Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. We know that the military does not need this provision to ensure a stable supply. We already are the largest oil producer in the world, producing nearly 14 million barrels of oil a day. Let's be clear:…
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. We know that the military does not need this provision to ensure a stable supply. We already are the largest oil producer in the world, producing nearly 14 million barrels of oil a day.
Let's be clear: This is not about energy independence or national security. It is about giving Big Oil special treatment at the expense of California. Under this amendment, a single certification from the Secretary of Defense unlocks sweeping legal protections for fossil fuel projects. States and local governments cannot interfere. Courts are told to presume that delaying this project harms national security on the Secretary's word alone, and we know what that means.
Challengers cannot dispute the Secretary's determination and developers
receive procedural advantages that no other litigant enjoys, including the ability to essentially choose which Federal court will hear a challenge.
It is interesting to me that this amendment is sponsored by Congressman Hunt from Houston, where Sable Offshore Oil's headquarters is located.
Sable Offshore, of course, is the operator of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System, which the Trump administration forced back online over the objections of California. This is the pipeline that caused the devastating Refugio oil spill in 2015 in my district.
My constituents, who must live with the risk this operation poses, are overwhelmingly opposed, but the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to preempt State law.
The State of California is challenging that authority in court. I guess Sable is worried about losing in court, as they should be, because this amendment would allow the company to avoid accountability by moving to a more favorable court, blocking the California lawsuit, and preventing any court from issuing an injunction against this project.
Let me be clear again: This isn't about national security. This is a bailout for polluters.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is an outrageous attack on States' rights dressed up as a fake energy emergency.
My colleague refers to a national emergency during World War II where the Army and our country's posture was different. The current environment is not legitimate. It is not a legitimate war environment as he refers to from the past.
Let us be clear about what this does. It would allow the Federal Government to seize California's owned lands through eminent domain for the Santa Ynez pipeline system.
This is the same pipeline that caused the 2015 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in my district.
Instead of trying to restore it to safe operating condition, Sable has spent years ignoring and evading California law to try to restart this operation, and not using the latest and best technology available.
California's State Fire Marshal also already indicated the pipeline is not in safe operating operation, but Sable does not think a little thing like State laws or the health and safety of our coasts should stand in the way of their profits.
At the company's request, the administration stripped California of its oversight of the pipeline and used the Defense Production Act to force it to restart operations, and this was before this illegitimate Iran war.
Apparently, that was not enough. Now, Sable is asking its friends in Congress to rig the system in its favor, seize California lands, and issue an irrevocable operating permit. Yes, these are friends from another State.
Let's talk about the hypocrisy here.
What happened to States' rights? This is the most blatant example of corrupt Federal overreach, so why aren't my colleagues across the aisle up in arms? Oh, because it is not convenient.
No one should be able to use the Federal Government as their personal trump card to trample on State laws and regulations for their personal profit, no matter the party, no matter the State.
Unfortunately, this amendment fits a broader pattern of attacks on California by this administration, attacking our clean air standards, undermining our offshore wind industry, and now trying to bulldoze our environmental protections for Big Oil--a Big Oil handout.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous project and the precedent it sets.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. Chair, I am a marine. I served our country. I know what it is like to fight for our country and to stand up and be ready to be called when we need to do so. But to use the Defense Production Act for a frivolous reason undermines our democracy and undermines the integrity of what we are about, and when we really need to use it, it makes a mockery of us.
Mr. Chair, this is ludicrous. We should not proceed forward with this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I served in North Carolina in Camp LeJeune. I know the weather there. I know North Carolina, and I also know why I live in California.
I am opposed to this amendment. Once again, this amendment has nothing to do with national security, as much as people want to say that over and over and over.
Yet, it has everything to do with politically motivated attacks on State policies that the other side of the aisle happens to disagree with. Just call it what it is. It specifically requires a report on ways for the Federal Government to preempt State laws, including, once again, through national security waivers.
Mr. Chair, how far the principled have fallen. I thought the Republican Party was the party of States' rights. Maybe it is selective States' rights. But apparently that principle only applies when they agree with the State's policies. Let's call it what it is: selective.
This amendment would strip States of their ability to adopt stronger protections for their communities' air, water, and public health. Unfortunately, it appears that States' rights take a back seat when there is a favor to be done for Big Oil.
This amendment is a roadmap for the Federal Government to undermine States that choose to protect their residents. In places like California, communities have fought for stronger safeguards against pollution and environmental hazards, not weaker ones.
That is why we also believe in renewable energy, something this administration does not. If we were really concerned about energy and diversifying our energy capacity, we would support offshore wind.
This President has gone to great lengths to kill offshore wind projects in California. Let's not talk about energy supply when we are doing everything possible to just give a handout to the oil industry.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. Chair, I think I heard that my colleague supports offshore wind, which is in contrast with the President. I am assuming he disagrees with the President.
Mr. Chair, I am willing to yield for the purposes of a colloquy to ask for an answer to that question. I kind of heard that the gentleman supported offshore wind.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment. Don't get me wrong. I am glad to see my colleagues across the aisle recognize that recycling needs to be part of our minerals and materials strategy. We absolutely should be recovering valuable materials instead of relying entirely on new mining.
This amendment isn't really about recycling, is it? It is another attempt to use national security as a phony justification to override State laws that this majority doesn't like. What happened to States' rights again? Are we being selective again?
It would prevent States and local governments from enforcing requirements governing the recycling and disposal of defense materials unless those requirements are identical to Federal law. Many States and localities have adopted stronger safeguards to protect communities from pollution and industrial hazards. We know that defense equipment can pose significant risks to surrounding communities.
In an era where this administration is trying to roll back every single environmental and public health protection it can, an amendment like this is particularly dangerous. I know. I served in the Marine Corps. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I don't know what they teach in Georgia. In California, let me tell you, we learn how to read and write. I understand this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. Chair, in California, we really believe it is important to protect the public health of our constituents, so I am flabbergasted that this is trying to undermine the standards that we want to have to protect our public health from hazardous and toxic materials.
Now, if you live in another State and the people want to have lesser standards for hazardous materials that could damage their public health, hurt their public health, that is one thing, but to try to undermine those standards in California is another.
This amendment does exactly that. It tries to undermine the will of the State of California and its people. I reserve the balance of my time.
