LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, April 19, 2004. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to its transmission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratifica- tion, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Xxxx/Xxxxxxx done at Seattle November 21, 2003 (the ‘‘Agreement’’). The Agreement establishes, for the first time, agreed percentage shares of the transboundary stock of Pacific xxxxxxx, also known as Pacific xxxx. It also creates a process through which U.S. and Ca- nadian scientists and fisheries managers will determine the total catch of xxxx each year, to be divided by the percentage formula. Stakeholders from both countries will have significant input into this process. Since the late 1970s, scientists from the United States and Can- ada have generally reached informal agreement on an annual over- all total allowable catch (TAC) for the transboundary stock of Pa- cific xxxx. The two countries have conducted joint stock assess- ments every three years, and have agreed informally on certain stock management measures, but not the most important one: how to divide the TAC between U.S. and Canadian fisheries. The United States has generally claimed 80% of the allowable catch, while Canada has taken 30%. This situation, coupled with other factors, led to a decline in the stock. In 2002, for the first time, the Department of Commerce declared the stock to be ‘‘overfished.’’ U.S. and Canadian officials have been attempting since the early 1990s to reach agreement on a percentage share. Following re- sumed talks in 2002, both sides agreed in principle in April 2003 to the text of a new long-term management and sharing arrange- ment. The new agreement formalizes past scientific and stock assess- ment collaboration through the creation of two new science bodies: a Joint Technical Committee, charged with producing an annual stock assessment, and a Scientific Review Group to provide peer re- view of the technical committee’s work. These groups will include scientists appointed by each Party, as well as independent mem- bers referred by a panel of private sector advisors. A third body, the Joint Management Committee, will consider the scientific ad- vice and recommend to the Parties each year an overall total allow- able catch. Most importantly, the agreement establishes a default harvest policy and assigns 73.88% of the TAC to the United Stat...
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, July 9, 1997. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Extra- dition Treaty between the United States of America and the Argen- tine Republic (the ‘‘Treaty’’), signed at Buenos Aires on June 10, 1997. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The Treaty follows closely the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. The Treaty rep- resents part of a concerted effort by the Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop modern extradition relation- ships to enhance the ability of the United States to prosecute seri- ous offenders, including, especially, narcotics traffickers and terror- ists. The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral cooperation be- tween the United States and Argentina. Upon entry into force, it would supersede the extradition treaty currently in force between the two countries, which was signed at Washington on January 21, 1972. That treaty has become outmoded and the new treaty will provide significant improvements. The Treaty can be implemented without new legislation.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The President, The White House. Department of State, Washington, February 4, 1997. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Agree- ment between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong For the Surrender of Fugitive Of- fenders, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Agreement’’), signed at Hong Kong on December 20, 1996. I recommend that the Agree- ment be transferred to the Senate for its advice and consent to rati- fication as a treaty as soon as possible so that it may become effec- tive prior to the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on July 1, 1997. Given the ab- sence of an extradition treaty with the PRC, this US-Hong Kong treaty would provide the means to ensure an ongoing extradition relationship with Hong Kong, avoiding a gap in our law enforce- ment relationship. The Agreement follows generally the form and content of extra- dition treaties recently concluded by the United States. It rep- resents a concerted effort by the Department of State and the De- partment of Justice to modernize the legal tools available for the extradition of serious offenders such as narcotics traffickers and terrorists and also to address the particular issues related to the status of Hong Kong. Although entitled an ‘‘Agreement’’ to reflect Hong Kong’s unique juridical status, for purposes of U.S. law, the instrument will be considered to be a treaty, and therefore I am submitting it to you for transmittal to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. In that regard, I note that Hong Kong is entering into the Agree- ment with the authorization of ‘‘the sovereign government which is responsible for its foreign affairs.’’ At present, that is the United Kingdom. However, the PRC has also approved the Agreement and authorized its continuation in force after July 1, 1997 through ap- proval of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. For ease of ref- erence, the relevant sovereign is referred to in this report as the PRC although there could be a brief period after the treaty enters into force when the sovereign would still be the United Kingdom. Article 1 obligates each Party to extradite to the other, in accord- ance with the provisions of the Agreement, any person wanted for prosecution or for the imposition or enforcement of a sentence in respect of an offense described in Article 2.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 5, 2002. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to its transmittal to the Senate for advice and consent to ratifica- tion, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population done at Washington on October 16, 2000 (the ‘‘U.S.-Rus- sia Agreement’’). The U.S.-Russia Agreement is designed to afford protections to this polar bear population in addition to those provided by the mul- tilateral Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears done at Oslo, November 15, 1973, (the ‘‘1973 Agreement’’), an agreement to which the United States and Russia are parties. (The other parties are Norway, Canada and Denmark.) The U.S.-Russia Agreement will establish a common legal, scientific and administrative frame- work for the conservation and management of the Alaska- Chukotka polar bear population, which is shared by the United States and the Russian Federation. Unified and binding protection is needed to ensure that the taking of polar bears by native people in Alaska and the Chukotka region and other activities do not ad- versely affect this polar bear population. The 1973 Agreement allows the taking of polar bears for subsist- ence purposes by native people, as does our domestic legislation— the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)—in respect to Alaska natives. The U.S.-Russia Agreement advances the 1973 Agreement in several ways. For example, it provides a definition of ‘‘sustain- able harvest’’ that will help the United States and Russia to imple- ment polar bear conservation measures. In addition, the U.S.-Rus- sia Agreement establishes the ‘‘U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commis- sion,’’ which would function as the bilateral managing authority to make scientific determinations, establish harvest limits and carry out other responsibilities under the terms of the bilateral agree- ment. The Agreement would strengthen the capability of our coun- tries to implement coordinated conservation measures for our shared polar bear population. The United States would implement habitat components of the proposed U.S.-Russia Agreement through existing provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other Federal statutes. Al- though the U.S.-Russia Agreement is consistent with current prac- xxxx, some legislative amendments and new authorities will be nec-...
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, March 25, 2021.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, July 22, 1997. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to their transmission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratifi- cation, the World Intellectual Property Organization (‘‘WIPO’’) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both done at Geneva on December 20, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘‘the Treaties’’). These Treaties were adopted under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization to strengthen inter- national standards for the protection of copyright. Each of the Treaties contains provisions that are the same as provisions in the other Treaty, as well as provisions specific to its own subject matter. Provisions common to the treaties
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, DC, January 2, 2009. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Conven- tion Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Malta for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed on August 8, 2008, at Valletta (the ‘‘proposed Convention’’). I recommend that the proposed Convention be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The proposed Convention provides for reduced withholding rates on cross-border dividend payments, and the elimination of with- holding on cross-border dividend payments to pension funds. It pro- vides for withholding at a 10 percent rate on interest, royalties, and other income. The proposed Convention contains a comprehensive provision de- signed to prevent ‘‘treaty shopping,’’ which is the inappropriate use of a tax treaty by third-country residents. The treaty shopping pro- tections in the proposed Convention are more restrictive than those in any other U.S. tax treaty to address certain unique features of Malta’s tax system. The proposed Treaty also provides for the ex- change of information between the competent authorities to facili- xxxx the administration of each country’s tax laws. United States concerns with respect to the inappropriate use of the tax treaty by third-country residents and inadequate information exchange by Malta prompted the United States to terminate the previous 1980 U.S.-Malta tax treaty, effective January 1, 1997. The new proposed Convention satisfactorily addresses both concerns. An Overview of key provisions of the proposed Convention is enclosed with this re- port. The proposed Convention was negotiated in recognition of the im- portance of the United States’ economic relations with Malta. The Department of the Treasury and the Department of State xxxxxx- ated in the negotiation of the proposed Convention, and the De- partment of the Treasury joins the Department of State in recom- mending that the proposed Convention be transmitted to the Sen- ate as soon as possible for its advice and consent to ratification. Respectfully submitted, Enclosures: As stated.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 3, 1996. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to transmission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the Grains Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constitut- ing the International Grains Agreement, 1995. The Conventions were open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, from May 1 through June 30, 1995. They were signed for the United States on June 26, 1995. The International Grains Agreement consists of two legal instru- ments: the Grains Trade Convention, 1995, and the Food Aid Con- vention, 1995. The Conventions were adopted at meetings of the International Wheat Council and Food Aid Committee at London on December 7 and 5, 1994, respectively. They entered into force on July 1, 1995. The Conventions will remain in force until June 30, 1998. The Grains Trade Convention, 1995, replaces the Wheat Trade Convention, 1986. The Food Aid Convention, 1995, replaces the Food Aid Convention, 1986. From December 1993 to December 1994, the United States and other governments party to these Con- ventions engaged in negotiations to draft the new texts of both of these Conventions in a manner that would, inter alia, redistribute voting rights and assessments to reflect more accurately changing patterns of world trade. The Grains Trade Convention, 1995, is designed to reinforce international cooperation in grain matters between exporting and importing members, serving as a forum for the discussion on a reg- ular basis of world grain matters. The Convention contains no eco- nomic provisions placing strictures on parties regarding pricing or marketing, a position strongly supported by the U.S. Government. A major purpose of the Grains Trade Convention is to continue to collect, analyze and disseminate information on market conditions and on developments concerning the improvement and expansion of trade, utilization, and storage and transportation of grain, espe- cially in developing countries. The Grains Trade Convention improves upon the Wheat Trade Convention by strengthening its informational activities. For exam- ple, the scope of the new Convention has been broadened to permit increased attention to grains other than wheat (i.e., barley, maize, millet, oats, rye and sorghum). Such a change benefits the United States because the United States has relied heavily on the informa- tion generated regarding wheat and it now finds similar in...
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The letter must be signed by the principal of the proposal team and addressed to the Town of Brookline, Purchasing Division, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Procurement Officer. The letter must outline the applicant’s understanding of the objectives articulated in the RFP.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. Department of State, Washington, June 18, 1997. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty Be- tween the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (‘‘the Treaty’’), signed at Port of Spain on March 4, 1996. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with Trinidad and Tobago contains all essential pro- visions sought by the United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a variety of offenses, including drug traf- ficking offenses of particular interest to the U.S. law enforcement community with respect to Trinidad and Tobago. The Treaty is de- signed to be self-executing and will not require implementing legis- lation.
