Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Undersea Cable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Rules hearing spotlights tug-of-war over undersea cable permits and sanctuary protections
Summary
Lawmakers debated HR 261, which would remove NOAA special-use permits and certain fee requirements for undersea cable projects passing through national marine sanctuaries; proponents said permits and five-year terms deter investment, while opponents warned the measure strips environmental oversight and sanctuary funding.
Chairwoman Fox opened the Rules Committee hearing by scheduling consideration of HR 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act, which backers say would ease duplicative permitting that has discouraged undersea cable investment.
Representative Bruce Westerman, the Natural Resources Committee witness, told the committee that undersea fiber cables—“small” physically but carrying roughly 95% of global internet traffic—face a patchwork of federal requirements that can deter long-term investment. “The special use permit is a 5 year permit, and these things have a 25 year life,” he said, arguing that the mismatch discourages companies from routing cables through national marine sanctuaries.
Representative Elfreth, speaking for Natural Resources Democrats, opposed the bill on environmental and fiscal grounds. She said special-use permits serve as “the industry standard” to protect sanctuary habitat and fund operations; NOAA assesses fees “typically about $40,000 to $100,000 per linear mile,” she said, and those revenues pay for monitoring, research, and public access. Elfreth warned HR 261 would create a two-tier system that exempts large corporations from fees and basic safeguards while leaving small tourism and research businesses to shoulder sanctuary upkeep.
Members pressed witnesses on specifics. Representative Fishbach noted committee records showing no special-use permit for fiber optic cables had been denied in 20–25 years; witnesses countered that the barrier is practical—the short permit term combined with the long investment horizon effectively discourages applications. Representative Neguse raised a separate concern about who pays: he cited press reports of multi‑billion‑dollar projects from firms such as Meta and asked whether removing fees would shift cleanup and maintenance costs to taxpayers and local businesses.
Witnesses described remaining environmental safeguards: projects would still be subject to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but proponents said the special-use permit layer is duplicative. Democrats repeated proposals they said the committee rejected in markup—insurance requirements, protections for the most sensitive areas, and fee structures—to preserve sanctuary funding.
Chairwoman Fox closed the first panel after members debated tribal consultation, insurance, and whether extending permit duration rather than eliminating the special-use permit altogether might achieve common ground. The Rules Committee later adopted a closed rule to report the measure to the floor as part of a package of three bills.
The committee did not take a final legislative vote on HR 261 during the hearing; the next procedural step is floor consideration under the rule the committee reported.
