Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources''
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ELFRETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 11. As has been said, 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. More importantly, they cost the company seeking to do this work more money when they disturb these artifacts and are faced with fines and cleanup like the Mica shipwreck, which was bisected by a pipeline in 2001.
It cost ExxonMobil $250,000 in fees to mitigate the damage it caused that could have been found from the beginning had there been a consistent survey, saving that company money.
This is not new. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has had guidelines on marine archeology since 1982, and since have been updated during administrations from both parties to create greater consistency and predictability for everyone involved.
These rules have stood for 40 years because they protect artifacts and protect the oil and gas companies from the liability of unknowingly destroying irreplaceable pieces of history.
Each update to the rules has served to codify industry practice, use the best available science, and ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
Each update has provided oil and gas companies with more clarity and consistency. S.J. Res. 11 seeks not only to undo all of that work that has been done, but it will prohibit such a rule from ever being enacted in the future. Counter to some arguments, this rule is not financially burdensome.
BOEM reports the total annualized financial impact for the entire oil industry is less than $400,000 a year. For an industry with a reported pretax profit of $83.9 billion in 2024, this has a negligible impact.
The rule does not negatively impact America's energy dominance and independence. The U.S. is still the number one producer of oil and gas in the world and has been since 2009. We are producing more oil than any country ever.
In fact, we are exporting energy, which is what is really hurting American energy prices. This rule didn't even meet the threshold to require a Statement of Energy Effects report because it has such a negligible possibility of impacting energy supply, distribution, or use.
This rule actually promotes efficiency as has been stated. It provides consistency to businesses and protects oil and gas companies from that liability. Doing these surveys before drilling saves time and money in the long run. It is much more damaging to a company's bottom line to stop operations suddenly when they find a shipwreck or artifacts.
Nobody gets everything they want in the public policy that we debate on this floor, but this final rule, at the beginning of the day, is a good policy that benefits every stakeholder involved, and banning this rule would set a dangerous precedent for solutions-oriented policymaking. It will roll back decades of bipartisan work that we have all done to preserve history.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider the cost of this action, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res. 11.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source