[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Page H3793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TRIBUTE TO JUDGE EDWARD DAVIS, QUESTIONS REGARDING GULF OIL SPILL, AND 
                 COMMENTS ON REPUBLICAN ``YOUCUT'' PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy 
heart because of the loss of a very good friend of mine, Judge Edward 
Davis of the Southern District of Florida. He passed this morning. My 
love and condolences go out to Pat and the rest of the family for this 
tragic loss. I shall speak more at another time about my dear, good 
friend.
  Additionally, Madam Speaker, while we are ``slick and tired'' of 
hearing people pontificate about this ecosystem disaster of apocalyptic 
proportions, there are questions that do need to be raised, not only 
for the entirety of the oil industry, but certainly for the United 
States Government in this particular case.
  I would like the questions answered, and am proposing by way of a 
letter what steps are being taken to determine how much oil is 
underwater, where it is located, and what path it will take over the 
next decade.
  What do we project the threat to be from a potential hurricane in the 
Gulf of Mexico, and how is our government planning for the potential 
impact of such a possibility?
  What are the potential long-term impacts if the oil plume stays in 
its location and-or begins moving through the loop current and Gulf 
Stream to various coastal locations?
  Why have we not used our tankers that can suck in oil and water and 
pump out oil?
  Why have we not asked Russia or Norway or China or Japan to use their 
submersibles in a meaningful way?
  Interagency coordination is required. I happen to like Thad Allen. I 
think he is one of the better commandants that the Coast Guard has ever 
had, and I think he is doing an incredible job trying to coordinate. 
But what does the Federal Government's short-term, midterm and long-
term response structure look like, and what agencies are in charge, is 
what I would ask him and anyone else involved.
  What steps are being taken to coordinate long-term observations, 
impact analysis, mitigation research and research that is needed? Not 
BP's research, but our research. We have an institution, NOAA. They 
have modeling efforts to improve hurricane intensity forecasting and a 
sufficient amount of information that could be beneficial, and I am 
sure many are using it.
  What is the government's plan to improve security at these oil 
facilities? Nothing has been really said to us here in the Congress 
directly regarding this.
  But, now, Madam Speaker, I want to turn to my colleagues on the other 
side for the remainder of my time.
  Earlier today, I spoke on the House floor regarding the Republicans' 
latest ploy to stall the important work of this body known as 
``YouCut,'' which I like to call ``CutYou.'' Each week, a targeted pool 
of online and cell phone users are supposed to vote for one of five 
programs that they would like to see cut from the budget. Simply put, 
YouCut can and probably does undercut our representational 
responsibilities, which leads to undercutting our democracy.
  Once we start getting into the business of government by referendum, 
we negate representation. Ask my friends in California and ask those of 
us in Florida what impact that kind of activity has had on our 
representatives.
  The last time I checked, last week, there were 280,000 votes, and 
that doesn't constitute the will of the American people. That is what 
brings me to the floor.
  Very occasionally, Democrats and Republicans get on the floor and say 
what the American people want. What the American people know is that we 
represent them, and therefore when we stand up and say that 280,000 
people voted a certain way, or 81,000 of them voted to cut much-needed 
funding from the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, that does not 
represent the majority of Americans.
  Quite frankly, I think how this idea got started is that they need to 
rebrand themselves, and I don't fault them for that, and they are 
particularly good at messaging, and I don't fault them for that.
  The simple fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line 
somebody decided, let's use us a mechanism to gather in these emails. 
Let's use us a mechanism to get these phone numbers. And then what do 
we do at campaign time? We turn it back around and go at them to make 
them intense and enthusiastic. And that is what people can do, so I 
have no quarrels with that.
  I have no quarrels with their new program. What is it called? It is 
getting ready to be unfolded next Tuesday on their Web site. It is 
called ``America is Speaking Out.'' Well, the last time I looked in my 
office, America has spoken out an awful lot.
  I don't know that we need too much more undercutting, and the poor in 
this country sure don't need an uppercut.
  What Republicans fail to mention is that the ``YouCut'' program is 
inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell 
phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. 
Furthermore, the ``YouCut'' program conveniently targets only those who 
have internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leave 
out some of the poor and the elderly.
  Instead of continuing to be the ``party of no,'' Republicans should 
say ``yes'' to the American people and help pass the legislation that 
this National needs and deserves.

                          ____________________