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, SAMUEL R. PIERCE, Jr., General Counsel. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views and recommendations of this Department on H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission; and for other purposes." Section 2 of the bill would find that certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of disappearance as a result of man's activities; since marine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance, it would declare it to be the sense of Congress that they should be protected to the greatest possible extent commensurate with sound policies of resource management. Sections 101-103 of Title I of the bill would make it unlawful, with certain exceptions, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal, use places under United States jurisdiction in violation of the bill, or for any person to possess, transport, sell, or offer for sale in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any marine mammal or part thereof. Certain limitations on, and permits for, the taking of ocean mammals would be prescribed and issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Exceptions would be made for traditional, non-commercial taking by Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to consent to the capture of marine mammals by qualified persons for public display or educational purposes, or for legitimate scientific or medical research, as well as under cooperative arrangements with States. Section 104 of the bill would provide for personal violators a civil penalty which may be compromised by the Secretary of the Interior; criminal liabilities of a fine or imprisonment for knowing violators are also provided. Section 105 would provide that vessels and equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as marine mammals or parts, or the monetary value thereof, shall be forfeited, as for violation of the Customs laws. Section 106 would provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the provisions of Title I and states that "any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this title" may execute any pertinent warrant or process or make relevant arrests, searches or seizure. In addition to directing the development of an international protective program, the bill would direct a review of current activities under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. Title II of the bill would establish a Marine Mammal Commission which would study the marine mammal situation generally, make appropriate recommendations, and coordinate activities with, and use facilities of, other Federal agencies. This Department takes no position 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, although officers of the Bureau of Customs would assist at ports of entry. The Department anticipates no unusual administrative or enforcement responsibilities which cannot be fulfilled in cooperation with the other interested Departments. Similar bills (H.R. 6554; H.R. 6558; H.R. 7463; H.R. 8183; S. 1315), would identify a joint responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury, among others, with respect to enforcement measures. Since Treasury (Customs) officers have considerable search, seizure and arrest powers under existing tariff and related laws, we suggest that the Committee consider a reference to the joint responsibility of the several Departments likely to be involved, and include the language “in addition to any other authority” when referring to persons authorized to enforce the bill's provisions. It is suggested that section 111 of Title I of the bill be extended so as to authorize regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in fulfillment of the Department's enforcement responsibility. The Department anticipates that the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the bill, involving Customs dispositions of violating vessels, cargos and related property, foreseeably will add to the existing Customs enforcement workload. 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, ROY T. ENGLERT, Acting General Counsel. Mr. DINGELL. I would like to insert a memorandum on the general subject of marine mammals, prepared by Frank Potter, counsel to the subcommittee. As an accommodation to the members of the committee, the memorandum will be inserted at this point in the record. (The information follows:) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, To: Members, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. There are many bills presently pending before the Committee which deal with protection of some or all species of marine mammals. Some provide research authority only (H.R. 6804 by Mr. Whitehurst), some deal with only certain types of marine mammals (H.R. 7463, by Mr. Anderson of California.), some are directed at the humane or inhumane methods of taking (H. Con. Res. 77, by Mr. Ryan and others; H.R. 4370, by Mr. Helstoski). Mr. Pryor has introduced, with some 100 cosponsors, a bill which would impose an absolute ban upon the taking of all such mammals (H.R. 6558 and others), and Mr. Anderson and several others have introduced an alternative which would impose such a ban, but would permit the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for the taking of marine mammals, after full public review (H.R. 10420). The Harris-Pryor bill (H.R. 6558) and the Anderson-Pelly bill (H.R. 10420) appear to involve the most comprehensive treatment of this complex problem. Copies of both bills were sent to a wide selection of experts and interested persons for comment by Mr. Dingell on August 12, and many of these will doubtless be communicating with the Committee. In preparing for these hearings, I have read a vast amount of material on ocean mammals, and have interviewed a number of people who seemed to be knowledgeable on the subject: conservationists, government officials, scientists and others. While this material is, of course, available to anyone who wishes to see it, its bulk precludes general distribution. I thought that it might of helpful to the Committee if I were to identify some of the critical issues that may emerge during the course of hearings on this subject, and to supply background information that may put these issues into somewhat clearer perspective. Attached as appendices to this memorandum are summaries of the HarrisPryor Bill (The Ocean Mammal Protection Act of 1971) and of the AndersonPelly bill (The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971), and a list of the questions put to the experts and interested persons in Mr. Dingell's letter of August 12. 67-765 0-71—5 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 ter mination and to arrangements whereby, during the period between the date of such curtailment or termination and the date of the expiration of the Conven tion, 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 Con vention . . ." 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, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1971. 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 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, SAMUEL R. PIERCE, Jr., General Counsel. THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views and recommendations of this Department on H.R. 10420, a bill "To protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission; and for other purposes." Section 2 of the bill would find that certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of disappearance as a result of man's activities; since marine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance, it would declare it to be the sense of Congress that they should be protected to the greatest possible extent commensurate with sound policies of resource management. Sections 101-103 of Title I of the bill would make it unlawful, with certain exceptions, for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal, use places under United States jurisdiction in violation of the bill, or for any person to possess, transport, sell, or offer for sale in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any marine mammal or part thereof. Certain limitations on, and permits for, the taking of ocean mammals would be prescribed and issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Exceptions would be made for traditional, non-commercial taking by Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to consent to the capture of marine mammals by qualified persons for public display or educational purposes, or for legitimate scientific or medical research, as well as under cooperative arrangements with States. Section 104 of the bill would provide for personal violators a civil penalty which may be compromised by the Secretary of the Interior; criminal liabilities of a fine or imprisonment for knowing violators are also provided. Section 105 would provide that vessels and equipment used in violation of the proposed law, as well as marine mammals or parts, or the monetary value thereof, shall be forfeited, as for violation of the Customs laws. Section 106 would provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the provisions of Title I and states that "any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this title" may execute any pertinent warrant or process or make relevant arrests, searches or seizure. In addition to directing the development of an international protective program, the bill would direct a review of current activities under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. Title II of the bill would establish a Marine Mammal Commission which would study the marine mammal situation generally, make appropriate recommendations, and coordinate activities with, and use facilities of, other Federal agencies. This Department takes no position 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, although officers of the Bureau of Customs |