37 



This provides a totally new light on the subject and underlines 

 the urgency of the treaty. 



Thank you, Mr. Richardson. 



Chairman Zablocki. Mr. Pritchard. 



Mr. Pritchard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my colleagues 

 in welcoming our distinguished guest who has served our country 

 so well in so many positions. 



I was very critical of the administration when they were up here, 

 because I thought that they were undertaking a process that was 

 excessively long, and in fact, I guess I questioned their motives. 



I would like to review just a little bit here. When the administra- 

 tion made its decision on appointments and replacing staff, did 

 they talk to you as the Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Commit- 

 tee? Did you advise them in any way? 



Mr. Richardson. No, I did not, Mr. Pritchard. 



Mr. Pritchard. I find that remarkable. 



Mr. Richardson. I had, I might say, communicated with a 

 number of people after the election in order to urge the designation 

 of my Deputy, George Aldrich, as the head of the delegation. 



It seemed to me that his outstanding performance as our seabed 

 mining negotiator made him the appropriate person for that role 

 but that was the only kind of communication I had. 



Mr. Pritchard. In your testimony you say "all respected mem- 

 bers of the scientific community support this agreement." That is a 

 rather tough statement. 



Mr. Richardson. I don't think I put it quite that way, did I? I 

 think I said that "most members of the scientific community agree 

 that marine scientific research would be better off with the treaty 

 than without it." 



I think this is true of the overwhelming majority of members of 

 the scientific community. 



That was ticked off in the previous sentence that refers to the 

 widely recognized benefits of the treaty, with the exception of what 

 I would regard as a fringe element. 



That, I think, is true of all the things referred to in that sen- 

 tence, but I put science in the next sentence because the scientists 

 have, I think rightly, been concerned about the consent regime, so- 

 called, provided for in the text. 



From the time I came in in January or February 1977, until last 

 August, we fought by every possible means — and I mean every 

 possible means — to get improvements in the science text, and we 

 did achieve significant improvements. 



This helped to reconcile the scientific community, but in the 

 meantime, as a result of U.S. unilateral action in 1976 in effect 

 inviting every other country to establish a 200-mile zone, they were 

 running into all kinds of problems in getting consent to projects in 

 and around the world which were more troublesome than what 

 they would have under the treaty. 



The treaty would at least establish consistent uniform rules. It 

 would give them certain dispute settlement benefits. It would help 

 to establish a worldwide approach to science that would be signifi- 

 cantly better than the chaos they are encountering now. 



Mr. Pritchard. I asked Mr. Malone this and I think it is an 

 honest question. When we change our administration during the 



