75 
furnished with copies of the replies. These included the allegation that the area 
to be mined is ‘biologically barren” and that “the impact of deepsea nodule min- 
ing on biological processes will probably be minimal’. 
I also hope that you have statistics or studies to back up your statements 
and that you will share them with this committee, which shares your concern 
about our environment. 
And, of course, should you have suggestions for amendments to this bill, or 
legislative proposals of your own, we want them.” 
Mr. Carl R. Sullivan, Executive Secretary of the Sport Fishing 
Institute, thought that the bill was too broad and that it should be 
narrowed somewhat to preclude any type of mining that might involve 
blasting or exposure of toxic materials under the seabed. He also sug- 
gested that, although it does not appear likely to occur, any ship- 
board processing would require a special set of environmental con- 
siderations and careful monitoring to prevent the discharge of toxic 
chemicals into the sea. He further stated: 
Nowhere in this bill does it mention where the processing of the ore will be done. 
I think again there might be financial incentives to have it done in a so-called 
“developing nation” that had environmental constraints much less stringent than 
ours, where they can save money by avoiding some of the pitfalls that might be 
required on U.S. soil. 
We believe it should be stated and we believe that the processing of the ore— 
unless there are compelling political reasons—should be done on U.S. soil 
someplace.“ 
Mrs. Nancy Matisoff, speaking for the Izaak Walton League of 
America, infomed the Subcommittee that one of the primary concerns 
of their organization is the lack of definitive and comprehensive data 
of the effects of deep sea mining operations on surface and bottom life. 
She suggested that the present bill was seriously deficient in its treat- 
ment of the need for ocean and technological research and called for a 
full-scale research program in this area. ; 
Speaking for several environmental groups including the Sierra 
Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, Mr. Richard Frank of 
the Center for Law and Social Policy objected to the proposed legisla- 
tion for two reasons. First, he believed passage of the bill would 
jeopardize the possibility of effective international agreement on pre- 
serving the quality of the ocean environment. Second, he maintained 
that no action should be taken until a comprehensive environmental 
impact statement is prepared by the Executive Branch. 
Dr. John J. Logue, Director, World Order Research Institute, Vil- 
lanova University, testifying on behalf of World Federalists, U.S.A., 
suggested that the $5,000 long-term leasing fee to mine 40,000 square 
kilometers of ocean floor is far too low. Furthermore, he argued that 
the U.S. government does not, in his opinion, have the authority to 
erant such leases. He also suggested that passage of the Deep Seabed 
Bill would impede future ratification of a seabed treaty by the Senate 
because of the possibility of then having to pay $400 to $500 million 
compensation to our own mining companies. 
Professor L. F. E. Goldie, Director, International Legal Studies 
Program, Syracuse University College of Law, took exception to some 
of Dr. Logue’s comments and pointed out that U.S. citizens as well as 
anyone else have the right to the common heritage of mankind. He 
said: 
483 Tbid., pp. 305, 306. 
4 Tbid., p. 310. 
