74 
follows: 
We would need to assemble a large data base of information about the tech- 
nology, the metallurgy, and the costs of doing business in order to establish any 
degree of real precision for the purpose of legislation, which has a tendency to 
endure, sometimes even beyond the point when the information it was based on 
was still credible and still up to date. We would want to be very sure we had 
adequate data. For the moment it is fair to say that we do not have adequate 
data.*° 
Mr. Ratiner also pointed out that industry is virtually the sole source 
of this information, the U.S. Geological Survey has neither the funds 
nor the capability to do the kind of oceanwide survey which would be 
required in order to have first-hand knowledge and information. 
Mr. Ratiner questioned the immediate necessity of passing interim 
legislation. Based on 1971 data, he pointed out, the United States 
spent $600 million importing metals contained in manganese nodules 
and that amounted to 1.3 percent of our total import. He recognized 
that this is likely to increase but felt that a delay of a year or two to 
await a provisional U.N. regime would not greatly affect our balance- 
of-payments situation. 
Mr. Marne A. Dubs, representing the American Mining Congress 
exposed the other side of the deficient data argument. He stated that 
if full-scale mining were to begin during the interim period before an 
international treaty is concluded sound technical information could 
be gathered to help create sensible regulations in the future regime. 
“Hard information,” he said, “can only come from a successful full- 
scale mining operation which in turn requires this legislation in order 
to commence.” #4 
Mr. Dubs also expressed reservations about the value of the State 
Department’s proposal to the U.N. Seabed Committee for a pro- 
visional regime. He stated: 
One problem with the provisional regime is that it might have far less than 
universal acceptance. This might create serious problems for an organization 
operating under its umbrella. It also should be noted that it is unlikely that the 
details of such a provisional regime could be worked out and put into force any 
earlier than a year after conclusion of the convention.” 
The hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials 
and Fuels on June 18, 1973 were scheduled to hear spokesmen for the 
environmental groups. In his opening statement, Senator Metcalf 
remarked : 
You will recall that when I was chairman of the Special Subcommittee on the 
Outer Continental Shelf we scheduled a hearing for May 13, 1970, to hear wit- 
nesses representing the interests of what was then called ‘‘conservation.” That 
was before conservationists became environmentalists. 
We had no witnesses, but statements were submitted by, among others: 
Charles H. Callison, executive vice president of the National Audubon Society ; 
Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, and 
Richard H. Stroud, executive vice president of the Sport Fishing Institute. 
I am glad to know that in the intervening 3 years the environmentalists have 
been able to turn their attention to this complex subject. 
When mining industry witnesses appeared before this subcommittee last month, 
I asked them a series of questions about environmental protection. You were 
40 Mineral Resources of the Deep Seabed, op. cit., p. 236. 
41 Tbid., p. 114. 
“ Toid., p. 119. 
