American Seabed Protection Act

Bill Number

H.R. 664

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

2026-06-11T08:06:45Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The American Seabed Protection Act aims to safeguard ocean ecosystems by banning most mining activities on the deep seabed (the ocean floor beyond national jurisdictions) and the Outer Continental Shelf (the submerged lands and waters beyond state waters but within U.S. jurisdiction). It emphasizes protecting marine biodiversity, reducing environmental risks from mining, and aligning U.S. policy with international sustainability goals, such as the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 14 for ocean conservation.

Key Provisions

• Prohibitions on Mining:
• Bans issuance of any licenses, permits, or authorizations for exploration (searching for minerals) or commercial recovery (extracting and processing minerals) of hard minerals on the deep seabed.
• Bans issuance of any licenses, permits, or authorizations for exploration, development (preparing sites for extraction), or production (actual extraction) of hardrock minerals (e.g., metals like cobalt or nickel in rock form) on the Outer Continental Shelf.
• These bans override conflicting provisions in existing laws, but allow exceptions for purely scientific research activities.

• Required Environmental Study:
• Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of Commerce (through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA) must contract the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a comprehensive study on mining's environmental impacts.
• The study must cover:
• Descriptions of deep-sea ecosystems, including the seabed, water columns above it, seamounts (underwater mountains), and hydrothermal vents (hot springs on the ocean floor).
• Assessments of mining's effects on habitats, species, carbon storage (how oceans trap greenhouse gases), fisheries, recreational users, aquaculture (seafood farming), subsea infrastructure (e.g., cables or pipelines), and indigenous communities tied to marine life.
• Analysis of sediment plumes (clouds of disturbed mud that spread and harm sea life), greenhouse gas emissions from mining, and viable alternatives like recycling minerals, using substitutes with lower environmental harm, or improving land-based mining practices.
• NOAA must submit the study's findings as a report to specified congressional committees (e.g., House Natural Resources and Senate Energy and Natural Resources).

• Definitions:
• Key terms like "deep seabed," "Outer Continental Shelf," "exploration," and "commercial recovery" are defined by referencing existing federal laws for clarity.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Amends the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (1977), which previously allowed regulated exploration and recovery of seabed minerals, by imposing a full prohibition except for research.
• Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (1953), which governs offshore resource management (primarily oil and gas), by extending bans to hardrock mineral activities, which were not explicitly prohibited before.
• Introduces a mandatory, independent scientific assessment not required under prior laws, filling gaps in understanding deep-sea risks.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: NOAA and the Department of Commerce will face new responsibilities for commissioning and reporting on the environmental study, potentially increasing administrative and funding needs. Other agencies, like those overseeing fisheries or energy, may need to adjust policies to align with the bans.
• On Citizens: Enhances environmental protection for marine life and ecosystems, benefiting recreational users (e.g., divers, boaters), commercial fisheries (by reducing risks to fish stocks), and indigenous communities reliant on oceans. However, it could limit job opportunities in emerging seabed mining sectors.
• On International Relations: Supports U.S. alignment with UN ocean conservation goals and global calls for caution on deep-sea mining (e.g., from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity). As the U.S. is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (which governs international seabed mining), this could strengthen U.S. leadership in sustainable practices without committing to that treaty, potentially influencing global negotiations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Environmental and Conservation Groups: Benefit from stronger protections against mining risks like habitat destruction and pollution.
• Marine Industries: Commercial fisheries, aquaculture operators, and subsea infrastructure developers (e.g., telecom companies laying cables) gain from reduced ecosystem threats but may face study-related delays in other activities.
• Indigenous Peoples and Communities: Protected through assessments of cultural and resource impacts, preserving traditional ties to marine environments.
• Mining Companies and Resource Extractors: Face significant restrictions, potentially halting U.S.-based deep-sea or offshore hardrock projects and shifting focus to alternatives like recycling.
• Scientific Community: Gains opportunities for funded research via the mandated study, advancing knowledge of deep-sea ecosystems.
• Government Entities: Includes NOAA (leads study), congressional committees (receive reports), and agencies managing oceans, who must enforce bans.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bans represent a precautionary approach, prioritizing environmental safeguards over resource development, which could face challenges in court if mining firms argue economic harm or property rights violations. The scientific study provides a evidence-based foundation, potentially insulating the law from legal attacks by emphasizing unresolved risks.
• Constitutional: Relies on Congress's authority under the Property Clause (to regulate federal lands/waters) and Commerce Clause (to manage interstate/international marine activities), without apparent conflicts.
• Political: Highlights bipartisan environmental priorities (introduced by Democrats but addresses broad UN-aligned goals), but may spark debates between conservation advocates and industries seeking critical minerals for green technologies (e.g., batteries). The 90-day study timeline pressures quick action, influencing future policy on ocean resource use amid climate change concerns.

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 (8)

Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large], Del. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]

Recent Actions

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

Bill Versions

• American Seabed Protection Act — issued 2025-01-23 — PDF (10 pages)