Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 vote 664.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 662 and 663.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 659, 660, and 661.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 652, 653, 654, 655 and 656.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 628, 629 and 630.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I come here this evening to say to you, yes, let's give the DREAM kids an opportunity. They are American in everything but on a piece of paper. They are just like my children and your children. So I say, too: Give them a chance. Give them the opportunity--the opportunity this Congress will not give their mothers, who are today finishing toiling in Salinas, California, picking the fruit; their mothers who are in sweatshops in New York tonight, finishing their labor; their mothers who are in meatpacking plants in Iowa--sweaty, under terrible conditions. That same despair and inequity and unfairness and injustice that their mothers suffer, let's say that this Congress will not allow them to suffer. Let's say that their work, their sweat, and their toil will be responded to by this Congress by saying their children will not suffer the consequences of the inaction and unfairness of our immigration system. We know that there are millions of undocumented workers--their parents--who work and sweat and toil every day to make this Nation greater. They were wrong about the Irish. They were wrong about the Italians. They have been wrong about immigrants in the past, and they are wrong about the immigrants today and about these children of immigrants. Let this Congress stand as it has stood before for immigrants. I stand here today also as a Democrat, as a Democrat who understands that the rule of law must also be conditioned by justice and fairness and compassion. I stand here in the same manner as we have stood up when the rule of law said to a woman, You will not earn equal pay, and in the same manner as when someone of sexual orientation has been abused, and we say, That will not be tolerated. When there is someone without health care, we say we will provide health care. We look at the rule of law, and we see homeless and we want to provide housing to them. And today, just as we have faced that unfairness and those inequities in our system, we have come here, yes, to support the rule of law, but to change the law when it is unfair. Today, change it for this generation of young men and women. We must stand up for them.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. When I was a school teacher, I never knew how well my kids were doing until I gave them a test. That's when you find out what you've really learned. We need to have a test right here today in this Chamber. We need to test our tolerance, our fairness, and our sense of justice. We need to vote today on the DREAM Act. Will we pass that test? Will we get an A or an F? Those who will grade this test are watching. A generation of young people are hoping. Their futures are riding on whether we pass this test. Their families and communities are watching to see how we do on the test. Our Nation wants to see if we are compassionate, if we have the courage do what is right. This is a pass or fail test. Our kids, our young people, they have all passed. They have worked hard. They planned for a better future, and they love this country. They love America. Today, I urge my colleagues not to fail these kids and to reward their love by the passage of the DREAM Act.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. 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 581 and 582.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 566, 567 and 568.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 532 and 533.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 531.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 467, 468 and 469.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 448, 449, and 450.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the first series of votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 415, 416 and 417.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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?

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.