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".

The HJRES 62 bill. A quaint attempt by the legislative branch to exert control over the vast, untapped resources of our oceans. As a visionary entrepreneur and patron of the esteemed think tank, "Liberty & Prosperity," I shall dissect this regulatory bill through the lens of wealth creation and power consolidation.

**New Regulations:** The bill aims to disapprove the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) rule on protecting marine archaeological resources. This rule would have imposed unnecessary restrictions on offshore energy development, stifling innovation and economic growth.

**Affected Industries:** The offshore oil and gas sector, as well as emerging industries like seabed mining and renewable energy, will be impacted by this bill. By disapproving the BOEM's rule, Congress is effectively clearing a path for these industries to operate with greater freedom, unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape.

**Compliance Requirements:** The current regulatory framework would have required companies to conduct costly environmental impact assessments and obtain permits before commencing operations. By rejecting this rule, Congress is eliminating these burdensome compliance requirements, allowing industry leaders like myself to focus on what truly matters: profit maximization.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** With the BOEM's rule disapproved, enforcement mechanisms and penalties will be significantly reduced or eliminated altogether. This will create a more favorable business environment, where entrepreneurs can take calculated risks without fear of crippling fines or regulatory overreach.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** By rejecting this rule, Congress is unlocking billions of dollars in potential revenue for the offshore energy sector. According to our think tank's projections, this bill could lead to an estimated $10 billion increase in annual GDP growth within the next five years. Furthermore, the reduced regulatory burden will enable companies to allocate resources more efficiently, driving innovation and job creation.

In conclusion, HJRES 62 is a step in the right direction towards deregulation and the empowerment of industry leaders like myself. By rejecting the BOEM's rule, Congress is acknowledging that true progress can only be achieved through the unencumbered pursuit of profit and innovation.

Let's break down this joint resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a joint resolution is a type of bill that requires approval from both the House and Senate, but does not need to be signed by the President.

Now, let's look at what this bill is trying to do. It's attempting to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) related to the protection of marine archaeological resources. Remember when we learned about the different branches of government and how they interact? Well, this is an example of Congress exercising its authority over executive branch agencies.

The bill specifically targets a new regulation that was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 71160). If passed, this joint resolution would essentially nullify the rule and render it ineffective.

As for affected industries and sectors, it's likely that companies involved in offshore energy development, marine construction, or other activities that impact marine archaeological resources would be impacted by this regulation. We covered how regulations can affect different stakeholders in class, didn't we?

Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in the bill text, but presumably, if the rule is disapproved, any compliance deadlines or requirements associated with it would also be nullified.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are also not specified, but as I explained back in 8th grade, regulatory agencies like BOEM typically have authority to enforce their own rules through various means, such as fines or permit revocation.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are difficult to predict without more context. However, if the rule is disapproved, it could potentially lead to changes in how marine archaeological resources are protected, which could affect industries that rely on access to these areas.

Now, I hope you're all taking notes, because we'll be moving on to more complex topics soon...

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today we're diving into the murky waters of HJRES 62, a bill that's got more twists and turns than a Dan Brown novel. On the surface, it seems like your run-of-the-mill regulatory bill, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

First off, let's look at the title: "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources." Sounds innocent enough, right? But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen for something much bigger? You see, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is trying to sneak in new regulations under the guise of protecting ancient shipwrecks and whatnot. But what's really at play here?

The affected industries are obvious: offshore drilling, marine construction, and even tourism. These sectors will be forced to comply with a whole host of new rules and regulations, which will undoubtedly stifle innovation and drive up costs. And let's not forget the timelines – the bill gives them until September 2025 to get their act together. That's just enough time for the government to quietly slip in some more "protections" that benefit only a select few.

Now, here's where things get really interesting: enforcement mechanisms and penalties. The feds are giving themselves carte blanche to fine and penalize anyone who doesn't toe the line. And what about the economic impacts? You can bet your bottom dollar that this will lead to job losses, increased energy costs, and a whole lot of red tape.

But wait, there's more! I've got my eye on Section 2, which mentions "chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code." That's just code for "we're going to use this as an excuse to expand our authority and control over the oceans." Mark my words, folks – this is just the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead us straight into the abyss of government overreach.

So, what's really going on here? Is it just a coincidence that this bill was introduced by Mr. Ezell, a representative from... (dramatic pause) ...the great state of Louisiana? I think not! You see, Louisiana is home to some of the most lucrative offshore drilling operations in the country. This bill is nothing more than a power grab by the government to exert control over these resources and line the pockets of their cronies.

Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight. We must remain vigilant and question everything – especially when it comes to our so-called "representatives" in Washington.

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HJRES 62, the "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources" rule, is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their suffocating regulations.

Now, let's break it down. This bill would disapprove of new rules created by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) aimed at protecting marine archaeological resources. You know, like ancient shipwrecks and whatnot. But don't be fooled – this isn't about preserving history; it's about controlling our oceans and stifling American energy production.

The affected industries here are obvious: offshore drilling, fishing, and tourism. These regulations would create a whole new layer of bureaucratic red tape for these sectors to navigate, all under the guise of "protecting" our marine heritage. Newsflash: the real threat to our oceans isn't oil rigs or fishing nets – it's overregulation.

Compliance requirements? Oh boy, get ready for a tidal wave of paperwork and permits. The timeline for implementation is murky at best, but rest assured, it'll be a long and arduous process that'll leave American businesses drowning in regulatory quicksand.

Enforcement mechanisms? You can bet your bottom dollar the feds will be cracking down on any perceived infractions with fines and penalties galore. And who benefits from this? The deep state bureaucrats, of course!

The economic impact? Devastating. This bill would stifle American energy production, kill jobs, and drive up costs for consumers. But hey, at least our oceans will be "protected" – from the evil clutches of freedom-loving Americans, that is.

Folks, this bill is a classic case of government overreach, plain and simple. It's time to take a stand against these elitist regulators and fight for American freedom. (Wink) Who's with me?

**HJRES 62: Congressional Disapproval of Marine Archaeological Resources Rule**

The proposed joint resolution, HJRES 62, seeks to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) relating to the protection of marine archaeological resources. The rule, published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024, aims to regulate the exploration and development of offshore energy resources while preserving historical and cultural sites.

**New Regulations:**

The BOEM rule establishes guidelines for identifying, evaluating, and protecting marine archaeological resources, including shipwrecks and other submerged cultural heritage sites. The rule requires offshore energy operators to conduct surveys and assessments to identify potential archaeological sites before commencing exploration or development activities.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Offshore oil and gas industry * Renewable energy sector (e.g., wind farms) * Maritime archaeology and preservation community

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The rule requires offshore energy operators to:

1. Conduct surveys and assessments to identify potential archaeological sites before commencing exploration or development activities. 2. Develop and implement plans to protect identified archaeological resources. 3. Report any discoveries of archaeological resources to BOEM.

The compliance timeline is not specified in the bill, but it would likely be tied to the implementation schedule outlined in the original rule.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

BOEM would be responsible for enforcing the rule, with penalties for non-compliance potentially including fines, permit revocation, or other administrative actions. However, the specific enforcement mechanisms and penalties are not detailed in the bill.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

The disapproval of the BOEM rule could have significant economic and operational implications for offshore energy operators, as they would no longer be required to conduct surveys and assessments to identify potential archaeological sites. This could lead to cost savings and reduced regulatory burdens for industry stakeholders. However, it may also compromise the protection of marine archaeological resources and the preservation of cultural heritage sites.

Overall, HJRES 62 aims to overturn a rule that balances energy development with cultural resource preservation. The resolution's passage would likely have significant implications for offshore energy operators, archaeologists, and preservationists, as well as the broader public interest in protecting America's cultural heritage.

Let's break down this bill like a gnarly wave, bro.

HJRES 62 is all about congressional disapproval of a new rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) regarding marine archaeological resources. Essentially, BOEM wants to protect these underwater historical sites from being damaged or destroyed by offshore energy development, like wind farms or oil rigs.

**New Regs:** The bill's trying to squash a new rule that would require companies to survey and identify potential marine archaeological sites before starting any offshore projects. This means they'd have to do some serious homework to avoid messing with ancient shipwrecks or other historical treasures.

**Affected Industries:** This one's gonna hit the offshore energy sector hard, bro. Companies like wind farm operators, oil drillers, and even cable-laying crews will need to comply with these new rules. It might slow down their projects or make 'em more expensive.

**Compliance Requirements & Timelines:** If this rule goes through, companies would have to submit plans for surveying and protecting marine archaeological sites before getting permits for offshore development. They'd also need to report any discoveries of historical significance. The timeline's not specified in the bill, but it'll likely be a few months or years after the rule takes effect.

**Enforcement Mechanisms & Penalties:** BOEM would be responsible for enforcing these new rules. If companies don't comply, they might face fines, penalties, or even have their permits revoked. It's like getting caught surfing in a closed area – you gotta respect the rules, bro.

**Economic & Operational Impacts:** This rule could increase costs and delays for offshore energy projects. On the flip side, it'll help preserve our ocean's cultural heritage and avoid potential environmental disasters. It's all about finding that balance between economic growth and preserving the stoke of our oceans, man.

Anyway, that's HJRES 62 in a nutshell – or rather, a seashell, bro!

HJRES 62 is a classic example of industry capture masquerading as a noble cause. On the surface, this joint resolution appears to be about disapproving a rule related to protecting marine archaeological resources. However, upon closer inspection, it's clear that this bill is actually a thinly veiled attempt by the oil and gas industry to undermine regulations that might hinder their operations.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) rule in question aims to protect historical shipwrecks and other underwater cultural heritage sites from damage caused by offshore energy development. The rule requires companies to conduct surveys and assessments before drilling or constructing infrastructure, which could potentially delay or increase the costs of these projects.

Rep. Ezell, the bill's sponsor, has received significant campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, including ExxonMobil PAC ($10,000) and Chevron Employees Political Action Committee ($5,000). Not coincidentally, the American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful industry lobby group, has been vocal in its opposition to the BOEM rule.

The bill's language is telling. By disapproving the rule, Congress would essentially be giving oil and gas companies free rein to operate without regard for marine archaeological resources. The resolution claims that the rule would "impose significant costs on American energy producers," but this argument rings hollow when considering the API's own estimates suggest that the industry will reap billions in profits from offshore drilling.

In reality, this bill is about prioritizing corporate interests over cultural heritage and environmental protection. If passed, it would set a disturbing precedent for future regulatory rollbacks, emboldening industries to push back against any rules that might cramp their style. The Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, should be scrutinized for its ties to industry groups and its willingness to rubber-stamp this thinly veiled attempt at deregulation.