Rules Committee · Feb 11, 2026
H.Amdt. 165: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
Earl Carter (R-GA)
Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025
H.R. 261 · House bill Public Lands and Natural Resources
A Republican bill with 7 Republican cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 218–212
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025," seeks to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. It aims to restrict the Secretary of Commerce from prohibiting or requiring permits for undersea fiber optic cables in national marine sanctuaries if a Federal or State agency has already issued a license, lease, or permit for those activities. The activities covered include the installation, presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of such cables. Additionally, the bill modifies existing sanctuary special use permit restrictions by striking specific paragraphs in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
The bill facilitates the continued presence and repair of undersea fiber optic cables, which are vital for global internet connectivity.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill streamlines the operational requirements for undersea cable infrastructure which benefits telecommunications companies.
- Scored +2
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Streamlined cable infrastructure supports the high-speed internet connectivity required for urban technological ecosystems.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill reduces environmental oversight by prohibiting the Secretary of Commerce from requiring new permits for cable activities in national marine sanctuaries.
- Scored -3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill limits the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce to regulate or prohibit specific activities within national marine sanctuaries.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 218 yes · 212 no
02/11/2026 · Roll call 67 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 214 yes · 216 no
02/11/2026 · Roll call 66 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Streamlined Cable Operations: Under Section 2 (amending the Act by adding SEC. 310A), the Secretary of Commerce would be prohibited from requiring new permits or prohibiting activities like the installation, operation, or repair of undersea fiber optic cables if a Federal or State agency has already issued an authorizing license, lease, or permit. This ensures that existing authorizations remain valid without additional restrictive layers from the Secretary.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reduced Oversight of Sanctuary Activities: Section 3 amends the National Marine Sanctuaries Act by striking specific paragraphs in section 310(c), which removes certain existing restrictions on activities covered by sanctuary special use permits.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill reduces environmental oversight by prohibiting the Secretary of Commerce from requiring new permits for cable activities in national marine sanctuaries.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The bill facilitates the continued presence and repair of undersea fiber optic cables, which are vital for global internet connectivity.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill streamlines the operational requirements for undersea cable infrastructure which benefits telecommunications companies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill limits the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce to regulate or prohibit specific activities within national marine sanctuaries.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Streamlined cable infrastructure supports the high-speed internet connectivity required for urban technological ecosystems.
- 2/12/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 2/11/2026
- The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 218 - 212 (Roll no. 67).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 218 - 212 (Roll no. 67). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2162)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 216 (Roll no. 66).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2169-2171)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 261, the Chair put the question on motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Mr. Carbajal demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Mr. Carbajal moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H2166)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 261.
- Rule provides for consideration of S. 1383, H.R. 2189, H.R. 261 and H.R. 3617. The resolution provides for consideration of S. 1383, H.R. 2189, H.R. 261, and H.R. 3617 under a closed rule and provides for one motion to recommit H.R. 2189, H.R. 261, and H.R. 3617, and one motion to commit S. 1383.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1057. (consideration: CR H2161-2166)
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1057 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S. 1383, H.R. 2189, H.R. 261 and H.R. 3617. The resolution provides for consideration of S. 1383, H.R. 2189, H.R. 261, and H.R. 3617 under a closed rule and provides for one motion to recommit H.R. 2189, H.R. 261, and H.R. 3617, and one motion to commit S. 1383.
- 2/9/2026
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1042 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, H.R. 261 and H.R. 3617. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, H.R. 261, and H.R. 3617 under a closed rule and provides for one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 7/2/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-181.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 146.
- 6/25/2025
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 18.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/12/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/23/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 1/21/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 1/9/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-S-2873: Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025
- 119-HRES-1042: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3617) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.
- 119-HRES-1057: Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1383) to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3617) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.
Cliff BentzRepublican · Oregon
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska
Kat CammackRepublican · Florida
Neal DunnRepublican · Florida
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
August PflugerRepublican · Texas