Floor Statements

I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman, to engage in a short colloquy.

Chairman Frank, with regard to assessments on financial institutions under the resolution authority title of the bill, title II, I want to clarify that the risk matrix criteria regarding the FDIC to take the scope and nature of an institution's activity into consideration when setting assessments means that such assessments should be made in light of the impact of potential assessments on the ability of an institution that is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit organization to carry out their legally required charitable and educational activities.

Can the chairman confirm my understanding on this point?

Chairman Frank, I want to commend you, first of all, for your hard work in getting this legislation through Congress and your dedication to reforming our financial system.

The legislation we have before us takes a multi-pronged approach to ending the problem of ``too big to fail'' by giving regulators the tools, only when it is necessary, to decrease the size of financial institutions, limit their risky behaviors, and wind down systemically significant firms if they threaten the health of our financial system.

The most direct way to end ``too big to fail'' is to stop firms from growing too big in the first place. To limit their size and complexity, this legislation would impose increasingly strict rules on capital levels and leverage ratios which would limit a firm's risky behavior and diminish its potential threat to the stability of our financial system. By implementing a strong Volcker rule and limiting proprietary trading by insured depository institutions, we minimize a bank's ability to use subsidized funds for risky trading practices.

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank bill will create a financial stability oversight council that will be able to force a company, as a last resort, to divest some of its holdings and shrink its size if the council determines it poses a risk to the stability of the financial system. It has tools.

The most important part of this legislation that will help to end ``too big to fail'' is the resolution authority we create to safely wind down a failed significant firm and to prevent any further bank bailouts. This legislation ends individual open-bank assistance. Let me repeat: this legislation ends individual open-bank assistance, meaning that if the resolution authority, the death panel, the burial panel, is applied to a bank, it will not be bailed out but allowed to safely fail and prevent containment from spreading to the markets. Let me repeat this: no more bailout. We have a funeral fund.

One thing I want to note, though, at every opportunity Democrats have insisted that banks, the financial institutions, not the taxpayers of America, pay for this resolution authority, and the Republicans have said ``no'' every single time. In both the House and the Senate, they refuse to support a pre-funded funeral fund that would be paid for by the riskiest and biggest banks. No. The big bankers don't pay. Main Street has to pay.

Opposition from certain Republican Senators--and I won't mention their names--forced us to strip the bank assistance from the conference report just last night. Republicans have sided with big Wall Street banks at every opportunity. They even opposed an amendment in the conference to increase the FDIC insurance to help protect people's hard-earned deposits along with community banks and small businesses.

So let's be clear. Combine this refusal to guarantee that the banks pay to clean up any future messes that they make with open opposition to this legislation and it is obvious where the line has been drawn by Republicans. If it helps Wall Street banks, they favor it; but if it helps Main Street and regular Americans, they won't vote for it, and we don't think they will today.

Mr. Speaker, I won't hold my breath for any Republican support of this historic legislation. But I do urge all of our Members to support this vital bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 355, 356, and 357.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 337 and 338.

Mr. Speaker, this is from BP's Web site. It says: ``Our code of conduct is the cornerstone of our commitment to integrity.'' And just what is the code of conduct? The code of conduct is: ``We aim for no accidents, no harm to people, and no damage to the environment.'' This is from their Web site. Well, BP is zero for three.

So I ask everyone, Where is the integrity if they don't even meet their own guidelines? This has been the worst ecological disaster, and we know that they don't have solutions ready when a disaster occurs.

Now, under our purchasing agreements, we have to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics when we grant someone a contract. So today I have an amendment to end the $2 billion that we purchase each and every year with taxpayer dollars from BP for our department. Let's disbar them because they should be banned permanently.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in 2009 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP $87 million for hundreds of safety violations at a Texas City refinery, many of which were originally identified after the 2005 explosion and then ignored there.

As recently as 2 months ago, BP was fined another $3 million for violations at the Toledo, Ohio, refinery similar to those identified in the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion. Again, just like in 2005, no steps were taken to correct the safety violations.

This blatant disregard for workers' lives shows that BP is a bad partner for the U.S. Government.

I rise today to say that BP stands for too many broken promises, too many broken lives and too many broken laws.

My amendment is a simple, commonsense amendment that would require that the Secretary of Defense consider disbarring BP if it finds that BP is not a responsible source.

As a Federal contractor, BP must meet Federal acquisition regulation standards as a responsible source. What's the definition of a responsible source? It includes the provision that a prospective contractor must have ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' As we've already defined, they do not uphold that standard.

As well, they must have a satisfactory performance record. To take that definition from the Webster's dictionary, integrity is ``firm adherence to a code or standard of values.'' BP clearly does not meet the standard set by even the lowest code of values.

The history that I've talked about cannot be ignored. In March of 2005, before the recent explosion, at a BP Texas refinery, 15 people lost their lives; 180 were injured. Investigators from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Protection Board believed this explosion could have been avoided had it not been for organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of BP Corporation.

And when they polluted in Alaska, the EPA and every government official encouraged the U.S. Attorney to indict them criminally for their abuse of safety standards.

Now, let me just say, this comes straight, straight from BP's code of conduct. BP code of conduct. It's right here. I've got it right down from the Internet, and here's what it says.

Our code of conduct is the cornerstone of our commitment to integrity. Integrity?

An important consideration is how BP addresses integrity. Quote--this comes from right here. It says, ``code of conduct is the cornerstone of our commitment to integrity.'' Moreover, within their code of conduct, BP states that they are ``committed to providing all BP employees . . . with a safe and secure work environment where no one is subject to unnecessary risk.''

You know what it further says here right from their manual and code of conduct? It says right here on page 72, it says right here, Make sure you know what to do if an emergency occurs at your place of work.

Right from their BP manual and code of conduct. Clearly, they are not meeting their code of conduct.

But it gets worse. This comes from this very manual, which I am going to add to the Record. Quote, ``We aim for no accidents, no harm to people, and no damage to the environment.''

Zero for three. I didn't make this up. It's in their code of conduct.

And if we are supposed to be responsible and make sure that contractors--$2 billion we buy from BP every year. I say we buy not $1 more of their oil. They have been irresponsible, and they don't even meet their own code of conduct that comes down from their own Web site.

Mr. Chair, I think we have an obligation, a responsibility to the American taxpayers to respond. And what does my simple amendment say? It says the Secretary of Defense should consider disbarring them if he finds they don't meet the code of conduct which should be administered to every provider of goods to the American people on which we spend the American taxpayers' dollars.

Our Commitment to Integrity

Health, safety and security

BP is committed to providing all Bp employees--and those of

other companies working on our premises--with a safe and

secure work environment where no one is subject to

unnecessary risk.

We recognize that safe operations depend not only on

technically sound plant and equipment, but also on competent

people and an active HSSE culture. No activity is so

important that it cannot be done safely.

Simply obeying safety rules is not enough. BP's commitment

to safety means each of us needs to be alert to safety risks

as we go about our jobs.

Basic rules you must follow

Always

Comply with the requirements of the HSSE management system

at your work location--including the use of relevant

standards, instructions and processes--and with the golden

rules of safety.

Stop any work that becomes unsafe.

Only undertake work for which you are trained, competent,

medically fit and sufficiently rested and alert to carry out.

Make sure you know what to do if an emergency occurs at

your place of work.

Help ensure that those who work with you--employees,

contractors and other third parties--act consistently with

BP's HSSE commitments.

Promptly report to local BP management any accident,

injury, illness, unsafe or unhealthy condition, incident,

spill or release of material to the environment, so that

steps can be taken to correct, prevent or control those

conditions immediately. Never assume that someone else will

report a risk or concern.

Seek advice and help if: You are ever unclear about your

HSSE obligations; You have a concern about a potential or

actual breach of HSSE law or a BP HSSE requirement.

Never

Undertake work when your performance is impaired by alcohol

or other drugs, legal or illegal, prescribed or otherwise.

Possess, use or transfer illegal drugs or other substances

on company premises.

Use threats, intimidation or other violence at work, or

bring weapons--including those carried for sporting

purposes--onto company premises.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, here is an excerpt straight from BP's Web site. ``Code of conduct is the cornerstone of their commitment to integrity.'' You can't make this stuff up.

It goes on to say ``Great companies are built on trust. Trust is earned through the achievement of consistently high standards of behavior and care.''

Wait, but it gets better. The document also says that among the ``basic rules you must follow'' at BP is always to ``make sure you know what to do if an emergency occurs at your place of work.'' Straight from BP's Web site.

Well, 40 days into one of the worst ecological disasters of our time, BP has yet to meet its own commitment in its Web site to its own integrity. If the code of conduct is consistently violated, causing massive destruction and loss of life, then that employee or contractor would be terminated. The American people should demand no less.

Today I plan to introduce an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill to begin the process of terminating BP's business with the American people. Please join me in supporting my amendment to ensure that BP is permanently banned from profiting off the American taxpayer.

It is impossible to talk about BP without getting angry about the broken promises, the buck passing, and the brazen profiteering. But I want to channel that anger into something productive and add one more ``BP'' to the mix: Be proactive.

This week, I will introduce an amendment to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill that would call on the Secretary of Defense to consider disbarring BP from government contracts to sell the American military its products. Disbar BP.

We hear that the cleanup may take years or may last forever. We hear calls for investigations that can go on for years or may last forever. But rather than look backwards and figure out what went wrong and who should pay, let's be proactive and take steps this week to ban permanently from Federal contracts the serial abuser of the American trust.

I urge you to support my amendment to the DOD reauthorization when it is debated and ban BP from Federal contracts.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 291, 292 and 293.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 291, 292 and 293.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed for votes in the House chamber yesterday, May 18, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 273.

Yesterday I urged my colleagues to stop drilling leases from going to BP. We need action now. If Congress can stop BP from receiving government leases, then BP can and should stand for Banned Permanently.

But why stop here? We must go further. Today I urge my colleagues to join me to cancel all Federal contracts with BP. How much money are we talking about? In 2009 alone, the Department of Defense paid at least $1.5 billion to BP--$1.5 billion with a B. In other words, big profits for them.

We need to audit and to stop our taxpayer dollars from going to BP, a company pumping millions of barrels of black poison into our water and towards our shores. Let's ban permanently BP's black poison and eliminate BP's big profits along with their British pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the initials BP used to stand for British Petroleum. But now it stands for Burying People--or Burying Precious natural resources--under a vast sea of oil. But here's what BP, a serial abuser of our safety, our environment, and our legal system, should really stand for. BP: Banned Permanently.

Today, I ask my colleagues to end any and all Federal oil drilling leases for BP and begin an immediate civil and criminal investigation to examine the existing leases under BP. Almost a month into one of the worst manmade environmental and economic disasters, BP has worked harder to minimize public understanding than to minimize destruction to the Gulf of Mexico. There's plenty of finger-pointing from BP, their $62 billion in profits, and their multimillion-dollar team of lobbyists. What BP should hear from us, the American people, is simple: BP stands for Banned Permanently.

I urge my colleagues to join me in demanding that Interior Secretary Salazar tell ``Banned Permanently'' they've made their last dollar from the American people.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 256, 257 and 258.

Madam Speaker, the old joke around Congress is that the Senate is Washington's legislative hospice: a place where good bills and ideas go to die a slow and quiet death.

I had really hoped that, given the necessity for financial reform today, this joke would have been proven wrong. Unfortunately, many of the reforms passed in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, including strong consumer protections and much-needed reforms to the industry, are being watered down.

The latest victim of this appeasement and the most egregious example of the Senate's appeasement strategy

for Wall Street lobbyists is here, which is the removal this week of the dissolution fund. I made sure that this dissolution fund was included in the House bill. It was intended to act much like your car insurance by discouraging risky behavior.

Let's say that a bank like Goldman Sachs drove a new Ferrari down the road with little regard for traffic or public safety. It would then be assessed more in fees to the fund than a bank that drives safely and observes all the posted signals.

Think again. Under the new plan in the Senate, Goldman can drive its Ferrari any way it wants, and when it crashes, the American public will have to pay.