the petroleum and mining industries of any caveats linked to some future treaty, and let them go to work adding to the world's store of available

resources.

Will this mean the U.S. Navy will be boxed in? No. Any coastal state that desires to maintain commerce with the rest of the world will have to maintain reasonable rules of passage. Will it mean countries will go to war over who gets those nodules, oil or fish? No more than they do now, or less than they would if some world authority came into being. When was the last time the United Nations settled such a scrap?

[From the Congressional Record, Dec. 20, 1973]

DEEP OCEAN FLOOR HARD MINERALS ACT

(Mr. Downing asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Speaker, early in the second session, I intend to introduce the Deep Ocean Floor Hard Minerals Act, which will promote the conservation and orderly development of the hard mineral resources of the deep ocean floor. This bill is similar in intent to H.R. 9, which I introduced at the beginning of the present Congress. However, the details of the bill have been substantially revised in accordance with the extended hearings that have been held on H.R. 9, together with hearings on the same subject in the 92d Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in an energy crisis, which has been highlighted by the fact that certain foreign nations have decided to restrict the availability of the oil resources to the United States. Without getting into any discussion as to the merits of the resource policies of those countries, I would merely like to note that the United States cannot afford to rely entirely on the policies of other nations. We have discovered that when the perceived needs of differing nations come into conflict, even nations which have been considered "friendly" may not be entirely sympathetic to the national needs of the United States.

There is a similar situation which exists for the United States in its need for mineral resources. Despite the vast mineral resources available domestically, there is increasing evidence that the development of the domstic resources is not keeping pace with domestic demand. At the same time, this Nation is encountering steady increasing international competition in the acquisition of foreign raw materials.

In addition, expropriation, confiscation, and forced modifications of agreement have severely restricted the flow or increased the cost of some foreign materials and there is evidence that security of access to foreign minerals may increasingly be hostage to political accommodations unrelated to the best interest of this Nation. At the same time, there is an alternate source of mineral raw materials which are available to the United States in economically workable concentrations. That source lies in the ocean floor manganese nodules which are found in varying percentages up to several pounds per square foot and in varying assays. The prospect of realizing deep ocean mining is no longer illusory, but is now on the brink of reality. The purpose of this legislation is to bring that reality into being.

For the past few years, ocean mining technology has progressed to the point where private U.S. companies and foreign entities have become increasingly active in the ocean area. The foreign entities are often strongly and directly supported in their efforts by their governments.

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 affirmed that it was in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries. The bill which am introducing is consistent with that affirmation.

Domestic mining interests in the United States engaged in the evaluation of deep sea mining of manganese nodules, which could provide the United States with a secure source of supply of several minerals including manganese, cobalt, nickel, and copper, are at the stage where large investments must be made in order to achieve the capacity for commercial exploitation. At the same time, there are problem areas of a legal and political character which represent serious impediments to the domestic development of seabed minerals. President Nixon recognized this fact in his statement of May 23, 1970, in which he called

for an interim policy to promote the orderly development of seabed resources, pending international negotiations to arrive at international solutions to the problem. This legislation is very similar to the thrust of his proposal.

The major objection to the enactment of legislation of this type, as developed during previous hearings, rests on the fact that the United Nations is also concerning itself with this problem area and it is a matter which is proposed for resolution at the Law of the Sea Conference which is expected to take place during the course of the next 2 years. While I am entirely sympathetic with the solution of this problem on an international basis, I am somewhat less than optimistic as to the date of final international solution. The matter has been under detailed consideration in the United Nations Seabed Committee, in both its ad hoc and permanent status, since 1967. The work of that committee has still not produced sufficient agreement to encourage optimism for the Law of the Sea Conference. In that regard, I sincerely hope that I may be wrong, but in the meantime, I firmly believe that it is now time for this Nation to make a decision on how long we should wait before we begin the utilization of these available minerals which our economy may desperately need in the not too distant future.

With the introduction of this legislation, and with additional hearings on its detailed provisions, I feel certain that we can solve a national problem and at the same time make adequate provision for merging our national efforts into whatever international regime may be agreed upon in the future, whatever the exact date of that accomplishment.

I am hopeful that both this House and the other body can give early and favorable consideration to this proposed legislation early in the second session of the present Congress. We have thus far delayed action for 2 years in order to enable the international community to reach agreement. It seems to me that it is now time to put the international community on notice that the time for debate and rhetoric is drawing to a close, that the United States intends to continue the development of its technology in this area, and that unless an international agreement can be reached by the end of 1975, the United States intends to take independent action to insure that deep seabed minerals are utilized to satisfy pressing needs.

Mr. DOWNING. We have with us our esteemed and beloved colleague, Congressman Fraser of Minnesota, who would like to present his statement as early as possible.

Mr. Fraser, it is a pleasure to have you before this committee again.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT BOETTCHER, CONSULTANT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MOVEMENTS

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me Bob Boettcher staff consultant from the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for you allowing me this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee. I recall the pleasant association with you and other members of this committee during the past 2 years while we served as congressional advisors on the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Seabeds Committee, so I am especially glad to be here today.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and I share a desire for a just and effective treaty at the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference. We worked together successfully last year for House passage of the Law of the Sea Resolution, convinced that the kind of treaty envisaged in that resolution would be the best one for the United States and the world community.

I believe that passage of the legislation before the subcommittee today-H.R. 12233-would be detrimental to a favorable and productive outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference.

It seems to me that the chances for the just and effective treaty that we want would be seriously reduced if the U.S. Government were to begin issuing licenses to American companies for developing seabed mining sites before an international agreement is reached, as would be provided by the deep seabed hard minerals bill.

Technology for successful commercial recovery of manganese nodules from the deep seabed-as we all know-has not yet been perfected, and the construction of shore-based refineries for the nodules will also take time. I believe industry generally holds the view that it will not be ready for commercial refining until 1976 at the earliest. Since H.R. 12233 provides that "commercial recovery" is not to begin until January 1, 1976, an argument could be made that this bill would still give the Law of the Sea Conference time to conclude a treaty before commercial recovery gets underway. Viewed in this light, should the bill still be regarded as prejudicial to the outcome of the Conference? I would say, most decisively, "Yes, it would be prejudicial."

This conclusion is based upon numerous conversations with delegates to the U.N. Seabeds Committee from other countries. I received the impression that their reaction to unilateral legislation such as this would be very negative from the standpoint not only of U.S. interests at the Caracas conference, but also vis-a-vis the chances for the Conference producing any treaty at all.

If this legislation is intended, in part, to improve the tactical negotiating position of the United States in Caracas by applying some unilateral pressure so as to prod the other countries to reach agreement more expeditiously, I would say from my own observations in the Seabeds Committee that passage of this bill would have just the opposite effect. It would be no exaggeration to expect that those countries opposed to the U.S. position would spread the view that the United States had shown that it is really not interesed in a treaty and intends to do as it pleases; the position of countries making extreme national claims could be strengthened to the point that the consensus in favor of concluding a treaty would crumble, and the world would be left without any agreement on

ocean use.

I have not discerned any inclination on the part of other countries to react in any but a negative way to this legislation insofar as its effect on Conference is concerned. Its passage would be counterproductive to U.S. interests and would play into the hands of those who would like to see the Conference fail. Far from gaining "leverage" for the United States, what "leverage" we have would be lost. We are less than 4 months away from the opening of the substantive session of the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas. The organizational session has already been held, in New York, last December. Prior to that, there were two long meetings of the Seabeds Committee each year for 3 years. This is virtually the eleventh hour before final negotiations for the treaty itself. When could there be a less favorable time for passage of this kind of legislation than now?

Even if the Law of the Sea Conference were doomed to failureand I do not believe it is-we surely can wait another 6 months until after the Conference before considering unilateral measures such as this one.

I believe U.S. policy on law of the sea is constructive, striking a fair balance between national and international interests. Beyond that balance in our own policy, there is a tentative and delicate balance of interests among the national positions at the Conference, arrived at after more than 3 years of complex consensus-making. A decision by the United States to shift gears at this point would upset the delicate balance and throw the Conference into a state of confusion, even without the expected negative reactions of those who oppose our positions. The premises for the many trade-offs among contending interests would be swept away, and nations would have to go back to "square one" in trying to balance interests.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the Law of the Sea Conference is addressing itself to the full range of issues on ocean use, of which deep sea mining is only one. The ocean treaty is to incorporate provisions on ocean navigation-including transit through international straits-scientific research, fisheries, protection of marine environment, and breadth of territorial sea. The United States has important objectives in all these areas. Passage of this legislation would jeopardize the attainment of those objectives.

I can understand the desire of many Americans for an early treaty. In all the areas mentioned above, the need for effective international agreement is urgent, and the process toward agreement has been painstakingly slow. Certainly, no international conference with 148 participating nations can reach quick agreement on a complex treaty such as this one. But a broad multilateral conference is the only means by which agreement can be reached on universal law governing the use of the ocean and its resources. After all, this is a Conference whose task is to draw up rules on how we are to use 70 percent of the world's area, and the day is long since past when one nation or a group of powerful nations could decide such an issue on its own.

But there is an alternative between H.R. 12233 and waiting years before an ocean treaty takes effect. This is the alternative of provisional application of certain treaty articles before the entire treaty has gone through the lengthy process of national ratifications. The U.S. delegation to the Conference has made such a proposal for the articles on deep sea mining and fisheries, and I would hope that the U.S. mining and fishing industries would look upon this proposal as at least a partial answer to their problems. I am not certain as to exactly how this can be effected in our legislature process, but there appear to be precedents for provisional application of treaty articles.

The members of the subcommittee may be interested in a study on provisional application of ocean treaty articles to be published next week by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It was prepared by Congressional Research Service, and will give precedent sand alternative formulas for affecting provisional application.

The U.N. Law of the Sea Conference is the most important international lawmaking conference ever held. Americans have a vital

interest in a successful conference which produces a just and effective treaty. Passage of H.R. 12233 would be unnecessary at best, and at worst could wreck the Law of the Sea Conference and bring on an era of intensified international conflict in the ocean.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

You and I have been personal friends for a long time. I want you to know that while I respect your views, I do not necessarily agree with them.

You ask for 6 months, which is another request to delay this legislation.

As practical matter, this could not possibly become law in as little as 6 months.

What is wrong with us proceeding to get the preliminaries out of the way and get it over to the Senate so that it can become law the latter part of this year?

Mr. FRASER. Well, I think that if the subcommittee and the committee were to report this bill out, and the Senate and House were to pass it, even though final action would not be accomplished until later this year, the forward movement on this legislation right now on the eve of the Conference, would make it look as though we were prepared to accept the failure of the Conference and that, in any event, we were going to proceed on our own.

I might add that there are substantive provisions of the bill I did not try to deal with, because I am speaking more in terms of the Conference.

Mr. DOWNING. You and I were at Geneva, Switzerland, last summer at the Seabed Committee meeting. I happened to be on the floor when one of the members from Brazil, I believe, said that there was a need for action to be taken by the committee because already legislation had been proposed in the United States, and also the Hughes Corp. had a ship which was then on its way to begin deepsea mining.

That statement was in error, but the paper said it was on its way. And he said, and I think rightfully so, that this was a catalyst for them to take action. And I think our friends in other States might be persuaded to really get down to the nuts and bolts.

Mr. FRASER. I believe whatever purpose it may have had as a catalyst has been accomplished. The Conference is scheduled to open its substantive session in Caracas on June 20.

Mr. DOWNING. Do you reasonably expect anything to be resolved at Caracas?

Mr. FRASER. Well, I seem to alternate between optimism and pessimism and, at the moment, I really would not be sure, but let me make the observation that there is nothing that prevents a company from going out in the deep oceans today.

Mr. DOWNING. Not if it has the risk capital.

But, for those companies that do not have it and need some assurance, this legislation is absolutely vital.

Mr. FRASER. Yes, but if I may say, Mr. Chairman, the only thing this legislation adds is a Government-sponsored insurance fund to pick them up in case they run into trouble.