298 



payment of a portion of their expenses such as travel, for usually 

 from three to five of the advisors who accompany the delegation. 



On some of the treaties this is on the approval of the Commis- 

 sioners, others are on the approval of the entire advisory group. 

 In some there is no provision. 



Mr. Leggett. Would you object to a provision being included in 

 this act which would provide for per diem and travel expenses for 

 official designated observers, persons designated by NMFS or the 

 State Department to counsel on the specifics of the fishing agree- 

 ment, and also the specifics of the Marine Mammal Protection Act? 



You indicate that you have specific authority for some paid 

 observers on some agreements. 



Mr. Geiiringer. Some of the advisers, yes, sir. 



Mr. Leggett. Now, would you object to an authority who would 

 allow you to designate some official observers — we have not deter- 

 mined yet how many — to assist in negotiation on all agreements 

 that interrelate with the Marine Mammal Protection Act? 



Mr. Gehringer. We would have no objection to the same frame- 

 work of payment of a portion of the expenses of the official dele- 

 gation advisers, as is done at present in three treaties that I am 

 familiar with. 



Now, we must, though, defer to the Department of State, because 

 that is an area that they finance. However, this does take place with 

 respect to three of them but it does not with respect to the IATTC, 

 or the Halibut Commission, and a couple of others. 



Mr. Leggett. These observers are officially helpful to you ? 



Mr. Gehringer. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Leggett. Well, Counsel, T want you to go ahead and see that 

 something is drafted along that line, that we can consider when 

 we mark up this legislation. If you understand me. 



Let us pee, Mr. Mannina, do you have any questions? 



Mr. Mannina. Mr. Trible, perhaps, would like to question first. 



Mr. Trtbt/e. I have no questions. 



Mr. Leggett. Oh, I am sorry. 



Mr. Mannina. Jack, following up from the chairman's request as 

 to how you would expend these moneys if they are fully appropri- 

 ated, can you give us a 5-year projection of vour estimated ex- 

 penditures under the Marine Mammal Protection Act? 



Mr. Gehringer. Not here, but I would be pleased to furnish it. 



[The following was received for the record:] 



ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR MARINE MAMMAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES' 

 (In thousands of dollars) 



1977 1978' 1979' 1980-82' 



Grants to States.... $200.0 $575.0 $575.0 



International program 245 245 



Enforcement* $1,075.7 875.7 875.7 875^7 



Administration K313. 5 313.5 413.5 413.5 



Tuna-porpoise research K 1, 152.9 1,358.9 1,658.9 1,658.9 



Tuna-porpoise observers 3 K2, 500.0 3 K5, 000.0 3 K5, 000. 3 «5, 000.0 



Cetacean research and pinniped research 627.8 627 8 1192 8 1192 8 



Support 830.1 937.1 937.1 '937.1 



Total 6i 50o 9,3130 10,898 10,898 



1 Subject to budget request approvals and appropriations. 



2 Includes contracts with States. Does not include 1977 limit of $600K (SK) approved for aerial enforcement of tuna 



5 Provisions for 100 pet observer coverage. 



