40 



The OflSce of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection 

 to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's 

 program. 



Sincerely, 



RiCHAKD G. Kleindienst, 



Deputy Attorney General. 



Ofbiob of the Deputy Attorney Generax, 



Washington, B.C., September 11, 1971. 

 Hon. EIdwabd A. Gabmatz, 



Chadrman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- 

 tives, Washington, B.C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in resijonse to your i-eqeust for the views of the 

 Department of Justice on H.B. 6554, a bill "To protect ocean mammals from 

 being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." 



Title I of the bill expres^s a finding by the Congress that ocean mammlals are 

 bedng pursued, harassed, or killed both at sea and on land by hunters of many 

 nations, and that many will become rare if not extinct unless steps are taken 

 to stop thedr slaughter. The Congress would declare it to be the public policy of 

 the United States to protect all ocean mammals, and to negotiate with foreign 

 governments and through interested intemational organizations to obtain a 

 worldwide ban on their slaughter. 



Title II ooaiitains broad prohibitions with respect to the taking, transportation, 

 or possession, by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

 States, of any ocean mammals or parts of ocean mammals (defined as all seal, 

 whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and 

 dolphin). Exceptions would be made only for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos 

 dwelling on the coasts of the North Paciflc or Arctic oceans, who would be per- 

 mitted to take mammals other than polar bears for their own use in accordance 

 with traditions, and in accordance with regvilations of the Secretary of the 

 Interior for municipal and other non-profit zoos and for medical and scientific 

 research. Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States employed in a 

 violation would be subject to forfeiture. Provision is made for issuance of regula- 

 tions by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and Transporta- 

 tion to carry out the purposes of the title, for enforcement of the title and regula- 

 tions thereunder, and for a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not 

 more than one year, or both, for the first offense, and of not more than $10,000 

 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years, or both, for 

 subsequent offenses. 



Title III would provide for notification by the Secretary of State to the 

 other parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States 

 does not intend to extend its life beyond its current termination date in 1975, and 

 for negotiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing 

 of North Pacific Fur Seals. Interim arrangements are made for honoring treaty 

 provisions. The Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery 

 Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. 



The bill would repeal (section 208), Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on 

 the High Seas") of Public Law 89-702 and (section 405), such provisions of the 

 Fur Seal Act of 1966 as are inconsistent with it. 



Provisions of the present bill are largely patterned after the legislation which 

 is to be repealed. However, title III of Public Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.), 

 as its title implies, is directed specifically to the taking of sea otters on the high 

 seas, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is directed largely 

 to carrying out the obligations of the United States under the North Pacific 

 Fur Seal Convention. We perceive the likelihood of some problems in determin- 

 ing which provisions of the latter statute would be affected by the repealer 

 language of the present bill, but defer to the Departments of State, Commerce 

 and the Interior as to whether a different approach should be taken on this 

 matter. 



The Department of Justice perceives no constitutional or other legal objec- 

 tions to enactment of this bill. However, whether the bill should be enacted in- 

 volves policy considerations as to which the Depart;ment defers to the Depart- 

 ments of the Interior, Commerce and State. 



We do wish to point out that the sections in the bill after 303 are designated 

 404 and 405 instead of 304 and 305, that on page 5, line 23, the word "relates" 

 should be changed to "relate", and that on page 6, line 7, the word "Commis- 



