50 



I went through— it should be noted just for the record, that I 

 only referred to things touched on by Mr. Malone. 



I was trying to make the point that if you put aside the radical 

 renegotiation of the parallel system itself, and the essential com- 

 promises intrinsic to the parallel system, everything else that Mr. 

 Malone referred to, everything else could be the subject of a list 

 that would have a good chance of adoption. 



I can imagine some additions to that list by the industry that I 

 would also think would have a good chance of acceptance. 



Chairman Zablocki. Is my understanding correct that the Con- 

 ference might agree to minor changes but not major changes? 

 What would you consider a minor change, and what would you 

 consider a major change? 



Mr. Richardson. Well, I would rather adopt a classification of 

 radical changes a three-tiered rather than a two-tiered classifica- 

 tion. 



I would consider a radical change the proposal to do away with 

 the parallel system and start with some wholly different kind of 

 international regime. 



I would put on the radical change side the attempt to get rid of 

 the technology transfer obligation altogether. I would put on the 

 major, under the major change heading, a provision to relax the 

 production ceiling. 



Of course, the provisions on interim investment protection would 

 be major improvements, but since they are not included in the 

 treaty at all now, they would not be major changes. 



The elimination of the Brazil clause would be a major change, 

 and very difficult to get, I think. 



A minor but quite important change would be a provision for 

 commercial arbitration of actions by the Legal Commission in pass- 

 ing on the approvability of a plan of work. This would eliminate a 

 significant concern and should not be a serious problem. 



Another major change, although, as I said in my testimony, it 

 would only be declaratory of the intent of the Conference anyway, 

 would be some provision that explicitly guaranteed a seat on the 

 Council to the United States. 



Chairman Zablocki. Mr. Richardson, I again want to express our 

 appreciation for all the work you have done in this field, and I 

 want to wish you well in the future. 



Thank you. 



Mr. Richardson. Thank you very much. 



May I say one further word and extend the record in answer to 

 Mr. Bingham? 



I gave him an answer which made it clear that I all along had 

 the view that no American mining company would ever invest 

 under the seabed legislation, and I said I would have given the 

 question a different answer at an earlier stage. I don't mean that I 

 would have lied to you, Mr. Bingham, but I would have avoided the 

 question. 



I think the record would show that in various ways the question 

 has come up, and I don't believe I have ever said that I thought 

 that mining companies would invest, although I am sure that it 

 was clear that I was for the enactment of the legislation. I was for 

 the enactment of the legislation. 



