Home / Recent Bills / A joint resolution 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".
SENATE · SJRES 11119 CONGRESS
A joint resolution 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".
A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal
force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in
both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Bill vs. resolution, explained →
Summary
S.J. Res. 11 is a joint resolution from the 119th Congress that seeks to nullify a rule issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) concerning the protection of marine archaeological resources. Published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 71160), the BOEM rule establishes regulations aimed at safeguarding underwater cultural heritage sites, including shipwrecks, submerged prehistoric landscapes, and other archaeological resources located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The rule mandates that developers of offshore energy projects—such as oil and gas drilling, wind farms, and other infrastructure—conduct archaeological surveys prior to construction, avoid disturbing identified resources, and implement mitigation measures if avoidance is not feasible. It also includes provisions for public reporting, coordination with state and tribal historic preservation officers, and penalties for non-compliance. S.J. Res. 11, if enacted, would exercise Congress's authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), specifically chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code, to disapprove of this rule, thereby rendering it null and void with no legal force or effect. The resolution does not propose a constitutional amendment and thus follows the standard process for joint resolutions: passage by both the House and Senate and presentation to the President for signature or veto. Should the President sign it, the BOEM rule would be immediately invalidated. If vetoed, Congress could override the veto with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. The resolution reflects a broader debate over the balance between environmental and historical preservation efforts and economic development, particularly in the context of expanding offshore energy production. Proponents of the resolution argue that the BOEM rule imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on industry, potentially delaying projects and increasing costs without commensurate benefits. Opponents contend that the rule is essential for preserving irreplaceable cultural and historical assets, many of which are vulnerable to destruction from industrial activities, and that its repeal would undermine federal stewardship of submerged heritage. The measure highlights tensions between regulatory oversight and industrial interests, especially as offshore wind development accelerates along the U.S. coastline.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Prevents potential harm to irreplaceable marine archaeological resources that could be destroyed by unchecked offshore development.
+Maintains important cultural and historical preservation efforts, particularly for Indigenous and community heritage sites underwater.
+Supports the role of federal agencies in protecting public trust resources, including submerged cultural heritage on the Outer Continental Shelf.
+Ensures that developers account for archaeological impacts early in the planning process, promoting responsible and sustainable development practices.
+Aligns with broader environmental stewardship values by recognizing the interconnectedness of natural and cultural ecosystems in marine environments.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Imposes additional costs and procedural steps on offshore energy projects, which could slow the transition to renewable energy like offshore wind.
−May be viewed as duplicative of existing state or tribal historic preservation laws, creating redundant regulatory requirements.
−Could deter investment in offshore projects due to perceived regulatory uncertainty or increased compliance burdens.
−Raises questions about federal agency overreach if the rule extends beyond what is explicitly authorized by Congress.
−May prioritize preservation over economic development in ways that some stakeholders consider unbalanced, particularly in energy-dependent regions.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Reduces regulatory burdens on offshore energy industries, including oil, gas, and wind developers, potentially lowering costs and accelerating project timelines.
+Limits federal overreach by overturning a rule that some view as exceeding BOEM's authority under existing statutes.
+Aligns with principles of deregulation and promoting domestic energy production by removing obstacles to offshore development.
+Prevents potential delays in infrastructure projects caused by archaeological survey requirements and mitigation processes.
+Supports states' rights by reducing federal involvement in what could be managed at the state or local level for historical preservation.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Could lead to irreversible damage or loss of valuable marine archaeological sites, which may have historical, cultural, or scientific significance.
−Undermines efforts to preserve national heritage and could be seen as neglecting federal responsibilities under laws like the National Historic Preservation Act.
−May create uncertainty for industries that rely on clear environmental and cultural review processes for project planning and financing.
−Could result in reputational harm to companies involved in offshore development if they are perceived as disregarding cultural resources.
−Eliminates a proactive framework for avoiding conflicts between development and preservation, potentially leading to more costly rescues or mitigations after damage occurs.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 202, 1 Present (Roll no. 61). (text: CR H1014-1015)
Mar 06, 2025
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 202, 1 Present (Roll no. 61). (text: CR H1014-1015)
Mar 06, 2025
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Mar 06, 2025
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on S.J. Res. 11.
Mar 06, 2025
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 42, H.J. Res. 61 and S.J. Res. 11. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 42, H.J. Res. 61, and S.J. Res. 11 under a closed rule with one of general debate on each measure. The resolution also provides for one motion to recommit on H.J. Res. 42 and H.J. Res. 61 and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 11.
Mar 06, 2025
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 177. (consideration: CR H1014-1019)
![Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/k000393_200.jpg)