CNN "Anderson Cooper 360" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

COOPER: Congressman, over the weekend, Tony Hayward said that BP had not found any evidence of underwater plumes. On Monday, you sent a letter to them asking for documents to back up those claims. Did you get any response?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I have not received any response yet. I gave them until Friday of this week to provide documentation that there are no plumes. I actually don't think they have that evidence. I think BP really stands for "blind to plumes."

The University of South Florida, the University of Southern Mississippi, they've already been out there as independent scientists, documenting the existence of these plumes. And I await whatever evidence BP may have that they don't exist. I think that they're more interested, actually, in limiting their liability than in providing for greater livability for the people who live in the Gulf.

COOPER: I mean, I guess on Tuesday, BP said, well, look, they needed to, you know, see more proof that the plumes existed, which I guess is sort of a back pedal from what Tony Hayward said.

What -- I mean, in your dealings with them, what has been their pattern? Do you find them to be, I mean, honest in your dealings with you?

MARKEY: First, they said, you know, the rig could not sink. It did. Then they certified that they could handle a spill the size of an Exxon Valdez every single day. They couldn't.

Then they said that it was only 1,000 barrels per day that was spilling into the Gulf when they already had an internal document in the first week that it was 1,000 to 14,000 barrels per day, but they hid that from the public.

So I think that BP has lost its credibility, and if they make any further assertions, they should have to provide the documentation before the public, especially the public that could be negatively impacted by a decision not to proceed to protect against a plume, a toxic chemical of -- cocktail.

COOPER: Why do you think they seem to resist being transparent in their operations? I mean, from not wanting to release the videotape, which basically the American public only first saw because of your efforts and others on Capitol Hill, the live camera which we didn't even know they had for weeks and weeks and weeks.

To, you know, not -- not really wanting to look into how big -- how much oil was actually pouring out. To even now, I mean, you would think they could have a camera in -- you know, to see what the scientists are doing every single day, to see the technicians working on this thing, to get people rallying behind those technicians who are probably working behind the clock incredibly hard. But why do they seem to resist being open with the American public?

MARKEY: I think initially they were actually hoping that they could shut off this leak before people were down there determining how large it was, because their liability is tied to how many barrels of oil per day go into the Gulf. They get fined for a barrel of oil per day. If it's 1,000 barrels of oil, it might only be $100 million. If it's 15 or 20 million barrels a day, it's a going to turn into billions of dollars.

And I think their lawyers just told them, "Try limit our liability. Don't really allow for there to be transparency so that it can be clear what is happening." And ultimately, that's why I insisted that they put the spill cam up, so that independent scientists could begin to make an assessment of how big this problem is.

And I'll tell you one good reason why. The larger the amount of oil coming out is the more chemical dispersants that have to be shot into it, which potentially is causing larger and larger chemical plumes under the surface of the ocean that are floating throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

COOPER: Congressman Ed Markey, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

MARKEY: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source