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
Congress is saying "no" to a new rule about keeping old things in the ocean safe, meaning they don't want the rule to start working. They didn't say why they don't like the rule, but they want it to just go away without fixing the problem.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 11 is a joint resolution from the 119th Congress that addresses a specific rule put forward by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This rule, concerning the "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources," was published on September 3, 2024, in the Federal Register. The resolution expresses Congress's disapproval of this rule, stating that it should have no legal force or effect. It was passed by the Senate on February 25, 2025.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill in question, S. J. RES. 11, is a joint resolution from the United States Congress. It expresses congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). This rule relates to the protection of marine archaeological resources. By passing this resolution, Congress effectively nullifies the rule, meaning it will not be enforced or have any legal standing.
Significant Issues
There are notable issues related to this bill. Firstly, the bill references a future date, September 3, 2024, when discussing the Federal Register. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the bill's timing and whether the rule in question had been properly finalized and recorded in the Federal Register.
Moreover, the bill does not provide any reasoning or context for Congress's disapproval of the BOEM rule. This lack of transparency may hinder public understanding and accountability, as stakeholders and citizens are left without explanations for the decision against protecting these underwater sites.
Additionally, the phrasing used in the bill, "shall have no force or effect," indicates a complete rejection of the rule without offering any alternative approaches or solutions. This might give the impression that there was little consideration for constructive policy-making or for addressing the underlying concerns tied to protecting marine archaeological sites.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, this bill could be perceived as a step back in efforts to protect underwater historical sites. These sites potentially hold significant cultural and historical value, not just for historians and archaeologists but also for the wider community interested in preserving cultural heritage.
For specific stakeholders, such as environmental and cultural conservation groups, the nullification of the BOEM rule might represent a challenge. These organizations might view this decision as a potential weakening of efforts to safeguard maritime archaeological resources, which could have various adverse implications for environmental preservation and historical research.
Conversely, there could be stakeholders in the energy sector or maritime industries who might see this disapproval as a removal of regulatory hurdles. For them, the disapproval could facilitate less restrictive operational environments. However, this could come at the cost of long-term sustainability and respect for cultural assets.
Overall, while this legislative move exemplifies the check-and-balance system inherent to government processes, it also raises questions about the commitment to preserving underwater cultural heritage and the transparency of legislative decisions.
Issues
The date mentioned in the bill (September 3, 2024) is in the future compared to the current context, which suggests a potential inconsistency or error in referencing the Federal Register. This could have legal implications or cause confusion around the enforceability and timing of the disapproval. [Section: The date mentioned (September 3, 2024) is in the future...]
The bill's text does not specify the reasons for disapproval of the rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for stakeholders and the general public to understand the rationale behind the congressional disapproval, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in legislative processes. [Section: The text does not specify the reasons for disapproval...]
The phrase 'shall have no force or effect' is used to completely nullify the rule without suggesting any alternative solutions or modifications. This might be seen as lacking a constructive approach to policy-making, potentially leaving the issue of protection of marine archaeological resources unaddressed. This could have negative implications for environmental and heritage protection. [Section: The phrase 'shall have no force or effect' indicates a complete nullification...]
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.