Overview
Title
To prohibit certain mining activities on the deep seabed and Outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 664 is a rule that wants to stop certain kinds of digging for minerals in the ocean to protect the sea animals and plants. They still want to allow scientists to study the ocean, but they also want some really smart people to make a big report about how this digging affects the ocean.
Summary AI
H. R. 664, titled the “American Seabed Protection Act,” aims to prohibit certain mining activities on the deep seabed and the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill cites several concerns about the negative environmental impacts of these activities, such as potential harm to marine ecosystems and species. It prohibits licenses for exploration and commercial recovery of hardrock minerals but allows exceptions for scientific research. Additionally, the bill requires a comprehensive study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to evaluate the environmental impacts of mining activities and explore alternatives.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "American Seabed Protection Act," seeks to prohibit certain mining activities both on the deep seabed and the Outer Continental Shelf. Its primary objective is to safeguard marine ecosystems and address environmental concerns related to these mining operations. While the bill restricts licenses, permits, or other authorizations for mining, it makes exceptions for scientific research. The bill also mandates a study to assess the environmental impacts of potential mining activities and explore alternatives to the use of seabed minerals.
Summary of Significant Issues
Despite its clear environmental focus, the bill presents a range of issues worth noting. A significant concern is the prohibition on licenses and permits for mining on the deep seabed and Outer Continental Shelf, which could have considerable economic implications. Industries that rely on mineral resources from these areas, such as those involved in technology and energy production, may be adversely affected. Another issue is the lack of a specified timeline for submitting the mandated study to Congress, which could result in delays in legislative action. Additionally, the bill relies on existing definitions from other Acts, which could lead to ambiguity if those definitions are altered. The exception clause for scientific research lacks clear guidelines, potentially leaving it open to misuse. Lastly, the mandated study involves the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine without a competitive bidding process, possibly favoring this specific organization.
Broad Impact on the Public
From a broad perspective, the bill underscores an increasing awareness and commitment to preserving marine environments, reflecting a growing global focus on sustainability. The public might benefit from enhanced marine ecosystem protection, leading to healthier oceans that support diverse wildlife, discourage pollution, and mitigate climate change impacts. However, the potential economic repercussions of restricting mining activities might trickle down to consumers if mineral shortages affect industries and lead to increased costs for goods and services that rely on these minerals.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental advocates and researchers, the bill is likely a step forward in marine conservation. By safeguarding ocean resources, they may find new support and funding for projects aimed at understanding and protecting marine ecosystems. Conversely, industries reliant on seabed minerals might experience a negative impact due to restricted access to these resources, possibly leading to reduced operations or increased costs to secure minerals from alternative sources. Legislators might also face pressure from both environmental and industry stakeholders to amend or fine-tune the bill to address these competing interests. The involvement of the National Academies and lack of competitive bidding for the mandated study might also draw scrutiny, potentially inviting calls for more transparency in how such studies are commissioned and carried out.
Issues
The prohibition on issuing licenses, permits, or other authorizations for mining activities on the deep seabed and Outer Continental Shelf could have significant economic implications, particularly for industries reliant on mineral resources. This issue is outlined in Section 2(b).
The bill does not specify any timeline for the submission of the study on environmental impacts to Congress, which may lead to delays in accountability and necessary legislative action, as mentioned in Section 2(c)(2).
The text heavily relies on definitions from existing Acts, such as the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If these definitions are altered in their original Acts, it may lead to ambiguities, as noted in Section 2(d).
The bill mandates a comprehensive study involving the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine without provisions for competitive bidding. This could be seen as favoring a specific organization, as referenced in Section 2(c)(1).
The exception for scientific research lacks clear guidelines on what constitutes scientific research, potentially leading to misuse of this provision, as mentioned in Section 2(b)(3).
There are no specific controls or guidelines for cost management or efficient allocation of resources for the mandated study, which might lead to financial inefficiencies, as highlighted in Section 2(c)(1).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill is titled "Short title," and it states that the Act can be referred to as the “American Seabed Protection Act.”
2. Prohibition of certain mining activities on deep seabed and Outer Continental Shelf Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits deep-sea mining and certain mining activities on the Outer Continental Shelf due to environmental concerns. It allows exceptions for scientific research and calls for a study to understand the environmental impacts and explore alternatives to seabed minerals.