80 
on the moratorium on commercial recovery before January 1, 1976. 
With regard to elimination of the reciprocating state concept, Mr. 
Dubs stated: 
The elimination of the reciprocating state concept is a more Serious matter, 
and we strongly urge the retention of this principle. It is this principle more 
than any other which operates “to promote the conservation and orderly develop- 
ment of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed.” This principle tells all 
nations that the United States intends to cooperate with and take into account 
the operations of other nations. It states that the Congress of the United States, 
while passing what may appear to some to be narrowly nationalistic legislation, 
has in fact mandated a method of easily adjusting to the needs of other nations 
also anxious to utilize the resources of the deep seabed.” 
Mr. Dubs praised the redrafted bill for eliminating many of the 
generalities and nonspecificity of the regulatory provisions of the 
original bill. However, he suggested spelling out further the items 
for which the Secretary should promulgate rules and regulations. 
These would include: 
1. Eligibility of applicants for license ; 
2. Licensing procedures (mechanics) ; 
3. Procedures relating to work requirements ; 
4. Environmental procedures ; 
5. Multiple use questions; and 
6. Definition and handling of and reporting of data. 
He also suggested requiring the Secretary to issue regulations within 
90 days and eliminating the time consuming requirement for public 
hearings on each license application. Mr. Dubs strongly recommended 
restrictions on the public disclosure of exploration data and mineral 
technology. 
Spokesmen for environmental groups maintained their opposition 
to enacting any deepsea mining legislation at this time. Mr. Richard A. 
Frank speaking for the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club 
and other groups, repeated his basic position of the previous session. He 
maintained that the marine environment could be effectively protected 
only through international agreement. He did note that the new bill 
provided for more consideration of environmental questions. Mr. 
Samuel R. Levering of the U.S. Committee for the Oceans restated 
most of his previous objections and concluded that the bill was entirely 
unnecessary and would not accomplish its purpose of security of 
Investment. 
Again the record contained ample documentation of the U.S. depend- 
ence on foreign mineral supplies. Two U.S. Bureau of Mines charts 
inserted into the hearings of the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials 
and Fuels pointed out that 1973 imports of raw and processed minerals 
exceeded exports by $8 billion. Articles describing the Intergovern- 
mental Council of Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC) and draw- 
ing attention to the potential for controlling mineral markets by 
exporting countries were also inserted. 
A study presented in a Department of State memorandum dated 
January 22, 1974, concluded that over the next 3 to 5 years the likeli- 
hood of a group of raw materials producers (other than oil) joining 
forces against the major consumers to influence their behavior for 
political purposes is negligible. The memorandum states that the pro- 
ducer countries could drive up prices but probably will not manage to 
53 Tbid., p. 1018. 
