Senate Proceeding 05-25-10 on May 25th, 2010 :: 0:02:55 to 0:20:00
Total video length: 5 hours 26 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:305 Duration: 0:17:05 Discussion

Next speech:

0:02:39 to 0:02:59( Edit History Discussion )

proposition that a polluter pays at the end of the day is to agree with t administration's statement and to raise from a cap of $75 million to an unlimited cap. and i will be doing that in my consent motion in a few moments. -- a few minutes.

0:03:00 to 0:03:23( Edit History Discussion )

now, we've heard already the objections to we have even heard some claim that it is -- quote -- "un-american" to hold a multibillion-dollar corporation accountable for the very disaster it caused. boggles my mind, at least, as one senator, that there are

0:03:24 to 0:03:45( Edit History Discussion )

those who believe that holding b.p. accountable for the disaster they created in the gulf is un-american. well, this is a chance to show if we stand with big oil companies or with small businesses, with fisheries, with coastal communities, with

0:03:46 to 0:04:06( Edit History Discussion )

tourism, with hotels, with all of those individuals, fellow americans who are being hurt by this disaster. it's an opportunity to say, do we stand up for the american taxpayer or with corporate shareholders? it seems to me the choice is pretty clear. miles of coastline have already

0:04:07 to 0:04:31( Edit History Discussion )

been affected. environmentally sensitive wetlands are increasingly being under threat. and we've seen that despite the fact that the rig was -- quote, unquote -- "state-of-the-art" --

0:04:32 to 0:04:52( Edit History Discussion )

it obviously wasn't too state-of-the-art to fail. so i hope my completion are ready to act -- so i hope my colleagues are ready to act. especially when we have the statements of b.p. that have been reiterated that they are going to subject themselves, even though there is a legal cap of $75 million not for the

0:04:53 to 0:05:14( Edit History Discussion )

cleanup, not for all the efforts that a going under way -- yes, that clearly is their responsibility -- but a legal cap of $75 million for all of the liabilities, for all of those coastal communities and fishermen and shrimp tissuermen

0:05:15 to 0:05:38( Edit History Discussion )

aermenand splimp fishermen, and a -- and shrimp fishermen, and a whroal host of other things. b.p. is making billions a day. if they say they are going to be responsible and that any company similarly situated, i would argue, should be fully responsible, accountable, and subject to that liability, what

0:05:39 to 0:05:59( Edit History Discussion )

is the objection to raising the cap? so i hope everyone in the chamber will do the right thing, hold big oil accountable for the damage they caused. damages are mounting. they still have not stopped the leak. and while b.p. says they will pay all -- quote -- "legitima" -- -- quote -- "legitimate"

0:06:00 to 0:06:22( Edit History Discussion )

claims, their word is not legally binding. when they were before the energy committee, colleagues of my 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 eney committee, is there a consent agreement between the government

0:06:23 to 0:06:44( Edit History Discussion )

and b.p. that holds them legally binding to the proposition that they will be subject to all the liabilities that they have caused? and the answer was "no." there is some letter, but even that letter is rather amorphous. and so when i hear they're equivocating before committee and when i see the

0:06:45 to 0:07:06( Edit History Discussion )

experience we already had with exxon, who made all similar types of statements and then litigated for 20 years years, it seems to me that this clearly raises concerns that they'll try to find a convenient loophole, a convenient way out once the public relations nightmare is over, a way to say

0:07:07 to 0:07:27( Edit History Discussion )

"no," just like many of my colleagues seem to want to say "no" and stand on side of big oil companies an. it seems to me when i see just by example one company, b.p., made nearly $6 billion in

0:07:28 to 0:07:48( Edit History Discussion )

profits -- not proceeds, profits -- in three months of this year, when the top five oil companies made nearly $25 billion in profits, not proceeds, profits, in three months, that somehow we're worried about them even when they cause the type of

0:07:49 to 0:08:09( Edit History Discussion )

potential enormous consequences that b.p. has actually caused in this case and not worried about those communities, our taxpayers, and our fragile echo system. it is a -- ecosystem. it is a problem that now

0:08:10 to 0:08:32( Edit History Discussion )

threatens the entire gulf coast. want to make sure that b.p. ends up committing to pay for this disaster, not by their words, but by a leelg obligation to do so. -- legal obligation to do so. there should be no legal wiggle room.

0:08:33 to 0:08:53( Edit History Discussion )

so in view of that goal, i'd like to now, madam president, ask unanimous consent that the environment and public works committee be discharged of 3305, the big oil bailout prevention unlimited liability ability of 2010, that the senate proceed to its consideration, that the amendment in order be

0:08:54 to 0:09:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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 on the table. mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object, first of all, let me shea that i agree most of what the senator from new jersey is saying.

0:09:10 to 0:11:25( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

0:09:17 to 0:09:39( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: he mentioned that the profits of the top five oil companies -- those are shell, b.p., conoco phillips, exxonmobil and chevron -- they are eight giants. and if we'll recall, last week when i objected to the arbitrary cap of $10 billion, it was because it was arbitrary.

0:09:40 to 0:10:00( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i quote add lot of people in the -- i quote add lot of people in the administration saying it shouldn't be an arbitrary cap. if you do have an arbitrary cap -- and that was at $10 billion -- that would mean that only the big five plus the national oil companies, maybe venezuela, china certainly, would be in a position to do this work of offshore.

0:10:01 to 0:10:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now it's my feeling that if you take the $10 billion off and make it totally unlimited, that could very well shut out even the five and leave nothing but national oil companies in a position to be doing it. i believe we should increase the cap. and i know that we -- that there's unanimity in that notion. we have to do it.

0:10:23 to 0:10:44( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: certainly secretary of the interior said in his -- and this is what he said about the $10 billion cap. "it is important that we be thoughtful relative to that what that cap will be because you don't know what only the b.p.'s of the world essentially to be the ones that are involved in these efforts."

0:10:45 to 0:11:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and so i would agree with 90% of what the senator says and with what the secretary of interior has said about this, that we really need to determine how high that cap should be. it should be much higher, and we have plenty of time to do that. let me reemphasize that the is no cap i terms of the actual cleanup damages. we're only talking about

0:11:06 to 0:11:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: economic damages here. so there is no cap on cleanup damages. i think there should be -- at some point we have to arrive at a cap. a lot of people are working on t the frags i administration is working on it -- the administration is working on it

0:11:26 to 0:11:46( Edit History Discussion )

t we're working on it. i do object. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. inhofe: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mendez: madam president, first of all i am disappointed because i appreciate what the

0:11:47 to 0:12:09( Edit History Discussion )

distinguished senator from oklahoma said, but the reality is, the administration has been thoughtful. they've thought about it. and today they announced, as well as was verified by the assistant attorney general at a hearing, that it is their view

0:12:10 to 0:12:31( Edit History Discussion )

that in fact there should be an unlimited cap. so it's not -- they have not equivocated about an amount. they have now said that it should be an unlimited cap. unlimited, just as b.p. has suggested that they're going to accept unlimited responsibility for their -- for the liability that they have created as a

0:12:32 to 0:12:52( Edit History Discussion )

result of the spill in the gulf. and i really have a difficulty understanding, when we begin to talk about sizes, that if you're smaller but conduct the same potential risky consequences that end up polluting the gulf

0:12:53 to 0:13:13( Edit History Discussion )

anyplace else, as it is being polluted right now, that bause you're simply smaller but you take the same risks that you should have less liability, which means that then all of us, as taxpayers -- and i know a lot of people here don't want to see the federal government more involved; the they want to see the

0:13:14 to 0:13:34( Edit History Discussion )

federal government less involved until they need the federal government. then they come clamoring to this comaim for money. so it seems to me that -- then they come clamoring to this chamber for money. so it seems to me that -- and he only mentioned the top five -- if they made $25 billion in three months, why in god's name should i give them any of the

0:13:35 to 0:13:56( Edit History Discussion )

taxpayers' money when they mess up, when they pollute? what representative of what state is goi to come here and say, give us money because, by the way, we were hard in this way or that way or the other? when in fact they're unwilling to hold the oil companies

0:13:57 to 0:14:18( Edit History Discussion )

responsible with record profits? not acceptable. and now we say, well, if you're not one of the big five, but we're worried a next ten, well, they may be smaller but some of these enties, you know, who get referred to as "independents," well, you know, there's one that actually owns 25% stake in the

0:14:19 to 0:14:39( Edit History Discussion )

well that is spilling in the gulf. they're valued at $40 billion. $40 billion. i don't think for the average american that's mom or pop. the reality is, regardless of the size, the fundamental public policy question, activity that is risky, should you not be responsible for the

0:14:40 to 0:15:01( Edit History Discussion )

consequences of your risky activity, or do we shift the responsibility to the general public and the taxpayer? it's like what we just went through in the wall street debate. so when you hit it big on the oil well and everything goes well, you keep the money. but when something goe

0:15:02 to 0:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

the rest of consequence. i don't think the american taxpayers want to see that. that is not what they have in mind as being responsive to their interests. so i know that my colleague from new jersey wanted to enter into a colloquy with me. and i'd be happy to yield to h now. mr. lautenberg: i thank my friend and colleague from new

0:15:24 to 0:15:45( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: jersey. when we we've heard it, we're now three times we've offered legislation to lift the $75 liability cap for oil companies. and i have to shake my head, as i hear what's being said.

0:15:35 to 0:20:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Frank Lautenberg

0:15:46 to 0:16:07( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: the land that's drilled on is federal land. it's land that everybody owns. it's our land. it's not their land. and if you come into my yard and you destroy my house, you pay for it because it's not the person who did the damage who owns it.

0:16:08 to 0:16:32( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: it is shocking, and i hear things like arbitrary tests. arbitrary? whatever damage is caused ought to be paid for. ry simple. and so, you know, we on this side, the president, our side of the aisle, are united we need to

0:16:33 to 0:16:54( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: do away with the liability is extensive. it ought to be paid for, especially by people who can afford to pay. when you think about it, i think these companies have to be reminded that they're not selling lawn mowers. they're extracting oil from our property.

0:16:55 to 0:17:16( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: they're making billions and billions of dollars on it. almost shamefully. and i look at it, and i rember that at one time there was a excess profits tax in america. it was during world war ii. and it said companies that profit as a result of the war,

0:17:17 to 0:17:41( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: as a result of the crisis have to pay an extra tax on the profits they make. and that's what we ought to be doing now. the profits they make and the damage they create are an unconscionable twosome. so those on the other side object each time we try to do

0:17:42 to 0:18:03( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: something that enables the -- our country, our -- the people to recover the damage that was put upon them by eher c or reckless behavior by three companies united: b.p.,

0:18:04 to 0:18:25( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: transocean, halliburton. so there's no doubt about it. shamelessly, they want to stick with big oil while people across the country suffer from either damage or costs that they're -- that are moved over to them. and evidence continues that -- to mount that big oil cannot be

0:18:26 to 0:18:46( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: trusted. b.p.'s c.e.o. said the spill isn't very serious, only a very tiny amount and the environmental impact would be very, very modest. he said it publicly. well, they want to downplay the damage but they can't hold, it

0:18:47 to 0:19:07( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: they can't make the public believe, they can't make those who are responsible for the measurement believe it. they don't want to pay the full cost even though they're responsible for the full damage. transocean, it's amazing, they tried to go to court citing an

0:19:08 to 0:19:28( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: 1851 maritime law to limit their liability. and at the same time we face billions in monetary damages far more than the exxon valdez spill. and damage to industry is growing as tourism suffers. 22% of gulf fisheries have been closed, and those responsible for messing it up must be

0:19:29 to 0:19:50( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: responsible fully for cleaning up, just like families do, just like neighborhoods do, just like communities do. with billions and billions in profits, we know that big oil can afford to bail itself out and they just ought to pay for it, period. so we're standing here once

0:19:51 to 0:20:10( Edit History Discussion )

Frank Lautenberg: again asking our republican colleagues a simple question: whose side are you on? i think it's pretty evident, you're on the side of big oil, while we here stand up for ordinary americans trying to eke out a living in these very difficult times. and i hope that there will be a reconsideration here and that they will agree that those who