15 



tion in takes wherever they are significant either in number or in 

 impact. 



Although we do not have the final details worked out on a pro- 

 gram to replace the current Marine Mammal Exemption Prograni, 

 the appropriations train will leave us at the station if we don't 

 begin to look at alternatives for funding this program. As a ball- 

 park figure, we will use the NMFS estimate of $19 million for im- 

 plementation purposes. 



Although there is considerable interest in a single financing 

 package for Magnuson and the MMPA, we are concerned that with 

 the admirable intent of coordination comes the tendency to force 

 single solutions on completely different problems, and instead of 

 seeking OSP for marine mammals as a priority under the MMPA, I 

 fear that we will see MSY lurking in the background. 



Our first stop is to attempt to increase appropriations for Fiscal 

 Year 1994. We will go together with the fishing industry to attempt 

 to get the Appropriations Committee to increase the funding for 

 implementation from $10 million to $19 million. We will attempt to 

 get this funding increased through a number of different relevant 

 line items. We will also take a look at the Saltonstall-Kennedy pro- 

 gram to see whether there is any germane use of these funds to 

 achieve our objectives. 



In the event we are unsuccessful in getting the complete $9 mil- 

 lion increase in new funding, we will assess whether there is any 

 way to reprogram funds being collected currently through taxes 

 and fees on the industry. As a complement to that effort, we would 

 also recommend looking at repealing the marine fuels exemption to 

 see if that action would lead to additional funding for these pur- 

 poses. 



The next option is to develop a licensing system that would affect 

 all fishers, but those who have the greatest interaction problem 

 should pay the greatest fee. Even though observers would be re- 

 quired on every boat, this prospect of lower fees would encourage 

 full participation in the program. This provides a natural structure 

 for incentives and disincentives to make the program work. 



A fifth outlet is to tax the fish from all boats, but the highest tax 

 would be from those with the greatest interaction problem. Fines 

 and penalties through natural resource damage assessments 

 present another opportunity for funding. These have been used pe- 

 riodically over the years, but use would have to be systematic in 

 order to be an effective funding source. 



A final outlet, which has not been discussed with the whale- 

 watching industry themselves but must be, is the possibility of as- 

 sessing a fee to help pay purely for research into the status of all 

 cetaceans. To make this option work, they must be full partners in 

 the process. 



Finally, we need to develop a mechanism for collecting these new 

 fees that will ensure that they are used for the purpose for which 

 they are intended and not for deficit reduction. There are some 

 members of the industry who say this is impossible. We have to 

 show them that it is not. As I said earlier, these do not represent 

 final negotiated positions. They are recommendations. 



Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the sub- 

 committee throughout the reauthorization process. I appreciate the 



