72 
the March 28 hearing. In the June 14 hearing of the Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels, Mr. Moore reported on the 
favorable response to the U.S. proposal. He stated that of the 20 dele- 
gations which spoke to the proposal no delegation opposed the concept. 
This response was cited as an example of satisfactory progress in 
difficult negotiations. 
In response to Senator Metcalf, Mr. Moore then amplified the Ad- 
ministration’s position that passage of legislation for seabed hard 
mineral mining would not be advisable from the standpoint of the 
Law of the Sea negotiations even if it were not to become effective 
until January 1, 1976. He repeated the premise that such action would 
be viewed by many delegations as a thinly veiled threat of unilateral 
action by the United States to pressure others into an agreement on 
our terms. 
Senator Metcalf still maintained a neutral stance in his sponsorship 
of S. 1134. In his opening remarks in the May 17, 1973 hearings, 
Senator Metcalf stated : 
I emphasize that my sponsorship of S. 1134 does not imply my support of all 
of its provisions. The predecessor bill grew out of the appearance by representa- 
tives of the American Mining Congress before my special subcommittee on the 
Outer Continental Shelf in September of 1970. At that time, as our hearing 
records will show, I told industry witnesses that I would introduce their pro- 
posals for circulation and discussion. That was my position when I introduced 
S. 2801. It is my position today. I am not committed to this particular bill nor 
to any part of it. But I, and the members of this subcommittee are ready to be 
convinced.” 
Among the supporters of the proposed legislation was Mr. T. S. 
Ary, vice president of Union Carbide Exploration Corporation, and 
representative of the American Mining Congress. He pointed out the 
balance-of-payments deficit for primary minerals would reach $64 
billion by the year 2000 assuming only 1970 prices. He suggested that 
encouraging investment in nodule mining would lead to technological 
breakthroughs which would carry over into other aspects of U.S. 
industry. He also expressed the fear that by delaying seabed mineral 
recovery, the United States would lose its technological lead and 
competitive advantages. 
In defending specific points in the legislation, Mr, Ary testified that 
the lease payment was not too small. He stated : 
you do not sit o1 bloeks 
Mr. Ary conceeded that the ocean mining industry would only need 
mining areas beyond the continental rise so that any redefinition of 
the deep seabed in the bill to avoid conflict with discussions over 
boundaries of national jurisdiction would be acceptable. He also had 
no objection to deleting the concept of subsurface blocks because there 
1s no present need to regulate these. 
Mr. Edwin M. Hood, President and Board Chairman, Shipbuilders 
Council of America spoke to the need of the shipbuilding industry for 
assured availability of the metals contained in manganese nodules. He 
% Mineral Resources of 'the Deep Seabed. op. cit., . 81. 
38 Deep Seabed Hard Minerals, op. cit., p. O84. 2 
