In America: License to Kill History? SJ Res. 11 Explained
What is the United States Code?
Not to be mistaken for the United States Constitution, the United States Code, or US Code (USC), is a set of laws made by Congress based on existing statutes in the Constitution, last updated in 2018. Unlike the rigid document that is the constitution, requiring a super majority of two-thirds in both houses, the US Code is more fluid. According to Chapter 8, Title 5 of the USC, the United States Congress can vote down any change in rules for Federal Agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Is a smaller government more effective (here)?
A prominent policy platform President Donald Trump ran on was best symbolized by Elon Musk’s podium antics featuring Argentinian President Javier Milei – Austerity of the Federal government. With the very literal symbolism of a Chainsaw to the government, the new administration hopes to reduce regulatory oversight. Nearly 10 days after President Trump’s explosive and headline-grabbing joint session on the 4th of March, the House voted 221-202 and the Senate 54-44 to pass resolution SJR11, which sought to use Chapter 8 Title 5 of the USC to block the implementation of a Biden-era regulatory law. This law would ask all offshore energy manufacturers to conduct a thorough survey of the ocean floor they intend to dig up for oil to ensure they do not accidentally destroy archaeological sites on the ocean floor.
House Republicans perpetrated the idea that such surveys are expensive and needless. claiming that it is “unnecessary red tape.” This sentiment was echoed by the White House, which released a statement that read, “Such a rule impedes increases in domestic energy production, weakening energy independence, and raising costs for consumers.”
Rep. Jared Huffman, of California said while debating the bill, “We are just 2 months into this Congress, yet we have already seen one favor after another to Big Oil from our friends across the aisle”, while stressing that energy companies already do such surveys, and will therefore not be a further cost. But its repeal would amount to a clear advantage for already prosperous companies. He continued, “Republicans just can't get enough, and so we are back here once again giving another favor to Big Oil.”
Why is this considered a favor to big oil?
When conducting surveys of the ocean floor to prevent digging into a fault line and risking major seismic activity, oil and gas excavation companies can sometimes discover long-lost archaeological artifacts. This could mean 14th-century Sicilian war artefacts, or a Bronze Age boat, off the coast of Croatia. Should any seismic activity be detected, all hopes of digging for energy are gone, lest they risk the total wipeout of all their expensive infrastructure due to earthquakes and underwater eruptions.
Similarly, should they discover artefacts of any sort, all digging must be paused immediately and indefinitely until all artefacts are recovered to be studied appropriately. This is to ensure that the invasive process of digging up the ocean floor does not accidentally destroy the artefacts in question. The law that was voted against did not require energy companies to conduct such surveys, but rather, one that required them to disclose to the government if they found artefacts. By foregoing the need to tell the government of their archeological findings, the oil and gas companies can choose to ignore prehistoric relics and dig through them, destroying them in the process.
What is the BOEM trying to protect?
Democratic Maryland Congresswoman, Sarah Elfreth, said in The House, “…historic artifacts serve as evidence of ancient civilizations. They teach us about the development of science, trade, transportation, and culture. So many of these artifacts are buried on the seafloor from shipwrecks and storms to indigenous artifacts. When that seabed is disturbed, these priceless pieces of history get damaged or destroyed.” She also pointed out that any monetary savings made by failing to disclose artefact sites will cause long-term losses down the line. An example of this is when Exxon Mobil laid oil pipelines over a centuries-old shipwreck, failing to disclose it immediately. Eventually, they had to pay $250,000 to excavate it. However, the monetary repercussions of not excavating oil would have been far higher than the quarter of a million they had to eventually pay out.
Republican Representative from Mississippi, Mike Ezel, argued in favor of the bill, “Let's send a clear message: We stand for affordable energy, good-paying jobs, and an America that leads, not one that follows bad policies straight into higher costs and economic decline.” This statement is in line with the general Republican messaging on the matter – the rule is a blatant government overreach, and an expensive one at that, and it raises the price of energy for all Americans. Is this the absolute truth? Not really.
Since 2020, the US has become a net exporter of oil, as reported by the US Energy Information Agency (EIA). This means that the US sells more oil than it buys. Should they stop selling some of that oil and use it domestically, energy prices are bound to go down. Further, per the Federal Register’s research, it would cost an estimated $5.9 million over the next 20 years to conduct such surveys. This works out to just under $300,000 annually. The annual revenue of the American oil industry is reportedly $244.4 billion. This means that these companies would have to spend an estimated 0.00012% of their revenue on such surveys.
Why are these artefacts worth protecting?
Underwater archaeological sites are invaluable to understanding human history. Be that the submerged city of Thonis-Heracleion near Alexandria, Egypt, that told us about religion and trade, or the Atlit-Yam sites off the coast of present-day Israel, that taught about human migratory patterns, these artefacts are worth preserving.
However, a larger and more concerning overarching theme of this government is that of erasure. Be that the many variations of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that all but erased important figures in the LGBTQ liberation movement, or the prevention of teaching the Critical Race Theory in Republican led states. History, as disheveled, uncomfortable, unprofitable, or non-secular, is worth preserving.