35 



I am assured and believe that the review being undertaken is a 

 genuine and open ended review. I think, first, that any members of 

 this committee who are convinced that a treaty is on balance in 

 the interest of the United States; and, second, that we should seek 

 to take advantage of the opportunity to get improvements in it — 

 and are, therefore, concerned about the problem of time — that it 

 could be helpful if they expressed that concern. 



Mr. Winn. I think there are a great many of us that feel that 

 way. 



Again, I want to thank you for your time, dedication and, prob- 

 ably more than anything else, patience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman. Zablocki. Thank you very much. 



Mr. Bingham? 



Mr. Bingham. I would like to join in what Congressman Winn 

 just said. 



As you know, I followed your work in this area with great 

 interest and admiration for a long time. 



I don't know whether you have seen a publication that I have 

 here headed "Mineral Policy Issues," put out by Government Re- 

 search Corp. and written by William J. Baker, energy and national 

 resources analyst. 



I would like to quote a couple of passages from this paper, and 

 then ask for your comment. 



The mining industry is vigorously opposed to the seabed mining provisions cur- 

 rently in the treaty. Industry representatives argue that enactment of the treaty 

 without major amendment would preclude any additional investment in seabed 

 mining. 



And a little later, the paper says: 



Many of the mining industry's objectives involve major, long-standing provisions 

 which, while not to everyone's liking, had largely been accepted as settled. 



Mr. Richardson. The statements, I think are essentially accurate 

 characterizations of industry views. But if you were to ask another 

 question which is, what changes can the United States get, and 

 then would you rather operate under the treaty as thus improved 

 than without a treaty, you would elicit important additional infor- 

 mation. 



You would find out first that mining companies would favor a 

 course directed toward getting improvements to the extent that 

 this is feasible, and would oppose demands by the United States 

 that would not be taken seriously, and that could not be achieved. 



You would get into questions of judgment as to what is feasible, 

 and those are perfectly legitimate as well as difficult questions. 



The second point you would find out that there will be no invest- 

 ment in deep seabed mining without a treaty. 



I have asked the representatives of all the consortia whether or 

 not they would be willing to invest under domestic reciprocal legis- 

 lation, and the answer was "No." 



You then come to the question, what are the greater risks to a 

 potential investor: under a treaty that is improved as much as 

 feasible, or under reciprocal legislation? 



I think most of them would say that the risks under the treaty 

 are not as great as the risks that would exist in the attempt to 

 operate under national legislation. 



