453 



sible that ttiis reasoning might also be applied to certain legislation protecting 

 mammals whose products do not move in interstate and foreign commerce, if 

 their continued existence is necessary to mainitain an ecological balance requisite 

 for the survival of species wiiose products do move in such commerce. 



'Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, any legislation which Congress 

 has constitutional power to enact will supersede State law to the extent Congress 

 intends it to do so. The so-called pre-emption doctrine simply means that where 

 Congress intends its legislation to be exclusive, states cannot legislate on the 

 same subject matter, even to the extent of adopting laws which are not in direct 

 conflict with the federal statute. Florida Avocado Groicers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 

 146 (1963). 



We find nothing in the Alaska Statehood Act which would create any special 

 problems in the enforcement of a law designed to protect marine mammals en- 

 acted in the exercise of powers delegated to Congress. 



Mabt Louise Ramsey, 



Legislative Attorney. 



Mr. DiNGELL, Now, in one statement that you have made, Mr. 

 Bums, you said you felt that H.R. 10420 was preferable from your 

 point of view as against, certain other legislation. 



Wliat other legislation did ymx have in mind ? 



Is that legislation that is now enacted and on the statute books? 



Mr. Burns. No, sir; I am referring to H.R. 6554 and H.R. 7556. 



Mr. Pelly. You said "previously." I think you meant "enacted pre- 

 vious to the introduction of the Anderson bill", 



Mr. Burns. Correct, sir. 



Mr. Pelly. Well, that clears that up. 



Do you see anything ^vrong with section 109 of H.R. 10420 which 

 deals with cooperation with the States ? 



Does that satisfy the State of Alaska ? 



Mr. Burns. Sir, I would like to begin at least answering that ques- 

 tion by saying that section 109, cooperation with the States, is an 

 integral part of the bill presently under discussion and we feel that 

 this section is deser^dng of further amplification. 



That section does provide for satisfactory arrangements, satisfac- 

 tory mutual responsibility for the management of the resources. 



I think, perhaps, I might be using the wrong words to get across 

 one of our main concerns. 



Obviously, our main concern is perpetuation of these resources. 



Later on, I can go into actual steps that have been taken to protect 

 them, what their current status is, but without safeguarding through 

 some sort of mutual cooperative agreements as perhaps provided 

 for in section 109, there may be a very real possibility that the people 

 dependent upon these resources would not be able to manage them for, 

 perhaps, the same reasons that initiated introduction of HouSe bill 

 6554 on emotional grounds. We wish to insure that the picture is an 

 entire one with regard to management decisions and that there is 

 the maximum utilization of scientific effort and manpower to find out 

 the facts necessary to manage, "management" inferring a range of 

 objectives from total protection, if it is necessary, to population reduc- 

 tion, if that is necessary. 



Mr. Pelly. Well, as I interpret section 109, that is exactly what 

 the proposal to develop cooperative arrangements envisages. All I 

 would like to know is that anything additional that you would add 

 into the language of this bill shall describe the circumstance under 

 which marine manmials, which pass through or reside within the ter- 

 ritorial waters of any State may be taken, and any marine mammal 



