[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 43 (Thursday, March 6, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1014-H1019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``PROTECTION OF MARINE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call
up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) 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'', and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 177, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 11
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological
Resources''
[[Page H1015]]
(89 Fed. Reg. 71160 (September 3, 2024)), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 11.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection?
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 11, a resolution to
express disapproval of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's
misguided protection of the ``Protection of Marine Archaeological
Resources'' rule.
First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Representative
Ezell, for championing this effort and collaborating with my team to
bring this resolution to the floor today. Additionally, I acknowledge
Democratic Senators Hickenlooper, Cortez Masto, and Rosen for
supporting this resolution in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 11 is a commonsense measure that would repeal
a burdensome and unnecessary Biden administration rule that forces
offshore energy operators to conduct costly archeological surveys and
submit reports for every exploration and development plan on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Under the rule in question, operators must comply with this blanket
mandate, even in areas with no known archeological risks, adding
millions in unnecessary costs and delays despite existing State and
Federal protections under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Eliminating this one-size-fits-all rulemaking will ensure that energy
production isn't bogged down by duplicative red tape. S.J. Res. 11 uses
the Congressional Review Act to nullify a rule which BOEM acknowledges
places ``100 percent of the increased Gulf of Mexico compliance cost
for survey[s]'' on operators that are small entities.
This resolution would end the Biden administration's needless
overreach and return the regulatory regime to a targeted, evidence-
based approach.
Notably, this repeal preserves America's ability to tap its offshore
resources efficiently. It will not weaken genuine historic preservation
but will stop a pointless cash grab that inflates administrative
burdens. In fact, this resolution could boost Federal revenues by
speeding up leasing and production timelines that are critical to U.S.
energy security.
Offshore oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf accounts for 15
percent of U.S. production, supporting jobs, powering homes, fueling
transportation, paying for conservation, and lowering costs for goods
we all need. Yet, this rule, part of a broader pattern of Biden-era
restrictions, threatens that stability with added costs of more than
500 additional labor hours per year across operators.
Federal regulators shouldn't stifle energy development. This
resolution offers a rational fix by eliminating a rule which was
intended to add burdens to a vital industry. S.J. Res. 11 will protect
American energy security and keep energy costs down for families as
part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are just 2 months into this Congress, yet we have
already seen one favor after another to Big Oil from our friends across
the aisle.
Republicans just can't get enough, and so we are back here once again
giving another favor to Big Oil. One gets the feeling that the majority
is just warming up and that this is going to be a recurring theme in
this Congress.
Meanwhile, we are 1 week away from a government shutdown. We are on
the heels of what we know is a Republican plan to gut Medicaid to pay
for tax cuts for billionaires. Today, are my colleagues across the
aisle talking about any of those things? No.
Republican Members have brought us here to talk about repealing a
minor rule that simply protects marine archeological resources. If that
sounds ridiculous to my colleagues, that is because it is.
This bill targets a rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
which is the agency that regulates offshore energy development in
Federal waters. The rule says that underwater surveys, which these
companies already conduct before they drill, simply have to meet some
basic, consistent standards. Wow, the heavy hand of government.
Republicans have argued that this is simply too burdensome for their
friends in Big Oil. Yet, the rule doesn't even require companies to
conduct any new surveys. Companies already do these surveys.
The rule simply states that future surveys need to adhere to minimum
standards to be used for archeological reports. No matter how my
colleagues slice it, this rule will not cause a substantial financial
burden to operators. It just ensures that the data that companies
collect can be used to look for things like shipwrecks and other
historically important objects.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman said in his opening remarks that he doesn't
like the fact that they need to look for these things in areas where
they are not known to exist.
That is kind of the whole point. If you are not going to look for
them while already there doing a survey, we may never know that things
actually exist in some areas. Without these surveys, operators might
not discover these archeological resources until they go to drill.
Here is what happens when they find out at that point: It forces
costly delays for their friends in the oil industry because, regardless
of whether this survey work is completed beforehand, companies still
have to comply with laws that protect shipwrecks and mitigate impacts
to sites that were once above water and home to indigenous peoples.
The rule actually promotes efficiency, something Republicans say that
the majority cares a lot about. It prevents delays and extra costs for
good actors who report unexpected finds, as they are required to do
under the law. It keeps bad actors from just quietly working and hoping
that no one notices, something that is much easier to get away with if
you are not required to do those studies in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, why do Republicans want to roll this rule back? Well,
for one, my guess is that Republicans saw that it was a Biden
regulation on offshore oil and gas. If Biden did it, it must be bad.
My colleagues want to pick a fight with anything that Republicans
perceive to be a threat to Big Oil, even a minor rule that actually
helps the industry avoid unexpected costs.
The second very likely reason that we are here is that my Republican
colleagues are looking for ways to kill time. The majority needs some
pretext to chew up some floor time here in Congress to distract the
public.
This resolution does that, and it allows Republicans to keep working
behind the scenes on their plan to find tax giveaways for their
billionaire friends and working behind the scenes on their plan that we
know is coming to cut Medicaid and SNAP deeply, hurting working
families all over this country. My Republican colleagues have voted on
the framework for that last week and are still squabbling with the
Senate over the details and what comes next.
Clearly, we are not doing work this week to fund the government or to
stop Trump's new tax on energy, which he calls a tariff, standing up to
self-dealing billionaires who are taking a sledgehammer to our Federal
Government, or dealing with their illegal firing of workers and
constituents of many of us and causing complete chaos across the
country.
Instead of holding this administration accountable for all of that,
House Republicans are urgently tinkering,
[[Page H1016]]
trying to create the appearance that my colleagues across the aisle are
busy doing something here in Congress on a minor rule that simply
requires scientific standards for underwater surveys.
Republican Members don't want people to remember that the majority
voted just last week to set in motion devastating cuts to Medicaid and
SNAP or that, a few days ago, Elon Musk said that Social Security is a
Ponzi scheme. Yet, the other night, my Republican friends stood and
applauded for him like he was Elvis Presley.
The majority also doesn't want people to remember that the Trump
administration has announced plans to cut staffing in half at the
Social Security Administration, guaranteeing that services for seniors
will suffer, or that the Trump Secretary of Agriculture just went on
television and told Americans who are struggling with food prices to
get a chicken.
That is why House Republicans want to talk about something else. That
is why we are here to debate and vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this farcical resolution and the theater that
it represents, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about repealing anything that is going
to add any protections or viability to anything that is happening on
offshore exploration. The rule was not even about wearing a suspender
with a belt.
This rule was put in place to hamper offshore energy production.
Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
protections already exist for offshore operators, and it requires them
to identify and avoid marine archeological sites, making this rule
totally redundant.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Biden-era rule wasn't just for
redundancy. It was to put shackles on offshore energy production and to
put higher costs on American consumers, who are already struggling with
inflation that has resulted from the policies of the previous
administration.
Good governance doesn't have redundancy and duplicative rules in
place that hamper Americans from building and producing.
What we are doing is releasing the shackles off of energy production
so that we can provide the things that our country and our economy
need.
That is why I really appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Ezell) for bringing this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Ezell).
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of S.J. Res. 11, a
Congressional Review Act to reverse the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, or BOEM, rule that targeted oil and gas production in our
Outer Continental Shelf.
The Biden administration spent the last 4 years steamrolling our
American energy sector with burdensome regulations. Instead of
unleashing our Nation's vast resources, the administration handcuffed
U.S. oil and gas production with red tape, driving up costs, stifling
innovation, and making us more dependent on foreign energy.
BOEM'S rule is not about safety or environmental stewardship. It is
not about protecting archeological resources. This rule is nothing
short of a universal mandate. It even applied to areas known to have no
archeological risk.
This is about forcing an extreme agenda that weakens our energy
independence and hurts hardworking Americans. The result: higher costs
at the pump, fewer jobs in the energy sector, and a direct hit to our
economy.
That is why I am proud to stand up today for the American workers and
consumers by leading the House version of this CRA to reverse this
detrimental rule. Under the Trump administration, we have the power to
push back against these reckless policies and restore commonsense
energy solutions to put America first.
In just the last 2 months, we have seen what happens when government
gets out of the way. Energy prices drop, jobs flourish, and we become a
net energy exporter.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of future we should be fighting for,
not where Washington bureaucrats make it harder for American businesses
to succeed.
Let's send a clear message: We stand for affordable energy, good-
paying jobs, and an America that leads, not one that follows bad
policies straight into higher costs and economic decline.
I thank Senators Kennedy and Hyde-Smith for their leadership in the
Senate, and I thank Chairman Westerman for advocating to get this
resolution introduced on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11, and I look
forward to the President signing this into law.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle are arguing that the rule
is duplicative and that the offshore drilling industry is already doing
these surveys.
Mr. Speaker, that is kind of the point. The fact that these surveys
are already being done is exactly why this rule is so simple and not
burdensome. The rule does not require any new or standalone surveys for
the vast majority of leases. It simply makes sure that these surveys
are done right, these surveys that are already being performed, so that
we can protect archeological sites by identifying them before the work
starts.
This is common sense. It is a tweak that will provide important
protection for offshore archeological resources, bring the agency into
compliance with the law, and actually promote efficiency.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).
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.
[[Page H1017]]
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.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, our country is at a point where we need more energy and
every form of energy when we look at the demands for data processing,
when we look at transportation demands, when we look at demands for
energy to grow our economy and to produce more things here. I don't
think anybody on either side of the aisle would question the fact that
we need more energy and our energy consumption is on an exponential
increase.
This rule that the Biden administration made is not about an all-of-
the-above energy approach. It is not about producing more energy, more
clean reliable energy that comes from America. It is about attacking an
industry.
If you don't believe that, just look at the rule itself. We produce
more than one kind of energy offshore. We produce oil and gas. We also
produce wind, but magically wind farms don't trigger an archeological
review, I guess, because they are not included in this analysis, this
redundant process that the Biden administration put in place.
The reason they are not is the same reason that oil and gas should
not be included; because there is already a process to do the National
Historical Preservation Act section 106 requirements when you are
getting a permit.
This rule was added by the Biden administration just to create
another level of bureaucracy, another level of regulatory hurdles to
stop offshore oil and gas exploration and production. That is the only
purpose they could have put this rule in place for. Otherwise, they
would have said, if they really cared about archeological features and
artifacts in the Gulf and offshore, they would have included the wind
farms in this, but it is only targeted at oil and gas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources on the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 11,
which nullifies the Biden administration's politically driven rule to
mandate all offshore oil and gas exploration and development projects
complete costly and burdensome archeological surveys and reports. Over
the past 4 years, the American people have seen the most anti-oil,
antigas, anti-traditional energy, and antimining administration in this
Nation's history.
When energy here in the United States and around the world is
growing, as the chairman just said, rather than supporting an all-of-
the-above energy strategy, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration sought
to stop traditional forms of energy like oil and gas.
Prior to the Biden administration's rule, oil and gas companies were
only required to complete these reports when BOEM, the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, had a reason to believe an archeological resource
may be present.
Instead, the Biden administration made that archeological report
mandatory, even when it was clearly unnecessary.
These unnecessary reports would lead to millions of dollars in
additional compliance costs to complete the required survey work and
deal with the additional red tape. This is in addition to the
significant staff time reviewing these reports would eat up at BOEM,
leading to further delays in important energy projects that we need to
build for the American people.
It is clear the Biden administration's rule wasn't actually
necessary. It was just another example of their death-by-a-thousand-
paper-cuts agenda to crush our domestic oil and gas industry and raise
energy prices for all Americans in the process.
After we pass this resolution today--and it will pass the House. It
already passed the Senate, and President Trump will sign it. After it
passes this House today and when it is overturned, these oil and gas
projects won't be waived from historic preservation rules.
This resolution does nothing to weaken the National Historic
Preservation Act. These developers will still be required to take
necessary steps to ensure they do not harm historic properties or
archeological sites.
As was the case before the Biden rule, BOEM will still have the
authority to require operators to perform these additional surveys and
reports when it is actually necessary and actually warranted, Mr.
Speaker. This resolution will just return us to the previous process.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue
this is necessary to preserve historic and archeological sites on the
Outer Continental Shelf.
If that is the case, why did the Biden administration's rule only
apply to oil and gas operations? Why didn't this rule apply to offshore
wind development?
This was politically driven. I am not arguing we need these
additional necessary requirements for offshore wind. I am just pointing
out the blatant hypocrisy of the past administration. It is clear where
their intentions were. Overturning this rule is good for our energy
security and for our energy independence.
Mr. Speaker, a couple nights ago, the President of the United States
addressed this House and the Senate. He talked about energy
independence, energy dominance, critical mineral dominance, and a
critical mineral powerhouse for our Nation.
It is crystal clear that the Biden administration wanted to diminish
the tried and true respect of traditional energies we had and have
because they didn't include wind in this. It is complete hypocrisy.
If you are going to do it for one, you do it for all. They tried to
choose winners and losers. They tried to do it, but here in the House,
we are going to follow the Senate's bipartisan passing of the CRA.
Today, it is going to pass in a bipartisan fashion in the House and
very soon the President of the United States will sign this into law.
It will change one of the many disasters of the prior administration,
the prior administration, as I opened up, that was the most anti-oil,
gas, and mining administration in the history of this country. I come
from a rich mining State; biggest untapped copper-nickel find in the
world.
The Biden administration banned mining in northeastern Minnesota. He
took the mineral leases away that were in place since 1966. Yet, they
want us to compete in defense, Nassau and other areas of our
communities, with adversarial governments when we have to buy their
minerals for the F-35s, the F-22s, the F-16s, our submarines.
Mr. Speaker, I am excited to vote on this CRA because it gives me one
more opportunity, once again, to change the direction of this country
that the previous administration was derelict in doing. I am very happy
to stand here today with my Democrat and Republican colleagues in a
bipartisan fashion to get this across the finish line.
The American people deserve it. The cost of energy and the need for
our energy is going to be increasing. As the chairman just said, Mr.
Speaker, we need to win the AI war, and that is going to mean we need
energy to do it. We are going to need energy, Mr. Speaker, when these
businesses come back to our country. When we reshore these
manufacturing facilities, we are going to need the energy to do that.
Now, we have an administration that understands it and will not be
politically driven by just a few people.
Mr. Speaker, with my comments, I will say one last thing. Energy
independence and critical mineral dominance is a Trump administration
agenda. That is the America First agenda that is going to employ a lot
of people.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about this claim of a double
standard and of hypocrisy. Oh, the poor fossil fuel industry is being
singled out.
[[Page H1018]]
Poor Big Oil with its record profits and its record exports and its
executive bonuses and its collusion with OPEC to gouge American
consumers, they are just such a victim in the telling of my friends
across this aisle.
I hate to intrude on that narrative with a little bit of truth, but
the fact is, the offshore wind industry already does this stuff. They
have to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.
The reason that the fossil fuel industry is the subject of this
regulation is to bring them into compliance. I guess it reflects the
radical proposition that the Big Oil oligarchs, your pals in the
industry, should play by the same rules as everyone else. That is not
socialism or wokeness or anything else. It should just be common sense
and fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the real human cost of our Republican
friends' allergy, opposition, reflexive opposition, to any type of
regulation and what this CRA would mean for working men and women on
the Outer Continental Shelf.
{time} 0945
Marine archaeological surveys are not just a nice idea. They actually
are safeguards that protect workers from hidden dangers lurking beneath
the waves. These surveys can detect unexploded ordnance, UXOs, which
are military ammunition, that has never detonated.
There is actually a lot of that out there. From World War II into the
1970s, the Federal Government dumped massive amounts of UXOs into the
ocean, including depth charges, torpedoes, munitions, mustard gas, and
even chemical weapons, all in designated explosive dumping areas. If
that wasn't bad enough, these same waters were used to dispose of
radioactive waste.
The old technology used to map these areas was crude at best, leaving
countless unexploded devices scattered beyond known dumping areas, but
modern marine archaeological surveys can identify these things and save
lives before disaster strikes.
Rather than protect workers from these deadly hazards, Republicans
want to repeal this commonsense rule, rolling the dice with human life
in the name of corporate profits. They wrap it all up in a phony pitch
about prices like they are standing up for the little guy while they
look the other way when their oil oligarch pals collude with OPEC to
gouge American consumers.
Well, what about the working-class men and women who power our
offshore energy industry? What about their safety? Are they just
collateral damage for the latest favor to Big Oil? Let's be clear. This
resolution isn't about helping the common worker, it is about
Republicans making good on their promise to deliver for Big Oil
billionaires destroying our planet.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am
prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
My Republican colleagues decided that the best use of our time today
is to debate whether or not we should keep a commonsense rule that
protects Tribal resources, worker safety, and our Nation's history.
They claim we must do this because this rule is too burdensome for oil
and gas companies and will create higher energy prices for American
consumers. All of that is nonsense.
What does this rule actually require of companies like Shell, BP,
ExxonMobil, companies that make between $28- and $85 billion a year? It
requires them to tweak surveys that oil and gas companies are already
doing so that they can proactively look for marine archaeological
resources or unexploded ordnance, discoveries that would actually stop
oil and gas development if they didn't do this proactively.
Even without this rule, this is a commonsense look-before-you-drill
provision that benefits the American people and keeps offshore workers
safe.
Republicans aren't delivering for everyday Americans. If they were,
they would take a stand on ridiculous tariffs that Trump is imposing on
our closest allies or unconstrained exports of liquefied natural gas
that are driving up energy prices or repealing energy tax credits in
the IRA, all policies on their side that are going to raise energy
prices.
If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they wouldn't allow
working-class people to go out into the Outer Continental Shelf without
the guarantee that they aren't working on top of unexploded military
ammunition or radioactive waste. That is what this rule does. It
protects workers and the public interest.
If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they would not allow
massive firings of essential employees who protect public lands.
If they were delivering for everyday Americans, they would not vote
for healthcare to be ripped away, like they just did last week.
The Republican agenda in the House today accomplishes one thing and
one thing only--selling out the American people and our planet so they
can continue to enrich the oil baron oligarchs and billionaire class.
This resolution is just the latest favor to these elites.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 11. I thank my
colleagues across the aisle for actually making our point on why this
regulation that was put in place by the Biden administration is totally
unnecessary.
We made the point that it is targeted specifically for oil and gas
and that wind is exempted. They tried to say that wind is exempted
because they are already doing the analysis under the National Historic
Preservation Act, section 106.
Guess what? Oil and gas is doing the same thing. They are already
making these archaeological assessments under existing rules.
This is redundant, but it is not just redundant. It is punitive. It
was a rule put in place to attack what our colleagues like to refer to
as the Big Oil bogeyman. Apparently, because they have been successful
and they can actually turn a profit because there is a demand for their
product, they should be attacked by the Federal Government; they should
have more regulations put on them. We should do anything we can to stop
producing more energy offshore if you are in the mindset of the
previous administration.
That is not helping America. That is not helping the American
consumers. That is not helping the American economy, and it is
certainly not helping America on the world stage. It is ridiculous that
we are having to come here and do Congressional Review Acts on horrible
policies that were put in place by the previous administration, but
thank goodness we have the tool to do that. Thank goodness the Senate
has already done it, and we have bipartisan support in the Senate to do
the CRA on this rule.
State and Federal laws, as has already been mentioned, provide robust
oversight for marine historic resources, again making this added layer
of Federal bureaucracy pointless and wasteful. The repeal will lower
energy costs for American families, strengthen U.S. energy
independence, and support an industry critical to our economy and our
security, all while maintaining responsible stewardship of historic
resources.
One thing that BOEM failed to analyze that often gets overlooked, it
is not just Big Oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, it is also small
producers, family-owned businesses, and thousands and thousands of
people who make a living working in the Outer Continental Shelf.
This burdensome regulation will be detrimental to those small
businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
[[Page H1019]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will record their votes by
electronic device.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of
S.J. Res. 11 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the adoption of H.
Res. 189.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 202, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Gray
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--202
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Nunn (IA)
NOT VOTING--8
Diaz-Balart
Gonzales, Tony
Grijalva
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
LaHood
Pettersen
Rulli
{time} 1019
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RULLI. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on
Roll Call No. 61.
____________________