82 
tions from which it did not reappear during the 93d Congress. This 
course was taken by the Committee on Foreign Relations in support of 
the Administration position that no action should take place that might 
jeopardize the continuing Law of the Sea negotiations. The bills died 
with the close of the 93d Congress. 
As time passed, U.S. seabed m 
W1t JIT OC LU) \ C 
bega eek security for future investments in 
international consortia for seabed mining. The first consortium in- 
volved Kennecott Copper Corporation, followed shortly by the CLB 
Group and Deepsea Ventures. Att action on S red 
Ne s and Requests for 
Diplomatic F m of Invest Appendix F). This notice 
was filed with the relevant Federal agencies, foreign embassies, and 
private corporations. The notice was accompanied by a legal brief 
documenting the justification for such action based on international 
precedent. While the Department of State did not officially recognize 
or grant exclusive mining rights to Deepsea Ventures, it did reply 
that mining of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction 
may proceed as a freedom of the high seas under existing international 
law (Appendix G). ~ 
U 
LEGISLATIVE CONCERN IN THE 94TH CONGRESS 
Deep seabed mining legislation was again introduced into the 94th 
Congress by Representative Thomas N. Downing (H.R. 1270) on 
January 14, 1975. The bill, which is essentially the same as the version 
reported out of the Senate Interior Committee in the 98d Congress, was 
referred to the House Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
and Interior and Insular Affairs. The identical bill, S. 713, was intro- 
duced into the Senate on February 18, 1975, by Senators Metcalf, Bart- 
lett, Fannin, Hansen, Jackson, Johnston, and Moss. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with the 
stipulation that if and when reported the bill would be referred to the 
Committees on Armed Services, Commerce, and Foreign Relations for 
thirty days. The provision of a time limit of thirty days was intended 
to avoid the problem in the 93d Congress of the bill’s becoming indefi- 
nitely tied up in another committee. 
An indication that the Administration may also be starting to be- 
come somewhat less optimistic about the prospects for a successful 
outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference is evidenced by recent 
actions by the Department of Interior. Febru 25, 1975 the 
Nan \+ ¢ 
( iL OL ail 
>» 
able 21). While officially stating that he has every hope that the 
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea will be con- 
aes successfully, Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton 
stated : 
The Administration, however, mindful of its responsibilities to reduce where- 
ever possible our nation’s vulnerability to interruptible or high cost sources of 
raw materials, will have to be prepared to act through a domestic program to 
