Tom Carper

When Senator Vitter tried to pass this through the Senate immediately, it was blocked by Senator Robert Menendez.

Senator David Vitter introduced emergency legislation to completely remove the existing cap in Federal law for economic damages as it pertains to BP and our disaster.

If there is any national policy challenge that is not and should not be treated as partisan in any way, surely it is the ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf.

The economic damages liability cap needs to be increased to a great extent permanently.

This is an ongoing crisis, and we need to act in certain ways.

Lifting the liability cap, as we do under the legislation, also instills discipline on oil companies.

I wonder whether the 'drill, baby, drill' crowd ever thought about the 'spill, baby, spill' consequences, because that is what we have today.

So for that reason, along with 20 cosponsors, we have amended the legislation for unlimited liability.

Today's hearing is an important step in helping Congress figure out what kinds of reforms are needed.

As a member from a coastal State I can say that I truly understand the importance of our shorelines to our own local and national economies.

My heart goes out to the folks that are impacted by this terrible accident, to the families of the 11 workers who died.

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on Senator Menendez's legislation.

I congratulate Senator Menendez for introducing S. 3305. I am proud to co-sponsor the measure.

It seems to me that the one thing that I have noticed about the way things could happen in our present society is we just do not have disincentives for bad behavior.

I think what Senator Durbin said earlier is--one of the things many of us are concerned about is how do we get the disincentive for the bad behavior.

I think we have the opportunity here for us, for Senator Feingold and myself, and hopefully Senator Voinovich and Senator Coburn and others to join forces on another good idea.

This is just a way to go after one particular and very important aspect of the spending challenge we face.

I would suggest that we provide him the power, probably not forever but for maybe 4 years.

It seems like a month or two ago when you were good enough to come and testify before a Subcommittee that I chair on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

He has been a true champion of taxpayers, and his work in this area is another example of that leadership.

I have always said on an idea of mine, if I cannot get 50 of my colleagues to vote with me for it in the U.S. Senate, then maybe we should not be spending that money.

I have supported literally since 1992... a 2-year test drive for line-item veto power for the President.

If we look at our budget deficit that we face, from the years 2001 to 2008 we racked up as much new debt in those 8 years as we did in, I think, the previous 208 years of our Nation's history.

I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool.

I really appreciate your testimony.