70 
bill, S. 1134, on March 8, 1973 by Senator Lee Metcalf. The House 
held hearings on March 1, 28, 29, and April 3, 1973.°* The Senate hear- 
ings were held May 17, June 14, 15, 18, and 19, 1973.°? In their testi- 
monies, most of the interest groups maintained much the same posi- 
tions as taken in the previous Congress. However, in contrast to the 
hearings in the 92d Congress in which the Administration witnesses 
did not take a position on the legislation, Mr. Charles N. Brower, 
Acting Legal Advisor and Acting Chairman of the Inter-Agency 
Task Force on the Law of the Sea, in letters dated March 1, 1973, 
informed Representative Leonor K. Sullivan, Chairman of the House 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and Senator Henry M. 
Jackson, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, of the 
Administration’s opposition to H.R. 9 (Appendix B). Mr. Brower 
maintained that H.R. 9 was premature and that the Administration 
adhered to the policy contained in the President’s Ocean Policy State- 
ment of May 23, 1970, in which the President proposed that all nations 
adopt, as soon as possible, a treaty establishing an international regime 
for the exploitation of seabed resources beyond the 200 meter depth. 
In addition, he reiterated the President’s statement that it was 
neither necessary nor desirable to try to halt exploration and exploita- 
tion of the seabeds during the negotiation process, provided that such 
activities are subject to the international regime to be agreed upon, 
which should include due protection of the integrity of investments 
made in the interim period. 
Mr. Brower expressed the belief that with the Law of the Sea nego- 
tiations moving into a critical stage, it is necessary for States to be 
very careful to avoid actions that can have an adverse effect on the 
negotiating atmosphere. He further stated : 
It is apparent that H.R. 9 independent of the particular content or merits of 
the Bill, has become a symbol to many countries of defiance of the multilateral 
negotiating process. Regardless of our views on the intent and effect of the 
legislation, it may be argued by others that the legislation is similar to unilateral 
claims that we oppose and that are contrary to our security, navigation and 
peta interests, and moreover preempts the Law of the Sea Conference on this 
Finally, he stated that while the Administration intended to begin 
at once to formulate a legislative approach on a contingency basis, the 
Administration did not seek the passage of alternative legislation prior 
to the conclusion of the Conference, if a timely and successful Confer- 
ence were predictable. He defined a “timely and successful Confer- 
ence” to mean a Conference which would arrive at a Convention, in- 
cluding a seabed regime, which would be open for signature in 1974 or, 
at the latest, not later than the summer of 1975. 
On the other hand, some sponsors of the legislation began to take 
a less optimistic view of progress in the United Nations. In comment- 
ing on the endless and seemingly unproductive negotiating sessions 
of the U.N. Seabeds Committee, Congressman Downing, Chairman of 
fe U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Deep seabed hard 
minerals. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography on H.R. 9 and H.R. 7732. 
93d Cong. Mar. 1, 28, 29, Apr. 3, 1973, and H.R. 12233 Feb. 26, 27, 28, 1974. Washington, 
D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974, 513 p. 
2 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Mineral resources of 
the deep seabed. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels on 
S. 1134. 98d Cong., 1st sess. May 17, June 14, 15, 18, and 19, 1973. Washington, D.C., U.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., 1973, 768 p. 
33 Appendix B, p. 4 
