Carbajal Speaks Out Against Sable Offshore Provision in Defense Budget Bill

During last night's House of Representatives debate on the annual national defense policy bill, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) spoke out against the Hunt amendment, which would grant the federal government unprecedented access to California-owned public lands associated with the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline System.

Download a video clip of Carbajal's full debate here.

Background on the Hunt amendment

Specifically, the Hunt amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use federal eminent domain to acquire permanent easements across California-owned lands and submerged lands under the Santa Ynez Pipeline system, the pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio oil spill off the coast of California.

This amendment broadly preempts California law by eliminating state permitting requirements and blocking state injunctions. It also requires the Secretary to grant the operator an irrevocable license that cannot be revoked by California courts, state agencies, or future administrations, except under extremely limited circumstances

A rough transcript of Carbajal' opening remarks is available below:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.

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.

So 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.

So let me be clear again: this isn't about national security.

It is a bailout for polluters.

I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to also vote no.