Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). I am William Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), administers the MMPA, which is the principal Federal legislation that guides marine mammal protection and conservation policy in U.S. waters. Under the provisions of the MMPA, NMFS is responsible for the management and conservation of over 140 stocks of whales, dolphins and porpoises, as well as seals, sea lions and fur seals. The remaining marine mammal species (polar bears, walruses, manatees, dugongs, and sea and marine otters) are under the jurisdiction of the FWS.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you NMFS's implementation of the 1994 amendments and the positive impacts this legislation has had on marine mammal conservation and management. I will also discuss those areas of the MMPA that could be addressed to improve the Agency's ability to fulfill its responsibilities.

Background of the MMPA

The MMPA was enacted in 1972, largely due to public response to the high levels of dolphin mortality in the Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna purse seine fishery, the harvest of harp seals in Canada, and continuation of commercial whaling.

In passing the MMPA, Congress found that certain species and population stocks of marine mammals were or may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of man's activities. Additionally, it was found that marine mammal species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part. Consistent with the major objective of preventing this stock depletion, Congress found that the populations should not be permitted to diminish below their optimum sustainable population level, and measures should be taken immediately to replenish any species or population stock which had already been diminished below this level. Congress also found that there was inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the factors which bear upon their ability to reproduce themselves successfully. Finally, Congress found that marine mammals have proven themselves to be international resources of great aesthetic, recreational and economic significance. These findings and objectives still guide NMFS in its implementation of the MMPA.

While there have been numerous changes to the MMPA since 1972, the MMPA Amendments of 1994 were by far the most comprehensive. They required NMFS to establish a long-term regime for protecting marine mammals in U.S. waters and included provisions directed toward the entire spectrum of marine mammal programs that NMFS conducts. These requirements included determining the status of marine mammal stocks, establishing new requirements for categorizing commercial fisheries, registering and reporting of vessels relative to their level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals, monitoring incidental take through observer programs, and developing take reduction plans. The MMPA Amendments of 1994 also prohibited intentional lethal take during commercial fishing operations, and mandated changes to many of the Act's permit provisions.

Implementation of these changes has required a substantial amount of additional work from the Agency. NMFS has made significant progress in fulfilling these and other mandates of the MMPA. However, there continue to be a few implementation issues that still need to be resolved and areas that we continue to work to improve.

Highlights of The Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 and Its Implementation

Commercial Fisheries Incidental Take Regime (Sections 117 and 118)

The new approach to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries, developed in cooperation with governmental agencies, the commercial fishing industry, and environmental organizations, reaffirmed the MMPA goal to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels. This section directs the Secretary to authorize the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, with restrictions where necessary to ensure that such mortality and serious injury would not prevent marine mammal stocks from recovery to their optimum sustainable population levels. There are a number of elements that contribute to effective management of this regime: stock assessment, fishery monitoring, vessel registration and authorization, and take reduction plans.

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments

Under section 117, NMFS has carried out the 1994 requirements to assess the status of marine mammal stocks and increase stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process through the development of a series of scientific review groups. These groups review agency research and management needs relative to marine mammals. NMFS, in consultation with these groups and the public, prepares and revises stock assessment guidelines.

NMFS is required to review stock assessments annually for strategic stocks, at least once a year for stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for all other stocks. A strategic stock is defined as one that is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), declining and likely to be listed under the ESA in the foreseeable future, designated as depleted under the MMPA, or for which human-caused mortality exceeds the estimated Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level. The PBR level is the number of animals that may be removed from the stock while allowing it to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population level.

A marine mammal stock assessment incorporates several types of information essential to carrying out the incidental take regime: an estimation of abundance from surveys; an estimation of mortality and serious injury from observer data and other sources; an estimation of the stock's PBR level; and, determination of stock structure. Stock structure can be analyzed using a variety of methods, including telemetry, genetic analysis, and photo identification.

Within two years of enactment of the 1994 amendments, NMFS completed over 140 marine mammal assessment reports for marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters. These assessments revealed that for many marine mammal stocks, information critical to managers, such as abundance and distribution patterns, is virtually non-existent. For example, abundance estimates are not available for 33 stocks (23%) of marine mammals. Of the 144 stocks under NMFS jurisdiction (57 in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 55 in the Pacific, and 32 in Alaska), 39 are designated as strategic under the MMPA. Of the 39 strategic stocks, 22 are classified as endangered, two are classified as threatened, and three others are classified as depleted.

Abundance and Stock Structure

In 1998 we developed a rotational schedule to conduct abundance surveys for all stocks on a three - 10 year cycle. With the funds provided, we have focused on about 20 stocks that are of highest priority due to their interaction with fisheries. The information on these stocks is limited – for many of the stocks we have gaps in trends, population structure, and habitat needs.
Overall, we believe the stock assessment process, specifically the abundance and trends analysis, and the underlying science and methodologies for determining PBR are scientifically sound. We continue to try to improve our stock assessment capabilities by utilizing more cost-effective techniques, such as acoustic monitoring.

Fisheries Monitoring and Observer Programs

One challenge created by the MMPA Amendments of 1994 is the requirement for NMFS to establish a program to monitor incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. The purposes of fishery monitoring programs are to obtain statistically reliable estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fisheries; to determine the reliability of reports submitted by fishermen; and to identify possible changes in fishing methods or technology that may decrease incidental mortality and serious injury. NMFS's monitoring programs are generally in the form of at-sea observer programs. These programs collect marine mammal and environmental data, as well as information on fishing technique characteristics, to help determine factors that may contribute to these interactions. As a result of the monitoring and observer programs established by the 1994 amendments, NMFS has collected detailed information on fisheries for which few data previously existed concerning protected species interactions.

Those fisheries experiencing frequent interactions with marine mammals have received priority for observer program coverage. NOAA has identified or classified over 30 fisheries that have a significant impact on protected species based on observer information. We have adequate estimates of the level or characteristics of this take for eight of those fisheries. The impacts of the remaining 22 are poorly understood.

Right now, the funding for marine mammal observer programs is focused in the Alaskan salmon gillnet rotational observer program, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries, the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery, the Monterey Bay set halibut gillnet fishery, the southeast Atlantic shark drift gillnet/strike net fishery, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, and the Atlantic squid, mackerel, and butterfish trawl fishery.

NMFS has been discussing the exploration of new technologies for alternative monitoring of fisheries. There are many instances where it is either not practicable or possible to have an observer on board a fishing vessel. This situation leads to reduced monitoring coverage and inadequate data collection. The development of alternative remote monitoring systems would allow for expanded coverage and improve data collection.

Classification of Fisheries

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 also established new procedures to address marine mammal interactions with commercial fisheries. The Secretary is required to publish, and annually update, a list of fisheries with frequent (Category I), occasional (Category II) or remote likelihood (Category III) of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Those in Category I or II fisheries are required to register and shall be issued an authorization to incidentally take marine mammals. Category I and II fisheries are required to carry an observer, if requested, and comply with any take reduction plan regulations. All commercial fisheries, regardless of category, must report takings of marine mammals. This fishery classification system consists of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock, and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. Through this approach, NMFS can focus on species of particular concern relative to fisheries interactions, and then examine the various sources of injury or mortality.

Information collected about the fisheries includes the geographic range of the fisheries, the seasons during which the fisheries operate, what type of gear is used, how the gear is fished, the number of participants in each fishery, what species of fish are targeted in each fishery, and what type of management program exists for each fishery. These data allow NMFS to more effectively manage fisheries while minimizing the impacts to the overall industry. They also allow NMFS to work with fishermen to identify and develop gear technologies that will reduce their interactions with marine mammals. For instance, NMFS worked closely with fishermen in the Gulf of Maine to develop acoustic deterrence devices, "pingers," that can be used by fishermen to decrease marine mammal interactions with certain types of gear.

Registration and Reporting of Fisheries

Section 118 also requires fishermen to submit reports of marine mammal injury and mortality, providing additional information about marine mammal interactions with fisheries. Under this provision, all fishermen must report to NMFS any marine mammal mortalities or injuries that occur incidental to commercial fishing operations within 48 hours of the vessel's return to port. Fishermen participating in Category I or II fisheries must register under the Marine Mammal Authorization Program to engage in lawful incidental take of marine mammals.

Although this process has been working reasonably well, in some fisheries, not all vessel owners required to register have been doing so. Also, inasmuch as the requirement to carry observers only applies to registered vessels, the ability to monitor some fisheries has been compromised by the lack of full compliance with the registration requirement. In addition, compliance with the registration requirement is inconsistent, making available data for some fisheries less than complete. We may consider clarifying that it is a violation to engage in a Category I or II fishery without having registered under Section 118(c)(2) to eliminate any ambiguity regarding this important aspect of the incidental taking regime. Further, we may consider clarifying the requirement that to carry an observer applies to all participants in Category I and II fisheries.

Take Reduction Plans

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 also require NMFS to convene take reduction teams (TRTs) to develop draft plans for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in Category I and II fisheries that interact with strategic stocks. The goals of the plans are to reduce the mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing below the PBR level within six months, and to insignificant levels within five years. Priority for developing plans is given to stocks for which incidental mortality exceeds PBR, those that have a small population size, and those declining most rapidly.

Take reduction plans have been completed and implemented by final regulations for Pacific offshore cetaceans, Atlantic large whales, and harbor porpoise in the Mid-Atlantic and the Gulf of Maine. We have also recently convened a new team to address the take of bottlenose dolphin in the Atlantic. These plans are complex, and sometimes controversial, since they attempt to meet both marine mammal conservation requirements and the needs and concerns of the fishing industry. However, through the dedication of participants from a wide-range of stakeholder groups, we are seeing some real successes in the present stages of implementation. Specifically, measures within the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan reduced marine mammal interactions by an order of magnitude in only two years of implementation. Using this plan, commercial fishermen have reduced their interactions with whales and dolphins from approximately 500 per year in the early 1990s to about 50 in 1998. Things are also looking good for harbor porpoise. Takes have been reduced from a pre-take reduction plan level of an average of 1,521 animals per year, to 323 animals in 1999 and 529 animals in 2000.

NMFS believes that the TRT approach makes best use of resources and stakeholders' input to reduce marine mammal bycatch and maintain sustainable fisheries for the long term. This is an excellent example of NMFS's attempts to meet the mandates under the MMPA as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As we gain more experience, we are also learning better ways to implement the teams. In 1998, NMFS surveyed participants of the existing TRTs to evaluate the take reduction process. NMFS is working to implement some of the suggestions. For example, NMFS sponsored two workshops before convening the bottlenose dolphin TRT to ensure that participants were knowledgeable about bottlenose dolphin science and were prepared for the negotiations.

Despite our success in some areas, we are still faced with challenges in others. For example, we are still struggling with finding an effective strategy to reduce the take of right whales in the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. So far this year, at least four right whales have become entangled in fishing gear. The PBR level for this highly endangered species is zero.

One area for improvement that we have been discussing is to provide more technical and outreach expertise to take reduction teams during their deliberations. This step is expected to ensure that all participants fully understand current practices, and can make informed recommendations regarding any changes in fishing practices.

Increasingly, new gear technologies are being looked to as a means of reducing entanglements and allowing fishers to continue operating in areas frequented by marine mammals. We are discussing ways to encourage new research and speed the development of new gear technologies.

Zero Mortality and Serious Injury Rate Goal (ZMRG)

One of the most difficult challenges remaining in carrying out the 1994 amendments is how to reduce levels of marine mammal mortality and serious injury to approach the zero mortality and serious injury rate goal (ZMRG). The key to success is to evaluate and clarify the concept of ZMRG and its implications for marine fisheries. Since 1994, we have focused on the immediate goal of reducing take to PBR which has taken all of our resources to this point. However, now that we are achieving success in meeting the first goal, we intend to move on to addressing the long-term goal.

Exclusions

There are some noteworthy exclusions from the 1994 incidental take regime. It does not govern the incidental taking of California sea otters which remain subject to Public Law 99-625. While fishery related mortality is suspected as a cause of the otters' recent decline, NMFS holds that all elements of section 118 are currently inapplicable to the California sea otter.

Another exclusion that it does not address is the incidental take of marine mammals from non-commercial fisheries even though this is an increasing problem in coastal areas. Currently the taking of marine mammals in the course of non-commercial fishing is not covered under the Section 118 exemption and those fisheries are subject to the enforcement provisions of the MMPA. NMFS is considering ways to address this issue and educate non-commercial fishers to ensure the conservation of marine mammals.

Increasing Seal and Sea Lion Populations

The importance of marine mammals as significant functioning elements of marine ecosystems has been an underlying tenet of the MMPA since its enactment. The section 120 amendments in 1994 identified specific objectives to assess the role of seals and sea lions in their ecosystems, including assessment of interactions between increasing stocks of seals and sea lions and anadromous fish on both coasts of the United States. Section 120 also authorized the intentional lethal taking of individual pinnipeds which are having a significant, adverse affect on the salmonid stocks. Upon request from any State, the Secretary would establish and convene a task force to recommend whether to authorize the requested lethal take or some other alternative. Section 101(a)(4) also authorized fishermen to use non-lethal means to deter a marine mammal from damaging their gear or catch.

Responding to this issue on the West Coast, NMFS submitted to Congress the second of two reports on West Coast interactions in 1999. This report found that although seal and sea lion predation did not cause the decline of endangered salmonid species on the West Coast, it may be affecting the recovery of already depressed populations. This document recommends implementing expanded lethal removal authority of the MMPA for certain situations. The report also recommends the development of safe, effective non-lethal deterrence measures, site-specific management of these interactions, and identifies information needs for conducting further research and streamlining the process for States to obtain authority for lethally removal of nuisance pinnipeds.

NMFS also investigated this issue on the East Coast and in 1997 submitted the first of two reports to Congress which concluded that more information is needed on seal and sea lion interactions with salmonids and the East Coast aquaculture industry. The report also concluded that deterrence technologies should be enhanced before any significant management actions can be taken.

The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior were required to publish guidelines on measures to deter marine mammals safely and to prohibit any form of deterrence that would have a significant adverse impact on marine mammals. For species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, the Secretaries were to specify non-lethal deterrence measures that may be used.

NMFS issued proposed deterrence regulations in 1995, but did not publish final regulations because of the difficulty in identifying measures for safely deterring endangered and threatened marine mammals. The issue of deterrence and how to deal with expanding populations of marine mammals will continue to be a management challenge. NMFS will continue to study and work with other interested organizations to find effective measures for non-lethal deterrence.

Permitting and Captive Display and Release

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 also made significant changes to the permitting provisions of section 104 of the MMPA, which governs permits for public display, scientific research, and enhancement of marine mammal species and stocks and made a related change to the Acts enforcement provisions in section 102. These amendments: 1) simplified the procedures for authorizing transfers of marine mammals among public display facilities and substantially reduced NMFS role in the oversight of the care and maintenance of captive marine mammals; 2) established a streamlined General Authorization procedure for scientific research activities that have the potential to disturb, but not to injure, marine mammals not listed under the ESA; 3) created a new permit category for photography of non-listed marine mammals for commercial and educational purposes; and, 4) established a prohibition on exports of marine mammals and marine mammal parts, except for purposes of public display, scientific research, or enhancement.

On May 10, 1996, NMFS published a final rule amending the regulations for permits to reflect many of the 1994 changes. The rule updated and consolidated the regulations for special exception permits and established basic permit requirements applicable to all permits to take, import, and export marine mammals and marine mammal parts for purposes of scientific research and enhancement, photography, and public display. It also provided permit criteria specific to scientific research and enhancement.

A Memorandum of Agreement among NMFS, FWS, and the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to clarify federal responsibilities pertaining to the oversight of marine mammals on public display was completed in July 1998. On July 3, 2001, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the 1994 amendments to the MMPA affecting marine mammals held captive for public display purposes, and clarify the public display requirements relating to: 1) permits to capture or import marine mammals, 2) transport or transfer of marine mammals, 3) export and, 4) marine mammal inventories. The public comment period on this proposed rule closes November 2, 2001.

Issues also have arisen concerning the intent of Congress with regard to the release of marine mammals being held for purposes of public display to the wild and the export of such marine mammals to foreign facilities. Section 104(c)(9) of the MMPA added in 1994, specifies that no marine mammal may be exported from the United States for the purpose of public display, scientific research, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, unless the receiving facility meets standards that are comparable to those applicable to U.S. facilities. The primary focus of this amendment was on exports for purposes of public display. There has been some debate as to whether this is a continuing obligation on the part of the receiving facility. The rulemaking currently underway may resolve these issues regarding exports for public display.

In addition, the 1994 Amendments, as part of a package of permit-related amendments, added a prohibition to section 102 on exporting marine mammals. Although some provisions of section 104 of the Act were amended to reflect this new prohibition, corresponding changes were not made elsewhere in the Act, which has led to some confusion. For example, there is uncertainty as to whether handicrafts being made and sold by Alaska Natives under section 101(b) may be exported from the United States.

There is also a need to add certainty to the Act with regard to the release of captive marine mammals to the wild. Within the scientific community, the release of marine mammals held in captivity for extended periods of time is widely regarded as potentially harmful to both the animals released and wild populations they encounter. Fundamental questions remain as to the ability of long-captive marine mammals to forage, avoid predators, and integrate with wild populations. Moreover, release creates the risk of disease transmission, inappropriate genetic exchanges, and disruption of critical behavioral patterns and social structures in wild populations.

Definition of Harassment

The 1994 amendments added several new definitions to the MMPA. For the most part, these definitions pertain to the new regime governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations or the revisions to the Act's permit provisions. One definition, however, has broad applicability throughout the Act -- that of "harassment," which is an element of "taking." The definition was subdivided into "Level A" and "Level B" harassment. Level A harassment is defined as "any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild." Level B harassment is defined as "any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering."

NMFS has experienced difficulties with respect to interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the current definition of harassment. The two-tiered definition is complex and is somewhat ambiguous. For example, the definition equates changes in individuals (e.g., momentary disturbance of an animal's breathing pattern) with profound changes in populations (e.g., disrupting an animal, or a group of animals from migrating to a feeding or breeding area). Scientists and photographers must obtain permits for Level B harassment, but activities which may be more likely to affect marine mammals are not necessarily controlled if they are not clearly acts of "pursuit, torment or annoyance."

Small-Take Provisions

Amendments were also made to section 101(a)(5), the Act's so-called "small-take provision," under which the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than commercial fishing may be authorized if the activities are expected to have a negligible impact on the affected stocks and will not have any unmitigable impacts on the availability of marine mammals for Native subsistence in Alaska. Prior to the 1994 amendments, such authorizations could be issued only by regulation. In 1994, a streamlined mechanism for authorizing incidental takes by harassment for a period of up to one year, requiring public notice and opportunity for comment, but not rulemaking, was enacted.

In general, the new provision has worked well and has succeeded in shortening the time required to issue incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs). The problem is that the number of applications - both IHAs (1 year harassment only authorizations) and Letters of Authorization (5 year incidental take authorizations) has increased significantly so that the effect of the 1994 streamlining is being overcome by the increased workload. We are discussing ways to enhance the ability of the program to analyze and process applications in a timely manner.

Gulf of Maine and Bering Sea Ecosystem Studies

Section 110 of the Act, which governs marine mammal research grants, was amended in 1994 to require the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, adjacent coastal States, environmental organizations, the fishing industry, and other appropriate groups and individuals, to convene a regional workshop to assess human-caused factors affecting the health and stability of the Gulf of Maine marine ecosystem. A workshop was held in 1995 and NMFS transmitted a report to Congress that same year.

The recommendations included the need to identify the critical linkages between contaminants and other stressors and their impacts on biologically and economically important species and habitats. The recommendations also highlighted the importance of basing management actions on a precautionary principle, reflecting the level of uncertainty concerning the status of, and linkages among, various ecosystem components.

Another provision of this section required the Secretary, in consultation with pertinent organizations, to conduct a research program to monitor the health and stability of the Bering Sea marine ecosystem and to resolve uncertainties concerning the causes of observed declines in populations of marine mammals, sea birds, and other living resources.

NMFS prepared a draft Bering Sea ecosystem study plan in 1995. Although the plan was never finalized, research has been conducted through the North Pacific Marine Research Initiative administered by the University of Alaska.

Cooperative Agreements in Alaska

The 1994 amendments provided for cooperative agreements between NMFS and Alaska Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and to co-manage subsistence use by Alaska Natives. On April 29, 1999, NMFS and the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission signed an agreement to work together in developing a co-management plan for harbor seals. NMFS has also reached an agreement with several parties interested in beluga conservation, including the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, on appropriate levels of beluga whale harvest in Cook Inlet, Alaska, for 2001-2004. NMFS and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee have signed a co-management agreement for beluga whales outside of Cook Inlet as well.

A general shortcoming with the existing co-management system is that co-management agreements, to the extent that they are intended to regulate or limit subsistence taking, will be successful only if all hunters voluntarily abide by those limits or the Native organization entering into the agreement can effectively exert control over all Native hunters, such as is the case with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. While Alaska Natives traditionally have demonstrated a willingness to act responsibly in conserving marine mammals and other resources, the recent experience with Cook Inlet belugas demonstrates the delicate underfooting that exists. For some marine mammals, all it takes is a few hunters refusing to act responsibly to put a stock at risk.

Enforcement

While the 1994 amendments have been effective in clarifying and strengthening regulatory processes under the MMPA, some aspects could be updated. For example, the penalties for violations of the MMPA have remained unchanged since 1972. It may be worthwhile to discuss increasing penalties and other means of improving enforcement capabilities.

Conclusion

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 made significant strides forward in marine mammal conservation. Since then, NMFS has been working to implement these changes. Over the years, the benefits of the MMPA on marine mammal stocks in the United States have been significant, and its indirect impacts on the status and conservation of marine mammal species around the world are surely immeasurable. Since its passage, other countries have not only looked toward the United States for guidance on marine mammal conservation issues, but have established policies of their own modeled after the MMPA. We will continue to face emerging issues and new threats to marine mammals and the MMPA will need to evolve to effectively protect marine mammal populations, while balancing human needs.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the MMPA needs to be reauthorized. I am pleased to note that NMFS is working with both the FWS and the Marine Mammal Commission to develop an Administration proposal to amend the MMPA. Of course, the Department of Justice will be involved in the development of any proposal to ensure that it meets constitutional scrutiny under the Commerce and other clauses. We hope to transmit legislation to the Congress as soon as a proposal is developed and reviewed by all affected agencies. In the interim, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues I have raised here today in detail with you and stakeholders to work toward effective resolution of these and other important marine mammal conservation issues.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.