65 
The U.S. delegation responded to these charges by stating that U.S. 
companies were engaged in manganese nodule exploration activities 
as they have the implied right to do. Furthermore, the sooner such 
minerals are recovered the sooner mankind will benefit from these 
resources. The activities of U.S. companies, the U.S. delegate stressed, 
only emphasize the importance of reaching an international agreement 
for a seabed regime. 
Senators Metcalf and Bellmon also responded to this attack on leg- 
islation before the U.S. Congress. Senator Metcalf stated : 
We would be most interested to consider their objective analysis of S. 2801 and 
the relationship between it and the development of a future seabed treaty. But 
mere threats, claims and demands such as were made at the U.N. last week and 
made during the debate preceding the adoption of the now defunct Moratorium 
Resolution will do little to influence us during our consideration of national 
legislation affecting U.S. nationals.® 
Hearings on H.R. 13904 were held by the Subcommittee on Oceanog- 
raphy of the House Committtee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on 
May 12, 16, and 25, 1972.1° Hearings on S. 2801 were held on June 2, 
1972 by the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the 
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular A ffairs.?° Seabed resources 
were also included in hearings on law of the sea issues by the Subcom- 
mittee on International Organizations and Movements of the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs,?t the Subcommittee on Oceans and 
Atmosphere of the Senate Committee on Commerce,” and the Sub- 
committee on Oceanography of the House Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries.” ; 
Several issues emerged during the hearings on S. 2801 and H.R. 
13904, but neither bill was reported out of committee. The major issues 
developed were as follows: 
1. How long will it take to arrive at an internationally agreed- 
upon settlement to the numerous legal/political problems of re- 
source jurisdiction and a seabed regime ? 
2. What are the technological considerations and what harm 
will be done to the American mining industries if they were forced 
to wait and lose their present technological lead ? 
3. What correlation is there between the interim legislation and 
stated U.S. ocean policy and resolutions adopted by the United 
Nations? 
4, What will be the economic impact of mining seabed nodules 
on developing countries or on the United States? 
18 Metcalf, Lee. Statement by Senator Metcalf. In Remarks of Henry Bellmon. Congres- 
sional Record (daily ed.) v. 118, Mar. 14, 1972, p. S 3929. ‘ 
19 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Oceanography 
miscellaneous. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography on Deep Seabed Hard 
Mineral Resources. NACOA Authorization, and Geneva U.N. Seabed Committee, 92d Cong., 
2d sess. May 12, 16, 25, and Sept. 14, 26, 1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972, 
273 p. 
20 Us. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Development of hard 
mineral resources of the deep seabed. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Mate- 
rials and Fuels on S. 2801. 92d Cong., 2d sess. June 2, 1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off., 1972, 77 p. , 
2U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Law of the sea and peaceful uses 
of the seabeds. Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and 
Movements. 92d Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 10 and 11, 1972. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
1972, 115 p. ; 
22U.S. waneness: Senate. Committee on Commerce. Law of the sea. Hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere. 92d Cong., 2d sess., Oct. 3, 1972, Washington, 
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972, 137 p. ; 
23 Oceanography Miscellaneous, op. cit., pp. 237-2738. 
52-273 O- 75-6 
