this issue, but NMFS denied us a permit, mumbling something 

 about the need to be an educational institution. 



We will also hear from a representative from the research com- 

 munity, in fact from my own constituency this morning, about the 

 difficulties facing marine mammal biologists under the Act's cur- 

 rent provisions; provisions which, I understand, make it more dif- 

 ficult to photograph a whale than it is to kill one in one's net. By 

 the way, Dr. T^ack, I am not sure it was wise to point out that a 

 research institution in my district consistently broke the law for 

 two years while they rescued whales. What the heck. 



I am also pleased that we have with us a representative from the 

 Alaska native community to discuss how to improve the relation- 

 ship between the agencies and the natives whose lives depend on 

 subsistence uses of marine mammals. 



It should be an interesting and productive morning and I am de- 

 lighted to yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from New 

 Jersey. 



Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I 



Mr. Studds. Rank is relative. I yield it to the ranking member. 



STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

 FROM NEW JERSEY, AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, 

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RE- 

 SOURCES 



Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, hopefully this hearing can begin to 

 end the controversy surrounding the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act. We are working closely in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize 

 the MMPA, hopefully, by the April first deadline. 



The issues we face today are contentious. Many on the panel 

 have concerns about whether or not agency overreaching is going 

 to take place, but my concerns stem from the proposed permit regu- 

 lations that the National Marine Fisheries Service had published 

 in October. 



Public policy changes of this magnitude require congressional 

 oversight, and that is one reason we are here. I am pleased the 

 Subcommittee will take some time today to examine the NMFS 

 proposed regulations and address these concerns. 



My concerns center on NMFS's intention to require permit hold- 

 ers to post a $10,000 surety bond or to make other arrangements 

 for each and every animal in their care. While the reason for the 

 bond is not entirely unreasonable, to offset costs for caring for ani- 

 mals should the facility cease functioning, I am not convinced that 

 NMFS has the statutory authority under the MMPA to require 

 such a bond. 



In addition, under the proposed regulations, it seems that NMFS 

 will have to review extensive and intricate permit applications cov- 

 ering various obligations. These include facility permits, amend- 

 ments to facility permits, and mandatory 5-year renewals of such 

 permits. With all the agency's increased responsibility, it will re- 

 quire an increase in manpower and, in my view, some additional 

 money. And my question is where will that come from? I am not 

 persuaded that increased administrative expenditures are the best 

 use of our limited marine mammal protection dollars. 



