Ocean Commission Reports and Response

In the wake of two overarching reviews of U.S. ocean policy (see below), the U.S. Congress is expected to devote attention to the matter in the 109th Congress. To keep you informed of the latest news and actions, the ASLO Public Policy Office will update this page throughout the 109th Congress with action alerts, links to hearing testimony, and related news items.

Background Information

Federal Interagency Ocean Policy Group
Download a copy of the Administrations U.S. Ocean Action Plan.

Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
The JSOST is developing the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy designed to establish and realize priorities for ocean science and technology. The current draft document “Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade”, presents national ocean research priorities. This document was developed by the JSOST using input generated from a public workshop held on April 18-20, 2006, and public comment on a planning document for the ocean research priorities plan.
Website: http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/jsost.html

Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative was formed in late 2004 by a group of former members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the US Commission on Ocean Policy. The Initiative consists of a ten-member Task Force, five from each Commission. Admiral James D. Watkins and Mr. Leon Panetta, chairs of the U.S. Commission and Pew Commission, respectively, co-chair the Initiative.
Website: http://www.jointoceancommission.org/

Ocean legislation introduced in the 108th Congress
ASLO has summarized the ocean legislation introduced in the 108th (2003-2004) Congress for your reference. The bill’s purpose, sponsor, status, and a link to full details is provided.

Pew Commission on Ocean Policy
Released June 2003 – download or order the final Pew Oceans Commission report.
Website: http://www.pewoceans.org

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Final report released September 2004 – download the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report.
Website: http://www.oceancommission.gov

House of Representatives Begins Consideration of Ocean Research and Exploration Bill

Last summer, the US Senate passed S. 39, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act, which would establish a national ocean exploration program within NOAA and authorize appropriations for the program for fiscal years 2006 through 2017. The program's main purpose would be to `benefit, inform, and inspire' the American people, while facilitating the discovery of new living and non-living resources, documenting shipwrecks and submerged archeological sites, and encouraging the growth of new technologies. The bill would also establish an interagency task force to coordinate Federal and non-government cooperation. The bill would merge two existing NOAA programs: Ocean Exploration (OE) and National Undersea Research Program (NURP) programs.

The OE program funds exploration missions to study and map poorly understood regions of the oceans and to better understand fundamental biochemical and geologic processes. NURP funds six regional centers that develop and support marine research technologies, such as undersea laboratories, remotely operated vehicles, and deep-water submarines. Both programs also support a wide range of education and outreach projects.

This summer, the House of Representatives held two hearings on their version of the bill, HR 3835, introduced by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ). The House Resources subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans held a hearing on May 4, while the House Science subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards (ETS) held a hearing on July 27. Neither committee has approved the bill as of press time, however.

The legislation under consideration deals with the authorization of the two programs; however, Congress has already made some major changes to the program through the appropriations process. In FY 2006 appropriations, NURP funding was cut from approximately $17 million to $9 million and all NURP center funding was directed to the two centers on the West Coast. NOAA reprogrammed funding to maintain minimal services at the East Coast centers but it is unclear how the centers will fare in FY 2007.

ETS Subcommittee Chairman Vern Ehlers (R-MI), a champion of aquatic science, opened the hearing with praise for OE and NURP: “Effective management of our marine resources requires a well organized, carefully thought-out science program to both fill in the gaping holes in our knowledge and give our managers and policy makers the tools and information they need to do their jobs. Ocean Exploration helps us define the scope and scale of marine environments and gives us proper context within which to ask the best scientific and policy questions. NURP gives scientists the specialized technical support they need to fill the gap between basic marine science and the more applied science and information needs of policymakers and resource managers around the country.”

The July 27 hearing explored several overarching questions, including whether a merger of the NURP and OE programs would support the programs’ activities and maintain their role in marine research. Some researchers fear that the merger would have unfavorable side effects on both programs. NURP has traditionally been a regionally driven research effort – there is concern that centralizing NURP would decrease the emphasis on regional research. OE experts are concerned that exploration funding would be directed to operational and mission-oriented efforts, rather than deep-water discovery. There is also concern that merging the two programs would result in a net loss of funds.

At the hearing, Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA said “the details of the merger are currently under discussion and will depend upon several factors including input from the regional undersea research centers and the extramural community, and program funding levels.” NOAA endorsed the intent of the legislation, but requested a few changes to the authorization language regarding administration of the programs.

Mr. Andrew Shepard, Director of the National Undersea Research Center at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, also endorsed the bill. He stressed that consistent funding for research is necessary in order to move forward. "The bill addresses the major weakness of the [NURP and OE] programs-under-funding and instability of funding;" Shepard said. "We seek to support cutting edge science projects using advanced technologies, wielded by the top scientists and technologists in the nation. Trying to accomplish this goal on a year-to-year uncertain funding cycle has been our major weakness."

Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, also expressed her support for H.R. 3835. McNutt said a large part of the challenge in ocean exploration is the lack of funding, noting that the amount of funds appropriated for OE “is equivalent to the round-off error in NASA’s budget.” McNutt continued, "It is a big ocean out there, and H.R. 3835 does a credible job of ramping up the OE budget authorization."

Witness testimony and an archived webcast of the hearing can be viewed here.

Coastal Ocean Observation System Legislation Moves Forward in Both Houses of Congress

On April 14, the House Resources Committee’s subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries held a hearing on HR 1489, the Coastal Ocean Observation System Integration and Implementation Act of 2005. The bill, sponsored by subcommittee chairman Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), has also been referred to the House Science Committee.

In discussing the final report of the US Commission on Ocean Policy with the Science Committee last year, Admiral James Watkins, who chaired the commission, told the committee that constructing an Integrated Ocean Observing System should be at the top of the priority list. There are currently more than 40 regional observing systems in operation around the US. An IOOS would serve to integrate and enhance those regional efforts.

Administration officials and researchers testified at the hearing. Dr. Richard Spinrad of NOAA expressed concern over the coordination of the system. Arguing that there needs to be a clear point of accountability, Spinrad said the Administration believes that NOAA should be the lead federal agency for the administration and implementation of IOOS. Robert Winokur, Technical Director of the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy said that Navy “recognizes the desirability of a lead civilian agency” and does not object to NOAA as the lead agency, “so long as Navy maintains clear authority on issues relating to national security.” Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior, also endorsed a lead role for NOAA in the development of IOOS.

While administration officials expressed concern over how the government was going to coordinate the interagency effort, outside groups expressed concern over the amount of funding authorized for the program. Gilchrest’s bill authorizes $25 million for FY 2005, with an additional $5 million for each subsequent year through FY 2008. By comparison, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy notes that Ocean.US estimates the first five years of the IOOS to cost approximately $1.8 million, with another $500 million per year in out years to keep the system operational.

Another major topic of discussion was the role of regional associations. Debra Hernandez of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control noted the absence of regional associations in H.R. 1489, which “leaves the perception that the process is centralized within NOAA.” Hernandez told the committee that the best way to develop the system was by enhancing existing regional efforts, rather than concentrating the process in Washington, D.C.

Frederick Grassle, Director of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Studies at Rutgers, agreed that regional associations need to be a key component, as user needs and management priorities vary from region to region. He also noted that the regional associations are already partnering with industries, government at all levels, academic institutions, and the public, and “it would be very difficult to achieve integration and these levels of engagement from the top down.”

While the House was discussing Gilchrest’s bill, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology passed Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-ME) Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005 (S. 361). Snowe's measure designates NOAA as the lead agency for the effort and specifically addresses the role of regional associations. The bill authorizes the Administrator of NOAA to certify one or more regional associations to be responsible for the development and operation of regional ocean and coastal observing systems to meet the information needs of user groups in the region while adhering to national standards. The legislation also deems certified regional systems to be part of NOAA when carrying out this Act.

Snowe’s bill does not include a specific dollar amount but instead calls for "such sums as may be necessary" for the effort. The legislation also requires that half of the funding appropriated for the observing system be allocated to regional associations for regional systems. Following passage out of committee, Snowe’s bill was placed on the Senate calendar, but has not yet been passed.

Testimony for the House hearing can be found here. Text and current status of both bills can be found by entering the respective bill numbers here.

Administration, Congress Receive Failing Grades for Ocean Policy Reform

On February 3, 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative issued the first US Ocean Policy Report Card, giving the US a D+ on ocean policy reform. The Initiative was formed in late 2004 by a group of former members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the US Commission on Ocean Policy. The Initiative consists of a ten-member Task Force, five from each Commission. Admiral James D. Watkins and Mr. Leon Panetta, chairs of the U.S. Commission and Pew Commission, respectively, co-chair the Initiative.

Watkins said that the report card highlights the government’s slow rate of progress and limited funding support for ocean policy reform, which “jeopardizes the rare opportunity our nation has to make fundamental changes in ocean policy before it is too late.” Panetta acknowledged that the Administration, Congress and some coastal states were making some progress, but feels that “these actions are proceeding at a pace that does not reflect the urgency of the situation.”

The report card grades the US in seven key areas. Those areas and corresponding grades are:

• Initial Response to Commission Reports A-
• National Ocean Governance Reform D+
• Regional and State Ocean Governance Reform B-
• International Leadership F
• Research, Science and Education D
• Fisheries Management Reform C+
• New Funding for Ocean Policy and Programs F

Several factors contributed to the “D” grade for the US on research, science and education, including the lack of a coherent national ocean and coastal research strategy and the loss of research funding at agencies such as NASA, NOAA and the Office of Naval Research. The Initiative acknowledges that efforts such as that being undertaken by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (see Action Alert below) offer promise, but warn that stagnant funding support means that many plans and strategies are never implemented. To improve the grade, the Initiative says that the Administration and Congress need to begin the process of enhancing funding support for ocean research, develop an operational Integrated Ocean Observing System, establish a national ocean education office, and consider re-establishing the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress.

Since the report card’s release, the Bush Administration has in turn urged Congress to “get moving” on key ocean policy measures, such as the NOAA Organic Act, ratification of the UN Law of the Sea, and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act. At an ocean policy forum on Capitol Hill on March 8, James Connaughton, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told lawmakers and staff “The Bush administration has acted with force on a very high level; It’s Congress’ turn.”

Ocean advocates didn’t escape blame for the lack of progress, either. Watkins said that marine scientists and ocean advocates need to unite around a common set of priorities. “We’re still a fragmented community that’s done a poor job convincing Congress and the president that ocean policy is important … We’ve got to stop the individual earmarking approach to life. We can’t keep fighting for our own small programs over others.” Connaughton echoed Watkins, saying that broad consensus is necessary to compete in today’s tough budget environment: “You’re competing with AIDS dollars.”

The report card can be downloaded here.

Executive Committee on Ocean Policy Get to Work

On December 17, 2004, President George W. Bush signed an executive order to create a Cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy. The committee, chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality and populated by Cabinet members, has created an organizational structure, described below. The creation of the committee was part of the Bush Administration’s response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The administration also released a 40 page “Ocean Action Plan” which contains 39 specific actions the Administration will undertake in response to the Commission’s report. One of the tasks of the Committee on Ocean Policy is to develop an 18-month workplan to address Commission recommendations (of which there were more than 200) that have not already been addressed by the Administration.

The structure, charters and membership of the various committees can be found here. Reporting directly to the Cabinet-level Committee is the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI); the members of that committee consist of undersecretaries and assistant secretaries or their equivalent from executive branch agencies and departments represented on the Committee on Ocean Policy. Two subcommittees report to ICOSRMI. The first, the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) is a slight alteration of the NSTC Joint Subcommittee on Oceans that was formed in 2003. JSOST’s primary concern is setting national ocean science and technology priorities. The JSOST has developed a framework for its work, which was officially approved at an April 5 meeting of the Committee on Ocean Policy. The framework and membership of JSOST can be viewed at http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/sup_jsost.html.

The second subcommittee is the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR). While JSOST focuses on sciences, SIMOR focuses on marine resource management. SIMOR has held two meetings so far. Its charter has been finalized and is available here. So far SIMOR has identified four priority areas for its work: Support Regional and Local Collaboration; Facilitate Use of Ocean Science and Technology in Ocean Resource Management; Enhance Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Resource Management to Improve Use and Conservation; and Enhance Ocean Education.

At a recent roundtable regarding the Ocean Action Plan, officials from NOAA’s National Ocean Service heard from approximately 15 organizations (including ASLO). Many of the groups expressed concern that the subcommittees’ work and meetings have not been publicized. NOAA officials indicated that there will be opportunities for interested parties to attend and comment at future meetings. ASLO will continue to track and report activities of the committees.

President Creates Cabinet-Level Committee on Ocean Policy

On December 17, 2004, President Bush established by Executive Order a Cabinet-level “Committee on Ocean Policy” to “coordinate the activities of executive branch departments and agencies regarding ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective manner to advance the environmental and economic interests of present and future generations of Americans.” The oceans, coasts and Great Lakes of the U.S. are governed by over 20 federal agencies administering over 140 federal laws. The Committee will convene its first meeting early in 2005. It will develop an 18-month work plan to address a number of the Commission’s recommendations, including further actions on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues that address governance principles, filling gaps in legislative authority, and streamlining unnecessary overlapping authorities. Where appropriate, the Committee will work with the states, tribes, local officials, and others on these actions.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the White House proposal. Farr said the creation of the cabinet-level committe “sets a positive tone for the next phase of ocean policy,” but he hopes this will not be the only decisive action the president takes on oceans: “The real question today is, how much muscle is the White House willing to put behind their Ocean Action Plan? Are they willing to tackle the more difficult but critical governance issues?” Among those more difficult issues is the signing of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the Senate has been slow to act upon. Another looming issue is the passage of an organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, the nation’s largest “ocean” agency, was created by executive order in 1970, but does not have an organic act to codify the agency’s authorities and responsibilities. Both the House and Senate held hearings regarding an organic act for NOAA last year, but did not act on introduced legislation (see “Ocean legislation introduced in the 108th Congress”).

To view the White House press release about the creation of the Ocean Policy Committee, click here.

White House Releases US Ocean Action Plan in Response to Ocean Commission Report

As required by the Oceans Act of 2000, President Bush has formally responded to the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. On December 17, 2004, the White House released the “U.S. Ocean Action Plan”, a 40 page document summarizing the administration’s immediate and long-term plan for addressing the recommendations of the Commission.

The Interagency Ocean Policy Group (IOPG) was assembled to consider the Commission’s recommendations and to help formulate the Administration’s response. The IOPG is comprised of relevant senior Federal officials, with extensive policy and technical expertise, from eight cabinet and independent agencies with programs dedicated to the management and conservation of ocean and coastal resources. The role of the IOPG is to advise their respective cabinet and independent agency heads on proposals to implement or respond to the Commission’s recommendations. The IOPG department and agency members are the: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency, the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

The Action Plan lays out nine immediate and long-term action items. The first item, to create a cabinet-level committee on ocean policy (see below) has already been completed. The other actions are:

• Work with regional fisheries councils to promote greater use of market-based systems for fisheries management (such as individual fishing quotas (IFQs);
• Build a global earth observation network, including integrated ocean observation;
• Develop an ocean research priorities plan and implementation strategy;
• Support accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;
• Implement coral reef local action strategies, this request includes $2.7 million for the FY 2006 budget to address key threats to coraf reefs;
• Support a regional partnership in the Gulf of Mexico;
• Seek passage of a NOAA organic act establishing NOAA within the Department of Commerce; and
• Implement the Administration’s National Freight Action Agenda.

To download a copy of the plan, visit http://www.ocean.ceq.gov.

Home | Career | Employment | Education | Meetings | Policy | Publications | Students | Forms | Search

Copyright © American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. All Rights Reserved