This is provided for. Senator STEVENS. I appreciate that, and I am sure we are in agreement that senseless killing does not include in its definition subsistence by those people who still need that resource for their way of life. Senator WILLIAMS. Exactly. I know that this is recognized in the bill; it is permitted and the exception is defined. I am not sure whether the other bills include this or not. I do not believe they all do. Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Cook. Senator Cook. Mr. Chairman, I really do not have a great many questions. I am wondering, since we are talking about the jurisdiction that the United States possesses, if during the course of these hearings we might discuss whether we should extend that jurisdiction as far as the waters around the United States are concerned. If we are going to exercise this authority, which I think has a great deal of merit, we get into competitive features, Senator, in regard to the fishing business. We have seen many countries to the south of us, for instance, extend their territorial limits, and as a matter of fact, there is a great argument that by reason of their extension they have been increasing their crop and sustaining their productivity tremendously. I wonder if we should not discuss this in relation to the competitiveness of the United States in the marketplace in relation to the rest of the world. Do you think that holds some merit? Senator WILLIAMS. I do. I do. Towards the objective of a greater uniformity, world uniformity, we should define fishing territories that are part of the sovereign jurisdiction. I do. I cannot think of a better committee to take on that job. Senator Cook. I think this presents a very interesting situation, because if we are, in effect, going to be the leader, and if we are going to very seriously curtail and increase the cost of productivity of the American enterprising individual who gets into this business, it is tough and hard, and expensive, then maybe we ought to at least make that degree of competitiveness more equal. Senator STEVENS. Could I interrupt you there? Senator Cook. Yes. Senator STEVENS. I have drafted a bill that would place an environmental tax differential into effect so anyone who imported products from foreign countries where they do not have such costs-not taxes would be subject to a tax differential equal to the cost of our environmental program. Senator Cook. Well, I am not arguing. It may be an alternative, but it seems to me it is a devious way to get around the situation. If we cannot go into somebody else's water within a hundred miles and they can come into ours just outside of 12, a tax differential has to be weighed against the territorial integrity so as to the resources within those waters. Thank you very much. Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much, Senator Williams for your bill and your testimony. It has been a valuable contribution to us and we appreciate it. (The following information was subsequently received for the record :) Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. ChaAIRMAN: As referred to in my testimony before your Committee on February 15, I am submitting a list of changes in S. 2871, the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In order to assure the continuation of study and research on more humane methods of capturing and killing marine mammals: Section 3, Line 14, add: "(6) The term "humane" means that method of taking which involves the least possible degree of pain and suffering to the animal involved." The recent announcement by the Department of Commerce that net modifications used during tuna purse seine fishing has decreased porpoise mortality by 75 percent, in recent tests, is most encouraging. However, if the mortality rate is to be reduced by 100%, research and development in this area must continue at a rapid pace. I am, therefore, proposing the imposition of a cut-off date one year after the effective date of the Act, after which time no dolphin or porpoise could be killed incidental to the capture of tuna : Section 103 (e), Lines 9, 10 and 11, should be changed to read: "by the Secretary as being consistent with the elimination of the injury or killing of porpoises incident to the capture of the fish, within a period of one year following the effective date of this title." To reduce the probability of violations of the Act: Section 104 (a), Line 9, should be changed to read: "$10,000 for each violation. No penalty shall be assessed" Section 104 (b), Line 24, should be changed to read: "conviction, be fined not more than $20,000, or imprisoned" To provide an incentive for giving information which could lead to a conviction for violation of the Act: Section 104, add "(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to any person who furnishes information which leads to a conviction for violation of this subsection an amount equal to one-half of the fine incurred, but not to exceed $2,500 for each such violation". In order to afford the maximum possible protection to those species of marine mammals now classified as endangered: Section 107 (a), Line 17, add after the word "mammal", "(other than a marine mammal classified as one belonging to an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969)". To encourage the development and use of more efficient hunting practices by Alaska natives so as to avoid the loss of animals which are shot but do not die immediately and are able to escape the hunters: Section 107 (a), Line 22, add after the word "resale", "and, (3) is not accompilshed in a wasteful manner." In order to provide for the fullest scrutiny of any proposed international agreement, treaty or convention for the protection of marine mammals and to assure that it is in the best interests of the animals concerned: Section 108, add: “(b) any international agreements or conventions entered into by the United States must be ratified by the Senate". To assure the maximum protection of all species of marine mammals: Section 109, Line 9, should be changed to read:: "protection of marine mammals. Such arrangements shall be no less protective of marine mammals than the provisions of this title". In order to eliminate any commercial connotation: Wherever the words "population stocks" appear in the text of the bill, they should be changed to "population". With best wishes, Sincerely, HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr. Senator HOLLINGS. Ambassador Donald McKernan. We appreciate the outstanding job you are doing in State as the Assistant Secretary 76-491 072 - pt. 1 - 13 of State for Fish and Wildlife. We are glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. McKERNAN, COORDINATOR OF OCEAN AFFAIRS AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. McKERNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. The Department of State has forwarded reports on most of the bills before your regarding protection and conservation of marine mammals. Since the bills call for action in the international field the Department has a very lively interest indeed in the progress of your consideration of the draft legislation, and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you. It has been our experience that the international community is generally receptive to proposals for negotiation of arrangements for the protection of endangered species or for conservation of other species where a reasonable case can be made that international measures are in fact needed now or are very likely to be needed in the near future. As an example I may cite the Interim Convention for Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals-talked of previously by your members present-under which and its predecessor, the Fur Seal Treaty of 1911, the United States, Canada, Japan and the Soviet Union, have succeeded in restoring the fur seal herds which at one time reached a point of near extinction as mentioned by Senator Stevens. Senator HOLLINGS. Where is the seal herd now according to your figures? Mr. McKERNAN. It is at around one and a quarter million. Senator Cook. Mr. Ambassador, would you suspend briefly so we can get the room in order. We seem to be in a state of absolute turmoil back there. Good, thank you. Mr. McKERNAN. You are welcome, Senator. I might cite also the draft Antarctic seal convention negotiated at a meeting in London last week which I attended. On the other hand to the best of our knowledge the scientific evidence does not support a complete prohibition on killing of all marine mammals and its seems certain most other nations would not approve such a ban. Legislation such as that introduced by the chairman, for example, and by Senator Williams as well, which would provide authority for expanded scientific research and discriminative regulatory authority would provide a more appropriate foundation for international negotiations as may be needed. This is really all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I am very pleased to be here and I will be happy to answer any questions. Senator HOLLINGS. From your standpoint of negotiating treaties in the ocean mammal field, do you deem that the United States has sufficient research aand development upon which to furnish you facts and scientific information dependable enough to formulate a treaty, or do you feel there is a shortage in this particular area? Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I do feel there is a shortage of information available and I very strongly believe that we have not put the necessary effort in past years into learning about marine mammals, their birth, and life and death and so forth. There certainly is a need for more information. Senator HOLLINGS. How would you remedy this situation if you were in charge? Mr. McKERNAN. Well, there is nothing like a little money to help the situation. But I must also say that the interest which Congress and the public have shown has brought about an increased interest among the scientific community, and I have observed some very bright young scientists within the past year or so, Mr. Chairman, become more and more interested in this field. There is some very excellent work being done throughout the world at the present time by foundations, universities, government scientists in various countries. I just observed that in negotiating this Antarctic sealing treaty. I was privileged to have in my delegation a very brilliant young man trained in the Pacific Northwest with experience in the polar region of Alaska, who worked for the Alaska Fish and Game Department in earlier years, and now is a sealing expert and is studying the population dynamics of these great seal herds of the Antarctic. It can only be in our national interest, and in fact worldwide interest, to encourage and stimulate young people of this type. Senator HOLLINGS. Where would you place this R. & D. effort within the Government? Mr. McKERNAN. At the present time of course there is considerable work being done in the Department of Commerce, in NOAA, and excellent work being done in the Interior Department through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and there is work being done in the Smithsonian, excellent work of a highly specialized nature. There is also work being supported out of the National Science Foundation. In fact most of the Antarctic work is being financed. out of the National Science Foundation. I must say I think it is excellent work, too. Senator HOLLINGS. If you had $10 million and you served in the Congress, and you wanted to get the best research and development, who would you give it to? What agency, all three, one of them or what? Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the views that are suggested, some of the programs and ways suggested in your bill are really quite forward looking. You would set up a scientific advisory committee to advise this marine mammal commission and Senator HOLLINGS. You do support a marine mammal commission then? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, I do. I am not absolutely certain that it need be of a permanent nature but I think that because of public interest and the ramifications of the entire problem, we ought at least to take a very careful look at what is going on in our country and throughout the world at the present time. Senator HOLLINGS. Do you have a judgment on the matter of a moratorium. Should we have one at all? Is it scientifically sound to have one of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or what? Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking for the Government or my Department in this but you asked me about my own scientific view. I believe that a selective moratorium, a moratorium based upon knowledge of species, is the best approach. I think my approach perhaps is more closely approximating that of what one might call conservation managers. I would cite the case of the gray whale, and of the sea otter, which has come back in such great numbers in Senator Stevens' State and also in California, as examples of where moratoriums have produced results. On the other hand, there are examples such as that of the fur seals where a combination of a moratorium plus sound conservation management has produced sustained yields that have benefited peoples and the countries as a whole. Senator HOLLINGS. We would like to think of the United States as a leader. Why have we not entered into a polar bear convention? Mr. McKERNAN. We have contacted all of the polar nations and we are urging them to join us in discussions-incidentally, together with the State of Alaska which has been very cooperative in this regard-and we are looking toward meetings with these nations in the very near future. Now we started this some years ago with scientific discussions; that is, international scientific discussions. Those quite naturally lead, with the accumulation of knowledge from all the nations, to an international meetings on this subject and, I am quite confident, to an international conservation convention ultimately. Such a convention has been drafted. It was considered very informally at this meeting that was mentioned earlier in your hearings today as having been held just recently. We are looking forward to reports of this meeting and we intend to call for a meeting of polar nations to consider the matter of the conservation of polar bears further. We have been in contact with these nations and are in continuing contact. Even last week I talked to representatives of several nations about this. Senator HOLLINGS. Russia really has been leading the way and actually accusing us of dragging our feet on the score, isn't that correct? Mr. McKERNAN. They have been accusing us, but it is not clear to me exactly what they have done. They claim that they have prohibited the killing of polar bears. It is not clear to me they have prohibited the native killing of polar bears. I don't know really what their practices are. I have asked them Mr. Chairman, although I know in terms of other marine mammals they don't necessarily lead us, in fact they follow quite a long way behind us in terms of harvest of seals, as well as whales of course. We have been pushing them for years to bring down their whaling catches to more acceptable levels and as you well know, Mr. Chairman, we have had difficulty in this regard. Senator HOLLINGS. Generally, Mr. Ambassador, from your experience, you say the other nations are now becoming more aware of ocean mammals and conservation and that if this Congress would put out a comprehensive bill conserving the various herds and regulating and establishing Federal guidelines, that they would be responded to by the other nations? It would be a good step, you think? Mr. McKERNAN. It is my experience which leads me to believe that if we have a reasonable approach, one that takes into account the |