Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources.
ELI5 AI
S. J. RES. 11 is about Congress saying "no" to a rule that was supposed to take care of old things found in the ocean. They decided that this rule should not be used or followed.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 11 is a resolution that expresses Congress's disapproval of a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The rule in question deals with the protection of marine archaeological resources. By rejecting this rule, Congress states that it should not be enforced or have any legal effect. This legislative action was taken during the 119th Congress's first session in 2025.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 11 (S. J. RES. 11) concerns a rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management related to the protection of marine archaeological resources. Congress, through this resolution, expresses its disapproval of this rule, which means that the rule will not come into effect. This legislative action operates under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, which allows Congress to review and, if deemed necessary, disapprove new federal regulations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One notable issue lies in the timing referenced in the bill. The resolution mentions a rule published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024. Given that the bill's date is listed as March 7, 2025, this creates a temporal discrepancy that might suggest a clerical error or unique procedural circumstance allowing for retroactive or anticipatory disapproval, which remains unspecified and potentially confusing.
Additionally, the legislation does not provide insights into why Congress disapproves of the rule. This lack of transparency means stakeholders and the general public are left without understanding the legislative intent behind nullifying the rule, complicating public engagement and accountability.
Furthermore, nullifying the rule without offering an alternative measure suggests a potentially dismissive approach to the identified problem, i.e., the protection of marine archaeological resources. Without replacement or modification, this decision can be seen as restrictive without being constructive.
Public Impact
Broadly, public interest in preserving underwater cultural heritage could experience a setback as a result of this resolution. Marine archaeological resources, like shipwrecks and submerged prehistoric sites, are valuable for historical research and cultural understanding. If the rule aimed to protect such sites, its nullification might lead to their increased vulnerability.
The resolution's failure to provide details about the reasoning behind this decision complicates public understanding and engagement. Constituents might feel excluded from informed discourse due to missing contextual information, affecting public confidence in legislative processes.
Stakeholder Impact
For stakeholders specifically involved in marine archaeology and conservation, this bill can be seen as a negative development. Professionals in these fields might face challenges in advocating for protection measures, as the disapproval nullifies a potential regulatory safeguard.
On the other hand, stakeholders in industries such as offshore energy or commercial salvage could view this resolution positively, seeing it as a removal of regulatory hurdles possibly perceived as obstructive to operational activities or expansion.
A balanced reconsideration or the introduction of an alternative solution addressing the core issues could satisfy both conservation priorities and industrial interests, fostering collaboration between varying stakeholders.
Issues
The date mentioned (September 3, 2024) in the bill text refers to a publication in the Federal Register that is set in the future compared to the current context (2025), which might indicate a potential inconsistency or error in referencing the federal register. [Section: null]
The bill does not specify the reasons for disapproval of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to understand the rationale behind Congress's decision, which is important for assessing the bill's implications. [Section: null]
The phrase 'shall have no force or effect' indicates a total nullification of the rule without offering any alternative solutions or modifications. This approach could be perceived as a lack of a constructive stance towards addressing the issues related to marine archaeological resources. [Section: null]
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress is expressing disapproval of a rule made by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management about protecting underwater historical sites, and as a result, this rule will not be in effect.