To oppose the permitting of deep seabed mining and exploration for deep seabed mining, and for other purposes.

Bill Number

H.R. 663

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Environmental Protection

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-04: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E86-87)

Last Updated

2026-06-09T15:28:40Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This bill, H.R. 663, aims to express strong opposition to deep seabed mining and exploration in international waters until a comprehensive, science-based regulatory framework is established. It seeks to protect marine ecosystems from potential harm by directing U.S. influence in international organizations to advocate for a moratorium (a temporary halt) on such activities and to block related financing.

Key Provisions

• Findings Section: Congress outlines environmental risks to oceans from factors like pollution and resource extraction, referencing United Nations goals (e.g., Sustainable Development Goal 14 for ocean conservation). It highlights scientific concerns, including loss of unique species, sediment plumes affecting distant ecosystems, noise pollution, risks to fish stocks, and disruptions to carbon storage in the deep sea. The bill notes insufficient research on impacts and cites international calls (e.g., from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity) for more study and regulation before allowing mining.

• Sense of Congress: This non-binding statement declares that:
• No deep seabed mining should proceed without a full regulatory framework under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), specifically Article 145, which requires protection of the marine environment.
• Current science lacks consensus on risks to ocean ecosystems and dependent communities (e.g., fisheries, indigenous peoples, coastal areas).
• Regulations must be based on thorough scientific data and ensure no harm to marine life or reliant communities.

• Presidential Directive (In General): Until certification and a report are submitted (detailed below), the President must instruct U.S. representatives in relevant international bodies—where the U.S. is a member or observer—to:
• Push for a moratorium on permitting deep seabed mining and exploration.
• Oppose any investments, financing, or support for these activities.

• Certification Requirement: The President must certify to Congress that the International Seabed Authority (ISA, a UN body regulating seabed activities) has issued regulations for deep seabed mining that:
• Are based on scientific consensus about ecosystem impacts.
• Effectively protect the marine environment from harm.

• Required Report: Accompanying the certification, the President must submit a report detailing:
• The specifics of the ISA's regulations.
• Scientific consensus on risks to oceans and dependent communities.
• How the regulations prevent harmful effects, aligning with the bill's environmental protection goals.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill does not amend specific statutes but introduces a new congressional directive on U.S. foreign policy toward deep seabed activities. The U.S. is not a full party to UNCLOS (it signed but did not ratify the treaty) and participates in the ISA only as an observer. The legislation formalizes a proactive U.S. stance against mining by mandating executive action to influence international decisions, potentially shifting from passive observation to active opposition. It builds on existing U.S. environmental laws (e.g., those protecting oceans under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) by extending influence to global forums.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The State Department and other executive branch entities (e.g., those handling international environmental policy) would need to implement the directive, using U.S. diplomatic leverage in bodies like the ISA. This could require additional resources for scientific assessments and negotiations, with congressional oversight via certifications and reports.

• On Citizens: U.S. coastal communities, fishers, and indigenous groups reliant on healthy oceans could benefit from reduced risks to fisheries and ecosystems. However, it might limit access to seabed minerals (e.g., for technology manufacturing), potentially raising costs for consumers if alternative sources are needed.

• On International Relations: The bill could strengthen U.S. leadership in global ocean conservation, aligning with UN goals and pressuring mining-interested nations (e.g., China, Norway) to delay activities. It risks straining relations with countries or companies pursuing mining licenses through the ISA, but supports alliances with environmental-focused nations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Environmental and Conservation Groups: Beneficiaries, as the bill aligns with calls for ocean protection and moratoriums.
• Coastal Communities, Fisheries, and Indigenous Peoples: Protected from potential ecosystem disruptions affecting livelihoods and food security.
• Mining Companies and Investors: Adversely affected, facing U.S.-led opposition to financing and permits, which could delay or block projects in international waters.
• U.S. Government (Executive and Legislative Branches): Required to coordinate policy and report to Congress, influencing diplomatic priorities.
• International Organizations (e.g., ISA, UN Bodies): Pressured to adopt stricter regulations based on science, potentially slowing global seabed resource development.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bill invokes UNCLOS Article 145 (marine environment protection) without requiring U.S. ratification, relying on customary international law. It mandates executive action, which could face challenges if seen as infringing on presidential foreign affairs powers, though it aligns with Congress's role in directing policy via "sense of Congress" and certifications.

• Constitutional: Balances separation of powers by directing (but not forcing) the President, similar to other foreign policy resolutions. No direct constitutional issues, but it underscores U.S. non-ratification of UNCLOS, highlighting tensions in engaging international regimes.

• Political: Signals bipartisan environmental priorities (introduced by Democrats but potentially appealing across aisles for ocean conservation). It could influence global debates on "blue economy" (sustainable ocean resource use) versus resource extraction, positioning the U.S. as a conservation leader amid rising geopolitical interest in seabed minerals for green technologies.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

Cosponsors (4)

Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large]

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-04: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E86-87)
• 2025-01-23: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
• 2025-01-23: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-23: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• To oppose the permitting of deep seabed mining and exploration for deep seabed mining, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-01-23 — PDF (6 pages)