The National Ocean Policy Study: A Model for the Future?

CRS Report for Congress
The National Ocean Policy Study:
A Model for the Future?
January22,2003
John R. Justus, Jeffrey A. Zinn, and Eugene H. Buck
Specialists in Na tural Resources Po licy
Resources, Sc ience, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The National Ocean Policy S tudy:
A M odel for t he Future?
Summary
The Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256) created a C ommission on Ocean Policy
that is currently deliberating. In J une 2003, the C ommission is due to present t o t he

108th Congress a wide-ranging report and recommendations for congression al action.


In creat i n g t he C o m m i ssi on, t h e Oceans Act set i n m o t i o n a process t hat s ought t o
replicate a p rocess o f t he late 1960s, when t he Commission on Marine Science,
Engi neeri n g, and R esources produced t h e S tratton C ommission Report (named for
Commission Chairman J ulius S tratton). The 1969 report, Our N ation and the Sea:
A P l a n f o r National Action, portrayed a b road vision of a comprehensive federal
a p proach to ocean topics that garnered widespread public attention, and m a n y
subsequent marine policy i nitiatives can be traced back to this report.
Responding to heightened publi c a n d political interest in ocean affairs
galvanized by the S tratton C ommission Report and other e v ents t hat t ranscended
congressional o rganiz ation, the U.S. S enate, on February 19, 1974, adopted S.Res.
222, entitled A u t h o r izing a N ational Ocean Policy Study (NOPS). This m easure
authorized the S enat e C ommittee on C ommerce (now Commerce, Science, and
Transportation) to undertake a full, complete, and comprehensive analysis o f n ational
ocean pol i cy and federal o cean program s .
NOPS was active from 1974 through 1994. During this time, NOPS activities,
either solely or jointly with other S enate or House committees or subcommittees,
resulted i n t he releas e of 89 publicati ons in the form o f congressional h earings or
committee prints. The t opics ranged across s uch i ssues as : outer continental s helf oil
and ga s development and the coastal z one; Law of the S ea; tankers and t he marine
environment; Soviet ocean activities; coas tal effects o f o ffshore energy d evelopment;
fishery conservation and management ; world energy outlook; renewable o cean
energy resources; pol ar resources an d pol ar oceans research; coast al z one
m anagem ent ; federal ocean program s ; gl obal envi ronm ent al change research; m ari n e
mammal protection; environmental s at ellites; gl obal warming; weat her s ervices and
research; and seafood safety and quality assurance. Man y of the t opics that NOPS
addressed likely would not have been addressed with the s am e breadth in the m ore
traditional congressi onal s tructure.
This report d i s c u s s e s t he pros and cons of reviving some form of NOPS t o
address the complex and varied oceans i ssues likely to come before the 108 th
Congress. The report p rovides h istorical background and i s unlikely t o b e updated.



Contents
Background and History ........................................1
Scope, Timetable, Activities, and S taffing ..........................3
Achievements andEffectiveness ..................................5
FutureProspects ...............................................7
ListofTables
Table1. NOPSPublications (bymaintopic) ............................6



The N ational Ocean Policy Study:
A Model for the Future?
R ecent event s h a v e rai sed t he quest i o n o f w het h er t h e N at i onal O cean P o l i cy
Study (NOPS) approach of the 1970s an d 1980s might be worthy of renewed
consi d erat i o n for addressi ng oceans i ssues t h at m i ght ari s e i n t he 108th Congress.
The Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256) created a C ommission on Ocean Policy t hat
is to present a wide-ranging report and recommendations for congressional action t o
the 108th Congress in J une 2003. This report reviews the NOPS activity and assesses
the utility of a s imilar approach fo r C ongress’ handling of complex and varied
recommendations on oceans policy anticipated in J une 2003.
Backgr ound and Hi s tor y
The U.S. S enate o n February 19, 1974, adopted S.Res. 222, entitled Authorizing1
a N ational Ocean Policy S tudy. S . R es. 222 had b een i n t roduced on Decem ber 19,
1973, by Senator W a r r e n G . M agnuson and cosponsored by 58 senators. 2 It
authorized the S enat e C ommittee on C ommerce (now Commerce, Science, and
Transportation) to undert a k e a full, complete, and comprehensive analysis o f t he
el em ent s of a n at i onal o cean pol i c y and t h e adequacy of federal o cean program s .
There was no sunset provision or speci fic time limit on NOPS.
T h e s tudy by the C ommittee o n C ommerce was to be undertaken w i t h
repres en tative ex officio m e m bership from s even other s tanding committees of the
Senate with a j urisdictional i nterest over t he elements of the s tudy. Those
committees incl uded t he Committees on Appropriations; Interior and Insular Affairs
(now Energy and Nat ural R esources); P ublic W orks (now Environment and Public
W o rks); Foreign Relations; Government O p e rations (now Governmental Affairs);
Labor and P ublic W elfare (now Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions); and Armed
Services. P articipants in NOPS i n c l u d ed all the m em bers of the C ommittee on
C o m m e r c e as well as t he chair and ranking minority member (or t heir design ees)
from each of those s even other S enate co mmittees. In addition, six s enators were t o
be appointed as members o f NOPS b y t he President P ro Tempore o f t he Senate from


1 “National Ocean Policy Study.” [Debate and Vote in the Senate] Congressional Record,
v. 120, pt.3 (Feb. 19, 1974): 3472-3473.
2 Magnuson, Warren G., et al. “Senate Resolution 222– Submission of a Resolution t o
Authorize a National Ocean Policy Study.” Remarks i n t he Senate. Congressional Record
[daily ed.] v. 119 (Dec. 19, 1973): S23315-S23328.

coastal and Great Lakes s tates without regard to their committee m embership.3 Thus,
the C ommerce C ommittee was cl early the l ead player in NOPS, providing a forum
where cross-cutting o ceans i ssues could b e considered. M o r e o v e r , the l eadership
from t hese associ at ed committees was very active i n aspect s of NOPS work over t he
years.
In conducting NOPS, the C ommittee on C ommerce was mandated t o report its
findings, together with recommendations for s uch l egislation as i t deem ed advisable,
to the full S enate. According t o an undated C ommerce C o mmittee press brief,
r e leased after S enate p assage of S.Res. 222, the efforts o f NOPS were geared t o
action from t he outset, both i n affecting l egislation and in influencing deci sions in the
Ex ecutive Branch, rather than producing a nother l engt hy written s tudy. The intent
was t o accom p l i s h t hi s act i on-ori ent ed agenda wi t h speci al “bl ack l et t er” report s on
specific s ubjects, accompanied b y p roposed legi slation, if appropriate. An additional
benefi t woul d b e t he com m uni cat i o n o n o cean-rel a t e d i ssues wi t h i n t h e S enat e
among Senators, committees, and professional s taff members. Other publications,
printed heari n gs , a n d committee prints would be i ssued by NOPS, timed t o be
effective i n t he policy formulation proces s within Congress.4
S.Res. 222 traces its roots t o i nitial congressional i nterest d ating b ack to 1959.
In that year, t he S enate adopted S . Re s . 1 3 6 to focus attention o n t he ocean. The
resolution s tated, in part:
Expanded s tudies of the oceans a nd the ocean bottoms at all depths a re vital ...
to the r ehabilitation of our commercial f isheries and utilization of other present
or potential ocean resources, t o f a c i l itating commerce and navi gation, and t o
expanding our scientific knowledge ...
That resolution urged action by t he Pres ident on t he recommendations releas ed by the
C o m m ittee o n Oceanography of the National Academy o f S ciences (NASCO) i n a
report entitled Oceanography 1960 t o 1970. Later, i n 1965, debate began o n t he
Marine Resources and Engineering Devel opment Act , culminating i n its enactment
in 1966 as P.L. 89-454. This Marine Sciences Act, as it came t o b e known, called for
the United S tates t o formulate a poli c y “ t o devel op, encourage, and m ai nt ai n a
coordinated, comprehensive, and l ong-range n ational p rogram in marine science for
the b enefit of mankind.” That Act established a cabinet-level council in the W hite
House, chai red b y t he Vi ce P resi d ent , and s et i n m o t i o n t he st udi es of a s peci al bl ue
ribbon panel, the C ommission on Marine Science, Engi neering, and R esources. T he
work and recom m endat i ons of t h e M ari n e S ci ences C o m m i ssi on were feat ured i n a
multi-volume report i s s u ed i n 1969, Our N ation and the Sea.5 For its time, t hat


3 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Authorizing a National Ocean Policy
Study . Report t o Accompany S.Res. 222. Feb. 8, 1974. 93 rd Congress, 2nd Session, S.Rept.

93-685.p.1.


4 Senate National Ocean Policy . Senate Committee on Commerce press briefing memo,
undated [ February 1974]. p. 3 of 3.
5 Commi ssion on Marine Science, Engi neering, and Resources , Our Nation and the Sea: A
Plan for National Action , Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 305
(continued...)

report was a h i gh poi nt i n focusi ng nat i onal concern and act i o n o n o cean program s
and priorities. Lacking significant implementing l egislation, many of t he
Commission’s r eco m m e n dations still awaited action as o f 1973.6 It was t his
recogn ition o f i naction t hat, in J une 1973, led a number o f S enators t o b egin working
on drafting t he tex t that became S .Res. 222.
Scope, Timetable, Activities, and Staffing
According t o S .Res. 222, NOPS would i nclude, but not b e limited to, an
ex amination o f t he issues involved i n t he following areas: 7
! Marine fisheries and other living resources;
! Mi neral resources of t h e s eabed and s ubsoi l ;
! Coastal z one management;
! Ocean t ransport at i on;
! Research and t echnology;
! Law o f t he S ea;
! Government organiz ation;
! Pollution;
! Federal budget; and
! Education.
Although t here was n o s pecific time limitation on the study, for all practical
intents and purposes, NOPS was active from 1974 through 1994, after which time it
no longer appears i n t he listing of organizational s tructure for t he Senate Committee
o n C o m m erce, S ci ence, and T ransport at i o n as report ed i n t he Congressional Staff
Di rect ory ,theCongressional Yellow Book,ortheCongressional Directory. Through
the 94th Congress (1975-1976), t he Senate Commerce S ubcommittee o n Oceans and
Atmosphere continued t o ex i st, conducting m ost o f t he legi slative business o n o ceans
issues. During t he 95th through 9 7 th Congresses, neither NOPS nor a S ubcommittee
specifically related t o o ceans i ssues was noted under t he S e n a t e Committee o n
Commerce. Begi nning in the 98th Congress, NOPS was included, along with other
subcommittees, as part of t he Senate Committee on C ommerce, and progressively
carri ed a l arger l egi s l at i v e burden. C o i n ci dent wi t h NOP S d i s appearance from t hese
references , s tarting with the 104 th Congress in 1995, a S ubcommittee o n Oceans and
Fi sheries was established i n t he Commerce C ommittee and assumed t he legi slative
role for o ceans i ssues. This s ubcommit t e e a p p e a rs as p art o f t he committee’s
organiz ational s tructure for each of the years 1995-2002. Although NOP S authority
was s till technically in ex istence, the C ommittee l eadership elected not to invoke it,
creating, instea d , a s tanding Subco mmittee o n Oceans and Fisheries. In 2001, this
subcommittee was renamed t he Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fi sheries
(italics added).


5 (...continued)
p. ( See [ ht t p: / / www.l i b.noaa.gov/ edocs/ st r a t t on/ cont ent s .ht ml ] f or a c opy of t hi s r e por t .)
6 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Authorizing a National Ocean Policy
Study.p.3.
7 Ibid., p. 4.

A s earch of t h e C ongressi onal Inform at i o n S ervi ce (C IS ) d at abase reveal s t hat
over a 21-year period from 1974 through 1994, N O P S act ivities, either solely or
j o i n t l y with other S enat e or House committees or subcommittees, resulted i n t he
release o f 8 9 publications (see table 1 ) i n t he form of congressiona l h earings or
committee prints. The t opics ranged across s uch i ssues as : outer continental s helf oil
and gas development and the coastal z one; Law of the S ea; tankers and t he m arine
environment; Soviet ocean activities; coastal effects o f o ffshore energy development;
fishery conservation and management ; world energy outlook; renewable o cean
energy resources; pol ar resources an d pol ar oceans research; coast al z one
m anagem ent ; federal ocean program s ; gl obal environmental change research; m ari n e
mammal protection; environmental s at ellites; gl obal warming; weat her s ervices and
research; and seafood safety and quality assurance. Over the 21-year period, based
on the C IS database search, NOPS’ most active years w er e 1976-1978 and 1987-
l992.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings was the first chairman of NOPS. Although t here
were other chairmen i n i ntervening year s, Senator Hollings held the post from 1974-

1976 and from 1987-1994. S enat o r W arren G. M agnus on was chai r from 1977-1979;


Senator Howard W . C annon for 1980; Senator Bob Packwood from 1981-1984; and
Senator J ohn C. Danforth from 1985-1986.
NOPS was to have a core s taff consisting o f a directo r , 8 counsel, p rofessional
st aff m em bers, researchers, and s ecret ari al s t aff, who w ere t o b e p a rt o f t he
professional s taff o f t h e C o mmittee on C ommerce. NOPS functioned at t he full
committee l evel and was funded t hrough t he full committee b y way of regu lar S enate
Committee funding resolutions; however, funding resolutions ex amined did not gi ve
funding information s pecific t o NOPS. A t elephone conversation w i t h staff at t he
Commerce C ommittee confirmed t hat NOPS was funded t hrough t he f u l l
committee’s allotment. C onsulting t he Congressional Y ellow Book and t he
Congressional Staff Directory for t he years 1974-1994 shows t hat NOPS h ad as few
as one and as m any as s ix core staff assigned to it full time, i ncluding both m aj ority
and minority staff. Generally, i t was either three or four, s ometimes five, with an
average o f 3.95 full-time core staff. In ad d i t i o n , each of t h e o t h er st andi ng
Committees were to select a s taff member as p oint of contact to work cl osel y with
t h e NOP S s t aff. F i n a l l y, each S enat o r o n NOP S w as t o assi gn a m em ber o f h i s
personal s taff to act as liaison. Although i t was not mandated i n S .Res. 222, NOPS
was also t o h a v e established a Nati onal Ocean Policy Advisory Committee t o
facilitate communication bet ween NOPS m em bers and s taff and outside sources of
ex pertise. M e m b e r s o f t hat advisory committee were t o b e d rawn from academic
institutions, private industry, the bar, and environmental o rganizations. 9 However,
no record ex ists that such an Advisory Committee was ever creat ed.


8 Staff directors/chief c ounsels of NOPS were J ohn F. Hussey (1974-1975), Deborah J .
Stirling ( 1976-1977), Christopher L. K och ( 1978-1979), J ames S.W. Drewry (1980), Peter
A. Friedmann ( 1981-1982), Dennis Phe lan ( 1983-1984), Rober t E i senbud (1985-1986)
J a me s S.W. Drewry ( 1987), J . M ichael Nu ssman (1987-1992), a nd Penelope D. Dalton
(1992-1994).
9 Senate National Ocean Policy Study . Press briefing memo. p 2.

Achievements and Effectiveness
T h e 1 969 Stratton C ommission Report (named for Commission Chai rman J ulius
Stratton), Our N ation and the Sea, followed o n t he heels o f numerous writings about
t h e pot ent i al o f t he ocean t h at coul d b e m ost ful l y real i z ed i f t h e federal governm ent
were t o t a k e several l eadershi p act i ons. The report’s b road vision of a
comprehensive fede r a l a p proach to o cean topics garnered widespread public
attention. This vision has never been fully translat ed into public policy, despite the
efforts o f m any p roponents until a t least 1980. During the first years o f NOPS,
before 1980, the federal government was s till seeking a comprehensive framework,
most notably articulated in the Dep artment of Commerce’s 1978 report, U.S. Ocean
Policy i n t he 1970s: S tatus and Issues . 10
NOPS reflected this broad v i s i o n a bout the b enefit of a comprehensive
perspective. It had broad jurisdiction, but less than sole or compreh e n s i ve
responsibility for o cean topics in the S enate. It was created at a time of wide-ranging
congressi onal (and publ i c) i nt erest i n o cean m at t ers. O rgani z i n g v i rt u al l y al l o cean
t opi c s t o b e consi d ered by t h e s am e S en ators and the s ame s taff (for s ome t opics
alone, and for o thers, jointly) allowed each topic t o b e l ooked at not only o n its own,
but also as part of a l arger whole t hat comprised the effort in the 1970s to formulate
a n at i onal o cean pol i cy.
Congress never d id try t o enact a n ational o cean policy, but it responded t o m any
of t h e m aj or el em ent s t h at were vi ewed as bei n g cri t i cal t o a com prehe n s i v e
framework. After 1974, NOPS p layed a central role wh e n t h e S enate addressed
major ocean issues that had high public visibility and i nvolved m ultiple dimensions.
Among the m ost notable were: t he U.S. response t o completion o f t he multi-decade
Law o f t he Sea n egotiations; t he push t o d evelop offshore o i l a n d g a s resources in
“frontier areas” i n response t o t he energy crisis; and a m ajor overhaul o f fisheries law
t o p rotect and p romote the domestic fishing i ndustry while using s cience to m o r e
effectively m anage commercial populati ons. For ex ample, the Office of Technology
Assessm ent (OTA) ex am i n ed t h e pot ent i al i m p act s o f o ffshore energy d evel opm ent
at the request of NOPS i n a 1976 study, entitled Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy
Systems. NOPS t ook a b roader view of ocean topics than other committees and
subcommittees with more limited j urisdic tion i n committee prints like t he 1974 study
p r ep ared b y t h e C o n gres s i o n a l R es earch S e rvice (CRS), entitl ed The Economic Value
of Ocea n R es o u r ces to the United States. In addition, a m ajor battleground in the
“col d war” was t he ocean, a n d i t was w i d el y b el i eved t hat t he out com e of t h at war
could depend, in part , on use and control of t he o cean s. NOPS responded t o t his
t o p i c i n a 1976 committee p rint prepared by CRS and consultants, entitled Soviet
Oceans Devel opment , that looked well beyond the military dimensions of Russian
act i v i t y and pot ent i al i n t he oceans.
NOPS l eft a large, diverse, and impre ssive legacy of publication b etween 1974
and 1994. It publ i s hed 89 hearing records and committee pri nts over t hat time
period, with more committee prints (i.e., s t udi es) i n t he fi rst d ecade and m o re heari n g


10 U.S. Departme nt of Comme rce, U.S. Ocean Policy i n t he 1970s: Stat u s a n d Issues ,
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. 334 p.

records i n t he second. Much of this work went beyond specific l egislative p roposals
to ex plore t opics that were not being d irectly addressed t hrough p ending legi slation.
The earl i est years were dom i n at ed by offshore energy d evel o p m e n t i ssues, and t h e
fi nal years were dom i n at ed by fi sheri es m anagem ent i ssues. T hose t wo i ssue areas
received t he most frequent attention i n h earings records and committee p rints
attributed to NOPS. Many of the NOPS publications had a strong internati o n a l
dimension. Table 1 summarizes t he main topics addressed b y NOPS. Almost all o f
thes e hearing records and reports addres s e d m ultiple topics , but usually had a
dominatetheme.
Table 1. N OPS Publications (by main t opic)
Topic No. o f publications
Energy (offshore d evelopment and marine transportation) 23
Fisheries20
International (incl udes global climate change) 11
Coastal9
In stitutions (NOAA, Coast Guard, etc.) 6
Marine Protection (mammals, s anct uaries ) 5
S ci ence and R esearch 4
Waste and Marine Pollution 3
Weather3
Omnibus3
Consumer (food safety) 2
NOPS was small; it had fewer than 6 staff members m ost of t he time. Almost
al l staff members were at t o rn eys, and few were trai ned primarily as scientists. It
dealt with this limitation by drawing on two congressional s uppor t agencies, OTA
an d C R S , t o do m aj or studies that it would publish as committee reports. OTA’s
work for NOPS was concentrated in the e nergy area, and CRS did work under m any
topics. Among the m ost notable contributions from CRS were legi slative histories
of major l egislation, i ncl uding the Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
the C oastal Zone Management Act, while OTA’s m ost not abl e work m ay h ave b een
a 1 9 7 6 t wo-volume s tudy of coastal impact s o f m aj or new energy-related
development, entitled Coastal Effect s of Offshore Energy Sys tems .
The NOPS approach — c reating an e ntity with broad responsibilities —
contrasts with the m ore s egmented orga niz ation i n t he House t o a d d r e s s t he same
suite of issues during t he same time period. The House M erchant M arine and
Fisheries C ommittee h ad jurisdiction over m any o cean issues, but, like NOPS, shared
some with other committ ees . It was divided i nto several subcommittees with
responsibilities t hat changed from C ongress to Congress, depending on how the chair
and s enior m em bers saw t he priorities and wanted to organize them selves . This
organi z at i o n al l o wed m ore s t aff and m ore M em bers t o focus o n v ari ous ocean i ssues.
S i n c e House committee and subcommittee s taff were larger and had more divers e
backgrounds than at NOPS, they drew less on OTA, CRS, and others for assistance
and s upport. The t rade-off for t his t yp e o f o rganiz ation was less integration o f o cean
topics. Any integration of issues had to occur at the full committee level, and the



record i ndi cat es t h i s was not com m on. Bot h NOP S and t h e M erchant M ar i n e a n d
Fi sheries C ommittee (as well as OTA) disappeared i n t h e s ame year, 1995, in
response t o m ajority party emphasis on cost reduction and s t r e a mlining of
governm ent . T he di sappearance of t h ese t hree resources has b een associ at ed wi t h
changes i n how Congress addresses o cean issues, i ncluding less visibility, ex cept i n
response t o p roblems (e.g., overfishing), and a l e s s c o m prehensive ex amination o f
ocea n s t o p i cs t h an previ ousl y. T hese changes i n approach t o oceans i ssues are
largely mirrored b y s imilar changes in a pproach in recent Administrations.
FutureProspects
A num ber o f recent event s rai se t h e quest i o n o f whet h er t h e NOP S m odel m i ght
be wort hy of renewed consi d erat i o n for addressi ng oceans i ssues t h at m i ght ari s e i n
the 108 th Congress. Most importantly, t he Oceans Act of 2000 (P .L. 106-256) set i n
motion a process t hat s ought to replicate that o f t he Commission on Marine Science,
Engi neering, and R es o u r ces which p roduced the S tratton R eport i n t he late 1960s.
The Oceans Act of 2000 created a C ommission on Ocean Policy t hat i s t o p resent a
wide-ranging report t o t he 108th Congress in J une 2003. S p ecifically, §3(f)(2) o f P .L.

106-256 directed that this report i nclude:


! An asses s m ent of ex i sting and planned facilities associ at ed with
ocean and coastal activities i ncl uding human resources, v essels,
computers, satellites, and other app r o priat e platforms and
technologies;
! A review o f e x i s t ing and planned o cean and coastal activities o f
federal entities, recommendations for changes in such activities
necessary t o i m p rove effi ci ency and effect i v eness and t o r educe
dupl i cat i o n o f federal effort s;
! A rev iew o f t he cu mulative effect of federal l aws and regu lations on
U.S. ocean and coastal activities and resources and an ex amination
of those l aws and regu lations for i nconsistencies and contradictions
that might harm those o cean and coastal activities and resources, and
recommendatio n s f o r resolving such inconsistencies t o t he ex tent
pract i cabl e (t hi s revi ew w i l l al so consi d er confl i ct s wi t h st at e o cean
and coastal management regimes);
! A review o f t he known and anticipated supply o f, and d emand for,
ocean and coast al resources of t h e Uni t ed S t at es;
! A review o f and recommendations concerning the relationship
bet w een federal , st at e, and l ocal governments and the p rivate sector
in planning and carrying out ocean and coastal activities;
! A review o f opportunities for the d evelopment o f o r i n v e s t m e nt in
new p roducts, t echnologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal
activities;
! A review o f p revious and o n g o i n g state and federal efforts t o
enhance t he effect i v eness and i n t egrat i o n o f o c ean and coast al
activities;
! Recommendations for any modifications to U.S. laws, regulations,
and t he administrative s tructure of Ex ecutive agencies, necessary to
improve the understanding, m anagement, conservation, use o f, and
access t o o cean and coast al resources; and



! A revi ew o f t he effect i v e n ess and adequacy of ex i s t i n g federal
i n t eragency o cean pol i cy coordi nat i on m echani s m s , and
recommendations for changing o r improving the effectivenes s of
such mechanisms necessary to respond to or i m p lement the
recommendations of the C ommission.
The range of issues that have arisen before the C ommission during its early fact -
finding hearings suggests t hat congressional attention t o its reports might benefit
from a coordinated approach. In addition, deliberations by a p arallel p rivate effort,
The P ew Oceans C ommission, 11 initiated by t he Pew C haritable Trusts, will likel y
bring additional i ssues and concerns to the t able in early 2003.
Advocates of reviving NOPS s uggest that benefits of this action might include
1) a m eans for the comprehensive education o f M embers and s taff, including Senate
Commer c e C o m m ittee M embers, about oceans i ssues; 2 ) a mechanism for
coordi nat i n g report s , b ri efi n gs , and oversi ght heari n gs on key t opi cs rel at ed t o o ceans
i ssues; and 3) a way t o consi d er s p e c i f i c o c e ans i ssues i n a b roader oceans pol i cy
contex t. Consideration might al so be gi ven t o creating an entity independent of any
particular parent co m mittee, in recognition t hat committee j urisdiction concerns
could impede work o n i ssues that cross t he boundaries of tradi t i onal committee
jurisdiction when a single committee ex ercises a l ead role.
On the other hand, critics of reviving NOPS are concerned t hat NOPS could 1)
create another l evel of organiz ation, dupli cat i v e o f what al ready ex i st s; 2) drai n
already s carce funds; and 3) limit effective control t o one or a few Members. Some
critics also q u e s t i o n why an entity such as NOPS s hould ex i st in one Chamber,
suggesting i t would work better i f a similar companion group were creat ed in both
Chambers or a j oint House-Senate group were formed.


11 See [ http://www.pewoceans.org/ ] f or activities of t he Pew Oceans Commi ssion.