Bob Menendez

I do hope that there is appropriate referrals to the Justice Department, because only when we act seriously will the regulators understand that you can't, ultimately, be cozying up to the industry and doing what they want and putting us…

Is unlimited liability available under State law for this bill?

Has BP entered into a consent agreement with the Department of Justice to agree to--

Because Exxon said all of these--many of these same things during the Exxon Valdez.

But, there is no question that this is a discharge, not within a State, but in the territorial waters of the United States.

Let me commend the administration for embracing an unlimited liability for economic damages flowing from an offshore rig spill.

If, in fact, it is--I think everybody clearly believes this consequence in damages is at least $10 billion--some have suggested it should be an unlimited cap. If that is the figure, your concern wouldn't stop you from putting it at that…

So is it my understanding that because of your concern about these other independents, let's call them, you would allow them--if they were the cause of this incident--to limit their liability just because they are small?

I do not think that those who have citizenship want to give it up.

You know, Mr. Ferrer, do--let me get this straight. Do you support, as one of the options in the plebiscite, the association--sovereignty in association with the United States?

Puerto Ricans have given a great deal to our Nation, through their contributions to our economy, and to the Armed Forces of the United States.

I have always said, when it comes to Puerto Rico, we must have an unstacked, and unbiased process that allows the people of Puerto Rico to determine their own future.

I hope that the Senate will follow the House's lead and pass this bill.

They deserve, as such, a process toward self--true self-determination--that is fair and balanced.

This impossible proposal has been 'consistently opposed by federal authorities . . . on both constitutional and policy grounds.'

I look at all of this and I say to myself that we have dramatically underestimated--it doesn't mean that we won't--that there won't be a policy decision--but, we have dramatically--MMS has dramatically underestimated the potential risk…

Do you really think that BP was capable or had a real plan for the worst-case discharge?

I have legislation to raise it to $10 billion.

I personally believe that you and the country have been ill-served by the Mineral Management Service.

But, if an entity tells you they are 'capable of responding to the worst-case discharge,' I don't think anybody reasonably would believe that BP had a plan for the worst-case discharge.

I don't think the American taxpayer would believe in that, as a proposition.

It seems to me it's a common industry practice we've got to review.

I think it's pretty reasonable to understand that $75 million is not going to reach the amount that is going to be conducted in damages here.

I appreciate your litany of what you're attempting to do, but one seems more incredible than the other.

So we have multiple redundancies. It's not just a singular thing that's going to work to create the safety. Multiple redundancies.