rent. Thus, the actions proposed by H.R. 6554 might well lead to a situation directly opposite to that desired by the proponents of the bill. The Department considers it highly unlikely that an international agreement or agreements to ban all killing of North Pacific fur seals at sea or on land could be successfully negotiated. In addition to the considerations cited above, which pertain to countries not possessing rookeries, the Soviet Union is interested in bringing the herds on its rookeries to, and maintaining them at, the level which will provide the maximum sustainable yield of fur sealskins. The commercial kill by the Soviet Union on its rookeries was 16,306 seals in 1970 and 15,648 in 1969. Accordingly, we have no reason to believe that the Soviet Government would be amenable to a proposal to prohibit all killing of fur seals. With respect to the interim arrangements regarding fur seals which are proposed by H.R. 6554, a major objective of the 1957 Convention is to bring the fur seal populations to and maintain them at "the levels which will provide the greatest harvest year after year. . . ." To maintain maximum sustainable productivity requires the elimination of certain numbers of surplus animals from the herds. Therefore, it is our understanding that an arbitrary limitation on the kill, such as is proposed by H.R. 6554 as an interim measure, would constitute a failure by the United States to carry out its treaty obligations. In summary, the Department believes that this legislation should not be enacted because other national or international means are more appropriate for the conservation and protection of over-exploited or endangered species, that some provisions of the legislation are impossible of successful implementation, and that the provisions regarding fur seals would likely create a situation counter to that desired by the bill's proponents and would moreover require violation of United States treaty obligations. The Department therefore recommends against enactment. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of August 10, 1971 requested the Department's comments on H.R. 10420 "To protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission; and for other purposes.' The Department is in sympathy with the motives underlying H.R. 10420. In particular, we believe that the statement of findings in Section 2 provides an excellent basis for the further development of such international arrangements as may be necessary or desirable for the effective conservation and management of marine mammals. In connection with the Section 2 (4) of the bill, the Department notes that the bill takes cognizance in Section 202 (a) (1) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, both of which contain provisions for research and conservation. In addition, the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries provides for research on and conservation of harp and hood seals in the northwest Atlantic, the provisions of the Convention having been extended to cover these marine mammals by the Protocol of July 15, 1963. It may also be of interest that the Department will convene in Washington, D.C., next April, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, an international plenipotentiary conference for the purpose of concluding a convention on the conservation of rare and endangered species of the world's wildlife. The basic working document of the conference will be the draft Convention on the Export, Import and Transit of Certain Species of Wild Animals and Plants, prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The present draft convention would prohibit the import and export of all species of Sirenia (dugongs, manatees, etc.) except for scientific purposes and would regulate trade in polar bears, see otters, the Guadelupe fur seal and the walrus by requiring export permits. Section 101 (2) of H.R. 10420 would make it unlawful, except as provided in Sections 102, 107 and 109, for any person or vessel to take any marine mammal in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, which waters are defined by Section 3 (5) (B) to include the nine-mile fisheries zone established pursuant to the Act of October 14, 1966. In this connection, the Agreement of December 11, 1970 between the United States and Japan on Certain Fisheries off the Coast of the United States of America provides that Japanese nationals and vessels may conduct certain fishing operations within the nine-mile fisheries zone off our coast, including whaling in certain waters of the zone off the coast of Alaska. At the same time Japan provides certain concessions of benefit to American fishermen on the high seas seaward of the nine-mile zone. This Agreement, negotiated under the provisions of Public Law 88-308 and Public Law 89-658, expires December 31, 1972, unless extended by the two Parties. In the circumstances the Department suggests that in Section 101 (2) immediately after the words "United States" there is inserted the following: ", except as expressly provided by an international agreement to which the United States is a party.". We believe that the intent of Section 108 of the bill might be made more clear by incorporation of a reference to the principles upon which the proposed international program would be based. We believe also that the principal responsibility for advancement of such international program should rest with the Secretary of State. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Committee may wish to consider, as a substitute for the present language, a rewording of Section 108 along the following lines: "The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and other appropriate Federal officers and agencies, shall develop an international program for the conservation of marine mammals in accordance with the findings of Section 2 of this Act. The Secretary of State shall take every feasible step to encourage the adoption of international arrangements which would be appropriate for effectuating such program." The provisions of Section 110 of H.R. 10420 could bring into question the fulfillment by the United States of its treaty obligations. The Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals is not simply a device for compensating certain other countries for their action in refraining from taking fur seals on the high seas. A primary objective of the treaty is to bring the fur seal populations to and maintain them at "the levels which will provide the greatest harvest year after year, with due regard to their relation to the productivity of other living marine resources of the area. . ." In order to determine and to put into effect the measures required to achieve this objective the treaty also provides for adequate scientific research on the fur seal resources and for coordination of research and management plans through the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, composed of one member from each party. The size and composition of the annual commercial kill from the herds is based on recommendations of the Commission made in accordance with the Convention's provisions, which require that such recommendations be based in turn on the findings obtained from the coordinated research programs. The Convention also specifies that decisions and recommendations of the Commission shall be made by unanimous vote, provided that only those parties sharing in the sealskins from a particular herd shall vote with respect to any recommendations regarding the size and composition of the commercial kill from that herd. Section 110 of the bill appears to contemplate the possibility of action by the United States to terminate or substantially curtail the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands without reference to the findings and recommendations of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. In the Department's view, such action without, at the least, consultation with the other parties to the Convention would not be consistent with United States treaty obligations. The Department therefore suggests that consideration be given to a modification of the language of the second sentence of Section 110, perhaps along the following lines: "If, as a result of such review, the Secretary determines that such activities should be significantly curtailed or terminated, then he shall request the Secretary of State to consult with the other parties to the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals with a view to effectuation of such curtailment or termination and to arrangements whereby, during the period between the date of such curtailment or termination and the date of the expiration of the Convention, Canada and Japan would each be given the opportunity to select one of the following options in lieu of receiving the share of fur sealskins which such country would otherwise be entitled to receive under the provisions of the Convention .. Subject to the foregoing comments, the Department sees no objection to H.R. 10420 from the standpoint of the foreign relations of the United States. With respect to other aspects of the bill, the Department defers to the views of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of September 14, 1971 requested the comments of the Department of State on H.R. 10569, "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed, and for other purposes". H.R. 10569 appears to be a revision of H.R. 6558 so as to provide primarily for renegotiation and renewal of the 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals in the event that a new treaty to ban all killing of northern fur seals cannot be successfully negotiated prior to the expiration date of the 1957 Convention. The Department's comments on H.R. 6558 were conveyed to you by my letter of September 9, 1971. We consider that the provisions of H.R. 10569 relating to possible renewal of the present fur seal treaty are an improvement, though it appears in any event that certain changes in that treaty would be required because of the provisions of Section 402 of the bill, which would impose new conditions as to the numbers and categories of seals which might be killed and as to the sharing arrangements with Canada and Japan. Otherwise, the Department recommends against the enactment of H.R. 10569 for essentially the same reasons as given in our report on H.R. 6558. The broad approach of the bill does not take into account the different circumstances of different species of marine mammals, and the Department believes that other national and international means are more appropriate for the conservation and protection of over-exploited or endangered species, including the measures expected to develop from the world conference on protection of wildlife which the United States will convene in April, 1972. Further, we believe that few, if any, other nations would at the present time be prepared to enter into negotiations looking to a complete prohibition of the killing of all marine mammals. In addition, the interim provisions of Section 402 of the bill relating to action under the present fur seal treaty would, at least in the short term, being into question the fulfillment of United States treaty obligations. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for this Department's comments on the following bills: H.R. 6554 "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; and for other purposes." H.R. 6558 "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; and for other purposes." H.R. 7463 "To protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; and for other purposes.' H.R. 8183-"To protect ocean mammals, and for other purposes." Enforcement of the proposals, if enacted, would not appear to require signif icant additional law enforcement activity on the part of the Coast Guard. However, we defer to the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and State on the desirability of the bills. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Committee. Sincerely, JOHN W. BARNUM, General Counsel. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your requests for the views of this Department on H.R. 6554 and H.R. 6558, identical bills, "To protect ocean mammals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; and for other purposes." Title II of this bills would make it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in taking, transporting, importing, offering for sale or possessing, all ocean mammals or any part thereof. Certain exceptions are made for Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, medical and scientific research uses and for municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos. Vessels and their equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as ocean mammals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture as for violation of the Customs laws. The bills would also impose criminal liabilities of fine or imprisonment, or both, for convictions of first and subsequent offenses. Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transportation. The bills would authorize them to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Title II. To avoid the question of whether joint regulations are intended, we suggest if the proposed legislation is to be favorably considered that the Committee report include a statement that each Department is to issue regulations in its respective area of responsibility. Title III of the bills would terminate the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and ban the importation of all skins or parts of the Alaskan Fur Seal. This Title would also establish, as a preservation measure, a Pribilof Seal Rookery under the Department of the Interior and a Pribilof Islands Commission, on which would serve the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate. This Department has no comment on the merits of the proposed legislation. The primary administrative and enforcement interests would seem to be in the Departments of the Interior, State and Commerce. The Department anticipates no unusual administrative or enforcement responsibilities which those Departments, together with this Department and the Department of Transportation, would not be able to fulfill cooperatively. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the proposed legislation, if it is enacted, involving dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, would place certain enforcement responsibility on the Bureau of Customs, adding additional duties to the existing enforcement workload of Customs officers. The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, SAMUEL R. PIERCE, Jr., General Counsel. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 7463, "To protect seals from being pursued, harassed, or killed; and for other purposes." Title II of the bill would make it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in taking, transporting, importing, offering for sale or possession, seals or any part thereof. Certain exceptions are made for Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, medical and scientific research uses and for municipal and/or other nonprofit zoos. Vessels and their equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as seals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture as for violation of the Customs laws. The bill would also impose criminal liabilities of fine or imprisonment, or both, for convictions of first and subsequent offenses. Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transportation. The bill would authorize them to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Title II. To avoid the question of whether joint regulations are intended, we suggest if the bill is to be favorably considered that the Committee report include a statement that each Department is to issue regulations in its respective area of responsibility. Title III of the bill would terminate the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and ban the importation of all skins or parts of the Alaskan Fur Seal. This Title would also establish, as a preservation measure, a Pribilof Seal Rookery under the Department of the Interior and a Pribilof Islands Commission, on which would serve the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate. This Department has no comment on the merits of the bill. The primary administrative and enforcement interests would seem to be in the Departments of the Interior, State and Commerce. The Department anticipates no unusual administrative or enforcement responsibilities which those Departments, together with this Department and the Department of Transportation, would not be able to fulfill cooperatively. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the bill, if it is enacted, involving dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, would place certain enforcement responsibility on the Bureau of Customs, adding additional duties to the existing enforcement workload of Customs officers. The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 8183, "To protect ocean mammals, and for other purposes." Title II of the bill would make it unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in taking, transporting, importing, offering for sale or possession, ocean mammals or any part thereof. Certain exceptions are made for Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, medical and scientific research and for public or private nonprofit zoos. Vessels and their equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as ocean mammals or the monetary value thereof, would be subject to seizure and forfeiture as for violation of the Customs laws. The bill would also impose criminal liabilities of fine or imprisonment, or both, for convictions of first and subsequent offenses. Enforcement of Title II would be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transportation. The bill would authorize them to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Title II. To avoid the question of whether joint regulations are intended, we suggest if the bill is to be favorably considered that the Committee report include a statement that each Department is to issue regulations in its respective area of responsibility. Title III of the bill would terminate the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and ban the importation of all skins or parts of the Alaskan Fur Seal. This Title would also establish, as a preservation measure, a Pribilof Seal Rookery under |