Interview With Massachusetts Congressman Edward Markey
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN GUEST ANCHOR: Good evening again from the Gulf. Anderson Cooper is off. I'm Sanjay Gupta, filling in tonight. You know, it's been truly sobering what this pipe at the bottom of the Gulf has done to so many lives. I have seen it firsthand now. Yet, when it comes to measuring how much oil is leaking, where it's going, what it's doing, BP doesn't seem to want to know, even says it's not important to know. In a moment, you are going to hear from a renowned independent scientist. His name is Ira Leifer. He's a member of an all-star team of researchers who have come up with a plan -- it's called Deep Spill 2 -- to do all of the above, to measure the oil's impact. Now, two months ago, he proposed an early version of it to BP. He heard nothing. Then, on June 10, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey got into the act, directing BP to contact Dr. Leifer. Still nothing. Then, last week, Dr. Leifer's team released a detailed proposal, 88 pages, $8.4 million to implement. You guessed it, still nothing. Now, bear in mind, $8.4 million fifteen-hundredths-of-a-percent of the $5.6 billion BP earned in the quarter before the spill. It's about four-hundredths-of-a-percent of the $20 billion BP set aside for spill-related claims. And it's about 2.5 hundredths-of-a-percent of the $33 billion Sanford Bernstein today estimated the spill was going to cost BP. You can decide for yourself whether that's a small cost for this company to pay. I spoke about it earlier with Dr. Ira Leifer.</s>GUPTA: Now, Dr. Leifer, it's been more than three weeks since Congressman Ed Markey asked BP to give your group the green light to do this kind of testing, the kind of testing to measure the flow rate, to measure the impact overall of the oil on the ecosystem. There's a huge list of things you're trying to study. And, yet, you have heard nothing from BP is my understanding. Why do you think that is?</s>IRA LEIFER, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA: I really don't know. I wish they would pick up a phone and just give me a call, so I could walk them through the proposal. The experiment is very important. I have gotten very good feedback from scientists within the government and so on. And I'm hoping that having the full technical proposal for their consideration, they will, too, recognize its importance and actually give me a call.</s>GUPTA: The study that you're proposing, is it going to be of benefit to the people right now here in the Gulf, to the workers, to the residents of this community, the knowledge that you gain?</s>LEIFER: The simple answer is yes. I mean, there are many things we just simply do not understand. We know there are plumes of oil in the deep sea. We don't know where we're going. We're don't know why. And, similarly, there's reports of submerged oil near the surface. And any time one finds that one has to say I don't know or we're not sure about why, what's happening, you cannot respond effectively. You cannot protect the resources that need the greatest protection first, because you're operating in the dark. And what science is all about is to shine a light on the darkness, so that we can actually do the best job possible to actually protect resources, people, fishermen, the ecosystem, lives, as well -- today -- as well as for our children.</s>GUPTA: And, as a scientist, you say that this is a unique opportunity to be able to study the impact of an oil spill like this. And I keep coming back to the simple question, Dr. Leifer. And I think it's really at the core of this whole thing. Does BP, does the federal government want the American people to know what's really happening out there on the water, or don't they? I mean, because you're trying to find out what's actually happening, how much oil is coming out, and what the impact is. Why -- why can't we get that simple answer almost three months into this?</s>LEIFER: I -- I -- I really do not know exactly why we are at the situation that we are in of still not knowing many very specific things. Part of it has been the response mentality, in that always dealing with the current problem, what's around the corner for the next two days, instead of actually having plans that try to address more forward looking, which is what our team has put together, so that we can actually make plans and get the data that's needed, while the tornado is happening. A good analogy here is that, if you study a tornado by looking at the broken houses, you don't learn how to build a house properly. You want to study it while it's happening. And, so, we're requesting, the team, that science be green-lighted, that science be brought to the fore to protect, because, when science is done, everyone wins.</s>GUPTA: Dr. Ira Leifer, if -- if you do hear from BP or get some of the funding necessarily to conduct those studies, please come back and tell us about it. We would certainly be interested in hearing from you. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>LEIFER: You're welcome. I hope I can have good news in the near future. Thank you very much.</s>GUPTA: And, as always, we reached out to BP today, trying to get an executive to come on the program. And I watch Anderson say this almost every night. I guess it's my turn now, I guess, to say the same thing. We did mention Congressman Markey. He would come on with us, and we spoke a short time ago.</s>GUPTA: Congressman Markey, you wrote a letter to BP back on June 10 requesting specifically their support and funding for Deep Spill 2. This is the study. First of all, has BP responded to your letter?</s>REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: BP has yet to respond to my letter. I have not heard back from them yet.</s>GUPTA: Well, you know, as a starting point, Congressman, given the enormity of what we're talking about here and the impact really across the entire country, why do we need BP's permission? I mean, why doesn't the government, for example, foot the around $8.4 million bill -- I think that's how much it costs -- and let these scientists get to work to answer some of the questions that you're raising?</s>MARKEY: Well, I think that BP should pay for it. I think that BP should stand for bills paid, and this is certainly something that BP should pay for. I think it makes a lot of sense for this experiment to take place, especially the use of fluorescent dye in order to measure accurately how much oil and natural gas is coming out of this pipe. And -- and I think, if it does require the federal government to pay for it, they should just put it on BP's bill, because, ultimately, BP doesn't want to know the answer to the question, because they have to pay a fine per barrel of oil. And if it's gross negligence at $4,300 a barrel, the difference of just 10,000 barrels per day for 77 days is $3 billion. So, perhaps we shouldn't be waiting for BP to be spending that money, because they don't want to know how big their liability is. They want to lower their liability. And, at the same time, the federal government, on behalf of the American people, have a stake in knowing just how big this problem is, so that the fine on BP reflects a punishment that is equal to the harm which they have inflicted on the people in the Gulf.</s>GUPTA: And, again, they have not responded to your letter. But you're -- you're convinced that this -- this is complete obstructionism; they simply do not want to know the answers that a lot of people want to know?</s>MARKEY: Well, right now, people say, BP says, experts say, that the flow could be 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day. Well, if it's 45,000 barrels a day, that's an extra $3 billion in fines. If it's 55,000 barrels, that's an extra $6 billion in fines. So, yes, there is a disconnect between the amount of scientific work that has to be conducted and finished, and BP's interest in actually conducting that research.</s>GUPTA: Yes. As things stand now, Congressman -- I mean, I'm down here looking at the health effects -- do we know if there are any long-term health effects of this oil spill? Do we know what they are and when they are going to start to happen?</s>MARKEY: Well, at the hearing in our committee, I demanded from Tony Hayward that he make accessible to the National Institutes of Occupational Health and Safety all of the information about all of the workers down there in the Gulf of Mexico. And, up until then, they had been equivocating. Up until then, they had refused to do it. But, the next day, they began to turn over all of this information. And there was, as a result, an increase in the transparency. But I think we're going to have to monitor this situation on an ongoing basis, because nobody knows better than you there are physical harms here, but there are also mental health consequences to -- to this event, because people's lives are being affected in a way that could change the whole course of families' histories.</s>GUPTA: It is really remarkable being down here, Congressman, for the reasons you just mentioned. And that's exactly what we are going to be talking about today, the physical and mental toll that it's taking. Congressman Ed Markey, thanks so much for joining us.</s>MARKEY: Thank you for having me.</s>GUPTA: And there you have it. Let us know what you think, of course. The live chat is up and running, AC360.com. Just ahead: my conversation with the head of BP's medical response team in the Gulf and what he says about the number of cleanup workers they're treating. It surprised me. But up next: a 360 investigation -- a former Exxon Valdez cleanup worker is speaking up about the cleanup today. His concerns, his allegations, we're "Keeping Them Honest."