Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E86-87)
This bill directs the President to instruct U.S. representatives to international organizations to call for a moratorium on permitting and financing of deep seabed mining and related exploration until specified conditions are met. It states congressional findings about environmental risks and scientific uncertainty and expresses that no deep seabed mining should occur in international seabed areas until the International Seabed Authority (ISA) adopts full, binding regulations informed by scientific consensus.
Precaution versus resource access and strategic mineral needs
Relative to its intended legislative type (administrative/operational), this bill clearly states the problem and prescribes a specific diplomatic posture tied to conditions (certification and report).
This bill directs the President to instruct U.S. representatives to international organizations to call for a moratorium on permitting and financing of deep seabed mining and related exploration until specified conditions are met.
It states congressional findings about environmental risks and scientific uncertainty and expresses that no deep seabed mining should occur in international seabed areas until the International Seabed Authority (ISA) adopts full, binding regulations informed by scientific consensus.
The President must withhold support until submitting a certification that ISA regulations exist and a report describing those regulations, the scientific consensus, and how environmental protection will be ensured.
Low fiscal burden and focused scope help, but international implications and industry/strategic objections reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type (administrative/operational), this bill clearly states the problem and prescribes a specific diplomatic posture tied to conditions (certification and report). It provides a concrete condition for when the posture should change and identifies the responsible executive actors.
Precaution versus resource access and strategic mineral needs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Precaution versus resource access and strategic mineral needs
Likely broadly supportive because the bill applies the precautionary principle to protect ocean ecosystems and communities.
Views the moratorium as a reasonable pause until robust, science-based ISA rules and environmental protections are in place.
Generally supportive of a temporary moratorium tied to concrete scientific and regulatory milestones, while concerned about strategic mineral supply and economic impacts.
Would seek balanced safeguards, timelines, and coordination with allies and industry.
Likely opposed or skeptical because the bill limits economic and strategic access to deep-sea minerals and increases deference to international bodies.
Views moratorium as potential overreach that may harm U.S. competitiveness.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal burden and focused scope help, but international implications and industry/strategic objections reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Precaution versus resource access and strategic mineral needs
Low fiscal burden and focused scope help, but international implications and industry/strategic objections reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type (administrative/operational), this bill clearly states the problem and prescribes a specific diplomatic posture tied to conditions (certification and report). It provides a conc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.