[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2161-H2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNDERSEA CABLE PROTECTION ACT OF 2025
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call
up the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to
prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued
presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber
optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have
previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Babin). Pursuant to House Resolution
[[Page H2162]]
1057, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 261
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Undersea Cable Protection
Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROHIBITING, OR REQUIRING PERMITS OR
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR, UNDERSEA FIBER OPTIC
CABLES AUTHORIZED BY A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 310 the
following:
``SEC. 310A. PROHIBITION ON PROHIBITING, OR REQUIRING PERMITS
OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR, UNDERSEA FIBER
OPTIC CABLES AUTHORIZED BY A FEDERAL OR STATE
AGENCY.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary may not prohibit, or require any
permit, including any special use permit, or other
authorization for, the installation, continued presence,
operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber
optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if a license,
lease, or permit has been issued by a Federal or State
agency, and is in effect, authorizing such installation,
continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or
recovery.
``(b) Interagency Cooperation.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as altering existing requirements
regarding interagency cooperation under section 304(d) in any
Federal agency action described in that section and involving
the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance,
repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a
national marine sanctuary.''.
SEC. 3. REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON ACTIVITIES COVERED BY
SANCTUARY SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
Section 310(c) of National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16
U.S.C. 1441(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, 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 (Mr. Westerman).
{time} 1610
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 261.
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 in strong support of H.R. 261 sponsored by
Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia.
Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy. These
cables are roughly 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Yet they crisscross the
globe and carry approximately 95 percent of global internet traffic,
facilitating trillions of dollars in global financial transactions.
The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 eliminates the requirement
for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act as a condition to route these projects through a
national marine sanctuary.
Undersea cables are and will continue to be subject to numerous
environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. These
are just statutes in the Committee on Natural Resources' jurisdiction.
Many of these laws are implemented by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. We will hear from our friends on
the other side of the aisle that this bill hinders NOAA's ability to
conduct an environmental review of these projects. That is simply not
true.
What is true, however, is that the specific use permit, which under
current law only lasts 5 years, has caused national marine sanctuaries
to effectively become no-go zones for undersea cables. This means
reduced routes of diversity, consolidation of cable landing zones, and
an increased threat to our national security.
Notably, this dynamic does not just cause stress on the physical
infrastructure of these projects. Many of us are aware of the stories
from around the world of undersea cables being severed with recent
examples of this occurring in both Taiwan and the Baltic.
In the United States, as these cables have a limited number of
landing areas, our adversaries would have the ability to cut off an
increasing portion of communications, internet activity, and financial
transactions by attacking just a few points.
Combine this looming threat with the increasing number of cables
required in the coming years to keep pace with demand, and their
growing role as critical infrastructure in our daily lives, and failure
to support the continued development of these projects could pose a
grave national security risk.
Removing the requirement for a special use permit advances the
objectives of House Republicans and the administration to reduce
regulatory burdens and encourage American competitiveness, an objective
that President Trump emphasized when he signed Executive Order 14267,
Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.
Advancing this legislation will allow for the deployment of undersea
cables while providing appropriate protection of our marine resources.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have figured out the rhythm, the prime
directive here for Republican governance these days.
First, they slashed the services that working families actually
depend on. Then they turn around and hand the savings over to their
billionaire friends. They do it time and again. It is rinse, lather,
repeat.
What do we have on the floor this week? We have all guessed it. It is
another corporate handout, this time to the biggest technical oligarchs
in the world. These folks have shown that if a person has enough money
and if they are willing to bend the knee, they can pretty much get
anything they want these days under MAGA Republican governance.
Every time we have tried to add protections and regulations to their
platforms that would keep users and children safe, they stop it. Every
time we try to do something about the disinformation they allow to run
rampant in order to appease the White House and cater to extremists,
they stop it.
Now they have schmoozed their way into getting Republicans to add
another huge giveaway to this long, favored list of theirs. That means
millions of dollars in savings so that they can run cables through our
national marine sanctuaries for free.
I have to ask: What is the endgame here? Where does it stop? Are we
systematically privatizing every piece of America's national heritage
for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world? That is
exactly where H.R. 261 seems to be taking us.
It rigs the game so that, for example, family fishing operations,
dive boat captains, whale watching guides, and the other businesses
that operate in marine sanctuaries have to navigate regulations. They
have to play by the rules and pay fees but not the Big Tech oligarchs.
These conglomerates, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, get special
treatment and exemptions.
Our national marine sanctuaries encompass over half a million square
miles of America's most precious underwater ecosystems. They are
economic engines generating billions in tourism revenue, sustaining
entire coastal economies. They are living laboratories also where
families snorkel with sea turtles, divers explore historic shipwrecks,
and scientists unlock climate secrets.
This legislation would let tech moguls bulldoze right through these
[[Page H2163]]
waters with industrial-scale operations--massive drill rigs, heavy
machinery, and construction fleets--all without the environmental
review that everyone else would have to undergo.
The sponsors insist that these undersea cables are just little
needles in a haystack, and they will probably hold up a little segment
of one of these cables to try to suggest these are just needles in a
haystack. It is true that the fiber-optic lines themselves are thin,
but the installation process is anything but delicate.
We are talking about seafloor excavation projects that can obliterate
coral reefs and hurt marine mammals across vast swaths of the ocean.
What could go wrong when these projects are happening on the seafloor?
We can look at what Meta tried to do off the Pacific Northwest coast.
Their drilling operation collapsed, scattering pipes, toxic fluids, and
heavy equipment across the seafloor like an underwater junkyard. Then
the company just wrote a tiny check and left town. It was nowhere near
the cost of the actual damage that was incurred, and the marine habitat
there is still trashed.
My district is home to one of our Nation's iconic marine sanctuaries.
I can say without hesitation that my constituents don't want to see
these industrial activities rip through our sensitive kelp forests that
support fisheries and tourism. No project in these places should happen
without very careful study, without mitigation and, most importantly,
without paying their fair share.
This bill would let tech executives treat these national treasures
off our coasts like some kind of an industrial sacrifice zone without
even paying a cent for the use of these resources.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the only statute requiring
compatibility with the conservation objectives of each sanctuary. If we
strip that away, as this bill would do, we have created a regulatory
sacrifice zone.
House Republicans can't even identify which licenses and permits
would qualify in this bill in lieu of the special use permit process
that would ordinarily apply.
Mr. Speaker, how can we look the American people in the eye and
assure them that no environmental safeguards are going away when we
don't even have that very basic information? For many in the majority,
the truth is, the details just don't matter.
Meta and Amazon are what matter, and they want this legislation. The
majority is willing to take it at face value and just pass this along,
no questions asked. They will give the oligarchs what they want.
Democrats have proposed amendments to this legislation, commonsense
protections. They have proposed a mandatory insurance coverage
requirement, for example. They have also offered off-limits zones for
very sensitive habitats and standard user fees like these oligarchs pay
when they run one of these on land.
Our amendment would have allowed the basics of H.R. 261 to move
forward, allowing an alternate process to the current special use
permit, while preserving some of these basic operational guardrails to
ensure the protection of these very special and fragile places.
{time} 1620
The majority shot down every one of these proposals. This is not
about efficiency. It is about preferential treatment for oligarchs like
Meta and Amazon.
Consider this: When telecom companies want to access our national
forests for one of these projects, they pay rent. When they cross
national parks, they pay fees, but somehow marine sanctuaries are
supposed to be free. That is nothing more than a corporate giveaway and
a terrible precedent that won't stop with our marine sanctuaries.
The sponsors wrapped this handout in national security rhetoric. We
have already heard some of it from the chairman. They claim that there
is an urgent telecommunications crisis.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these are multibillion-
dollar projects spanning years and thousands of miles. They make their
maps public. Everyone knows where these projects are taking place. The
cost of environmental assessments is pocket change for these
operations, but it could mean the difference between healthy habitats
and destroyed resources in our national marine sanctuaries.
Here is what really stinks about this bill: While working American
families are facing an affordability crisis, our Republican friends
prioritize special favors like this for the wealthiest corporations on
the planet. These are companies that could easily afford to just follow
the rules and just pay a fair market rate for access to these places.
This sets a terrible precedent. We are witnessing the wholesale
commercialization of America's natural inheritance, one sweetheart deal
at a time. Today, it is cables and sanctuaries. Tomorrow, it will be
mining in a national monument. Next week, it will be drilling in
national seashores. Where does this corporate favoritism end?
If my colleagues want to modernize telecommunications, we can do that
the right way. Let's invest in broadband infrastructure. Let's address
transmission issues. We can incentivize clean, local, renewable energy.
We can end President Trump's crazy war on clean energy.
Sure, maybe we can have a few fiber optic cables running through
marine sanctuaries, but let's do it through proper analysis and siting.
Let's be careful in these very special places. We don't need this bill
to enable any of these shared objectives to move forward. Let us not
create sacrifice zones in America's national marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless corporate
giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand exactly what
is going on here. If you look at this map, this is an example along the
California coast. These pink areas are national marine sanctuaries. You
have this one zone down here by Morro Bay and Grover Beach, where
cables can actually leave the shore. You can see the concentration of
all of the existing cables in this area.
Mr. Speaker, it is possible to put a cable across a marine sanctuary
right now. There was a law or a rule passed in 2002, I believe, that
set up this special use permit. The problem is that it gave a 5-year
special use permit, and these are 25-year-plus projects when you put
one of these cables in.
Mr. Speaker, NOAA had the assignment to come up with what the lease
cost would be to put these cables across a marine sanctuary. In all of
NOAA's infinite wisdom, they came up with a price tag of $40,000 to
$100,000 per mile, subject to inflation.
Nobody has gotten one of these permits. Nobody has put a cable across
because this rule by the Federal Government has disincentivized all of
these companies from being able to run cables. It seems that the
purpose of the rule in the first place was just to keep cables out of
the marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, if somebody were to put a cable through a marine
sanctuary, they would still have to go through the NEPA process. They
would have to go through the entire regulatory process to get a permit
to put the cable across the sanctuary. It is not like you are throwing
away all environmental oversight and all environmental guidelines to be
able to bury one of these cables, or not bury but run it along the
ocean floor.
Again, they are 1 inch to 2 inches in diameter. If you just looked at
1 mile at, say, 4 inches in diameter, that strip of land at a rate of
$40,000 per mile would be the equivalent of a yearly rent of about $1
million per acre every year.
The whole rule and the law was stacked against doing anything, and
that is exactly what has happened. We want to open this up where
American companies can invest in American fiber cables so that we can
communicate across the ocean and we can get away from all of this
consolidation in one area where it is easy to target.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 261, the Undersea
Cable Protection Act of 2025.
Undersea fiber optic cables carry roughly 95 percent of all
intercontinental internet traffic and nearly all transoceanic digital
communications.
[[Page H2164]]
Trillions of dollars in financial transactions--trillions--global
trade data, cloud computing, and secure government communications
depend on these cables every single day. They are critical
infrastructure, just as essential as ports, as pipelines, and our power
grids.
Yet despite their importance, the United States has allowed
overregulation and duplicative permitting to stand in the way of
deploying and maintaining this infrastructure, especially on the West
Coast, where permitting delays and overlapping approvals have made it
effectively impossible to lay new cables in certain areas for decades.
The chairman just described what we are talking about here.
These projects weren't stopped because they failed environmental
review. They were stopped because of bureaucracy. That is the problem
that H.R. 261 is designed to fix. Today, even when an undersea cable
project has already received full authorization from a Federal or State
agency, it can still be forced through an additional duplicate
permitting process with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
That extra layer adds years of delay, drives up costs, and
discourages investment without providing meaningful environmental
protection. H.R. 261 clarifies that once a project has been lawfully
approved at the State and Federal levels, it should not be required to
obtain an additional permit for the same activity.
Let me be clear. This bill does not weaken environmental protections.
All existing environmental laws, reviews, and interagency coordination
requirements remain fully intact. This is about eliminating redundancy,
not eliminating oversight.
This matters for States like Georgia. Georgia's economy depends on
global connectivity from the Port of Savannah and our logistics and
supply chain networks, to manufacturing defense contractors, data
centers, and a growing technology sector. Reliable undersea cable
infrastructure supports jobs. It supports trade and economic growth
across the country.
There is also a serious national security component to this. Undersea
cables carry sensitive government and military communications. Delays
in installing, repairing, or maintaining this infrastructure create
real vulnerability to our national security. Even today, our
adversaries, like China, are actively targeting global communication
networks, especially cutting undersea cables that connect us to our
allies, like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
Secure, resilient connectivity is not optional. It is a strategic
necessity. H.R. 261 is a solution that offers a balanced, commonsense
solution. It cuts unnecessary red tape. It preserves environmental
safeguards. It strengthens our economy. Most importantly, it protects
America's national security.
I implore this Congress to pass this legislation to secure America's
technological dominance and fortify our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 261.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to suggest that if this became
law, we would lose no environmental protections. This bill eliminates
the special use permit, under which the folks who protect our national
marine sanctuaries make sure that there is proper siting, proper
environmental review, proper mitigation, and proper accountability for
when things go wrong, and things do go wrong.
The one example I can hold out is in Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary because that is something that went through the special use
permit process. It was for one of these undersea cable landings. Things
got very complicated.
Thankfully, the National Park Service was able to charge market rent
for the rights to go through this area, and it turns out that that was
a good thing because there were all sorts of complications. In fact,
there are still all types of ongoing repair and monitoring areas where
things weren't installed properly and where there was all sorts of
damage that wasn't foreseen on the front end.
{time} 1630
Having that fair market value paid in the first place and then
retained by the Federal agency that may need to follow up and make sure
that these special places are protected is very important.
Mr. Westerman has suggested that the existing special use permit sets
a fair market value that is just so prohibitive that none of these
landings will ever happen in marine sanctuaries. The estimates from
lobbyists are that without this bill, two 20-mile segments through a
California sanctuary would cost these huge tech companies between $2.8
million and $7 million per year.
To put that in perspective, in the time that we have been arguing,
these companies have made more than that. This is pocket change to
these companies. They can afford to pay fair market value in order to
go through our national marine sanctuaries.
As Mr. Westerman I am sure would not disagree, if they were proposing
to run these things through a national park in Hot Springs, Arkansas,
for example, it is a good thing they would have to get a special permit
to do that, that they would have to pay fair market value, and that the
funds they pay would be available to that unit of the National Park
System to make sure things were done right and to make sure that there
was accountability and mitigation going forward. We are just asking for
the same thing for our national marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act.
Undersea cables are the backbone of our modern economy. These cables
are no bigger than a garden hose but support over $10 trillion in
international commerce on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that this clear significance would
prompt us to make sure that it is easy to build these things, but no.
The United States is one of the most difficult countries in the world
to lay and operate undersea cables. This is a national security
liability.
There is simply no reason to require a special use permit for an
undersea cable because there is absolutely zero--and I say ``zero''--
environmental impact.
It is time for Congress to pay more attention to the critical
infrastructure that surrounds us in this country. That is why I
introduced the NEPTUNE Act, to make sure that the Navy maintains its
undersea cable laying and repair capabilities. That is why I intend to
vote for this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Buddy Carter from the Committee on
Natural Resources for leading this effort.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Carbajal), who is from the Central Coast.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition to H.R. 261, the Undersea
Cable Protection Act of 2025.
On its face, this legislation may seem like a narrow procedural
change of streamlining permitting for undersea fiber-optic cables. In
reality, it strips away critical environmental and economic safeguards
that we and the communities we represent depend on to help power our
Nation's blue economy.
We know that four of the five national marine sanctuaries in
California generate more than $114 million a year and support over
1,800 jobs in commercial fishing alone.
H.R. 261 is a giveaway to megacorporations at the expense of the
American taxpayer, the oceans, and the Great Lakes we have advocated to
protect.
Some of the marine sanctuaries most at risk because of this
legislation are iconic spots off the coast of California: Monterey Bay,
Channel Islands, and the newly created Chumash Heritage National Marine
Sanctuary.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Chumash Heritage National
Marine Sanctuary, a sanctuary that was decades in the making. First
nominated by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council in 2015, the sanctuary
became effective on November 30, 2024, after review by Congress and the
State of California.
Through this legislation, my constituents and the Chumash Heritage
[[Page H2165]]
National Marine Sanctuary will lose big. Waiving the future fees on
cables from industry would cost between $2.7 million and $7 million per
every 20 miles each year. While there is a 2-year exception for the
newly designated Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, current
law requires operators and installers of deep-sea fiber-optic cables to
obtain a permit from NOAA and pay fair market fees for use of these
areas.
I and many others here today believe we need secure and reliable
telecommunications infrastructure. I understand that the 5-year time
limits on permits cause concern for companies looking for long-term
certainty. However, I firmly believe that we can find a solution that
protects these sanctuary resources and treats all stakeholders fairly.
We can find a win-win solution that supports innovation, continues to
support our local economies, and ensures that the American taxpayer
gets a fair return for use of our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a
motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules
permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment
to this bill.
My amendment is straightforward: Allow tech companies to have their
alternative permitting pathway in sanctuaries but add in a few
commonsense guardrails.
First, allow an alternative license or permit, but require that the
project be compatible with the purpose of the sanctuary. That means
protecting the sensitive areas of the seafloor and avoiding cultural
and historic sites.
Second, require public comment as is currently the practice with
special use permits.
Third, require these companies to carry liability insurance for the
project. We don't want to see another disaster like we saw off the
coast of Oregon, a Meta subsidiary dumping drilling fluid and drilling
equipment on the seafloor, then leaving the taxpayers on the hook to
clean up the mess. Yes, did I say taxpayers? Yes, they are the ones who
paid.
Finally, my amendment would maintain the status quo and allow NOAA to
collect a fair market fee for the use of these sanctuary resources,
just like any other public land management agency does for cables that
cross their protected lands.
These are all standard provisions for the use of public resources,
and I hope we can bring back a little bit of common sense to this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recomit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting
for the motion to recommit to protect our marine sanctuaries for future
generations.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the article featured behind me found that adversaries
like Russia and China are taking disruptive action against undersea
cables on a more frequent basis around the world. Here is an article
just from yesterday talking about a Chinese cargo ship captain who has
been charged with severing a natural gas pipeline and a communication
cable in the Baltic Sea.
If we stick to the status quo, we are leaving ourselves more
vulnerable to similar threats at our doorstep. Our adversaries are
taking an increasingly aggressive posture in targeting critical
infrastructure.
Congressman Carter's legislation promotes route diversity, reduces
threats to global communication systems, and ensures that the United
States wins this global technology race. That is why it is important
that we pass this legislation and that we give companies the certainty
that they can build these communication lines and diversify where they
are locating them so that we can protect our economic security and also
our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very selective concern about national security,
apparently, because right now, every one of these landings has a
publicly available map. The whole world knows where everything is. If
my friends were concerned about the national security exposure that
that presents, you would think we would be working on some way to make
that less of a publicly obvious piece of information. No, we are not
hearing about that. We are hearing it raised as a bit of a pretext here
to try to run these projects through national marine sanctuaries rent-
free and environmental review-free. One of the speakers across the
aisle actually said a few moments ago that there is no need for a
special use permit, that it is ridiculous to require one because there
is no environmental impact to these projects.
We have heard about what happened off the Oregon coast. Certainly,
the people of the Oregon coast would differ mightily with the notion
that there is no environmental impact. They are still cleaning up the
mess, and taxpayers ultimately had to do it.
We also have the example from the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary that I referred to earlier. This, of course, is a tough place
to work on the seafloor. It is mud. It is sensitive habitat. Fishermen
are active in the area. There are national security assets there. There
is the Northwest Training and Testing Range, so it is a complicated
place to do a project like this.
It is a good thing that NOAA was able to charge market fees when they
approved a special use permit that took into account all of these
complexities, because those fees ended up being very necessary.
{time} 1640
This project had huge issues over the last 25 years. The sea plow
that was used to trench across the sanctuary left a 3-meter wide gash
across the sea floor that is still recovering. Tell me about no
environmental impacts.
The installation company never did post-project monitoring. They left
the project without checking that the cables were even buried to the
correct depths. NOAA had to come back in with submersible equipment to
monitor the cables. It is a good thing they had the resources to do
that from those market fees because they found numerous locations where
the cable was exposed, floating above the sea floor, putting the
fiberoptic infrastructure itself at risk--if we care about national
security and telecommunications integrity--and posing a danger to other
sanctuary users and their gear. A fishing boat, for example, could have
easily gotten snagged on some of these exposed, loose cables, taking
down the entire network, destroying equipment, that a small business
fishermen had invested in.
To this day the fiberoptic company has to enter that sanctuary
regularly in order to repair and rebury the cables that were improperly
installed. All of this would have been an even greater mess had this
bill been law at the time, had NOAA been unable to put some conditions
and some guardrails into the special use permit, had NOAA been unable
to charge that fair market fee that has enabled it to follow up and
clean up some of this mess.
That is what at risk if we pass a thoughtless corporate giveaway like
this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This legislation before us today accomplishes two objectives:
First, it eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a
special use permit for operating within national marine sanctuaries.
Again, undersea cable projects would still need to undergo review under
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. None of
that permitting is waived in this bill, and I would dare say anybody
wanting to run one of these cables would say they are getting to do it
and to avoid all environmental laws and protections. I don't think
people running these cables want to do that.
Second, it removes the 5-year timeline for any special use permit
[[Page H2166]]
within any national marine sanctuary. Together, these reforms reduce
regulatory burdens. They protect our national security, and they ensure
that America can lead the way in deploying undersea cables while
protecting our marine environments.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership on
this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Carbajal of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
261 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Carbajal is as follows:
Mr. Carbajal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 261 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Page 4, line 7, strike the closing quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 4, after line 7, insert the following:
``(c) Public Notice Required.--The Secretary shall provide
appropriate public notice for any license, lease, or permit
issued by a Federal or State agency as described in
subsection (a).
``(d) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall only apply with
respect to a license, lease, or permit issued by a Federal or
State agency as described in that subsection if--
``(1) such license, lease, or permit requires that any
activity conducted under such license, lease, or permit is--
``(A) compatible with the terms of designation of the
applicable national marine sanctuary; and
``(B) conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause
the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource; and
``(2) the issuing Federal or State agency requires the
applicant for such license, lease, or permit, to be eligible
to be issued such license, lease, or permit--
``(A) to carry general liability insurance; or
``(B)(i) post an equivalent bond against any claim arising
out of an activity conducted under such license, lease, or
permit; and
``(ii) agree to hold the United States harmless against
such a claim.
``(e) Fees.--The Secretary may assess and collect fees for
the conduct of any activity in a national marine sanctuary
under a license, lease, or permit issued by a Federal or
State agency as described in subsection (a) in accordance
with the terms described in subsection 310(d).
``(f) State Agency Defined.--In this section, the term
`State agency' means an agency of a State such that all or
part of the national marine sanctuary is within the
territorial limits of such State or is superjacent to the
subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of such State,
as that boundary is established under the Submerged Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).''.
Strike section 3.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________