LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. Department of State, Washington, April 21, 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 Transfer of Sentenced Per- sons (‘‘the Agreement’’), which was signed at Hong Kong on April 15, 1997. I recommend that the Agreement be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The purpose of the Agreement is to facilitate, after Hong Kong reverts to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997, the transfer of persons sentenced in the United States and in Hong Kong to their home territory to serve their sentences. The Agreement achieves this purpose by establishing procedures that can be initiated by sentenced persons who prefer to serve their sen- tences in their home territory. The means employed to achieve this purpose are similar in all important respects to those embodied in existing bilateral prisoner transfer treaties in force between the United States and eight other countries, and in the multilateral Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Per- sons. The United States and Hong Kong have been exchanging pris- oners under the terms of the Council of Europe Convention, to which the United States and the United Kingdom are parties and which has been extended by the latter to Hong Kong and other spe- cific territories under U.K. sovereignty. The People’s Republic of China is not a party to the Council of Europe Convention and has not agreed that the Convention should continue to apply to Hong Kong after reversion to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997. None- theless, the Chinese government, acting through the Sino-U.K. Joint Liaison Group, authorized the Hong Kong government to ne- gotiate a bilateral agreement on transfer of sentenced persons with the United States to apply after reversion. The attached agreement represents the results of these authorized negotiations. Article 1 contains definitions of the terms used in the Agreement. The general principles of the Agreement are stated in Article 2, in which the parties undertake to apply the Agreement in their re- spective territories and to transfer sentenced persons to the other party to serve the sentence imposed by the transferring party. For these purposes, Hong Kong constitutes Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories.
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, 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 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, 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, 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. 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.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 24, 1991. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Tunisia Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, with Protocol, signed at Washington, May 15, 1990. I recommend that this treaty, with protocol, be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. This treaty constitutes a continuation of the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) program initiated in 1981. Negotiation of these treaties has been pursued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the Department of State with active participation of the Departments of Commerce and Treasury, in conjunction with other U.S. Government agencies. BITS with Bangladesh, Cameroon, Grenada, Senegal, Turkey and Zaire have entered into force. The global BIT program is intended to encourage and protect U S. investment in developing countries. By providing certain mutual guarantees and protections, a BIT creates a more stable and predictable legal framework for foreign investors in the territory of each of the treaty Parties. The negotiation of a series of bilateral treaties with interested countries establishes greater international discipline in the investment area. Experience to date has shown that interested countries are will ing to provide U.S. investors with significant investment guarantees and assurances as a way of inducing additional foreign investment. It is X.X. xxxxxx to advise potential treaty partners that conclusion of a BIT with the United States is an important and favorable factor in the investment relationship, but does not in and of itself result in immediate increases in U.S. investment flows. The BIT approach is similar to programs that have been undertaken with considerable success by a number of European countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom, since the early 1960s. Indeed, U.S. industrialized partners already have over 200 BITS in force, primarily with developing countries. U.S. treaties, which draw upon language used in its Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (FCNs) as well as European counter parts, are more comprehensive and far-reaching than European BITS. THE U.S.-TUNISIA TREATY The treaty with Tunisia satisfies all four main BIT objectives: - -foreign investors are to be accorded treatment in accordance with international law and are ...
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. The PRESIDENT, The White House. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 13, 1997. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Extra- dition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Barbados (the ‘‘Treaty’’), signed at Bridgetown on February 28, 1996. 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 United States ability to prosecute serious of- fenders including, especially, narcotics traffickers and terrorists. The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral cooperation be- tween the United States and Barbados. Upon entry into force, it will supersede the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed at London on December 22, 1931, which was made applicable to Barbados upon its entry into force on June 24, 1935, and which the United States and Barbados have contin- ued to apply following Barbados becoming independent. That treaty has become outmoded and the new Treaty will provide significant improvements. The Treaty can be implemented without new legis- lation.
