Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. If my colleague will further yield, I understand what he just said. There is $3.1 billion in rescission in the amendment; is that fair to say?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. I look at the Senator's proposed amendment, and am I to understand that the Senator has $3.1 billion of rescissions to cover what he wants to do in his amendment?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the Senator yield before he offers the request?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate my distinguished colleague from New Jersey who has been a stalwart on this issue, as well as in the past, on the whole question of the environment. The Senator is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I appreciate his comments. I know the Senator from Florida wanted to join us in a colloquy, as well as the Senator from Illinois. So let me ask unanimous consent to continue the colloquy with first Senator Nelson, then Senator Durbin, and then I will yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I still have the floor?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me ask the Chair if, as I have the floor, if I yield to a colleague for a question, is that not permissible?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The Senator has propounded a series of Members to speak or offer amendments. If one of those Members offers a unanimous-consent request during their presentation, then there would be an opportunity to object notwithstanding the unanimous-consent request before us?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I do not believe I will object, if there is a unanimous-consent request pending, any of the Members who are going to speak in the following order, as the Senator from Arizona suggested, it would be appropriate then to be recognized to object, would it not?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Absolutely nothing. The only way to ensure the U.S. taxpayer pays absolutely nothing, not just for the cleanup but in terms of consequences to communities that would exceed the liability cap that exists right now under the law and for which BP has made statements but no commitment, such as a consent agreement, which would be binding upon BP--the taxpayers should pay absolutely nothing--the way to do that is to raise it to an unlimited cap. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen this amendment and I am not familiar with what it would do, so for the moment I would object until I have that opportunity.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator came up with a proposal. It is 40 pages. I just saw it. I look forward to reading it and seeing whether it truly achieves the goal we mutually have. We are moving the ball forward because both the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Alaska, who I understood originally opposed lifting the cap to an unlimited amount, now both believe the cap, at least in this instance, should be lifted to an unlimited amount. But reading the last 2 pages of the proposal we just got, and listening to the words of the Senator from Louisiana, there is a suggestion here that BP has, in essence, made a commitment or a contract, yet we have nothing before us other than testimony about a supposed willingness to pay all legitimate claims. They have equivocated when they have been asked before the committee, What does ``legitimate'' mean, and several members asked them a series of different elements of ``legitimate,'' and they would not commit to that. Secondly, the letter the Senator has in his legislation that he wants to propound to pass right now says BP is ``prepared'' to pay above $75 million. It does not say it ``shall'' pay above $75 million. It does not say ``will'' pay. There is no legal obligation for them to do it. So to consume that and say that is the basis under which we are making some contractual relationship is a problem. Finally, I think there is a problem between having legislation on a specific incident versus raising the cap in general. What happens when, God forbid, the next oilspill comes and a company is not taking the same position? It seems to me what we want to do is raise the cap in an unlimited fashion against any major oil company so we do not simply have to listen to their allegations that they are willing to pay any claims but that, in fact, they have a legal obligation to do so. So for all these reasons, and the fact that we just got this legislation, and because of the concerns that I do not think it reaches what we need to accomplish, I will have to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague for yielding. Amendment No. 4202, as Modified

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to talk about the oilspill in the gulf and the continuing challenges it presents to us. I know some of my colleagues are going to be joining me in a few moments to talk about this. I will ask consent for a colloquy. But I am going to make a few comments about it and then, in recognition of Senator Inhofe's need to move to another commitment, I will ask unanimous consent at that time. I want to make absolutely certain that big oil polluters pay for oilspills and not the taxpayers--not small business owners, not States or the Federal Government, which means the Federal taxpayers. We have seen things get worse on the spill over the weekend. Unfortunately, things are, frankly, getting much worse than we would have imagined when we first introduced this legislation. Today the United States declared a fishing disaster in three gulf States--in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana's fishing industry alone is $2.4 billion of seafood and supplies up to 40 percent of all the U.S. seafood in our country. It is, in my mind, a growing and continuing environmental and economic disaster. Tragically, it seems to me, a $10 billion cap--we originally thought, based upon the Exxon Valdez experience, where there were close to $4 billion in claims 20 years ago, that was a cap that may have been an appropriate one. But in fact it seems to me the only way to ensure that oil companies are held accountable for all of their potential damages, for the proposition that a polluter pays at the end of the day, is to agree with the administration's statement and to raise from a cap of $75 million to an unlimited cap. I will be asking that in my unanimous consent motion in a few minutes. We heard already the objections to our legislation. We have even heard some claim that it is ``un-American'' to hold a multibillion dollar corporation accountable for the very disaster it caused. It boggles my mind, at least as one Senator, that there are those who believe that holding BP accountable for the disaster they created in the gulf is un-American. This is a chance to show if we stand with big oil companies or with small businesses, with fisheries, with coastal communities, with tourism, with hotels--with all of those individuals, fellow Americans who are being hurt by this disaster. It is an opportunity to say do we stand with the American taxpayer or with corporate shareholders. It seems to me the choice is pretty clear. Miles of coastline have already been affected. Environmentally sensitive wetlands are increasingly being under threat. We have seen that, despite the fact that the rig was ``state of the art,'' it obviously was not too safe to fail. Now the damage to the environment, to the economy of the gulf, to the fishermen, to the small businesses, to the Nation is mounting. I hope my colleagues are ready to act, especially when we have the statements of BP, that have been reiterated, that they are going to subject themselves--even though there is a legal cap of $75 million--not for the cleanup, not for all the efforts that are underway--yes, that clearly is their responsibility--but a legal cap of $75 million for all of the liability, for all of those coastal communities and fishermen and seafood fishermen, shrimp fishermen, and commercial seafood processing plants, tourism, and a whole host of other elements that may be affected, that they be limited to $75 million--less than 1 day of BP's profit. BP was making at the rate of $94 million a day. Seventy- five million dollars would be less than 1 day of BP's profits. If they say they are going to be responsible--and any companies similarly situated should be fully responsible, accountable and subject to that liability--what is the objection to raising the cap? I hope everyone in the Chamber will do the right thing to hold big oil accountable for the damages they caused. Damages are mounting. They still have not stopped the leak. While BP says they will pay all ``legitimate claims,'' their word is not legally binding. As a matter of fact, when they were before the Energy Committee, colleagues of mine asked them, clearly, questions and they began to equivocate as to what is a legitimate claim. Today I asked the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, who was before the Energy Committee, is there a consent agreement between the government and BP, that holds them--legally binding--to the proposition that they will be subject to all the liabilities they have caused? And the answer was no. There is some letter, but even that letter is rather amorphous. When I hear they are equivocating before the committee, and when I see the experience we already had with Exxon--that made all similar types of statements and then litigated for 20 years--it seems to me this clearly raises concerns that they will try to find a convenient loophole, a convenient way out once the public relations nightmare is over, a way to say no, as many of my colleagues seem to want to say no and stand on the side of big oil companies and stand in the way of legislation that would raise the liability caps to ensure that big oil polluters pay for the damage they caused. I see, by example, one company, BP, made nearly $6 billion in profits--not proceeds, profits--in 3 months of this year; when the top 5 oil companies made nearly $25 billion in profits--not proceeds, profits--in 3 months, and that somehow we are worried about them even when they caused the type of potentially enormous consequences that BP has actually caused in this case, and we are not worried about those communities, our taxpayers, and our fragile ecosystem. It is a failure that now threatens the entire gulf coast. It could go all the way to the Florida Keys. I appreciate the administration earlier today embraced the idea of unlimited liability. I commend them for that. I want to make sure BP ends up committing to pay for this disaster, not by their words but by a legal obligation to do so, and that is what we can create today. There should be no legal wiggle room for oil companies that devastate coastal businesses and communities now or in the future. In view of that goal, I now ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged of S. 3305, the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010, that the Senate proceed to its consideration, that the only amendment in order be the substitute amendment that is at the desk, that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, the Senator's question is well put. Justice could not be achieved under the present cap. As a matter of fact, as I said earlier, today the United States declared a fishing disaster in three Gulf States: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana itself has a $2.4 billion seafood industry, and it supplies up to 40 percent of all of the U.S. seafood. Clearly, just that figure alone gives us a sense that all of those individuals and communities and entities would not receive justice.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. British Petroleum made about $5.6 billion in the first 3 months in profits--not proceeds, profits. Right now the liability cap that exists under the law is $75 million, 1 day of BP's profits, based on the first quarter's $94 million. So it is less than 1 day's profit.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator's question and his concern. I think it is the concern of many. The reality is, I have heard comments that to hold BP accountable is un-American. Well, I think it is un-American to allow BP to go ahead, pollute the natural resources of the United States and not be held accountable in an unlimited fashion, which is the administration's position because they have created enormous consequences which we have yet to fully understand--we have yet to fully understand. I know the Senator from Illinois was just on a trip to the gulf.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator's question. The Senator himself has at various times informed this body of something that he has referred to as the loop current, which is, in essence, a natural current that could very well take the oilspill from the region of the gulf and move it along the Senator's State in Florida and beyond. This is an enormous concern. Already, as I said earlier, the U.S. Government has banned fishing products from three States, and the consequences of that just in one dimension in terms of the seafood that part of the country generates for us domestically, both in terms of the billions of dollars as well as the consumption of seafood is now one that has been barred by the U.S. Government. So we are increasingly seeing the consequences of this damage. There is real concern this could move in a direction that would be consequential to other States as well.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I regret that my dear friend and colleague from Alabama has the need to object. This is an opportunity, with a bipartisan amendment, to help Main Street and small businesses; an opportunity to create 40,000 jobs; an opportunity to do it without cost to the taxpayers; an opportunity to do it with organizations, CDFIs, that have a proven track record; an opportunity to lend to Main Street because big banks are not doing it. We all lament the lack of job growth. We all lament the lack of access to capital. This would be a tremendous opportunity to do that. So I do hope I can work with Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby to get this in order prior to the cloture vote or hopefully, if we do not achieve that, to be able to get this in any managers' amendment. It is bipartisan. It creates jobs. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. I do not know how much more you can come to the floor and offer an amendment that should have bipartisan support than an effort like that. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak about an amendment I hope is noncontroversial and one that creates jobs. When one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is present, I will make a unanimous consent request, but I will start off by speaking on the amendment. Amendment No. 4064 would create more than 40,000 new jobs. It would help revitalize Main Street in some of the economically hardest hit communities all around the country and at no cost to the taxpayer. We have been talking a lot about the financial crisis and how to prevent the next one. That is obviously important. It is essential work. But what we cannot lose sight of is the devastating impact this crisis has had on small businesses and economic development in local neighborhoods and communities. I, like many in this Chamber, watched in frustration as the ranks of the unemployed rose to 15 million people and the unemployment rate increased to nearly 10 percent. I, like many of you, have watched in frustration as small businesses shut their doors, unable to get the credit they needed to keep the lights on. The problem is the big banks--the same banks that took billions upon billions of dollars in TARP funds--are not making loans to small businesses. According to a just-released report by the Congressional Oversight Panel, Wall Street's largest banks reduced their small business loan portfolios between 2008 and 2009 by more than double the overall drop in lending. Let me read you the conclusion of that report. It says: Small business credit remains severely constricted. Unable to find credit, many small businesses have had to shut their doors, and some of the survivors are still struggling to find adequate financing. So despite all of our efforts to restore liquidity in banks, they refuse to hold up their end of the bargain and are not lending to small businesses. We know small businesses are the engines of growth. More than 99 percent of American businesses employ 500 or fewer employees, and together these companies employ half of the private workforce and create 2 of every 3 new jobs. So the question throughout the recession has always been, How can small businesses get the credit they need not only to keep the lights on but to grow and create jobs, to get the economy humming again? Today, we are showing signs of improvement. We have stopped job losses, from three-quarters of a million jobs, to over 260,000 jobs created last month. The economy is recovering, but there are still millions of people who do not have work--people who expect us to do something to help them. I believe this bill we are passing is essential to an economic recovery. In making our banking system more secure and stable, we are directing banks to focus on the core business of lending and extending credit, rather than the reckless casino speculation that brought us to this recession. But we can also do something that is more direct and more immediate to help jump-start more job growth. We can invest directly in small businesses and local communities by supporting community development financial institutions or, as they are called, CDFIs. Based on what we know about this community from its historic performance, the amendment I am proposing will create approximately 40,000 new jobs by authorizing the government to guarantee bonds issued by qualified CDFIs for community and economic development loans. And best of all, there are no pay-go implications. As their name implies, the primary mission of community development financial institutions is to foster economic and community development in underserved areas. They have a proven track record of job creation and are arguably the most effective way to infuse capital in underserved areas for community and economic development. CDFIs leverage public and private dollars to support economic development projects, such as job-training clinics and startup loans for small businesses in areas full of potential but desperate for development. CDFIs have been hit hard by the recession because they have had to rely on big banks for capital. As we have seen, that capital is neither affordable nor accessible. I am proud to have bipartisan support on this amendment. Senator Snowe is a cosponsor, as are Senators Johnson, Leahy, and Schumer, and I want to say to all of our cosponsors, we thank you for your support. The idea is simple: If big banks do not care about lending to small businesses and communities in need of capital, then we should empower the very organizations that do care, that make it their mission every day to rebuild Main Streets across this country, and that are ready and willing to do even more if they only had the resources and tools to meet the growing demand. So I ask all of us in this Chamber, do we want to go home to our States and tell the folks on Main Street that, no, we did not think they deserved the loan guarantees--that would not cost taxpayers a dollar but would create more than 40,000 new jobs? I certainly do not think so. We have talked a lot about protecting Main Street from Wall Street here in the last few weeks, but we have not talked about doing anything directly to benefit Main Street. Here is our chance. Again, we know the big banks have dried up their lending to small businesses. We know small businesses are the engine of economic growth. I am proposing an amendment that would not wait around for the big banks to start lending again while Main Street businesses continue to struggle to meet payroll. I am proposing an amendment that would give our communities the guarantees they need to get lending started again to put money into our engines of job growth--and all without any pay-go implications, without any cost to the Federal taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important amendment and to help small businesses create jobs on Main Street. I appreciate that Senator Snowe, Senator Johnson, and others--Senator Schumer--have joined us on this effort. Madam President, seeing the distinguished ranking member of the Banking Committee is now on the floor, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 4064, which is the CDFI amendment, and ask unanimous consent for a vote on this amendment prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, to summarize, this is very simple: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the taxpayers or multibillion- dollar oil companies? Are you on the side of fishermen, working hard to make a living, or on the side of multibillion-dollar oil companies? Are you on the side of the small inns that benefit from the tourism in the gulf region or on the side of multibillion-dollar oil companies? Are you on the side of the coastal communities that are going to be affected by virtue of the spill or on the side of multibillion-dollar oil companies? Because of the fierce urgency now, we believe it is necessary to ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3305, the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson be next for 5 minutes, and then Senator Cardin for 4 minutes, and then Senator Lautenberg for 5 minutes.