Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Undersea Cables topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House hearing highlights split over shortening permits for subsea cables in national marine sanctuaries
Summary
Rep. Buddy Carter's Undersea Cable Protection Act drew support from industry groups and concern from some Democrats, who warned the bill could limit NOAA's authority to protect sanctuary resources and remove fees and liability avenues; witnesses and members debated redundancy, certainty and sanctuary protections.
The subcommittee considered HR 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, which would prevent NOAA from requiring additional special-use permits for fiber-optic submarine cable projects in national marine sanctuaries when the projects have already been authorized by other federal or state agencies.
Representative Buddy Carter, sponsor of the bill, argued the measure would reduce duplicative permitting and provide regulatory certainty for critical communications infrastructure. "The Department of Homeland Security has designated the cables as critical infrastructure," Carter said, and he emphasized the economic and national-security importance of undersea cables: "It's estimated that in the financial sector alone, undersea cables carry $10,000,000,000,000 of financial transfers daily."
Industry witnesses, including Denise Toombs of the International Connectivity Coalition, told the committee the current permitting process involves multiple federal and state agencies and that NOAA's special use permits (SUPs) add an extra layer of uncertainty and often a five-year term that is mismatched with multi-decade cable lifecycles. Toombs said submarine cables carry "99% of intercontinental data" and that existing permitting already requires environmental studies, cultural reviews and mitigation plans. "The change would retain both the protection of sanctuary resources and the continued development of this critical infrastructure," she testified.
Several Democrats and environmental stakeholders raised concerns that HR 261 could undercut NOAA's authority and sanctuary protections, including potential effects on fees and liability. Ranking Member Jackie Hoyle and Representative Jared Huffman said sanctuaries require protections and that NOAA should keep the ability to assess damages or charge fair-market fees as necessary. Huffman cited a 2020 incident off Oregon in which a Facebook subsidiary's cable-laying operation left pipe, drilling fluid and other materials on the seafloor and created sinkholes; he argued such incidents show the importance of sanctuary oversight and liability.
Members also asked industry witnesses about how many SUP applications NOAA has denied (NOAA staff told members there have been few or no denials) and whether SUPs have made sanctuaries "no-go" zones for cable routing. Industry representatives said the uncertainty and short SUP terms have discouraged routes through sanctuaries and hurt network redundancy; committee Republicans argued that clarity and a predictable process are necessary to protect national-security-related infrastructure.
The hearing produced no final action. Members on both sides asked for additional information about past SUP applications, the number and effect of sanctuary fees, and whether existing statutory liability provisions would remain in place under HR 261. The subcommittee left the record open for written questions and recommended further interagency consultation.
Ending: Sponsors and industry witnesses said the bill aims to preserve environmental review while eliminating duplicative permitting steps that they contend are discouraging resilient route development; opponents asked the majority to ensure NOAA's sanctuary authorities and fee-and-liability tools remain intact.
