I know we always have folks up at the International Space Station. But is there any, at this point, any threats or any danger right now with this, to have this thing floating around up there as it is? And do I have it right that you all are in at least some control of this vessel, even though it might have missed this docking opportunity?

MADISON: Yes, we do have some control of this vehicle, and yes, there are six people on the station at this time. And no, they are not in any danger at this time.

HOLMES: Well, ma'am, how does this happen? Do these things happen every once in a while, just kind of a fluke event?

MADISON: This is kind of a fluke event. We normally don't have any problems with Progress dockings. You know, we dock those every few months. So this is an unusual event.

HOLMES: Any percentages you could put on the chance of, once you make another attempt, that it will be successful next time around?

MADISON: I don't have any percentages, no.

HOLMES: All right. Well, Ms. Madison, we appreciate you taking the time out and explaining some of this space stuff that we don't understand sometimes. Ma'am, we do appreciate you taking the time out. And good luck to you guys getting back control of that thing.

A quick break here in the CNN NEWSROOM. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: And again, keeping an eye on news. We're just getting out of NASA that, in fact, a cargo vessel. It was an unmanned vessel. It was attempting to dock with the International Space Station. Again, something that, at least according to NASA, kind of a routine thing they do often, usually don't have any problems. But this time there was a problem, and it missed that docking opportunity. So now it essentially just floated by the International Space Station.

So what happens to it now is the big question we have right now. We are told, in fact, though, there are six astronauts on the International Space Station that's usually manned but no danger to them at this point.

NASA believes they will be able to get this thing back under control. Not saying it's out of control, but they do have some control over it. And they believe they'll be able to try and attempt once again to have this cargo vessel dock with the International Space Station.

Our John Zarrella on the line with me, covering things -- all things NASA for us here oftentimes.

John, put this in perspective for us. Exactly what happened up there?

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: T.J., as you pointed out, it is, in fact, an unmanned Progress resupply shift, a Russian resupply ship, and they do, in fact, make very periodic stops to the space station, dropping off all kinds of cargo, supplies for the crews that are up there, the six-member crew that's up there, whether it's water, whether it's food. Anything and everything that they might need up there.

And what happened was, during the docking attempt, and it's on the Russian of the spacecraft, not the NASA side of the space station, but the Russian side, an automated docking system failed to lock up with the Progress resupply ship and, as you pointed out, floated by the space station.

Most importantly to note, though, the six-member crew up there is safe. No issues there. And NASA and the Russians are trying to work out a plan now whereby they can recover that ship -- that's the Progress -- bring it back and get it to dock up.

So at this point, they're in the discussions on how best to do that, when they would be able to do that. What they're going to need to do. Of course, they've got to figure out first why they failed in that docking attempt, because it is fairly routine.

And you know as the space shuttle program winds down and comes to an end, there are going to be many more unmanned resupply ships that are going to be going up and back to the space station, docking either on the U.S. side or the Russian side. Again, most importantly, the crew is safe. The space station is not in any danger -- T.J.

HOLMES: Very key to note that, there. But on the other side, they're going to try, and we just talked to someone from NASA, saying that, in fact, they do have some control of this resupply ship.

So what if they can't, though? If they can't get full control over again, and try to redock and they get it to where it's supposed to be, does this thing just continue to float and they just let it go up in space? What are the scenarios?

ZARRELLA: That's it. That's exactly what would happen. It would just float around. Eventually, its orbit would decay, and it would most likely at some point burn up in the atmosphere.

So it's fairly important that they're able to, you know, reconnect with that Progress resupply ship and get it there, because clearly, every time one of those goes up, it's carrying important supplies. I don't know exactly what's on this particular Progress, but every time they go up, it is important, because supplies are very limited up there, 240 miles up in space -- T.J.

HOLMES: And you talk about limited supplies. And suppose they weren't able to get those to that International Space Station.

I just want to make sure we're clear that at this point, no threat, no danger to anyone on board the space station, and even if they begin -- God forbid, to start running out of supplies, it's not like they couldn't send another one of these up in time. Am I clear on that one, as well?

ZARRELLA: Absolutely. Again, they have these things pretty much lined up. They can get the Progresses off the ground fairly quickly with supplies. It won't be another shuttle mission now until October to bring up more supplies. But they do have -- the Japanese have a cargo carrier, the Europeans have a cargo carrier, and of course, the Russians do, as well. So it's not like they're going to run out of supplies up there. It's just important to keep everything stocked.

HOLMES: All right. John, we absolutely appreciate you jumping on the line here, because you know we needed help navigating all things NASA sometimes. And you are our guy. John Zarrella, good to talk to you as always, buddy. Thanks so much.

And again, reiterating for our audience, it was an unmanned -- an unmanned supply cargo vessel that was trying to dock, send supplies to the International Space Station. It missed that docking opportunity, just a miss, a fluke event, as NASA says, and so it's floating around up there, just floated by the International Space Station. They're going to try to get full control of it again, and try to dock it again.

But as our John Zarrella said, even if they don't, there is no danger to the astronauts on the space station, or as he said, even to planet earth, quite frankly, because it would just eventually burn up in the atmosphere. But that's the latest we're getting from NASA. Quick break here in the CNN NEWSROOM. We're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Welcome back to the CNN NEWSROOM. Just recapping what we saw just a moment ago. What the word we just got from NASA is that, in fact, an unmanned cargo vessel missed its opportunity. It missed trying to dock with the International Space Station. It floated by the International Space Station, and now they're going to try to get control over it again, try to possibly dock it once more. But if not, it will just be left up there floating around.

Important cargo vessel. It takes important supplies to the International Space Station, but other than that, there's no threat to any human life that's on the International Space Station. Some six astronauts on there now, and also told no threat to planet earth of it trying to reenter the atmosphere or something like that. No, it would eventually just burn off and it would be just fine.

But still, kind of a fluke accident today, according to NASA, about what happened. But we're keeping an eye on what's happening up there in space.

Back here on earth, however, you have seen maybe in the headlines over the previous weeks and months and even years about the deadly violence that has plagued Chicago. Well, this week kind of some major book ends to this week for the city of Chicago.

We're on Friday here now, but on Monday we see -- we saw the Supreme Court actually issue a ruling that essentially shut down -- shot down the gun ban that has been in place, the handgun ban in Chicago for the past 28 years.

But here we are on Friday now. Because of that ruling, Chicago at this moment right now, the city council taking up another ordinance, a new ordinance by the mayor, who is trying, since the handgun ban was shot down, he is now trying to come up with a new ordinance that could, in fact, get around the ban being banned by the Supreme Court.

We're going to get more on this updated ordinance they're looking at right now. But first, this is not just a legal back and forth. These are real people and real numbers having an effect on the city of Chicago.

Take a look: 31 kids killed this past school year. That's the number this year. It was 49, actually, last school year. Also, 218 were shot during the school year. That's 218 students.

Now, there is passion on both sides of this argument, many people saying we need to get rid of the guns. Other people saying, "Hey, I should have the right to own a gun to protect myself in this city." Take a listen to both sides in this argument.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So why have the ban in place, if people are going to get them anyway?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because I would rather something be in place than nothing be in place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's all I want, is just a fighting chance. Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody else think about something before they come in my house on me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, you see there from the video, that was obviously not recently. That was actually during the winter when the ban was being taken up by the Supreme Court.

Now, again, passion on both sides of this argument. But to this week, we did, in fact, see and hear Samuel Alito. He was writing for the majority there at the Supreme Court, and this is what he said. He said, in fact, that the Second Amendment applies equally to the federal government as well as the states.

Now, what Chicago is doing today, they are taking up an ordinance, as we speak, one that Mayor Daly proposed just yesterday to try to possibly get rid of the guns in the city, even if their 28- year-old handgun ban has to go away.

So one thing this new ordinance would do: Permits and registrations. Gun owners would need a permit from the city, and also have to register every single gun they own.

Also, a part of this ordinance says you can only have one or buy one handgun a month. And there would be a limit on registering those new guns. Now, one handgun a month means you can essentially buy twelve handguns a year, and that's per adult, eligible adult in the household. So if it's you and your wife, you could essentially buy 24 guns during the year. But that's part of this ordinance. Also, you would be forced to keep the gun in your house. And by house, we mean the four walls of the house. You can't even have the gun in the garage. You can't have it on the porch. You can't have it on the back porch. Can't have it in the backyard. Has to stay in the house.

Also, you would have to go through training if you wanted to have a gun. Five hours, at least of it, and one hour of that would be at a firing range.

And one more note here of this ordinance they're taking up now, we might get word about whether or not they pass at any moment, but one more part says there are no gun sales of any kind in the city of Chicago. That is the new ordinance now being taken up by the city of Chicago.

Want to talk about this now with our legal expert, Lisa Bloom, she is here with me now. And also, the woman you heard from just a moment ago in that video on Chicago's -- Chicago's south side. This is Diane Latiker, she is part of a group, she is founder of Kids Off the Block, and she has spoken out against gun violence and also spoken out for the need for some of these gun bans.

Ladies, thank you both for being here. Diane, let me start with you, please.

What do you think about this new ordinance that the city is taking up right now? Will it help?

DIANE LATIKER, FOUNDER, KINDS OFF THE BLOCK (via telephone): Definitely something will help. I've always said there should be something in place. I feel more safe with something in place. And so, yes, I believe it will help.

HOLMES: Well, ma'am, did you feel as well -- and you're in Chicago -- 28 years of that ban being there, the handgun ban, did you feel that -- I mean, we have seen all the violence over the years in Chicago, but still, do you think things would have actually been worse, worse if that handgun ban was not in place?

LATIKER: I definitely do, because I look at it like this, we don't know what would have happened if a gun ban was not there. So we roll with the gun ban and saw the violence. We don't know what would have happened if it had not been in place.

HOLMES: Well, what do you think or how effective do you think this new ordinance is being taken up right now? We don't know if it's passed yet, but it looked like it was going to pass. What do you think about some of these things, forcing people to stay inside with their guns, putting a lot of rules on having to register them and also having to go through training? Where do you see that having an effect?

LATIKER: Well, I think law-abiding citizens won't see it as a problem (AUDIO GAP) want to protect themselves. But I also see it as something in place to the not make it easy for everybody to just get a gun and to say you have a gun.

HOLMES: All right. Let me bring in Lisa Bloom now. Lisa, good to see you once again.

The handgun ban -- it was there in place for years. It didn't pass the test when it came to the Supreme Court. What about this new ordinance that's being talked about right now, we might get word any moment that it actually has passed or failed, but will this new ordinance -- does it stand up to the test, possibly, of the Supreme Court?

LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: T.J., I think we're going to see years of back and forth between the Supreme Court and local municipalities that want tough gun laws.

It's very similar to the abortion rate, when the Supreme Court said abortion was a constitutional right. There have been decades of litigation ever since about what state regulations can pass.

And here Washington, D.C. had tough gun laws. The Supreme Court struck them down. Washington, D.C. then came back with regulations which so far have been upheld.

This week, as you say, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's very tough antigun laws. And trying is trying to get around --

(CROSSTALK)

HOLMES: Lisa, forgive me -- we are just seeing President Obama step to the podium at the funeral service of the late Senator Robert Byrd. We're going to take you there live.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- daughters that I had had a chance to meet. Michelle and I offer you our deepest sympathies.

To Senator Byrd's friends, including the speaker of the house, the majority leader, the republican leader, President Clinton, Vice President Biden, Vicki Kennedy, Nick Rayhol and all the previous speakers.

To Senator Rockefeller for the outstanding work you have done for the state of West Virginia.

To his larger family, the people of West Virginia, I want you all to know that all America shares your loss. May we all find comfort and a verse of scripture that reminds me of our dear friend -- "The time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."

It's interesting that you've heard that passage from several speakers now, because it embodies somebody who knew how to run a good and long race, and somebody who knew how to keep the faith with his state, with his family, with his country and his Constitution. Years from now, when I think the of the man we memorialize today, I'll remember him as he was when I came to know him. His white hair full like a mane, his gait steadied with a cane, determined to make the most of every last breath. The distinguished gentleman from West Virginia could be found at his desk until the very end doing the people's business, delivering soul-stirring speeches, a hint of the Appalachians in his voice, stabbing the air with his finger, fiery as ever years into his tenth decade. He was a Senate icon, he was a party leader, he was an elder statesman, and he was my friend. That's how I'll remember him.

Today, we remember the path he climbed to such extraordinary peaks. Born Cornelius Calvin Sale, Junior -- Corny, he joked, for short. His mother lost her life in the great influenza pandemic of 1918. And from the aunt and uncle who raised him amid West Virginia's coal camps, he gained not only his Byrd name but a reference for God almighty, a love of learning that was nurtured at Mark Twain's school. And there he met Erma, his sweetheart for over 70 years by whose side he will now rest for eternity.

Unable to afford college, he did what he could to get by, finding work as a gas station attendant, a produce salesman, a meat cutter and a welder in the shipyards of Baltimore and Tampa during World War II.

Returning home to West Virginia after the war, he ran for the state house of delegates using his fiddle case as a briefcase, but better to stand out on the stump. Before long, he ran for Congress. Serving in the House before jumping over to the Senate, where he was elected nine times, held almost every leadership role imaginable and proved as capable of swaying others as standing alone, marking a row of milestones along the way -- longest-serving member of Congress, nearly 19,000 votes cast, not a single loss at the polls. A record that speaks to the bond that he had had with you, the people of this state.

Transplanted to Washington, his heart remained here in West Virginia in the place that shaped him with the people he loved. His heart belonged to you, of making life better here was his only agenda. Giving you hope, he said, was his greatest achievement. Hope in the form of new jobs and industries. Hope in the form of black lung benefits and union protections. Hope through roads and research centers, schools and scholarships, health clinics, and industrial parks that bear his name.

His early rival and late friend, Ted Kennedy used to joke about campaigning in West Virginia. When his bus broke down, Ted got hold of the highway patrol, who asked where he was. And he said, I'm on Robert Byrd Highway. And the dispatcher said, which one? It's a life that immeasurably improved the lives of Virginians.

Of course, Robert Byrd was a deeply religious man, a Christian. And so he understood that our lives are marked by sins as well as virtues, failures as well as successes, weakness as well as strength. We know there are things he said and things he did that he came to regret. I remember talking about that the first time I visited with him. He said, there are things I regretted in my youth, you may know that. And I said, none of us are absent some regrets, Senator, that's why we enjoy and seek the grace of God.

And as I reflect on the full sweep of his 92 years, it seems to me that his life bent towards justice. Like the Constitution he tucked in his pocket, like our nation itself, Robert Byrd possessed that quintessential American quality and that is a capacity to change, a capacity to learn, a capacity to listen, a capacity to be made more perfect.

Over his nearly six decades in our capital, he came to be seen as the very embodiment of the Senate, chronicling its history in four volumes that he gave to me, just as he gave to President Clinton. I, too, read it; I was scared he was going to quiz me.

But as I soon discovered, his passion for the Senate's past, his mastery of even its most arcane procedures, it wasn't an obsession with the trivial or the obscure, it reflected a profoundly noble impulse, a recognition of a basic truth about this country -- that we are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws. Our way of life rests on our democratic institutions. Precisely because we are fallible, it falls to each of us to safeguard these institutions, even when it's inconvenient, and pass on our republic more perfect than before.

Considering the vast learning of this self-taught senator, his speeches sprinkled with the likes of Cicero and Shakespeare and Jefferson, it seems fitting to close with one of his favorite passages in literature, a passage from "Moby Dick" -- "... and there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains. So that even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than any other bird upon the plain, even though they soared."

Robert Byrd was a mountain eagle and his lowest swoop was still higher than the other birds upon the plain. May God bless Robert C. Byrd, may he be welcomed kindly by the righteous judge, and may his spirit soar forever like a Catskill eagle, high above the heavens.

Thank you very much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: All right, welcome back, everybody.

World Cup madness continues. Big match coming up here in 45 minutes. Big match because all the hopes of the entire continent of Africa resting on the shoulders and the feet of the Gahanna players, Ghana planning on taking on Uruguay here in just a bit.

But today, Brazil taking on the Netherlands. Isha Sesay, my dear friend, joining us live from Soccer City in Johannesburg.

We have seen an upset or two here or there during this tournament so far. Brazil, though, is going back to Brazil and nobody predicted that. ISHA SESAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, absolutely, T.J., and I really hope you didn't have any money on Brazil. I was going around predicting Brazil probably to lift this trophy, and it's all over. They're right now, I'm sure, consoling each other and packing their bags.

And, you know, you have to wonder what went wrong. This is a team that looked very strong getting to the stage, they played a great game against Chile. And today, in fact, T.J. they went ahead basically ten minutes into the match. But basically, when they came back from the break, a horrible mistake by the goalkeeper gifted the Netherlands a goal. In fact, it came off a Brazil midfielder, so it went down as an own goal.

The Netherlands able to get a second goal and after that, basically kept Brazil on the ropes. They fought back, but they basically just couldn't get back into the game. And there you have it, Brazil's bid for a historic sixth World Cup title over, T.J.

HOLMES: And for perspective for some of our viewers who are not big soccer fans, Brazil is the big deal. They are the Lakers, they are whatever other dynasty you want to talk to about. Yes, they are that thing.

Yes, go ahead, Isha.

SESAY: Yes. No, no, they are that thing. No doubt about it. Don't forget, Brazil have won the World Cup five times, more than any other side. They were looking to get their sixth title. They were looking good.

The Brazil team of old, just to give our viewers perspective, they were a team with great flair, they had superstars, they kind of played kind of Samba football. They have a new coach now, a man called Dunga, and he brought them to this World Cup. And the kind of football they have been playing has been way more disciplined, it's being called blue-collar football. Everyone defends, they can get goals, they can defend, they look strong all over the pitch. Yes, it wasn't enough against this Netherlands team, T.J.

HOLMES: All right, blue-collar football, huh? Well, that did not work out so well for Brazil.

Isha, enjoy your time over there. Good to see you always, my dear friend. We're looking forward to having you back, talk to you soon.

We're going to turn in a moment to the Gulf disaster now. Millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf right now. Getting the oil out of the water is a key for everybody right now. We've got a professor from New York says leave it there and leave it up to nature.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: We're going to turn to Susan Candiotti in New York who's keeping an eye on the case of the alleged Russian spies living among us.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, some information, and this comes to us in the form of a government filing. It has to do with some of the defendants that have been arrested that are in the Washington, D.C. area. As a matter of fact, at this hour, they are continuing their detention hearing, they're trying to get bail. So the government filed this information to try to argue before the judge that they should not be granted bail.

So here's the new information, some of it kind of interesting. The government claims that once two of these three defendants in the Arlington, Virginia area were arrested, that they admitted to federal investigators that, in fact, they are Russian citizens, two of the three, and that they're using fake names here, have been using fake names here in the United States. The two defendants, Michael Zottoli, and he said that his real name is Mikhail Kutzik, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, and another woman by the name of Patricia Mills also admitting that she is a Russian citizen and that her real name is Natalia Pereverzeva.

But there's also new information that appears to link these defendants in the Washington, D.C. area to a New Jersey couple that has already been arrested and they've been denied bail already, and here's what the information is. The government maintains that two of the defendants in Virginia were having some problems with their laptop computer that the government says was used to encrypt messages that were later deciphered, messages sent to them by Russian intelligence.

And so, these two defendants in Virginia when they were having difficulty, traveled to New York and met with the couple, these papers say, that's the Murphy couple that lives in New Jersey, Richard and Cynthia, and they were given a new laptop, the Murphys gave a new laptop to the people in Virginia.

In fact, this goes on to say that two of the defendants in Virginia made four trips to New York receiving both money and supplies, one point $150,000 from the Murphys. And it also states that during the search of two of the defendants in Virginia that they found $80,000 in cash kept in some safe deposit boxes, the government is saying they were given this money by Russian intelligence.

So that's just some of the new information that was just released minutes ago by the U.S. attorney's office.

HOLMES: Susan Candiotti, as information continues to trickle out in this case, thank you so much for the update.

We are going to turn now to "The Big Idea" for the day. A lot of people have ideas about how to clean up the oil. Some are saying you shouldn't be trying to clean it up necessarily, you should let nature take its course. Dr. Richard Gross is a professor of chemical and biological services at the Polytechnic Institute at NYU.

Dr. Gross, help me understand what's going on here. We seem to be throwing everything we can at this oil. But what should we be throwing at it? DR. RICHARD GROSS, POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, NYU: Well, T.J., the important thing we need to remember is that nature has some terrific mechanisms for cleaning oil, and what we have to do is to help nature out here by providing the right molecules. So the critical thing here is microbes produce biosurfactants and these biosurfactants surround oil droplets and do a great job at dispersing oil. So nature has fantastic mechanisms in place --

(CROSSTALK)

HOLMES: OK, you lost me on a couple of molecules and biosurfactants, so you got to talk slowly for me now.

GROSS: Absolutely, sorry.

HOLMES: All right, these molecules we speak of, these microbes and molecules you speak of, are they already in the water or is that something we need to put it in the water to help nature along?

GROSS: Yes, thanks, T.J. We need to put these molecules in. So nature is not quick enough to produce these molecules. They do, nature, in the marine environment in the ocean, nature is constantly producing biosurfactants to combat the oil spill, but they're just not fast enough.

So our tactic is to produce these biosurfactants that can do the job, surround the oil droplets and encourage the microbes to grow around the oil droplets and degrade the oil.

HOLMES: And degrade the oil. All right, now these biosurfactants, you said it doesn't work quickly enough on its own in nature. So tell me, how long would it take if we just let nature do it's course that way versus how long it would take if we helped it along, if you will.

GROSS: Well we can accelerate the process greatly. That kind of data, control experiment versus actually putting in the dispersants in a real situation just doesn't exist. We don't have the data. But the key is that instead of using these very dangerous chemicals that, in fact, kill marine microbes, what we're doing is putting biosurfactants in that we make specifically that are very efficient at dispersing the oil, and they encourage the marine microbes to actually grow on the oil and it significantly enhances it.

HOLMES: All right, last thing -- is anyone listening to you, sir, as far as BP or the government in terms of trying what you're talking about?

GROSS: I certainly hope so, T.J.

(LAUGHTER)

HOLMES: You hope so.

GROSS: I hope so because, I mean, what we've done is we've developed some very highly efficient natural compounds, and I certainly feel a lot more comfortable putting natural compounds out there into the ocean than these chemical dispersants that are doing the wrong thing. These natural compounds are going to disperse the oil just like the chemical ones but do it in a safe way.

HOLMES: Well, Dr. Gross, we certainly hope the government, BP are listening to you. And like you said, a lot of the dispersants are actually breaking things up that can actually naturally be helping along. So, Dr. Gross, we appreciate you sharing it with us on "The Big Idea" for today. Thank you, you enjoy your Fourth of July weekend

GROSS: Thank you, T.J. Thanks a lot. You, too.

HOLMES: All right, quick break here in the NEWSROOM, we're right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)