Order Code IB10132
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Ocean Commissions:
Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Updated October 8, 2004
John Justus, Eugene H. Buck, Jeffrey Zinn, and Wayne Morrissey
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Reports and Working Documents
Delivery of the Commission Report
Summary of Commission Recommendations
Changes Contained in the Final Report
Comments on the U.S. Commission’s Work
The Pew Oceans Commission
Summary of Commission Recommendations
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work
Issues for Congress
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10132
10-08-04
Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
SUMMARY
The Marine Resources and Engineering
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (P.L. 106-
Development Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-454) stated
256). Earlier in 2000, the Pew Oceans Com-
U.S. marine policy objectives, created a Na-
mission, an independent group, was estab-
tional Council on Marine Resources and
lished and funded by the Pew Charitable
Engineering Development, and set up a presi-
Trusts to conduct a national dialogue on the
dential Commission on Marine Science,
policies needed to restore and protect living
Engineering, and Resources (called the Strat-
marine resources in U.S. waters. After several
ton Commission after its chairman, Dr. Julius
years of work, the Pew Commission released
Stratton). The commission’s 1969 final report,
its final report in June 2003, America’s Living
Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change,
Action, contained recommendations that led to
outlining a national agenda for protecting and
reorganizing federal ocean programs by estab-
restoring our oceans.
lishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), beginning new
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
ocean programs, and strengthening existing
convened its inaugural meeting in September
ones.
2001, and established a Science Advisory
Panel plus four working groups to address
By the late 1980s, however, 20 years
issues in the areas of governance; research,
after the Stratton Commission, a number of
education, and marine operations; steward-
influential voices among the executive, con-
ship; and investment and implementation.
gressional, and public sectors had concluded
After hearing from 440 presenters in 10 cities
that ocean management by the United States
over 11 months, the U.S. Commission is
was fragmented and characterized by a con-
publishing its final report in two stages. First,
fusing array of laws, regulations, and practices
in April 2004, the commission released a
at the federal, state, and local levels. More-
Preliminary Report for review and comment
over, it seemed that various agencies charged
by the nation’s governors and interested stake-
with implementing and enforcing legal re-
holders. Stage two began when the public
gimes had mandates that often conflicted, with
comment period closed June 4, 2004, and the
no mechanism for establishing a common
commission commenced reviewing the com-
vision and objectives. Support coalesced
ments received from the governors and others.
around the need for a congressional mandate
On July 22, 2004, the commission approved
to establish a National Oceans Policy Com-
changes to its Preliminary Report and directed
mission, sometimes called a Stratton II Com-
staff to prepare the final report, officially titled
mission, guided by four principles: sustaining
An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
the economic benefits of the oceans; strength-
That report, with its recommendations on a
ening global security; exploring and under-
coordinated and comprehensive national
standing the oceans; and preserving and pro-
ocean policy, was delivered to the President
tecting ocean resources while encouraging
and Congress on September 20, 2004. It will
their enlightened use. Legislation creating
then be up to interested Members of Congress
such a commission was considered in the 98th,
and the committees of relevant jurisdiction to
99th, 100th, and 105th Congresses, but it was
determine what, if any, measures are war-
not until the 106th Congress in 2000 that
ranted by the findings and recommendations
legislation was finally enacted to establish a
of the two commissions.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10132
10-08-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Pew Oceans Commission was established and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts
to conduct a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living marine
resources in U.S. waters. In June 2003, the Pew Commission released its final report,
America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, outlining a national agenda
for protecting and restoring our oceans.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy published its final report in two stages. First,
in April 2004, the commission released a Preliminary Report, available for review and
comment by the nation’s governors and interested stakeholders. Stage two commenced when
the public comment period closed on June 4 and the commission began reviewing those
comments. In its last public meeting on July 22, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy approved changes to its Preliminary Report and directed staff to prepare the final
report, bearing the official title An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. That report, with
its recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy, was
delivered to the President and Congress on September 20, 2004, in ceremonies at the White
House and on Capitol Hill. The new policy addresses a broad range of issues, from ocean
governance to the stewardship of marine resources, and from pollution prevention to
enhancing and supporting marine science, commerce, and transportation. Within 120 days
after receiving and considering the commission’s report, the President is required to submit
to Congress a statement of proposals to implement or respond to the commission’s
recommendations for a national policy on ocean and coastal resources.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Congress has shown particular interest in ocean affairs in recent decades, examining in
detail components of the federal ocean programs, enacting legislation creating new ocean
programs, and taking steps to define a national ocean policy. The Marine Resources and
Engineering Development Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-454) set up a National Council on Marine
Resources and Engineering Development in the White House and initiated work by a
presidential bipartisan Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Dr.
Julius Stratton, then recently retired president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and, at the time, Chairman of the Board of the Ford Foundation, was appointed chairman of
the commission by President Lyndon Johnson. The commission, composed of 15 members,
was often referred to as the Stratton Commission. In 1969, the commission completed its
final report, Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, and its more than 120
formal recommendations provided what many consider to be the most comprehensive
statement of federal policy for exploration of, and development of, resources from the ocean.
The study and its contents were instrumental in defining the structure, if not all the substance,
of what a national ocean policy could or should look like. Furthermore, new ocean-oriented
programs were initiated and existing ones were strengthened in the years following the
commission’s report, through a number of laws enacted by Congress.
Recommendations of the Stratton Commission led directly, within the following decade,
to forming the National Sea Grant College Program and creating the National Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and to reorganizing federal ocean
CRS-1

---

IB10132
10-08-04
programs under the newly established National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Subsequent legislation on estuarine reserves, national marine sanctuaries, marine
mammal protection, coastal zone management, fishery conservation and management, ocean
pollution, and seabed mining also reflected commission recommendations. Efforts sprang
up within the federal government and among various interagency committees and federal
advisory committees to flesh out how best to implement a truly comprehensive and forward-
looking national ocean policy, most notably articulated in the 1978 Department of Commerce
report U.S. Ocean Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues.1
Since 1980, with concerns about limiting federal expenditures and streamlining of
government, there have been fewer ocean initiatives, and a number of ocean programs,
particularly those of NOAA, have been consolidated and reduced; however, the programs
begun in the 1970s generally have been reauthorized and have been able to mature. By the
late 1980s, some 20 years after the Stratton Commission and in a climate created by those
successive periods of expansion and relative stability, there appeared to be a broad consensus
among those conversant in ocean affairs that a need existed to redefine or, at the very least,
better define national ocean policy. Two stimuli for this renewed interest were the 1983
proclamation by President Reagan establishing a 200-nautical-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) and the 1988 extension of the U.S. territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles,
both of which came in the aftermath of the President’s decision that the United States would
not sign the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Legislation creating an oceans commission and/or a national ocean council to review
U.S. ocean policy was introduced and hearings were held in the 98th, 99th, 100th, and 105th
Congresses. In fact, legislation did indeed pass the House in October 1983, September 1987,
and again in October 1988, but was not acted on by the Senate in any of those instances. In
the 105th Congress, legislation creating both a national ocean council and a commission on
ocean policy passed the Senate in November of 1997, and in 1998 the House passed a bill
creating just a commission on ocean policy. Congress adjourned in 1998, however, before
differences could be reconciled and a bill enacted. It was not until the 106th Congress in
2000 that legislation was finally enacted to establish a 16-member U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy (P.L. 106-256). That enactment rode a crest of interest generated largely by
a National Ocean Conference convened by the White House in June 1998, in Monterey, CA,
and attended by President Clinton and Vice President Gore,2 and capitalized on a proactive
spirit surrounding the declaration by the United Nations of 1998 as the International Year of
the Ocean.3 Momentum was facilitated with the September 1999 release of a post-Monterey
conference report, ordered by the President and prepared by members of his Cabinet, entitled
1 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Ocean Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1978), 334 pp.
2 U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy, Oceans of Commerce ... Oceans of Life,
Proceedings of the National Ocean Conference, June 11-12, 1998, Monterey, CA (Washington, DC:
NOAA, 1998), vi + 241 pp.
3 The International Year of the Ocean was proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly on Dec. 19,
1994, in resolution A/RES/49/131, Question of Declaring 1998 International Year of the Ocean, at
the initiative of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the U.N. Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
CRS-2

---

IB10132
10-08-04
Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future, in which recommendations were offered for
a coordinated, disciplined, long-term federal ocean policy.4
Also in 2000, partially in response to that rekindled interest, and partially in response
to congressional legislation having failed final passage in 1998, the Pew Charitable Trusts
established the Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of 18 American experts in
their respective fields of endeavor. The Pew Commission’s charge was to conduct a national
dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living marine resources in U.S. waters.
Pew interests had forged ahead with their effort after an unsuccessful attempt to gain support
among key Members of Congress to introduce legislation that would have established a
public/private, non-governmental oceans commission.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
The Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256) mandated a U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
Appointed by the President, the commission was required to issue findings and make
recommendations to the President and Congress for a coordinated and comprehensive
national ocean policy. The new policy was to address a broad range of issues, from the
stewardship of marine resources and pollution prevention to enhancing and supporting
marine science, commerce, and transportation. The full scope, stated in §3(f)(2) of the
Oceans Act, is:
(A) An assessment of existing and planned facilities associated with ocean and coastal
activities, including human resources, vessels, computers, satellites, and other
appropriate platforms and technologies;
(B) A review of existing and planned ocean and coastal activities of federal entities,
recommendations for changes in such activities to improve efficiency and
effectiveness and to reduce duplication of federal efforts;
(C) A review of the cumulative effect of federal laws and regulations on U.S. ocean and
coastal activities and resources, an examination of those laws and regulations for
inconsistencies and contradictions that might harm those ocean and coastal
activities and resources, a review of conflicts with state ocean and coastal
management regimes, and recommendations for resolving such inconsistencies to
the extent practicable;
(D) A review of the known and anticipated supply of, and demand for, ocean and
coastal resources of the United States;
(E) A review of and recommendations concerning the relationship between federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector in planning and carrying out
ocean and coastal activities;
(F) A review of opportunities for developing or investing in new products,
technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities;
(G) A review of previous and ongoing state and federal efforts to enhance the
effectiveness and integration of ocean and coastal activities;
(H) Recommendations for any modifications to U.S. laws, regulations, and the
administrative structure of Executive agencies necessary to improve the
understanding, management, conservation, use of, and access to ocean and coastal
resources; and
4 U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy, Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future
(Washington, DC: NOAA, 1999), 64 p.
CRS-3

---

IB10132
10-08-04
(I)
A review of the effectiveness and adequacy of existing federal interagency ocean
policy coordination mechanisms, and recommendations for changing or improving
the effectiveness of such mechanisms necessary to respond to or implement the
recommendations of the commission.
The 16 appointments to the commission by President Bush were finalized on July 3,
2001. Those appointments were based on a process that included nominations by the
Congress and appointment by the President.
The commission convened its inaugural meeting on September 17-18, 2001, in
Washington, DC, and commissioners selected Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy
(Retired) as chairman. Through several sessions the commission established four working
groups to address issues in the areas of governance; research, education, and marine
operations; stewardship; and investment and implementation. The working groups were
charged with reviewing and analyzing issues within their specific areas of focus and
reporting their findings to the full commission.
The Oceans Act of 2000 specifically directed the commission to establish a Science
Advisory Panel to assist in preparing the report and to ensure that the scientific information
considered by the commission and used by each of the working groups was based on the best
scientific information available. The composition of the Science Advisory Panel was
determined by the commissioners; members were recruited in consultation with the Ocean
Studies Board of the National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and
reflected the breadth of issues before the commission. The commission agreed that the
Science Advisory Panel members would be divided into four working groups consistent with
the full commission’s working group structure.
The commission began its work by launching a series of public meetings to gather
information and hear about the most pressing issues that the nation faced regarding the use
and stewardship of the oceans. The working groups played a vital role in maximizing the
effectiveness of the regional public meetings and identifying key issues to be addressed by
the commission. Group members ensured that, in each region visited, the commission heard
presentations on a balanced and wide-ranging set of topics and elicited information necessary
to ultimately address the requirements put forth in the Oceans Act of 2000. Based on the
information gathered at the public meetings, the working groups identified and reviewed key
issues, outlined possible options for addressing those issues, and determined the need for
white papers to provide more detailed information on specific topics. The deliberations of
each working group were shared with the other groups throughout the process to ensure
thorough integration and coordination in developing the final commission report and
recommendations.
After hearing from 440 presenters at 15 public meetings in 10 cities over 11 months and
conducting 17 additional site visits around the country, the commission completed its
information-gathering phase in October 2002. The commission entered its deliberative phase
in November 2002, and the last meeting dedicated to open public discussion of policy
options — the fifteenth and final public commission meeting — was held April 2-3, 2003,
in Washington, DC.
CRS-4

---

IB10132
10-08-04
Reports and Working Documents. Supporting documents, working papers, and
publications either produced for or generated by the commission include:
! Draft Policy Option Documents. At its meeting on November 22, 2002, the
commission made the transition from fact-finding to deliberation with its
first public discussion of a document entitled Draft Policy Options. The
issues were organized and presented within the framework of the
commission’s new Draft Table of Contents Document, which also was made
available at the meeting. Progressive and revised versions of both the Draft
Policy Options Documents and the Draft Table of Contents Document were
prepared and distributed at successive commission meetings on January 24,
2003, and on April 2-3, 2003.
! Working Table of Contents. In May 2003, the commission posted the initial
framework for its draft final report in a Working Table of Contents. This
document has evolved based on ongoing analyses, discussions,
deliberations, writing, and editing.
! Synthesis and Summary of Testimony. Two documents were completed in
June 2003. A Synthesis of Testimony Organized by Policy Topic highlights
the presentations made to the commission at its public meetings held from
September 2001 through November 2002. A Summary of Testimony
Indexed by Presenter includes overviews of invited testimony and public
comment before the commission at those same public meetings.
! Governing the Oceans. This document was prepared by the Sea Grant Law
Center, University of Mississippi, for use by the commission members and
staff as a reference during their work collecting and analyzing information
about the nation’s oceans and coasts. It contains a Cumulative List of
Statutes, Summaries of Other Relevant Laws, International Materials, and
Resources (including acronyms and internet sites).
! Developing a National Ocean Policy: Midterm Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. This September 2002 report describes the
commission’s activities, plans, and some preliminary observations as the
commission moved to complete its fact-finding phase.
! Toward a National Ocean Policy: Ocean Policy Topics and Related Issues
Document (Working Draft for Public Comment). This July 2002 paper was
designed to present both the scope and the content of a potential national
ocean policy. Specifically, the commission was interested in whether or not
the topics and questions outlined in this document captured the key issue
areas for policy options that should be addressed by the commission, as
required by the Oceans Act of 2000.
! Elements Document. Entitled Developing a National Policy for Our Ocean
Future and released in April 2002, the Elements Document, as it came to be
known, contained the broad ocean policy elements that the commission
identified as essential to a sound national ocean policy. This document
CRS-5

---

IB10132
10-08-04
would serve as a framework for the commission’s inquiry and eventual
development of recommendations.
! Law of the Sea Resolution. Passed unanimously by the members of the
commission at their meeting in Washington, D.C., on November 14, 2001,
the resolution recommended that the United States immediately accede to
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
All of the documents listed above are available in pdf format on the commission’s website
at [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/welcome.html].
Delivery of the Commission Report. The commission published its final report
in two stages. First, on April 20, 2004, the commission released a Preliminary Report, which
was available for a 30-day period of review and comment by the nation’s governors and
interested stakeholders. That Preliminary Report was built on information presented at the
public meetings and site visits, combined with the latest scientific and technical information
on oceans and coasts and input from hundreds of experts. Although the Preliminary Report
was a work in progress, its findings and policy recommendations reflected a consensus of
commission members and presented what the commissioners believed to be a balanced
approach to protecting the ocean environment while sustaining the vital role oceans and
coasts play in the national economy.5 On May 14, 2004, the commission announced that it
had extended the closing date for public comment on the Preliminary Report to June 4, 2004.
The extension applied to governors and all other stakeholders.
Stage two commenced when the public comment period closed on June 4 and the
commission began reviewing the comments received and modifying the report in response
to gubernatorial or stakeholder input. At its 16th public meeting on July 22, 2004, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy approved changes to its Preliminary Report and directed staff
to prepare the final report, bearing the official title An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
That report, with its recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean
policy, was delivered to the President and Congress on September 20, 2004, in ceremonies
at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Within 120 days after receiving and considering the
commission’s report, the President is required to submit to Congress a statement of proposals
to implement or respond to the commission’s recommendations for a national policy on
ocean and coastal resources. In doing so, the President shall consult with state and local
governments and non-federal organizations and individuals involved in ocean and coastal
activities (§4(b) of P.L. 106-256).
Summary of Commission Recommendations. The commission presented 212
recommendations throughout An Ocean Blueprint; however, thirteen “critical” actions
recommended by the commission can be summarized as follows:
1.
Establish a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the President,
chaired by an Assistant to the President.
5 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s preliminary report, Preliminary Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, was available at [http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prelim
report/welcome.html] on April 27, 2004.
CRS-6

---

IB10132
10-08-04
2.
Create a President’s Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy.
3.
Strengthen NOAA and improve the federal agency structure.
4.
Develop a flexible and voluntary process for creating regional ocean councils,
facilitated and supported by the National Ocean Council.
5.
Double the nation’s investment in ocean research.
6.
Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing System.6
7.
Increase attention to ocean education through coordinated and effective
formal and informal programs.
8.
Strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management.
9.
Create a coordinated management regime for federal waters.
10. Create measurable water pollution reduction goals, particularly for nonpoint
sources, and strengthen incentives, technical assistance, and other
management tools to reach those goals.
11. Reform fisheries management by separating assessment and allocation,
improving the Regional Fishery Management Council system, and exploring
the use of dedicated access privileges.
12. Accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
13. Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund based on revenue from offshore oil and
gas development and other new and emerging offshore uses to pay for
implementing the recommendations.
Changes Contained in the Final Report. At its 16th public meeting on July 22,
2004, the commission unanimously approved a number of modifications to recommendations
and text in the commission’s Preliminary Report, which were carried through to the final
report, An Ocean Blueprint. There is, however, no change in the thirteen critical actions
listed above. Those modifications derived from comments totaling more than 600 pages
from 37 governors and five tribal leaders, over 800 public commenters, stakeholders and
other experts and advisers, as well as technical corrections provided from federal agencies.
A detailed summary of specific changes appearing in An Ocean Blueprint are available on
the commission’s website.7 Changes of an overall general nature now in the final report
include the following:
! The report was revised to further emphasize the important role of states, and
to clarify that the Commission favors a balanced, not a “top down” approach
of shared responsibility to ocean and coastal issues.
! The report clarifies the Commission’s intent to embrace all coastal areas and
decision makers, including the Great Lakes, U.S. territories, and tribes.
! Many sections of the report were revised to address the issue of climate
change and its impacts on the oceans and coasts.
! The importance of cultural heritage in connection with the ocean was more
fully recognized and addressed.
6 An integrated regional system including (1) raw measurements of oceanographic parameters, with
data assembled and checked for quality; (2) data management and communications involving a
system of standards and protocols to allow a wide variety of data to be located, integrated, and
archived; and (3) data analysis and incorporation into models of environmental behavior.
7 [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelim_report_changes.pdf].
CRS-7

---

IB10132
10-08-04
! Discussions about the funding needed to implement recommendations were
consolidated into an expanded Chapter 30 (“Funding Needs and Possible
Sources”).
Comments on the U.S. Commission’s Work. The Governors’ and Tribal
Leaders’ comments on the Commission’s Preliminary Report were generally favorable. Most
of the 42 respondents (37 governors and 5 tribal leaders) highlighted the report’s
comprehensive treatment of ocean and coastal issues, the economic importance of oceans and
coasts, and the need to take immediate action to protect and enhance the health of these
resources. Their primary concerns related to funding issues; the participation of states,
territories, and tribes in national policy development; and the need for flexibility in the
implementation of such policies.8
Public comments were received from private citizens (including school children), non-
governmental organizations, trade associations, governmental and quasi-governmental
organizations (e.g., regional fishery management councils), academicians, scientists, and
lawyers. The vast majority of public commenters thanked the Commission for its hard work,
praised the report as comprehensive and balanced, and voiced their support for
implementation of the recommendations. Although many were supportive of the report’s
major themes and recommendations, a significant number of commenters highlighted areas
of particular concern, including national and regional governance, federal organization,
offshore management regimes, funding for science and research and for implementation of
Commission recommendations, ecosystem based management, regulation and enforcement,
and living marine resources. Furthermore, there were numerous additional comments on a
suite of issues, including cruise ships, climate change, atmospheric deposition, invasive
species, bottom-trawling, bycatch, wind energy, coastal development, international ocean
policy, and seafood safety.9
Soon after the release of the commission’s preliminary report, individual Members of
Congress commented on the report and its recommendations.10 Some Members identified
recommendations, such as the transfer of NASA earth satellites to NOAA,11 for specific
criticism. Meanwhile, members of the commission and participants in its advisory process
generally spoke favorably of its recommendations.12 Articles and editorials in regional media
generally focused on selected issues of local relevance,13 and interest groups highlighted
8 A general summary of comments submitted by the governors and tribal leaders on the Preliminary
Report is available online at the Commission’s website, [http://www.oceancommission.gov/
newsnotices/summary_govcomments.pdf]. The full text of their comments is also available online
at [http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_comments/welcome.html].
9 A two-page summary of the public comments is available online at the Commission’s website
[http://www.oceancommission.gov/newsnotices/summary_publiccomments.pdf].
10 For example, see [http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/releases/2004_04_20_oceans.html], visited on
July 7, 2004.
11 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179], visited on July 7, 2004.
12 For example, see [http://www.ocean.udel.edu/newscenter/OceanQA.html], viewed on July 7, 2004.
13 Greg C. Bruno, “Sea Change for State: National Ocean Report Could Have Big Impact on
(continued...)
CRS-8

---

IB10132
10-08-04
specific issues.14 Some states have made their comments publically available.15 Some
criticism has focused on the timing of the report’s release and comment period as conflicting
with resource users’ busiest times,16 while others criticized the report and recommendations
as further contributing to excessive government control.17
The Pew Oceans Commission
The Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group of 18 American leaders, was
established in April 2000 and funded by a $5.5 million grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts
to conduct a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living marine
resources in U.S. waters. This commission released its final report, America’s Living
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, on June 4, 2003, outlining a national agenda for
protecting and restoring our oceans.18 In addition, during this process, nine “science reports”
were also prepared and released.19
Summary of Commission Recommendations. The commission’s 26
recommendations, organized within six categories, can be summarized as follows:
A. Governance for Sustainable Seas
1. Enact a National Ocean Policy Act to protect, maintain, and restore the
health, integrity, resilience, and productivity of our oceans.
2. Establish regional ocean ecosystem councils to develop and implement
enforceable regional ocean governance plans.
3. Establish a national system of fully protected marine reserves.
4. Establish an independent national oceans agency.
5. Establish a permanent federal interagency oceans council.
B. Restoring America’s Fisheries
6. Redefine the principal objective of American marine fishery policy to
protect marine ecosystems.
13 (...continued)
Florida,” Gainesville Sun, Apr. 21, 2004; Wesley Loy, “Commission Gives Props to Alaska
Fisheries,” Anchorage Daily News, Apr. 20, 2004.
14 For example, see [http://www.boatus.com/gov/oceanpolicy/], visited July 7, 2004.
15 For example, see those of Texas posted at [http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/bpp/files/
ocean_policy.pdf], visited on July 7, 2004.
16 For example, see [http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=159&letter_id=93815376],
visited July 7, 2004.
17 For example, see [http://www.seaflow.org/article.php?id=179], visited July 7, 2004.
18 The full report was available at [http://www.pewoceans.org/oceans/index.asp] on Feb. 19, 2004.
19 The topics of the nine science reports were (1) Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States;
(2) A Dialogue on America’s Fisheries; (3) Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the
United States; (4) Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservation; (5)
Ecological Effects of Fishing; (6) Coastal Sprawl; (7) Marine Pollution; (8) Marine Aquaculture;
and (9) Introduced Species.
CRS-9

---

IB10132
10-08-04
7. Separate conservation and allocation decisions.
8. Implement ecosystem-based planning and marine zoning.
9. Regulate the use of fishing gear that is destructive to marine habitats.
10. Require bycatch monitoring and management plans as a condition of
fishing.
11. Require comprehensive access and allocation planning as a condition of
fishing.
12. Establish a permanent fishery conservation and management trust fund.
C. Preserving Our Coasts
13. Develop an action plan to address non-point source pollution and protect
water quality on a watershed basis.
14. Identify and protect from development habitat critical for the functioning
of coastal ecosystems.
15. Institute effective mechanisms at all levels of government to manage
development and minimize its impact on coastal ecosystems.
16. Redirect government programs and subsidies away from harmful coastal
development and toward beneficial activities, including restoration.
D. Cleaning Coastal Waters
17. Revise, strengthen, and expand pollution laws to focus on non-point
source pollution.
18. Address unabated point sources of pollution, such as concentrated animal
feeding operations and cruise ships.
19. Create a flexible framework to address emerging and nontraditional
sources of pollution, such as invasive species and noise.
20. Strengthen control over toxic pollution.
E. Guiding Sustainable Marine Aquaculture
21. Implement a new national marine aquaculture policy based on sound
conservation principles and standards.
22. Set a standard, and provide international leadership, for ecologically
sound marine aquaculture practices.
F. Science, Education, and Funding
23. Develop and implement a comprehensive national ocean research and
monitoring strategy.
24. Double funding for basic ocean science and research.
25. Improve the use of existing scientific information by creating a
mechanism or institution that regularly provides independent scientific
oversight of ocean and coastal management.
26. Broaden ocean education and awareness through a commitment to teach
and learn about our oceans, at all levels of society.
Comments on the Pew Commission’s Work. As anticipated, comments on the
commission’s work ranged the full gamut from dismissive to laudatory. Some were
concerned that the commission’s work was not objective, being overly influenced by the
“environmental agenda” of the Pew Charitable Trusts as an attack on commercial seafood
harvesting, while ignoring other significant issues such as the damaging effects of oil spills
CRS-10

---

IB10132
10-08-04
in the marine environment.20 Representative Richard Pombo, Chairman of the House
Committee on Resources, issued a press release critical of the Pew Commission report,
concluding “we cannot expect such a group to issue non-biased recommendations.”21 Praise
for the report came primarily from commission members, who saw the report as a long
overdue update of antiquated U.S. ocean policy, offering practical solutions to reverse
declining trends.22 John Flicker, the President of the Audubon Society, referred to this report
as a wake-up call to all Americans that our oceans and coastal areas are in real trouble, and
providing a blueprint for action to protect ecosystems at risk.23 It is important, however, to
recognize that the Pew Commission report covered only a limited portion of the topics
comprising the universe of ocean issues, compared with the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, which covered a much broader cross-section of issues within that universe.
Other than the House Resources Committee press release, others in Congress did not
immediately react to the release of the Pew Oceans Commission report. Although the Pew
report was subsequently mentioned in several congressional fora, Congress has postponed
any action until the completion of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s report and
recommendations. It is not entirely clear exactly what influence the Pew report has had
either on Congress or, for that matter, on the deliberations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, although it should be recognized that Pew commissioners, including chairman Leon
Panetta, did testify before the U.S. Commission on several occasions.
Issues for Congress
All comments having been considered, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy prepared
and delivered to the President and Congress, on September 20, 2004, its final report and
recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Interested
Members of Congress and committees of relevant jurisdiction in the House and Senate are
considering and evaluating issues on several fronts. For example, what measure of
legislative response, if any, is warranted by the findings and recommendations of both the
U.S. Commission and the Pew Commission? If action is deemed appropriate, what should
be the timing and level of that response? Moreover, what would be the fiscal implications
and out-year budgetary impacts on current and future ocean programs, given the long lead
times associated with planning horizons for federal agency budget submissions?
The 108th Congress postponed action on many ocean issues, in anticipation of the
conclusions and recommendations in both commissions’ reports. The need for congressional
action is most pressing for major coastal and marine laws that have expired and are awaiting
possible reauthorization. For example, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was most
recently reauthorized in 1996, and the authorization for appropriations expired at the end of
FY1999. Legislation to reauthorize this program has been introduced and considered in each
20 Nils E. Stolpe, The Pew Commission — A Basis for National Ocean Policy? Available at
[http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa23.htm], visited Feb. 19, 2004.
21 [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/releases/2003/0604Pews.htm], visited Feb. 19, 2004.
22 Pat White and Jane Lubchenco, “New Policies on Ocean Fishing Overdue,” The Boston Globe
(June 5, 2003), p. A19.
23 John Flicker, “Save the Coasts, Even if Only for Our Sake,” Sun Sentinel (June 19, 2003) p. 25A.
CRS-11

---

IB10132
10-08-04
of the past three Congresses, but the reauthorization process has never been completed
because of several issues. The arrival of the U.S. Commission’s report adds a new reason
to continue to delay until Congress can examine and possibly draw from the U.S.
Commission report as the reauthorization process proceeds.
For the remainder of the 108th Congress, it is anticipated that key House and Senate
committees with interest and jurisdiction over ocean affairs may hold informational hearings
on the two commission reports and engage in studying and interpreting the contents of both
reports with, perhaps, an eye toward re-examining the existing legislative and regulatory
structure to identify inconsistencies, duplication, and gaps among agencies’ authorities. Such
oversight might reveal some immediate candidates that would benefit from the crafting of
administrative and legislative solutions. The timing of those actions would then be weighed
against, and opportunities assessed, vis-a-vis the ocean-related items awaiting reauthorization
or other considerations on the legislative agenda. Hearings have been held by the House
Committee on Science, the House Committee on Resources, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Even before the release of the U.S. Commission’s final report, however, the Bush
Administration sent legislation (H.R. 4607) to the Hill in June crafting an organic act for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and several Members have
introduced legislation for a NOAA organic act. This was a recommendation that figured
prominently in both the report of the U.S. Commission and that of the Pew Commission. The
House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held hearings
July 15, 2004, on organic act legislation, H.R. 4546. At a markup on September 29, 2004,
the subcommittee approved H.R. 4546 (as amended in the nature of the substitute) for
consideration by the full House Science Committee. The House Resources Committee held
hearings on September 30, 2004, on H.R. 4368, whose approach to restructuring NOAA
would entail transferring the agency to the Department of the Interior. The Senate Committee
on Commerce also marked up its version of NOAA organic act legislation on September 22,
2004, favorably reporting S. 2647 (as amended) to the full Senate. In conjunction with
pending action on a NOAA organic act, the Senate has passed separate measures dealing
with oceans and human health as well as ocean and coastal observing systems.
In other action, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations for NOAA for
FY2005 contained in Title II of S. 2809 (CJS Appropriations bill for FY2005) included a
funding increase of $454.3 million to implement some recommendations in the U.S.
Commission’s final report. Funding would be earmarked and allocated to specific programs
and projects throughout the agency, increasing the budgets of some NOAA programs, such
as Ocean Exploration and Ocean Health.24
24 See S.Rept. 108-344, p. 71. For additional details, also see the entry on NOAA appropriations
maintained by Wayne Morrissey in the CRS on-line briefing book on Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/apcjs41.html]
CRS-12

---

IB10132
10-08-04
LEGISLATION
108th Congress
H.R. 3627 (Saxton). The Office of Ocean and Coastal Policy Creation Act of 2003.
This legislation would establish the Office of Oceans and Coastal Policy in the Executive
Office of the President. H.R. 3627 finds a demonstrated need for an Office of Oceans and
Coastal Policy in the Executive Office of the President, and the bill establishes such for the
purpose of developing comprehensive oceans and coastal policy. That office would advise
the President on scientific, environmental, economic, technological, and international
considerations involved in areas of national concern to ocean and coastal policy, including
the sustainable use of the nation’s ocean and coastal resources, and building a better
understanding and knowledge of the world’s oceans. A Director and two Associate Directors
would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Introduced
November 21, 2003, and referred to the House Resources and House Science Committees.
H.R. 4368 (Saxton). The Weather and Oceans Resources Realignment Act. Transfers
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the Department of the
Interior. Maintains NOAA, including all functions of the Secretary of the Interior relating
thereto, as a distinct entity in the Department of the Interior. Introduced May 13, 2004, and
referred to the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science. Hearing held
September 30, 2004, by House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans.
H.R. 4546 (Ehlers). Title I is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Act (NOAA Organic Act); Title II is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 2004; Title III is the Coastal Ocean Science Program Act of 2004; Title
IV is the Marine Research Act; and Title V is Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act.
Introduced June 14, 2004, and referred to the House Resources and House Science
Committees. Hearing held July 15, 2004, by House Science Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards. At a markup on September 29, 2004, the subcommittee
approved H.R. 4546 (as amended in the nature of the substitute) for consideration by the full
House Science Committee. The substitute amendment removed all portions of the bill
except for Title I, the portion of the bill that would create a clearly defined three-point
mission for NOAA: (1) understand and predict oceanic and atmospheric changes, (2)
conserve and manage coastal, oceanic and Great Lake ecosystems to meet economic, social
and environmental needs, and (3) educate the public about those topics. The amendment
added language that would require the National Academy of Sciences to review reports
written by NOAA on the capabilities and problems with its environmental data and
information systems. The amendment also would give NOAA two years, after the date of
enactment, to reorganize itself around the mission and terms outlined in the bill.
H.R. 4607 (Ehlers). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act
of 2004. Introduced June 17, 2004, and referred to the House Resources and House Science
Committees.
H.R. 4900 (Greenwood et al.). Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy
for the 21st Century Act. To establish a national policy for our oceans, to strengthen the
CRS-13

---

IB10132
10-08-04
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a National Oceans Council,
and for other purposes. Title I — Congressional Declaration of National Oceans Policy;
Title II — National Standards; Title III — National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Title IV — National Oceans Advisor; Title V — National Oceans Council;
Title VI — Council of Advisors on Oceans Policy; Title VII — Regional Planning; Title VIII
— Ocean Science, Exploration, and Research Coordination; Title IX — Ocean Education;
Title X — Ocean Exploration; Title XI — Ocean and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund.
Introduced July 22, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
H.R. 5001 (C. Weldon et al.) Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2004.
Directs the President, through the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC),
to provide for (1) the development of an integrated ocean observing system that provides the
data and information required to ensure national security and the quality of life, sustains
economic development, sustains and restores healthy marine ecosystems and the resources
they support, enables advances in scientific understanding of the oceans, and strengthens
science education and communication; (2) implementation of a research and development
program to better understand the oceans and achieve the goals of an integrated ocean
observing system; (3) implementation of a data and information management system required
by all components of an integrated ocean and coastal observing system and related research;
and (4) establishment of a system of regional ocean and coastal observing systems to address
local needs for ocean information. Introduced July 22, 2004, and referred to the Committee
on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

S. 1218 (Hollings). Oceans and Human Health Act. The bill provides for presidential
support and coordination of interagency ocean science programs and development and
coordination of a comprehensive and integrated U.S. research and monitoring program.
Provides for coordination and support of federal interagency ocean science programs,
including research and monitoring on the oceans’ role in human health. Amends the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, directing
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to coordinate and support a national
interagency research program on Oceans and Human Health (OHH), to establish a
Committee on OHH, and to submit to Congress a program implementation plan containing
certain required program activities, including coordination with the National Ocean Research
Leadership Council. Introduced June 10, 2003, and referred to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported November 19, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-203).
Passed the Senate (amended) on March 24, 2004.
S. 1400 (Snowe). Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act. Directs the President,
through the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), to establish and
maintain a national integrated ocean and coastal observing system of marine monitoring, data
communication and management, data analysis, and research to provide data and information
for rapid and timely detection and prediction of changes occurring in the marine environment
that impact the nation’s social, economic, and ecological systems. Authorizes appropriations
for FY2004 through FY2008 to develop and implement the system. Introduced July 14,
CRS-14

---

IB10132
10-08-04
2003, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Reported (amended) October 23, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-171). Passed the Senate (amended) on
October 31, 2003.
S. 2647 (Hollings). National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act. Title II establishes
NOAA as independent and the lead federal ocean and atmosphere agency. Title III
establishes a Council on Ocean Stewardship in the Executive Office of the President and
provides an organizational framework and mechanisms for enhancing interagency
coordination. Introduced July 13, 2004, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. Full committee markup conducted September 22, 2004;
favorably reported to the full Senate (as amended) September 22, 2004. As originally
introduced, the bill would have removed NOAA from the Commerce Department
completely, making it an independent agency like NASA or EPA. As amended, S. 2647
would grant NOAA independent authority over its own budget and operations, while keeping
the agency part of the Commerce Department.
S. 2648 (Hollings). Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act. Title I
establishes a National Ocean Science Committee to advise and support the National Science
and Technology Council and the Council on Ocean Stewardship. Title II calls for the
development of a National Strategy for Ocean Science, Education, and Technology;
authorizes a National Ocean Partners Program to facilitate ocean science partnerships
between federal ocean agencies, states, academia, industry, and others; and establishes
education and scholarship programs. Title III directs the development of a 20-year integrated
research plan for NOAA. Introduced July 13, 2004, and referred to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Buck, Eugene H., Ocean Commission Reports: Side-by-Side Comparison of Provisions on
Living Resources, Excluding Fisheries, CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum,
April 30, 2004, 11 pp.
Buck, Eugene H., Ocean Commission Reports: Side-by-Side Comparison of Fishery
Provisions, CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, May 6, 2004, 16 pp.
Gish, Ken and Eric Laschever. “The President’s Ocean Commission: Progress Toward a
New Ocean Policy.” N R & E. Summer 2004. p. 17-19, 79.
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. Capital Hill Oceans Week 2003, Summary Report:
Exploring our Oceans, Managing our Marine Areas. June 11-12, 2003 (Silver Spring,
MD: 2003). 30 pp.
Paul, Linda M.B. “The 2003 Pew Oceans Commission Report: Law, Policy, and
Governance.” N R & E. Summer 2004. p. 10-16.
CRS-15

---

IB10132
10-08-04
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration. Discovering Earth’s
Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration (Washington, DC: NOAA,
October 10, 2000). 64 pp.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of the Navy. Oceans of Commerce, Oceans of Life.
Proceedings of the National Ocean Conference, June 11-12, 1998, Monterey, CA
(Washington, DC: NOAA, 1998). vi + 241 pp.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Office of the
Chief Scientist. Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers. March 1998. Prepared by the
U.S. Federal Agencies with Ocean-Related Programs for the International Year of the
Ocean (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998). 1 v. (various pagings).
CRS-16

---