61 
man of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. This Subcom- 
mittee chaired by Senator Lee Metcalf, began a comprehensive series’ 
(o, as Senator Metcalf stated, “clarify 
and make more visible the issues related to the proper resolution of 
the questions associated with the development of a sound shelf and 
seabed resource policy.” °® Following a closed session with members 
of the Executive agencies and the scientific community, the Special 
Subcommittee held several open hearings to consider legal issues, 
economic issues, industry reaction, views of interested citizens groups, 
testimony from Members of Congress, Administration policy, and the 
U.S. draft working paper to the U.N. Seabed Committee. These hear- 
ings were systematically analyzed and the findings and conclusions 
presented in the Subcommittee’s report to the Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs? 
The Subcommittee adopted the wide-shelf position advanced by the 
American Bar Association, the National Petroleum Council, and the 
American Branch of the International Law Association. This inter- 
pretation of the 1958 Geneva Convention held that the definition of the 
seaward limits of the continental shelf contained in the Convention 
were sufficiently precise and required no amendment. Furthermore, 
reopening the Geneva Convention might be disadvantageous to the 
United States as Northcutt Ely, representing the American Bar Asso- 
ciation, suggested, “All we know for sure is that a new law of the sea 
conference will be dominated by nations that have no interest in this 
subject except to take away from the coastal] nations as much of the 
minerals of the continental margin as they can get.”* An American 
Bar Association report presented by Mr. Ely stated, “an agreement 
carried by a majoity of small States might embody principles un- 
acceptable to the United States, yet which would be difficult to dis- 
regard if formally adopted by such a conference.” ® 
Although the Subcommittee on Outer Continental Shelf endorsed 
the general features of the President’s ocean policy statement of May 
1970 calling for a seabed treaty and an international authority, strong 
concern was voiced over the proposed renunciation of sovereign rights 
of all nations beyond the 200-meter isobath. The Subcommittee report 
stated : 
Our only areas of initial difference with the President are his suggestions that 
the United States should renounce its sovereign rights to its continental margin 
in return for similar, but limited rights in an area designated as a trusteeship 
zone, and his suggestion that leases applying to areas of the continental shelf 
beyond the 200-meter isobath be issued subject to an international regime to be 
agreed upon * * *. To renounce what constitutes the heart of our sovereign 
rights in response to illegal demands by a handful of nations can only encourage 
greater violation of the freedom of the seas doctrine.® 
With regard to the deep seabed, the Subcommittee concluded : 
* * * we are nevertheless as concerned as he [the President] that the Ameri- 
can people may derive their fair share of benefits from the exploration and ex- 
5U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Outer Continental 
Shelf. Hearings by Special Subcommittee on Outer Continental Shelf. Parts i, 2, and 3, 
969 and 1970. 91st Cong t d se neem OV int. Off., 1970. 
id., p. 8. 
8Tbid., p. 8. 
® [bid., p. 29, 30. 
