WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 2004 – A panel of expert witnesses today gave their general support to a newly released comprehensive ocean policy, but some expressed concern with specific elements of the report. Testifying before the House Science Committee, the witnesses discussed the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. This hearing was the first before the Congress at which the chairman of the Commission, Admiral James Watkins, testified on a panel with outside experts who have raised questions about some of the Commission's recommendations.

Congress established the Commission, which released its preliminary report on April 20. The report includes roughly 200 recommendations to increase the national focus on ocean issues, including doubling federal ocean research spending from $650 million to $1.3 billion. The report also recommends the restructuring of government programs and agencies, including the passage of an organic statute for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the creation of a National Ocean Council within the White House.

Witnesses strongly supported the call for additional focus and spending, but questioned some of the Commission’s proposals for reorganizing the federal government.

Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said, “I don’t think anyone can disagree with the basic thrust of this report that more needs to be done to understand, manage and take advantage of the world’s oceans, and doing so will take new thinking and new money.” Boehlert continued, “[But], while the Commission’s general thrust is unarguable, the specific recommendations raise a lot of questions.” Boehlert fully endorsed the Report’s recommendation for a NOAA organic act, but questioned other recommendations including the level of proposed spending increases, the creation of a specific oceans structure within the White House, and the transfer of other agencies’ functions to NOAA.

Boehlert said the Science Committee was in the process of drafting a NOAA organic act and would hold hearings on the matter in June or July.

Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) also expressed his strong support for the passage of a NOAA organic act. “I believe it is critical for NOAA’s mission to be clearly defined and its internal structure strengthened so it can better fulfill its role in observing, managing, and protecting our nation’s coastal and ocean resources,” he said. “My Subcommittee staff and I spent many hours working on this bill last year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill into law this year.”

“The tragic depletion and disappearance of our fisheries are symptomatic of many things: over fishing, inland habitat destruction, climatic changes, coastal development – all of which are addressed by the Oceans Commission Report,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). “We must do things differently. Our waters can be blue and productive; our technology green and job creating. We must act now to leave our oceans in good shape for generations to come.”

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman of the Commission, testified that development over the past several decades has resulted in significantly diminished fish populations, increased pollution of the oceans and coastal areas, and general harm to marine resources. “The message we heard was clear,” he said, “the oceans and coasts are in trouble and major changes are urgently needed.”

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs for the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences at North Carolina State University and chair of the NOAA Science Advisory Board, endorsed the call for a NOAA organic act. “NOAA needs to have an organic act so it can have clear and specific responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of these responsibilities,” he said. “Otherwise, NOAA’s responsibilities will continue to be defined by a collection of not-necessarily-connected laws and policies.”

While witnesses agreed with the thrust of the report, they raised concerns with some of its specific recommendations. Dr. Andrew Solow from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who is also a member of the Commission’s Science Advisory Panel, raised cautions about the proposal to set up a National Ocean Council in the White House. “[I]n my opinion, there is a tendency to overstate the connection between policy outcome and policy structure,” he said. “Although federal policy structure in the area is fragmented, this fragmentation is not by itself responsible for the problems on the ground and in the water.”

The Report also recommends the transfer of many NASA satellite activities to NOAA. Dr. Michael Freilich, Associate Dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, agreed with the Report’s assessment that coordination between the agencies could be improved, but questioned its proposed solution. “I must respectfully disagree with the Report’s recommendation…calling for the near-term transfer of responsibilities for ocean-observing satellite missions from NASA to NOAA,” he said. Dr. Freilich, who is also a member of the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board and serves as chair of the Board’s Committee on Earth Studies, said that such a move would place a significant financial burden on the agency, reducing the available funds for other NOAA functions. He testified, “…an under-funded future NOAA with even greater responsibilities will reduce support for ocean research; will delay the acquisition of new, but scientifically critical ocean measurements; will neglect the stewardship of data sets that are essential for climate prediction and ocean management; and will resist the development, testing, and refinement of new products and services.”

###

108-241