Statement Opposing Expanded Drilling Off Californias North Coast

Mr. Chairman, according to this bill's drafters, the legislation would not require leasing permits in the northern California planning area, which is the coastline of my district. My amendment merely makes that clear.

Drilling on the north coast of California is a disastrous idea, and the legislation must be clear that it is not acceptable to drill off California's north coast. Because this amendment is a clarification of the legislation's intent, there is no cost associated with it.

Just about 3 weeks ago, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the Nation's worst oil spill. I will not let what happened to the Gulf of Mexico happen to the north coast of California. I have introduced separate stand-alone legislation which would permanently ban drilling off the coast of my district.

It is important to me and to my constituents that H.R. 1231 clearly notates that drilling will not occur in the northern California planning area along the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties. The coastal area of my district is one of only four major upwellings in our world's oceans.

An upwelling is where cold, nutrient-rich waters are brought from the ocean depths to the surface. Upwelling regions promote seaweed and growth, which, in turn, supply energy for some of the most productive ecosystems in our world, including many of our world's fisheries.

North coast ecosystems also sustain some of the largest salmon populations in the lower 49 States and provide essential habitat for Dungeness crab, rockfish, sole, and urchin.

In 2006 and 2008, commercial fishery disasters that virtually eliminated salmon fishing in California were economically disastrous to my district, to our States, and our Nation. If an oil spill were to occur off the coast of my district, the environmental and economic costs would be staggering. Drilling for oil or gas off California's north coast could cause serious harm to the unique and productive ecosystem and abundant marine life found in this area.

My district is economically dependent upon the rich natural resources we are blessed to have, but it is also subject to significant earthquakes which exacerbate the issues, the threats, and the problems related to oil spills.

One of my counties just wrote to me, and I quote, ``The modest amount of oil available in terms of our Nation's daily demand does not justify jeopardizing our fisheries, our environment, and our economic livelihoods.''

This amendment will merely protect the north coast of California and will simply clarify what the drafters of this bill say that the bill does, and that is that they claim that it does not require drilling off the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, or Del Norte Counties.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.

[Statement, continued]

Again, I want to point out that the majority party has told me and told my staff that the bill that they have offered today, the bill that we are going to be voting on, does not affect the north coast of California. Now, my effort with this amendment is merely to trust but verify.

To oppose this amendment really calls into question, what is the underlying motivation of this bill? Does it do what they claim and not affect this region of our ocean, again, one of only four major upwellings in the world's oceans. This is an area that feeds and promotes the fisheries and the marine life not only in my area, but in all the ocean. And the idea we would put it at any kind of risk. Those of you who know the area know how rough the water is, know how rocky the shores are. If there was an oil spill there, it would never be cleaned up. The area is seismically active. To drill in that area with the threat of earthquakes, you are looking at a situation that would make the Gulf of Mexico disaster pale in comparison.

It is not too much to ask that we merely verify what it is the majority party says that they are not doing with this bill. And the idea that this amendment would be opposed is quite startling to me. I believe that this is something that everyone can get behind. To say that the bill doesn't do this and then refuse to take the amendment calls into question the motive of the bill.