Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source