79 
mistake if we were not to do what we can to help our nationals develop the min- 
erals we need—at least to exert some measure of control over them, pending 
international agreement.” 
Although Administration spokesmen still could not support enact- 
ment of the bill for diplomatic reasons, they did find many of the new 
provisions acceptable. Accordingly, Mr. John Norton Moore, Chair- 
an, National Security Council’s Interagency Task Force on Law of 
th 1, and Deputy Special Representative of the President to the 
Law of the Sea Conference, testified : 
We agree with the underlying premise of the bill that by January 1, 1976, there 
must be an adequate legal regime for deep seabed mining under an internationally 
agreed regime in force on a provisional basis or, if this is not possible, then under 
appropriate legislation. In either event, we will support appropriate legislation 
regarding the conduct of U.S. nationals and the role of Federal agencies. We are 
mindful in this regard that U.S. firms are making substantial investments in 
- deep seabed mining and are rapidly approaching the point where they must make 
even greater investment decisions.” 
In addition to adversely affecting the progress of the Law of the 
Sea negotiations, Mr. Moore enumerated four other points of disagree- 
ment dealing with the substance of the bill. First, he objected to the 
provision of licensing before 1976. He suggested that some nations 
might regard exclusive exploration rights as an attempt to preempt 
international negotiations rather than the intended objective of estab- 
lishing some domestic priority among U.S, nationals. 
The second point Mr. Moore raised dealt with the lack of flexibility 
in the bill to deal with the U.S. proposal for provisional application 
of an internationally agreed regime. He said that domestic legislation 
should be prepared to implement a provisional regime “very soon in 
ToGo 
Third, the guarantee and insurance provisions of the bill would re- 
quire the U.S. Government to assume liability to private investors for 
the Government’s exercise of normal treaty-making powers. This 
would also place the Government in the role of a direct insurance 
underwriter when this function should belong to the private sector. 
Finally, Mi ' 
: . 
tilda NX 
sions of the bill. Specifically, there are no provisions for royalties, or 
other revenues, flags of convenience, safety of life at sea, and marking 
and lighting of offshore mining facilities. He also suggested that there 
are problems with the environmental aspects of the bill that would 
need further study. 
Representatives of industry took issue with the points raised by the 
executive branch. In a letter to Senator Metcalf, John E. Flipse, 
President of Deepsea Ventures, listed 32 examples of programs where- 
by the Federal Government provided relief insurance or guaranty 
pools for private investment. Furthermore, the industry viewpoint 
of the insurance provisions of the bill was that they only applied 
to loss through political interference, but did not provide complete 
coverage against loss of profit or against a wide range of damages. 
In commenting on the new bill, Marne A. Dubs, speaking in behalf 
of the American Mining Congress and Kennecott Copper Corpora- 
tion, did not object to elimination of the subsurface block concept 
and the escrow fund. He stated that industry looked with mixed views 
51 Tbid., p. T98—799, 836. 
= Tbid., p. 930-931. 
QF 
