124 
decision making which takes this into account and pro- 
vides for compulsory settlement of disputes. We do not 
regard these objectives as inconsistent with the desire 
of other countries for equitable participation in deep 
seabed exploitation and its benefits." 
For some time our experts have been engaged ina 
study of the economic implications of deep seabed mining 
legislation such as last session's S.2801 and the current 
session's H.R. 9. They are examining issues of resource 
Management and development, as well as questions of po- 
litical economy such as the design of arrangements to 
ensure efficient exploitation of ocean resources. Impli- 
cations for tax, customs and development finance policies 
are also under review. 
The technology of ocean bed mining is likely to develop 
rapidly, and new information continually challenges old 
hypotheses. It is therefore impossible to be definitive. 
Nevertheless, at this time we are prepared to give you a 
comprehensive but as yet still incomplete report of the 
Administrations' views on certain technical aspects of 
H.R. 9, particularly those related to resource management 
and development. 
In reporting to you that the Administration is opposed 
to the enactment of H.R. 9, we want to make clear that 
this does not mean we are unalterably opposed to legisla- 
tion of any sort, or that we intend to disregard the prob- 
lem of interim mining. Any of a number of events could 
occur that would lead us to conclude that legislation 
was necessary, and we intend to prepare as quickly as 
possible for that contingency. Moreover, we wish to 
repeat that we continue to adhere to the President's 
statement that it is neither necessary nor desirable to 
try to halt exploration and exploitation of the seabeds 
beyond a depth of 200 meters during the negotiating pro- 
cess, provided that such activities are subject to the 
international regime to be agreed upon, which should 
include due protection of the integrity of investment 
made in the interim period. Our opposition to H.R. 9 
in no way alters this. 
We are deeply conscious of the fact that no decision 
we could have reached on this issue at this time could 
have been universally popular. Some who support the 
