<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:47886.wais]
THE OCEANS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1213
THE OCEANS ACT OF 1997
H.R. 2547
TO DEVELOP NATIONAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO OCEAN AND COASTAL ACTIVITIES
H.R. 3445
THE OCEAN COMMISSION ACT
__________
MARCH 19, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-886 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
Christopher Sterns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 19, 1998...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bilbray, Hon. Brian P., a Represenative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 37
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, D. James, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
Department of Commerce..................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Brink, Kenneth, Chairman, Ocean Studies Board, National
Academy of Sciences........................................ 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Gutting, Richard, Executive Vice President, National
Fisheries Institute, Alexandria, Virginia.................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Kelly, Paul L., Senior Vice President, Rowan Companies, Inc.. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
McManus, Roger, President, Center for Marine Conservation,
Washington, DC............................................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 128
Merrell, William J., Senior Fellow and President, H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 119
Additional material supplied:
Memorandum from Committee on Resources to Members of the
Subcommittee............................................... 109
The American Association of Port Authorities................. 47
Text of S. 1213.............................................. 49
Text of H.R. 2547............................................ 75
Text of H.R. 3445............................................ 93
HEARING ON S. 1213, THE OCEANS ACT OF 1997; H.R. 2547, TO DEVELOP
NATIONAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO OCEAN AND COASTAL ACTIVITIES; AND H.R.
3445, THE OCEAN COMMISSION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony on three bills
that build upon the foundation established more than 30 years
ago with the enactment of the Marine Resources Engineering and
Development Act. By the year 2010, it has been estimated that
127 million, or 60 percent of all Americans, will live along
our coasts. As someone who is proud to represent a coastal
district, I have dedicated myself to the health and vitality of
our oceans' ecosystems.
The three bills we are considering today S. 1213, which was
introduced by Senator Hollings and passed by the Senate, H.R.
2547, introduced by Congressman Farr and H.R. 3445, which I
have introduced, would all establish a new ocean policy
commission and renew the directive to the President to
establish a national ocean policy. S. 1213 would also establish
a new ocean council comprised of representatives from those
Federal agencies charged with responsibility over the oceans
programs.
[The text of the bills may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. During the past three years, this Subcommittee
has invested a great deal of effort in trying to improve U.S.
nautical charting programs in dealing with the persistent
management problems facing our fisheries industries. A formal
review of all of these policies by a group of independent,
nongovernmental experts would give us a fresh look at the
problems and potential solutions on how to improve our oceans
programs for the 21st century.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and compliment the gentleman Mr. Farr for authoring H.R. 2547,
the Oceans Act of 1997. He has contributed a great deal to the
debate on this most important subject.
Finally, I came across a characterization of the ocean that
I would like to use today. The quote is this, ``The oceans are
like a planet's last great living wilderness, man's only
remaining frontier on earth and perhaps his last chance to
prove himself a rational species.''
I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Pallone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, the Subcommittee
will hear testimony on three bills that build upon the
foundation established more than thirty years ago with the
enactment of the Marine Resources, Engineering and Development
Act.
This historic legislation established the Commission on
Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, commonly referred to
as the Stratton Commission, which directed the President to
establish a National Ocean Policy. As a direct result of the
Stratton Commission's report, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration was created and the Coastal Zone
Management Program was approved by Congress.
By the year 2010, it has been estimated that 127 million
people or 60 percent of all Americans will live along our
coasts. As someone who is proud to represent a coastal
district, I have dedicated myself to the health and vitality of
our ocean ecosystems.
The three bills we are considering today--S. 1213, which
was introduced by Senator Hollings and passed by the Senate;
H.R. 2547, introduced by Congressman Parr, and H.R. 3445, which
I have introduced--would all establish new ocean policy
commissions and and renew the directive to the President to
establish a National Ocean Policy. S. 1213 would also establish
a new Ocean Council comprised of representatives from those
Federal agencies charged with responsibility over ocean
programs.
The United Nations has declared 1998 to be the
International Year of the Ocean. This year-long event is
designed to increase public awareness of the importance of the
world's oceans. It also provides a unique opportunity for this
Nation to review our ocean and coastal programs to determine
which programs are working, which are outdated, or which could
be changed to improve their efficiency.
As a maritime nation, we have always been aware of how
critical oceans are to our well-being and the environment. For
instance, the commercial fishing industry alone contributes
$111 billion per year to our national economy. There is always
a need to further invigorate our ocean and coastal programs.
During the past three years, this Subcommittee has invested
a great deal of effort trying to improve U.S. nautical charting
programs and dealing with persistent management problems facing
our fishery resources. A formal review of all of these policies
by a group of independent non-governmental experts would give
us a fresh look at the problems and potential solutions on how
to improve our ocean programs for the 21st century.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and I compliment Mr. Farr for authoring H.R. 2547, the Oceans
Act of 1997. He has contributed a great deal to the debate on
this important subject.
Finally, I came across this characterization of the ocean
that I would like to quote today: ``The oceans are like the
planet's last great living wilderness, man's only remaining
frontier on earth, and perhaps his last chance to prove himself
a rational species.''
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today on the legislation to create a national ocean
commission. I think this is obviously important. The U.N. has
declared 1998 the ``International Year of the Ocean,'' but we
don't really need a year of the ocean to recognize the
importance of and the complexities of the economic value and
also the quality of life derived from healthy and well-managed
ocean and coastal resources.
As we talked about at yesterday's hearing on NOAA's budget,
more than anything else I think the ``International Year of the
Ocean'' should be the opportunity to make sure that the
necessary resources are made available to NOAA so that existing
coastal and ocean programs can operate to the best of their
abilities.
In this ``International Year of the Ocean,'' I do think
that it would also serve us well to take a step back and
evaluate, look at what we have achieved in terms of ocean and
coastal research and resource conservation and management and
also look at where we want to be in the next millennium and how
we are going to get there.
I think that the legislation before us today sponsored by
my colleagues Mr. Farr and also our chairman will help us do
just that. These bills are modeled after the creation of the
Stafford Commission under the Marine Resources and Engineering
Development Act of 1966. In fact, it was as a result of the
Stratton Commission's final report that NOAA, in fact, was
created in 1970. Yet 30 years after the original Stratton
Commission, we still do not have a national ocean policy.
It is my hope that we can pass legislation this session
that will help us move toward the development of a
comprehensive ocean policy in the years ahead. Just as the
original Stratton Commission helped us move in the right
direction, I think that Stratton II as authorized by these
bills will help us to reorganize and redirect our efforts with
respect to coastal and ocean policies.
I am very pleased that the Senate passed the Oceans Act of
1997 introduced by Senator Hollings, and I think in the House
we should follow the Senate's lead and pass similar legislation
as soon as possible so that even in this abbreviated session we
can get a bill to the President's desk and signed in honor of
the ``International Year of the Ocean'' before the year is, in
fact, over.
Looking at the bills before us today, the only major
difference that I can see is the establishment of a national
ocean council in addition to the proposed commission. While the
Hollings bill contains such a provision, the Farr and Saxton
bills do not. I would hope that today's panel would comment on
the merits of establishing such a council. I look forward to
having their input.
On a related matter, I also hope to hear from the
administration today on the status of the White House National
Conference on the Ocean. I know Mr. Farr has been the champion
of this issue and requested that the White House hold the
conference on the ocean in honor of the ``International Year of
the Ocean,'' and I am anxious to know the status of this
conference and how it may relate to the legislation before us
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
legislation to create a National Ocean Commission.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important year for the oceans
and ocean policy. The United Nations has declared 1998 the
International Year of the Ocean.
Now, I don't think that I or many of my colleagues on this
Subcommittee need an International Year of the Ocean to
recognize the importance of, the complexities of, the economic
value of, or the quality of life derived from healthy and well
managed ocean and coastal resources. And as we talked about at
yesterday's hearing on NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget, more
than anything else, I think that in this--the International
Year of the Ocean--we should be making sure that the necessary
resources are made available to NOAA so that existing coastal
and ocean programs can operate to the best of their abilities.
But in this International Year of the Ocean, I do think
that it would also serve us well to take a step back and
evaluate--look at what we have achieved in terms of ocean and
coastal research and resource conservation and management, and
also to look at where we want to be in the next millennium, and
how we are going to get there.
I think that the legislation before us today will help us
to do just that. It is modelled after the creation of the
Stratton Commission under the Marine Resources and Engineering
Development Act of 1966. In fact, it was as a result of the
Stratton Commission's final report that the very agency I just
mentioned, NOAA, was created in 1970.
That gives you a sense of just how far we've come in terms
of ocean policy since the original Stratton Commission. Back
then NOAA didn't even exist--nor did the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the National Sea Grant College Program, NURP,
and other successful coastal and ocean programs.
Yet 30 years after the original Stratton Commission, we
still do not have a National Ocean Policy. It is my hope that
we can pass legislation this session that will help move us
towards the development of a comprehensive ocean policy in the
years ahead. Just as the original Stratton Commission helped us
move in the right direction, I think that Stratton II, as
authorized by these bills, will help us to re-organize and
redirect our efforts with respect to coastal and ocean
policies.
I believe that a national ocean policy is important in
order to help us frame the debate on coastal and oceans issues.
It will help us establish the current state of marine affairs,
where we should be going, and what we need to do to get us
there. A few examples of areas which would likely benefit from
such a re-examination include: the role of oceans in human
health, how to handle our current fishery management problems,
and what to do about the increasing pressures being placed on
the coastal zone as a result of increasing coastal populations.
I am pleased that earlier this session, the Senate passed
the Oceans Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hollings. I think
we in the House should follow the Senate's lead and pass
similar legislation as soon as possible so that even in this
abbreviated session, we can get a bill to the President's desk
and signed in honor of the International Year of the Ocean--
before that year is actually over.
Looking at the bills before us today, the only major
difference that I can see is the establishment of a National
Ocean Council, in addition to the proposed Commission. While
the Hollings bill contains such a provision, the Farr and
Saxton bills do not. I hope that today's panel will comment on
the merits of establishing such a Council, and I look forward
to having their input.
Regardless of this issue, however, I want to make certain
that we move forward on this legislation. As I just mentioned,
with the limited number of legislative days remaining in the
current session, we must act now to get an ocean bill to the
President's desk, so that it can be signed by year's end.
On a related matter, I hope to hear from the Administration
today on the status of the White House or National Conference
on the Ocean. I and many of my colleagues, and I know Mr. Farr
has really been the champion of this issue, have requested that
the White House hold a Conference on the Ocean in honor of the
International Year of the Ocean. I am anxious to know the
status of this conference, and how it may relate to the
legislation before us today.
In closing, let me just say that as we move towards the
21st century, I think we should re-affirm our commitment to
responsibly managing and protecting our ocean and coastal
resources. I think it only appropriate that in this, the
International Year of the Ocean, we focus on the big picture
and develop a long-range, national ocean and coastal policy. I
think that the bills that we are considering today will help us
do that. But even more important, in this and every year, we
should make certain that we provide the necessary resources to
accomplish the goals that we set with resect to ocean and
coastal policy.
With that, I would like to welcome the panel today and I
look forward to hearing from the Administration and others on
this important matter.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
I would like to call on the author of the original Oceans
Commission Act that was introduced in the House, Mr. Farr, who
has not only been a leader, but has been very instrumental in
moving us more quickly than Congress usually moves on issues
such as this. We thank him for his energetic, enthusiastic
leadership.
Mr. Farr?
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much for that kind statement, but
it also goes to a chairman who is very interested in this issue
and can make things happen. I appreciate you making things
happen.
As stated, today is the day that we are having the hearing
on the proposed legislation, both the Senate and the versions
in the House. I think Mr. Pallone outlined the difference
between the two, the major, and I would like to go into more
specifics in a moment. Just a few comments about the
opportunity we have before us.
You know, rarely in politics if you look at the big picture
in Washington do you have the ability to focus on a moment when
Congress, the legislative branch of government; both Houses,
the Senate and the House of Representatives; the
administration, the executive branch of government; and
essentially the international community, the United Nations,
are all on the same page. I cannot think of anything other than
the Middle East right now that has got everybody focused, and
yet we are focused on the oceans.
This is remarkable politics and it is remarkable timing
because the ocean really is our planet. We are known as the
``water planet'' because of our oceans, 71 percent of the
earth's coverage. As Mr. Saxton so eloquently said, it really
is the ``last frontier.''
Really, what I hope comes out of all of this is not only
the legislation to bring knowledge and then to understand where
we need to go, it is sort of what comes out of this legislation
is a commission's report to the executive branch and to
Congress, and then there will be roles to take to implement the
recommendations. Some of them will be administrative
recommendations, some will be legislative, but there is a
bigger role, and that is the education role, that is: to bring
the consciousness of the crisis that we have before us to the
people of America and likewise to the people of the world, so
that we can have a serious tool to use in being able to protect
this planet and protect our livelihoods.
The reason I get so interested in the oceans is not only do
I live in this great meeting of land and water on the central
coast of California, but we have learned that the ocean is so
much a part of the way we are in our livelihood. It is the
economics is the ocean and it has been the livelihood for the
fisheries industry. We have lost one. We have lost the sardine
industry. If you read ``Cannery Row,'' by Steinbeck, then you
will see what we lost.
We have had an endangered species, the California sea
otter, which everybody thought was extinct. It is now back and
being back is big economics. Lots of people come to see it. A
lot of things are being produced to honor the sea otter and to
show it. It is not only the fisheries, but it is the wildlife
and it is the threatened ecosystem, because as our earth gets
more populated what we will understand is the demographics of
world populations.
Certainly, here in the United States and Members of
Congress are concerned because population increases means
census and census means reapportionment, and reapportionment
means reelection or not reelection and it means political
districts. If you look at what is happening in America, the
populations are going to the coastal communities.
The remarkable thing about this is that, you know, the last
time Congress looked at this was back in 1966. I mean, 30 years
have gone by since we have really taken a comprehensive look at
it. If we do not, the situation is only going to get worse.
Two-thirds of the world's cities with populations over 1.6
million are located in the coastal zone. By the year 2010, it
is estimated that 75 percent of the United States' population
will live 50 miles from the coast.
Mr. Chairman, this Committee on the oceans may be the most
important committee in Congress, if most of the people are
going to live right around it. With all of the potential
environmental consequences and having so many people
concentrated in areas of such diverse, and I think what we are
recognizing, such fragile ecosystems is a constant meeting of
land and water.
The problem is that we are not investing enough in learning
about our oceans. For all of the money that we have spent in
space exploration, witness know woefully little about the
amazing characteristics of 71 percent of the planet's surface--
and that is, our world's oceans. In fact, we know less about
the surface of our own planet than we do about that of Mars,
Venus and the moon. I believe we need to put our national ocean
exploration programs on par with space programs in our efforts
to conserve the marine environment at least equal to that
provided to the land portion of our country.
With this in mind, the bills before you, this is a
bipartisan effort. We are not here to have pride of authorship
because I think both Mr. Saxton and I have long enough
political careers to realize that there is a bigger picture
here, and that is: to develop a piece of legislation that
really meets the need.
What I would just suggest in closing, Mr. Chairman, is that
the one thing that I think we need to strengthen in reading
both my bill and yours and Senator Hollings' is that we need
more language in here to recognize what role states are playing
in creating ocean plans.
My own state of California, for example, has done a very
comprehensive study of what the ocean environment is and what
the needs are out to the 200-mile limit. With that report, they
are now in the process of sort of creating a state coastal
ocean management plan to resolve conflicts of the ocean. It is
a very comprehensive report and a very good one. We ought to
recognize where states are like your state of New Jersey and
our state are doing things it can be better coordinated.
Secondly, I think we also need to ratchet up the interest
in the role of education in all of this. We are not going to
get anywhere even with the expo in Lisbon and this
``International Year of the Oceans,'' this legislation and the
oceans conference if we do not better disseminate what we are
learning from it. I think we have a role to do that in the
legislation, and I would like to address that as well.
With that, I look forward to the hearing. I echo the
concerns that Mr. Pallone said. I talked with Dr. Baker this
morning, and I appreciate the discussion after yesterday's
meeting. He has assured us, and maybe he will do it in his own
words, that he is going to meet with Members of Congress to
coordinate with them and have them participate in the year of
the ocean. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Before we turn to our witnesses, I would like to emphasize
that the Hollings bill, the Farr bill and the Saxton bill are
all very similar. In fact, I have here a side-by-side from two
sides of this paper. As I look at the various sections of the
bill, in most cases there is no difference. We are, in essence,
together on the concept, and the nuts and bolts that need to be
changed we will certainly be able to work out in an amicable
fashion.
Dr. Baker and Dr. Merrell, we have been joined by our
friend from Southern California, Mr. Bilbray, and I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Bilbray be invited and permitted to
sit with us on the panel today.
Thank you for being here. Did you have an opening statement
that you would like to make?
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my tardiness. My
mind-set, I was thinking of the ocean and proceeded west
immediately and ended up in the Rayburn Building.
Mr. Saxton. Only someone from California could do that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilbray. Well, at least when you grow up a block from
the beach, you pretty well figure it is not far and you do find
it if you go west.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank you for the
opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee of this
important hearing of one of the planet's most precious
resources, the ocean, being second only in my opinion to the
children of our communities.
We are here today about three similar bills--S. 1213, H.R.
2547 and H.R. 3445--all of which share a common goal of a long-
term conservation of our ocean resources. I am proud to be a
co-sponsor of H.R. 3445, which you introduced along with Mr.
Gilchrest, and I also wish to commend my fellow colleague from
California, Sam Farr, and also the support of Senator Ernest
Hollings of South Carolina for the hard work of actually
addressing this issue of how we move toward a cleaner ocean in
the ``Year of the Ocean.''
As a lifelong resident of San Diego, I have grown up
working and playing in the ocean. I have surfed, swam in the
ocean since a boy. I have worked as a diver. I have cleaned
naval ships in San Diego Harbor. I have dove for urchins in
Abalonia and Pacific Ocean. I have even dove on yachts in the
Gulf of Mexico. I have been a lifeguard, and now I spend much
of my time involved with my family at the beach, in the ocean
and participating in the area.
This is also a unique perspective for me because too often
we approach the ocean as being something esoteric and out
there. It is not out there. We are here and the ocean is part
of our human experience. It is an environmental and economic
and, yes, even sometimes a spiritual relationship we have, and
it is something that we must consider in our decisionmaking
process to guide us in actions working with local communities
and their elected officials as Members of Congress.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to be able to benefit
from the great relationship with the ocean and believe that now
we have a responsibility to ensure that my children and your
children and our grandchildren are able to experience the same
relationship. I know this is a goal which we share and my
colleagues here today on both sides of the aisle are working
together to accomplish this goal. I am excited to be working
with them on legislation to develop and implement a national
ocean policy.
One aspect of the task force before us which particularly
interests me is the high potential for contribution from our
private sector in enhancing our existing knowledge based upon
the ocean. We have made progress in recent years in
streamlining some of government's programs which were either
redundant or operating completely independent of each other,
and we have also begun to see potential applications of
declassified military technology to ocean-related research and
policy.
However, in establishing a commission on ocean policy,
ultimate formation of the national ocean policy, I want to make
it a high priority to involve the experience, wisdom and
perceptive and wide varying perceptions of ocean experts.
During my time in Congress, I have relied on input from
organizations ranging from the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography to Surf Rider Foundation in making my decisions on
ocean-related matters, and the range of perceptions has helped
me guide my thinking and making sound science-based decisions.
I know my colleagues here today rely on similar brain-trusts in
making decisions which affect the resources of their own
districts, and I want to make sure that the commission and the
policy which we ultimately establish reflected the sort of
opening approach.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by saying as
somebody who not only got to enjoy the good things of the
ocean, I grew up in a community that has been over the last 30
years one of the most polluted and impacted communities in the
United States, I have seen where good intentions of Washington
did not culminate in good environment in the ocean.
I hope that we move beyond the concept that what we did in
the past is good enough and that we move beyond the concept
that we cannot do better. I think we can and will by working
with the community and working with science. I hope today we
start the policy that caring for the ocean is not enough. We
need to be well-informed, not just well-intentioned to protect
the resource for our children and grandchildren.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this
hearing today.
Mr. Saxton. I would ask unanimous consent that all
Subcommittee members be permitted to include their opening
statements in the record without objection.
Our first panel consists of Dr. D. James Baker, under
secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the Department of
Commerce, and Dr. William J. Merrell, senior fellow and
president, the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics
and Environment.
Let me invite you to proceed. You have those little lights
in front of you there. They are kind of a reminder that when 5
minutes goes by we would appreciate you summarizing as soon as
possible after that.
Dr. Baker, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF D. JAMES BAKER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Baker. Thank you, Chairman Saxton, Congressman Farr and
Congressman Bilbray.
It is a great opportunity for us to be here to testify on
the pending House bills H.R. 2547 and H.R. 3445 legislation to
review, recommend and implement national ocean policies for the
next century. I agree with the Subcommittee that 1998 is the
``International Year of the Ocean.'' It represents an excellent
opportunity for the Nation to initiate a major review of its
ocean policies and to take actions to improve our understanding
of ocean resources and systems.
For the reasons stated below, the Administration believes
that the creation of a limited-term nonpartisan commission to
review U.S. domestic ocean policies and programs will yield
substantial and worthwhile benefits for the Nation.
The Administration has been reviewing the three bills that
are the subject of today's hearing, H.R. 2547, which was
introduced by Representative Farr with 34 co-sponsors including
you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives Abercrombie and
Gilchrest; H.R. 3445, which you introduced last week, Mr.
Chairman, co-sponsored by Representatives Gilchrest and
Bilbray; and the bill passed by the Senate at the end of the
first session of the Congress S. 1213. Just before Senate
consideration of S. 1213, the Administration indicated its
support for Senate passage of S. 1213, as modified by the
Manager's Amendment. The Administration looks forward to
working with you, the members of the Subcommittee and the full
Resources Committee to craft an ``Oceans Act'' that builds on
these three bills. We will provide detailed Administration
comments on the House bills in a views letter in the very near
future.
Mr. Chairman, if we could provide for the record the letter
that was sent by Secretary of Commerce Daley supporting S.
1213, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Saxton. It will be included in the record. Thank you.
Mr. Baker. The three bills are different and the
Administration would like to work with you to address the
issues they raise. Today, I will focus on the two House bills.
The guiding principal for the Administration is an Oceans Act
that contributes to preservation of the Nation's ocean and
coastal areas and does not infringe on the prerogatives of the
President and the Executive Branch.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, today, half of the U.S.
population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30
percent of the Gross Domestic Product is generated in the
coastal zone. Coastal areas are also prime areas for
recreation. But, many of our ocean and coastal resources once
considered inexhaustible are now severely depleted. Wetlands
and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and other
human activities. This year natural forces are again
threatening communities and economies along all of our coasts.
Even if this were not the ``International Year of the Ocean,''
there are ample reasons to focus national attention on the
health of our ocean and coastal regions and resources.
More than 30 years ago, in 1966, legislation was enacted
calling for a comprehensive national program to explore the
oceans, develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the
sea. The 1966 Act established a commission commonly known as
the ``Stratton Commission.'' The importance of the Commission
and its report cannot be underestimated, especially for those
of us who owe our jobs to the creation of those agencies. The
passage of the legislation and the creation of the commission
itself helped call national attention to the ocean and the
coast. The commission's report has helped shape U.S. domestic
ocean policy for three decades.
NOAA, the agency I am proud to administer, was born from
the Stratton Commission study. Important national programs for
defense, coastal and fisheries management, offshore
development, oceanography, and marine transportation were
either initiated or advanced in that study.
Much has changed in 30 years. Scientific and technological
advances now provide tools and insights that could only be
imagined in the 1960's. Ocean-going commerce and the size of
international fleets have increased dramatically; international
maritime trade is expected to triple again over the next
generation. Exploration of the deep ocean has discovered new
mysteries such as thermal vents and many new species. Some
discoveries have led to bio-medical advances. These modern
changes, discoveries and advances have improved our
understanding of the ocean, its resources, and the relationship
between ocean, climate, and the coast. We still have much to
learn and do. For example, satellite imaging and ocean
observing systems in the Pacific have made monitoring
phenomenon such as El Nino possible, making it possible to
mitigate the impacts such events can have on diverse aspects of
our economy and infrastructure. Other technologies have
dramatically improved our capability to monitor how human
activities alter and affect the health of sensitive coastal
regions and habitats. New technologies will help offset the
risk of increased marine commerce and larger ships by providing
mariners with much more accurate and timely depth, water level
and related information.
The role of governments and how they administer programs
have also changed dramatically. Legislation and administrative
policies have created a new federalism emphasizing state and
Federal partnerships. Universities and the private sector are
playing increasingly important roles in achieving Federal roles
and objectives. Establishing an Ocean Commission will help
highlight and prioritize the direction of our future national
efforts to reap the benefits of the ocean and its resources as
we work to preserve ocean uses and resources for future
generations.
A new commission will also help the nation's ocean experts
and interests to step back and review our ocean policies and
examine our existing tool box of scientific, engineering and
management tools. We will have the all-too-rare opportunity to
look at the big picture to see what works, what does not, what
needs changing, and what new opportunities, ideas, and visions
have emerged. The Commission will help focus national attention
on ocean activities, promote interagency cooperation, and
strengthen partnerships with private and public entities
engaged in ocean activities.
The objectives outlined in the bills provide adequate
guidance for the new commission. Those objectives are broad
enough to encompass most every aspect of marine science,
research and management without unduly restricting the
discretion necessary for the commission to conduct a thoughtful
and successful evaluation and analysis. For example, broad
objectives to expand understanding the marine environment,
promote stewardship, protect marine resources, prevent
pollution, and reduce risks, provide clear yet general
direction for the commission.
The 104th Congress recognized the importance of
coordination when it established the National Ocean Partnership
Program (NOPP) to strengthen cooperation in ocean research and
development through partnerships between Federal agencies,
academia, and the private sector.
I would just like to conclude with comments about the key
opportunity preceding the establishment of the Oceans
Commission, and that is the National Conference on the Year of
the Ocean that is scheduled to take place sometime in June in
Monterey Bay, California. The conference will be hosted by
Secretary Daley and Secretary of the Navy Dalton. The
Conference has four broad themes: ocean commerce, global
security, environment and health, education and exploration.
We look forward to working with Congress, as I have said to
Congressman Farr, to develop the agenda and participation on
this conference and the events before and after, which I think
will be opportunity to expand participation.
With experts from all ocean fields participating in the
conference, it offers us a great opportunity to identify and
highlight many of the oceans issues the commission may want to
address. It is my hope that the Oceans Act will pass before the
June conference, and we look forward to working with members of
this Committee and other stakeholders as the conference is
developed.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying we have learned
much in the three decades since the Stratton Commission
completed its work. It is time to reexamine U.S. programs and
policies with respect to the oceans and Great Lakes. The
pending legislation provides a starting point to establish
policies to guide future research, exploration, utilization,
and conservation of ocean and coastal resources for the next
generation.
I support the need to enhance and maintain the Federal
coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national policy with
respect to domestic ocean and coastal activities. The
legislation pending before this Committee supports an
important, initial step in that process through the creation of
a Commission on Ocean Policy is a worthwhile step.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Merrell?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker may be found at end of
hearing.]
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. MERRELL, SENIOR FELLOW AND PRESIDENT,
H. JOHN HEINZ III CENTER FOR SCIENCE, ECONOMICS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Merrell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Bilbray.
I am Bill Merrell, president of the Heinz Center. It is a
pleasure to testify again during the Year of the Ocean,
especially on the need for an ocean commission. Last October, I
described to you our plans for our Year of the Ocean at the
Heinz Center Steering Committee composed of leaders from
academia, business, environmental organizations and government.
The bottom line is we did what we said we were going to do.
We held three workshops. The first in Irvine on the oceans
multiple impacts on society, the second in Charleston on the
challenge of sustainable coasts, the third here in Washington
on improving our nation's marine fisheries.
I thank you, Chairman Saxton, and you, Mr. Farr, for your
valuable input into our fisheries workshop. As you know, at
each workshop the four sectors worked together to identify
critical problems and approaches to solving them. I came away
from these workshops with the strong conviction that the basis
of our problems, both in the oceans and on the coasts, is not
bad or incompetent people, but instead failed or incomplete
policies and institutions. I also came away from these
workshops even more convinced of the absolutely critical need
for an ocean commission.
Thirty years ago, the Stratton Commission was specifically
charged with using the oceans to expand our nation's economy.
Their recommendations led to the legislative actions and
institutional arrangements that did just that, expand our
economy. Now 30 years later, we see that this economic
expansion came at some cost.
Let me use marine fisheries as an example. In 1976, the
Magnuson Act nationalized our fisheries. Foreign fishing in the
EEZ plummeted from 61 percent to 1 percent in a decade. The
resource was ours to manage or to mismanage. Other legislation
and tax policies encouraged the building of more fishing
vessels with ever-increasing fishing capacity. NOAA was created
on the recommendation of the Stratton Commission, and NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service was charged with the dual
responsibilities of promoting and managing the nation's marine
fisheries.
As you have often pointed out, Mr. Chairman, all of this
led to the identification of a species as underutilized, then
to its increasing use and, all too often, its overuse. We know
now 30 years after Stratton that sustainability is a better
paradigm than growth, that we must balance the use of a
resource with conservation of that resource.
We need fundamental changes in policy and institutional
arrangements to embrace sustainability. To date that has not
happened. We know where we want to go but not exactly how to
get there. For example, the Magnuson Act has been amended at
least 19 times. During the latest reorganization, it was
renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act and did
include stronger fisheries management and conservation
measures.
The Act still does not adequately address excess fishing
capacity. It assigns responsibility to protect essential fish
habitat, but no real authority. The Act does not address the
institutional setups started so many years ago. Despite its
title, this Act will not sustain our marine fisheries. There
are other examples.
The Coastal Zone Management Act with its many modifications
comes to mind. The general lesson is clear. Instead of
continuing to make piecemeal changes to policies and
institutions established long ago, our nation should pause and
examine its fundamental relationship with the sea. It is time.
It has been 30 years since Stratton.
Balancing use and conservation should be our goal, and we
should not shy away from fundamental change in our policies or
our governance structure. It is time to take the issues and
approaches developed during ``Year of the Ocean'' and form a
set of comprehensive, yet specific recommendations about marine
sciences, marine policy and marine governance in support of
institutions. This is the essential role of the new commission.
In closing, I hope I convinced you the stakes are high. We
need to form an ocean commission. Without a commission to
develop the national vision and goals, the momentum generated
by ``Year of the Ocean'' will be lost. I applaud your efforts
here today and implore you to finish this important task.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrell may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Dr. Merrell. As you have
heard, we are going to have to take a break here. We have got
two votes at least coming up in the next 10 minutes or so. We
will get started with some questions anyway.
Dr. Baker and Dr. Merrell, the implications that are drawn
from the interest is demonstrated by Mr. Farr, Mr. Bilbray, Mr.
Pallone and myself and others including Senator Hollings in
pursuing this commission concept. Implicit in this process is
the notion that we are not doing a sufficiently comprehensive
job in terms of management of ocean resources in coastal areas.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was
created 25 years ago. I also believe that implicit in our
moving forward is to look at institutions such as NOAA and to
not so much look at the personnel who currently or who have
recently been in charge of these institutions, but to look at
the institutional structures themselves to try and determine
how they can be better structured to do a better job.
NOAA, for example, was created 25 years ago, and that of
course was a result of the Stratton Commission recommendation
which Dr. Baker noted earlier. For example, here are some of
the weak points that I noticed. NOAA in 1982 proposed, for
example, that there be established 29 marine sanctuaries. In
the meantime, since 1982 NOAA established 7 and Congress
established for a total of only 12. Also, NOAA has made note
that 86 stocks of fisheries are listed as overfished, but we
are unable to determine the status of 448 other stocks. The
NOAA fleet is a third point. The NOAA fleet of coastal ocean
and fisheries research vessels has dwindled from 22 vessels to
11 vessels. At present funding levels, it will take 30 years to
modernize our navigational services. These are certainly not
things for all of us to be proud of. Again, I do not point to
the individuals who are currently in charge of doing activities
in pursuit of these issues, but I look at the organizational
structure.
Given the lack of support for ocean provisions and the
perennial budget reductions for NOAA's wet programs, what is it
that you think we should look at in terms of the structure that
currently exists? What might the commission look at in terms of
the structure that currently exists in NOAA or elsewhere to
make us more supportive of our goals and missions?
Dr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, let me start and then I will ask
Dr. Merrell to also comment because the fact that the two of us
are sitting together here I think is, in part, part of the
answer to this very great problem that you pose. It is a
problem that I have been concerned about for a long time.
I was a scientist working for NOAA in the late 1970's, and
now I have become the administrator, so I can see it from two
different sides. These questions that you raise about the need
for conservation of coastal resources in the marine sanctuaries
is an example of the difficulties we have had with fisheries.
The problems of getting attention to the needs for NOAA's
seagoing capabilities, the lack of support for navigational
services are ones that we are very concerned about.
When I came in, in 1993, for example, the administration
was proposing zero funding for the National Undersea Research
program and only about one-third of what had been provided to
Congress for the Sea Grant program.
We have made progress in all of these areas, but the
progress has been slow. I think the good news is that we all
agree on the importance of the problems, but where we have had
difficulties is we have not been able to get the resources that
are necessary to make the progress that is proper there. I will
just give you one example.
On the marine sanctuaries, I took this on as a special
topic. We have tripled the budget for marine sanctuaries. But
even so we only have about one-third of the budget that is
really required according to the marine sanctuary managers to
manage the sanctuaries which we currently have, not to mention
additional ones.
Now, what can we do to help address the problem? Well,
yesterday you, Mr. Chairman, started the process. You asked the
secretary of commerce to come in and he designated the deputy
secretary. It is the first time ever that we have had a
secretarial officer testify to this Subcommittee and point out
the Department of Commerce was committed to addressing and
helping with oceans issues. I think it was a very important
step. I think the establishment of a commission to take a look
at how we operate is also very important.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying I think that the
answer lies not just in the Federal Government. I think we have
to have a new and stronger partnership with the states and with
private industry. I think one of the things I am looking for
from the commission is guidance--and we would be very happy to
talk to the commission and work with them--guidance about how
we can involve the private sector and the states in the
governance of ocean resources in a much more formal and
stronger way than we have done in the past.
I was very happy that Dr. Merrell could join me on the
panel because he represents the private sector. To have the two
of us here, I think, shows that this is the direction that we
would like to go.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Dr. Baker.
Dr. Merrell, we are going to have to go vote, and so we
will have to hold your response until we get back. We apologize
for that.
In the meantime, the folks who are standing in the back of
the room, there are some seats up here at this lower desk, if
you would care to take them while we are gone.
I think Mr. Farr has a quick statement he wants to make
before we go.
Mr. Farr. Well, the question I want to ask, and I want you
to think about it while we are gone, is whether we really need
to have a national ocean council. It is in the Hollings bill
neither in the House bill, that is the major difference. Then,
I would like your specific recommendations in light of what you
have both said as to what do we need to strengthen the bill.
This is the road map for what the commission is going to do;
and if it is not asked, it will not have to do it. We ought to
make sure that the bill is stating all of the things that we
need to have stated.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. We were about to hear from Dr. Merrell relative
to the basic question, What is it about our institutional
structure that might provide for more progress with regard to
better management of ocean resources?
Dr. Merrell, you may go ahead and provide your thoughts.
Mr. Merrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would say that your questions and your data really show
the need for a fresh look. There are perfect questions as to
why we need the commission to address what we are talking about
today. We need new policies, we need new organizations, we need
new ways of working with the states and the local governments.
I think if we look at the problems we face--nonpoint source,
coastal habitats, those sorts of things--it will not be solved
by any one entity. It will be solved by the entities working
together. I think that is important.
I think that really argues that we need a fresh look at
those types of problems. When we look at the Federal issues,
maybe all of Stratton's work is not done. They did recommend
that NOAA be an independent agency. That recommendation has
never been followed, not that I have any problem with the
present leadership in Commerce or with NOAA. The statistics
that you have shown are that over the years our interest in the
ocean and our support of the oceans has gone down clearly.
I think, again, the real issue is that it is important that
we get a new commission that is free to examine our fundamental
relationship with the sea, how this nation views its
relationship with the sea. We need to ask the question of how
to balance the use of the resource with the conservation of the
resource. We need to keep that in front of us and we need to
look at the organizations needed to do that and the policies
needed to do that.
I think at that point you ask yourself, What are the
organizations that would best serve our nation and its
relationship with the sea? I would hope the commission would
take a totally fresh look at that and really think about what
is necessary. I think that would be the way to answer the types
of questions that you have posed.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Let me just pursue one other related
issue. I frame this from the point of view of personal
experience. The question that I have is I believe--and do
you?--that public opinion today is that there may not be much
to worry about with regard to the ocean, and therefore that
attitude is reflected institutionally in the Congress and the
Administration because we are a representative government and
because there does not seem to be a lot of public pressure to
move forward with things that we are discussing today.
I ask that question and come to the conclusion that it is a
major factor and something that we need to address because of
an experience that I had in 1987 and 1988 when public opinion
was very much boldly in favor of making changes in the
management of ocean resources in the Northeast.
From Long Island to New Jersey to Delaware to Maryland in
the summers, in the two summers of those 2 years, we suffered
algal blooms. We suffered from dolphins washing up on our
beaches. We suffered from medical waste washing up on our
beaches. In the coastal areas that I represented, that Mr.
Pallone now represents, that Jim Howard then Congressman
represented, that Norm Lent from Long Island then represented,
that Ray McGrath at that time from Long Island represented,
there was no issue that was more important to our constituents
that better ocean management. Today, the converse seems to be
true.
You may have heard me say before that one of the most
rewarding experiences of my political career just happened, a
little happenstance where I was walking down the boulevard on
Long Beach Island and a lady came off the beach and gave me a
hug and said, ``Please go to Washington and thank your
colleagues for what you did.''
I said, ``What is that?''
She said, ``I just walked out in the ocean and looked down
and saw my feet, and that is the first time in my life that
ever happened,'' she said.
I suspect there is a notion among many people who live in
coastal areas today that things are pretty good when, in fact,
from a scientific point of view, and if one takes a closer
look, things aren't so good. That may be one of the problems we
are having. And, how do we address it?
Dr. Baker. Congressman Saxton, I fully appreciate what you
have said. I think your support in raising attention has been
very important. I think the public opinion may be stronger
toward conserving and protecting the oceans than one might
think. There was a poll done last year by the Seaweb
organization, a very broad poll, and right at the top was the
fact that the public felt, the majority of the public felt,
that we needed to protect the oceans, the oceans need help and
that resources should go to that protection.
It was a very important poll, and we should make sure that
this Committee gets copies of that. We will do that. But that
was, I think, heartening for us because I think it supported
the points that you make that the public really is beginning to
understand these problems.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Baker, it is not reflected. Maybe what you
just said is the public is beginning to understand these
problems or maybe the poll indicates that the public does
understand these problems. I think a very compelling case can
be made that the institutions that are responsible--I am
pointing fingers at Congress, too, not just administration
agencies--it seems to me that that public opinion is not very
well reflected in the actions and the commitments that we
government types have institutionally made to ocean management.
There is a disconnect somewhere, either it is on the public
side or there is a disconnect between us understanding what the
public wants us to do or perhaps there is another explanation.
Mr. Merrell, would you like to comment?
Mr. Merrell. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. The PEW Charitable
Trusts did fund that. I read the results very encouraging, that
the public is getting more and more concerned. I remember more
people supported ocean programs than the space program, which
was shocking to me. I can tell you that in the 200 people we
got together for our workshops we saw people who are, again,
they are decisionmakers and they are stakeholders so they are a
little closer to the problem than the general public, but we
saw people who were very concerned and anxious to work together
to solve these problems.
I do see a broad series of people who are being exposed to
this problem and are realizing that it is a very difficult
problem. It is going to involve changes in the ways that we
actually look at the ocean, how we use the ocean. I certainly
agree that it is all of our duties to get this information out
to the public.
I think when the public understands what is happening they
will come along, and they do want something to happen. I
honestly think that. I think that we have a communication
problem. I cannot think of a better time. If we cannot do this
during the Year of the Ocean, we are not going to ever be able
to do it, Mr. Saxton. We had better get after it and get this
message out.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Dr. Merrell.
Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. The question about the formation of a National
Oceans Council, could you both reflect on that, whether we need
to have an Oceans Council? You know, that is in the Hollings
bill; it is not in either of the House bills. All bills create
a commission. I understand that the Interagency Ocean Policy
group and the National Ocean Partnership program already exist
within the Federal Government to coordinate ocean policy. Why
do we now need a separate council?
Dr. Baker. Congressman Farr, let me start the discussion on
that. The Administration is on record as supporting a council
as provided for in S. 1213, the Hollings bill. We had a debate
within the Administration on that proposal and decided as an
Administration we would support that bill. There is a letter,
as I said, read into the record from Secretary Daley that says
that the Administration supports S. 1213, which has both a
Commission and a National Oceans Council which brings together
the Federal agencies that have oceans interests. We are on
record as supporting that. We are looking forward to working
with this Committee on the House side.
Mr. Farr. Well, could you reflect on the rationale? Why do
you think it is necessary?
Dr. Baker. Why did we support that?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Dr. Baker. For the following reason. If you look at current
Federal ocean policy and how we handle it, in April 1995 there
was a ``Presidential Decision Directive'' on United States
policy on protecting the ocean environment. This is the
official statement of the United States policy that encompasses
the other statements that we make. That is April 1995, and a
``Presidential Decision Directive'' is the way that we make
policy. That policy is to be implemented by an Interagency
Working Group on Global Affairs, and there is an ocean subgroup
that is responsible specifically for that. We do have a group
that looks at the policy on protecting the ocean environment.
We also have established the National Ocean Partnership
Program, a program that was proposed by Congress and agreed to
by the Administration. The Program has a National Ocean
Leadership Council. That partnership program focuses on
research. It is specifically aimed at looking at research
issues and is just in its infancy. We think it is a good
program, and we support it. NOAA was the first agency outside
the Navy to actually have a proposal in the budget to show that
this was not just a Navy program, which had been funded
strictly through the Navy at the beginning. We are eager to
make that happen.
I think the view that lead to our support of the Senate
bill was that in spite of the things that are in place, more
needs to be done. We can have better interagency coordination.
We have pulled together an informal group called the Ocean
Principals Group that has been discussing issues of how we can
coordinate.
This is, as I say, not a body that is legislated or has a
formal charter, but it is an informal group to look at the
broad issues. I think we feel that having a body that brings
together the Federal agencies, all of those Federal agencies--
and there are more than 20 Federal agencies that have ocean
responsibilities--is something that could be effective.
We felt that the way the Senate bill is written it is
something that we could support. It is an issue that we
continue to debate. The National Space Council, I think, was
effective in raising space issues to a high level. I think that
an Oceans Council properly constituted is something that could
do the same thing.
Mr. Farr. Dr. Merrell?
Mr. Merrell. I should qualify this is my personal opinion.
While I strongly support the commission, I see no particular
need for a council. One of my problems with it is that I think
it presumes an outcome of the commission. I think if a council
is set up, it should be in response to some sort of a
recommendation by the commission. I would point out the
administration can set up such a council anytime they wish
anyhow as far as I can tell.
Mr. Farr. You would leave it up to the commission to make
that decision?
Mr. Merrell. If it is any kind of a permanent council. I
also would point out that under Dr. Baker's leadership, the
Ocean Principals has been a revitalized group and I think would
be suitable for getting information to the council, which I am
concerned about. From the government to a commission, I think
the information flow is something that we do have to think
about.
Mr. Farr. The other question was we are all here caring
about the oceans and yesterday we had a little bit of a session
on how could we get more money spent on the wet side, a little
more money in the O than in the A. I am not sure we are against
the A side of what NOAA is doing, but we would like to have
equilibrium. I think there is a bigger issue here. Mr. Bilbray
talked about it and Mr. Saxton talked about it.
How can we use this process this year? If you are going to
be in the limelight, then now is the time. We have got to put
some money where our mouth is. What comes out of this if we do
care about the oceans and we care about things we have been
talking about, we are going to have to put some more money
there. What is your recommendation on how we can elevate the
public appreciation for ocean resources and the funding for
their conservation?
Mr. Merrell. Well, let me start out by saying I think it is
critical that as we look at our nation's fundamental
relationship with the ocean that we focus on all of the aspects
of that. I would argue that if you just look at atmosphere and
ocean you are not looking at enough. I think you have to look
at the coastal issues. I think the biota is critical. If we are
going to do ecosystem management, we need ecologists. We need
to really think about how we organize.
I come back to the issue we were talking about. I think we
need to look at our fundamental relationships and this should
not be viewed as a battle between atmosphere and ocean. What it
ought to be is what we can all put together to really look at
the problems facing our coastal area and our ocean and how we
can get the experts working together on that issue.
I think that is going to take fundamental change. I do not
think we can piecemeal it anymore. I think we have piecemealed
this since Stratton for 30 years. I think we are going to have
to sit down and get past exactly what you are talking about
where we are looking at the Weather Service doing this and that
and instead start looking at all of the different types of
sciences that are needed to address these very fundamental
long-term, difficult questions.
Mr. Farr. In a diminishing budget, I mean, we are in this
balanced budget so we are not going to be able to have the
luxury to have new add-ons. We have to rob Peter to pay Paul or
get more efficient or have a strong economy and just have
better income. I am really concerned because the space agencies
seem to have done a pretty good job of convincing the public
and Congress alike that we ought to build space stations, very
controversial and very expensive things that I have supported.
We are going to have to figure out where we are going to
get the resources to do that. I agree with you, and I think all
of these things can help. This is a struggle. Coming from the
private sector I would really appreciate some thinking about
how we might create a national lobby for this effort.
Dr. Baker. Congressman Farr, I agree with you. It is a
problem that we have been looking at. We have been able to
increase some parts of the NOAA budget on the ocean side. The
Fisheries Service is an area where we have actually had an
increase over the last 4 years of almost 30 percent. I think
that is because of a very strong interest from Congress in
telling the Administration ``You have to be aware and you have
to do something about these issues.'' Even within a difficult
budget where we have lots of competing priorities, we have been
able to increase part of it--but not all of it by a long shot.
I look at it in the broader sense like this. The United
States has an expanding population, needs for resources, and an
exclusive economic zone that extends out 200 miles. We know
very little about these, but this is where our resources for
the future are.
Mr. Farr. That is the frontier.
Dr. Baker. That is it. We have to be out there
understanding what the problems and what the resources are and
enabling the use of these. Just one example where we are seeing
a huge problem is with harmful algae blooms. All around the
country we are seeing new toxic species appear in areas that we
have not seen them before. We know that this is a problem that
is growing each year. It is a problem which, in my view, is as
great or greater than any climate change issue.
As we change the chemistry of our coastal ocean and hence
are changing the biology, we are going to affect the fisheries.
It is a very, very difficult problem that extends all the way
into the center of the country, and farms with runoff for
fertilizer. We have got to address this. I think we can get
public attention to issues this way.
Mr. Farr. I know the time has expired. Do you think the
national conference is going to get into that kind of thing,
like, the effect of algae blooms and others?
Dr. Baker. Absolutely. You know, we have four topics that
we are currently looking at and we are looking forward to
discussing with you your views about that, commerce,
transportation, global security, environment and health and
education and exploration. The environment and health section
is, in fact, directly aimed at that issue. It is one that I
think we can take up. If we can get attention in that way, I
think we can build the resources that we need.
Mr. Saxton. Before we go to Mr. Bilbray, let me, Dr. Baker
and Dr. Merrell, just say that both Mr. Farr and I wrote our
bills without providing for a council. My impression, or my
objective at least, is to provide a fresh look at ocean policy,
a fresh look, an unencumbered look, if you will.
Now, in the Hollings bill the council is made up of,
presumably, the designees of these people, but it says ``Shall
consist of the secretary of commerce and the secretary of
defense, the secretary of state, the secretary of
transportation, the secretary of the interior, the attorney
general, the administrator of the EPA,'' et cetera, et cetera.
You get the idea.
My fear is that this does not provide us with an
opportunity for much of a fresh look, especially in light of
the fact that the report in Mr. Hollings bill, the report
paragraph (h) on page 24 says in part, ``The Commission shall
submit to the President, via the Council,'' their report.
I have all of the faith and confidence in the world that
these heads of agencies are good people and their designees are
well-intentioned people, but I cannot for the life of me
convince myself that this will provide much of a fresh look.
Our fresh look idea is to involve people who are not currently
involved directly in the governmental process, some scientists,
some experts in the field, some people who are not encumbered
by the--how can I say it?--inertia of the current bureaucracy
that we are all involved in.
This Committee could attempt to take a fresh look, but we
have a vested interest. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration could attempt to take a fresh look, but you are
encumbered by the current situation and all of the things that
are involved. Our concept is to try to get this fresh look with
some fresh folks who do not have encumbrances involved in their
lives and in their professional endeavors currently. If you
would like to, just respond once again each of you to this
fresh look idea that Mr. Farr and I think is a good one.
Dr. Baker. Congressman, I think this fresh look is
absolutely critical, and I think that we hope that the
Commission can provide that fresh look. As I look at the Senate
bill, one of the points of having a Council was to assist the
Commission in providing its report and to serve as a forum for
a discussion inside the Federal Government.
As I say, as the administration looked at the Senate bill,
we felt that that was a useful function. We have not yet
provided a views letter on the House bills, and we are
currently developing that views letter and so your points are
very useful to me. I will take this back to the discussion so
we can incorporate that as we develop our views letter.
Mr. Merrell. Again, I see no particular use for the
council. I think the commission should be as free to work as
possible. I think the concern that we should have is to be sure
that the commission can get the information that it needs to
make its recommendations.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Bilbray?
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Baker, you were mentioning that a commission or a body
may help to stimulate interest in the ocean environment, in the
ocean experience, and that you equated the success of the space
programs based on a commission. I have as much aerospace
probably as much as any district, and I think we have got to be
very frank about it. There is a built-in industry right there
always encouraging Congress for monetary reasons, not just
scientific, to put resources in our aerospace strategies. Let
us be very blunt about it. The ocean has been the orphan
because it does not have a rich uncle like the aerospace
industry to be able to be here lobbying for our effort in the
ocean.
Would you not agree that one of the major problems we have
had those of us who are interested in the ocean is that the
ocean has been an economic thus political orphan in a lot of
ways compared to the aerospace industry?
Dr. Baker. Yes. Congressman Bilbray, I absolutely agree
with you. The fact is the ocean reflects all of these needs and
it has all of the wonderful issues that we need to address, but
we simply have not had the resources that we need to do it.
Mr. Bilbray. In fact, I would point out recently it just
happens that while there may be some waning of political or
public interest in aerospace exploration, we just happened to
have found a meteorite that may indicate life on Mars. Some
people debate now that it is crystal formation.
There was so much media blitz about this may be leading to
the identification of the source of life, but we did not see
the same type of blitz go to what is a much more substantive
find, and that is: the sea vent life forms and the enzymes in
sea vents, which have hundreds of times more potential to be
able to answer the question of the source of life.
I am just saying as somebody who is just sort of caught in
between aerospace and the ocean what the public is seeing and
hearing from the media, and in some ways those of us in elected
office, there does not seem to be consistence to what the
science is telling those of us who are taking the time to
listen to it.
Dr. Baker. Well, you are absolutely right. I can just give
one ray of hope here and that is this recent El Nino that we
have been facing. You have seen it there in California. The El
Nino is driven by the ocean. If we had not made ocean
measurements, we could not have forecast the El Nino. It is
this Subcommittee and the Appropriations group that gave money
to NOAA to support the research that allowed us to do the
forecasting. Believe me, the public is concerned about El Nino.
This is, I think, a small start on exactly the problem that you
are talking about.
Mr. Bilbray. I appreciate you brought up El Nino. Being not
just a surfer but also a representative of Scripps
Institutional Oceanography--in fact, the comment that was made
was that those of us who are surfers who approach the big waves
and warm waters of El Nino like jackals circling a wildebeast,
but not necessarily with the right attitude.
I think El Nino should be an example, though. I sat on the
Committee on Commerce where I watched people who thought they
really cared, believed in the environment vote against the
funding for El Nino research because they thought it was the
long-term global forecasting that was being tied to global
warming and other ozone observations, and they didn't
understand the distinct difference between the two approaches.
There were people getting caught back and forth in this issue.
I think that we have got to point out that the atmospheric
information we got applied with ocean information we got has
enlightened us to a point to where we have got to consider it
when we look at the biological. Now, you are talking about a
certain type of blooms. Isn't it true that we really do not
have enough baseline information to reasonably be able to
inform the public of what really are impacts of a lot of human
activities.
I will give you a good example, kelp growth. So often we
thought that the die off of kelp on the Pacific coast was
somehow caused by coastal pollution as a major, major problem.
Although now more and more over the last 20 years, we have
researched it and we find that natural fluctuations in ocean
temperatures is probably the major hit.
The problem is the public does not hear about that because
there is not some kind of dire, evil person or group to be able
to attack. Your comment about that kind of information, the
whole global--we talk about the air, the ocean and the
biological, trying to tie those together rather than approach
them separately, which is historically what we have been doing.
Dr. Baker. That is absolutely true. I think that we are
beginning to see some interest there, but we do not have enough
baseline information. We can see that as we try to understand
why we have some of these fluctuations, why fisheries move from
place to place or longer-term climate fluctuations, and so this
is an area where we need a lot more support.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, Mr. Baker, I thank you. I will just
close by saying the frustration I had working on the El Nino
global warming may be tied together. A lot of my scientists
were frustrated with elected officials at the highest level
tieing natural phenomena to what may be a manmade activity and
trying to make political hay out of it.
The other frustration was watching representatives of the
Midwest of the farming communities vote against funding to do
long-term weather forecasting, which the beneficiaries
overwhelmingly would be their constituents. Because it was out
in the ocean and far away, in their minds, they thought that it
did not affect their community, and it probably affects their
community more than any other segment of our American society.
Dr. Baker. That is true.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Merrell, would you like to comment on Mr.
Bilbray's last question?
Mr. Merrell. Well, I will say the oceans are important to
our economy. As you well know, tourism; fisheries, which you
will hear about; oil and gas interests, which you will hear
about in the next panel are very important to our economy. Your
point that the aerospace industry is organized in a way that
they have a lot of impact, we have a lot of businesses that
generate a whole lot of jobs. They do a whole lot of good, and
they are not heard from as much.
I think something that we really need to think about is we
have to make it clear that there is huge economic impact with
the ocean. Mr. Farr's example of the otter being the symbol and
the sanctuary there, people coming there as a destination, are
just excellent areas where preservation and conservation and
use will go hand in hand in some very powerful ways.
I think if we can work together to achieve that we may be
able to get groups coming in here, the kind that you are
talking about, and really trying to explain to the members here
just how important to the economy the oceans are.
Mr. Bilbray. Doctor, you will admit, though--and I think
the point the chairman said about if we form an advisory group
or a research group let us not make them the traditional
Washington-based government agencies that we traditionally do--
mostly because you are right, there are major economic
opportunities out there and basic benefits from the oceans. The
trouble is they tend to be small, unorganized groups that are
cumulatively very small operations, very small economic units
that are not organized in the megacorporations like you have
with aerospace.
Mr. Merrell. Right.
Mr. Bilbray. Washington is much more sensitive and
responsive, sadly, to the mega-operations. I think that is why
I strongly support the intent of the chair, that the fact that
we allow those who are always the last to be heard in
Washington to be the first in line on this issue.
Mr. Merrell. I agree.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray.
Dr. Baker and Dr. Merrell, thank you very much. We
appreciate the extended time that you have been willing to
spend with us this morning. The Members may have some
additional questions for you, and we ask that you would kindly
respond to those questions in writing. The hearing record will
remain open for 30 days for those responses.
Thank you for being with us.
I would now like to introduce our second panel. We have Dr.
Kenneth Brink, chairman of the Ocean Studies Board of the
National Academy of Sciences; Mr. Richard Gutting, the
executive vice president of the National Fisheries Institute;
Roger McManus, president of the Center for Marine Conservation;
and Paul L. Kelly, senior vice president of Rowan Companies,
Inc.
As the second panel is finding their way to their places, I
would like to remind the witnesses about our 5-minute rule for
testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
record. As you are in your places, we will begin with Dr.
Kenneth Brink.
Sir, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH BRINK, CHAIRMAN, OCEAN STUDIES BOARD,
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Mr. Brink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before this Subcommittee to comment on this important
and timely piece of legislation.
My name is Kenneth Harold Brink, and I am a senior
scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in
Massachusetts. I also serve as chair of the Ocean Studies Board
of the National Research Council. The board was established to
advise the Federal Government and the Nation on issues of ocean
science and policy.
It has been about 30 years now since the Stratton
Commission used its very broad mandate to study ocean affairs
in the United States and to make recommendations. It certainly
left a lasting mark on the way we consider the ocean in the
United States, perhaps most notably through the foundation of
NOAA as a joint ocean atmosphere agency. The wisdom of that
joint ocean atmosphere agency became more clear as time went
by. When it was first formed, it was something of an academic
exercise.
Since the Stratton Commission, the world has certainly
changed. There have been some really great, I believe,
achievements in ocean sciences in the United States. For
example, during the cold war, capabilities in antisubmarine
warfare were amazing. We were able to detect and track
submarines in the open oceans in a way that was astounding. It
took about 20 years to develop a predictive capability with El
Nino, that capability is paying off now and certainly the
public is very aware of the phenomenon in a way that 20 years
ago seemed inconceivable.
Hydrothermal vents are underwater geysers deep in the
ocean, and they and the living communities around them have
really changed the way we think about the universe. It has
really been a piece of basic science information that has been
an eye opener to our entire community.
Finally, technology and communications have changed all
aspects of our lives and it has certainly changed the way that
we do ocean science. Just consider the growth and use of
satellite remote sensing, for example.
I believe it is time now for a new Stratton Commission. The
cold war has ended. It has made it appropriate to rethink the
reasons for why we do basic research. The United States does
have, I believe, the best ocean science community in the world.
It is extremely strong, and we need to think about the future
directions for that community.
I see three great challenges in the ocean sciences that we
need to be thinking of in the next decade, one is sustainable
ecosystems in the ocean. That includes issues of fisheries, how
we can exploit fisheries and at the same time not ruin them,
issues of diversity of life in the ocean and how we use that
information about diversity to develop pharmaceuticals and
other things that will help our society.
The second grand challenge comes in what I call ``healthy
coasts,'' and involves issues of harmful algae blooms, runoff
from the land and how it affects ecosystems in the coastal
ocean and how the ocean affects the land through coastal
hazards--hurricanes, floods and so forth.
Finally, a third grand area that I think we need to be
thinking of in the next decade is climate prediction. When I
say ``climate prediction,'' I mean on the time scales from
years, typical of El Nino, out to time scales of tens of years
where we are now discovering that there seem to be new modes of
coupled ocean atmosphere climate changes over both the Pacific
and the Atlantic.
Finally, I believe that a commission with a broad mandate
will be well positioned to cover the range of agencies involved
in the ocean. I think it is important to point out the range of
agencies because it has been very hard to get all of these
agencies working together in the past.
I would like to mention a few issues that I think are
appropriate for the new commission. One is to raise the
question of how we deal with these challenges, are we making
the right investments in the right places at the right levels
to ensure timely results and timely dissemination of these
results to be actually useful to our society.
For a given problem that is being considered within, say,
an agency of the government, we need to consider whether there
is an appropriate mix of strategic and short-term research. We
know that it is all too easy to get bogged down in short-term
problems and not look at the bigger picture.
Ocean sciences require complex specialized facilities such
as ships. These things take time and typically about a decade
of planning. We have to ask if we are prepared to go forth into
the coming decades with the new problems that we need to deal
with.
Finally, we will be dealing increasingly with major
scientific issues that require efficient cooperation among
agencies as well as sometimes internationally, especially when
it comes to climate issues. We have to ask whether the
coordination amongst these agencies could be improved and what
we can do to encourage that improvement.
The question came up earlier about a council. My own
opinion on the council is that it makes sense to wait until we
get the recommendations of the commission before we decide
whether it is worth going forward with the council and in what
form that council should take.
I expect the new commission will uncover numerous aspects
of the U.S. ocean enterprise that work very well, indeed, as
they are now. I think also that the commission will find areas
where improvements can certainly be made.
In any case, I believe that a fresh look at the health and
direction of the U.S. ocean enterprise could prove useful
indeed. The National Research Council stands ready to assist in
this effort as needed and appropriate.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before this Subcommittee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brink may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gutting?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GUTTING, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. Gutting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Richard Gutting, and I am executive vice
president of the National Fisheries Institute. The institute
represents 1,000 companies engaged in all aspects of the U.S.
fish and seafood industry. Our companies operate vessels in all
of the major U.S. fisheries and they also process, distribute
and sell fish and seafood products in thousands of facilities
around the United States.
The institute supports the establishment of the commission
for the simple reason that we believe that its recommendations
could help our industry as well as the government in improving
our fisheries and their contribution to the American people. We
also feel that the recommendations of the commission could help
better integrate fishery management into all of the other
activities that impact our fisheries.
You have my written statement. I am not going to read it.
Instead I would like to react to some of the conversation, the
very good conversation, you had with the last panel.
Congressman Farr, you mentioned that you thought you might want
to strengthen the bill in a couple of aspects. You mentioned
states and you also mentioned education. I will give you
another suggestion, food.
The bill does not really focus in on food. One of the
things that has happened in the last 30 years is that with the
increasing global population the need to feed people has become
a more urgent issue. The needs of hungry people are certainly
going to be much more urgent in the next 10 or 20 years. The
U.S. Government has committed itself along with all other
nations to move toward food security.
There was a Food Summit and a declaration that was called
the ``Rome Declaration of World Food Security.'' Fisheries was
part of this. In light of this it would be appropriate to give
more emphasis to food in the bill. I think there is another
reason to do this, and that is because by doing so we will make
more real progress.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, 1987 and 1988, when the trash was
washing up on the New Jersey beaches and there was great public
concern. Well, there is a great concern today over pfisteria.
In the next few weeks, 15 presidents from seafood companies
around the country are going to join with 15 presidents from
the big companies that supply the recreational fishing industry
and we are going to spend two days together along with
scientists to try to puzzle through why these toxic blooms and
pathogens are occurring.
We have been told by the scientists that as much as $1
billion worth of food could be unlocked if we could solve these
problems. We hope that by focusing on food, and the food that
is not available to us now, we might be able to come up with a
solution. We would certainly welcome the commission's attention
to that subject. By focusing on the food the oceans could
provide we might find some answers and really improve the
quality of life of all Americans.
The other comment that struck me, Mr. Bilbray, was your
mention of ocean experts. I certainly agreed with your comment.
The need to bring in a ``fresh look,'' the Chairman said. One
word of caution. I say this with all due affection to ocean
scientists and from my experience of 30 years in ocean policy.
There are groups that care very deeply about ocean policy. They
tend to be visionaries, and they tend to be scientists.
It is important that they be involved and make a
contribution. But too often in the past these ocean experts
come in with overoptimistic visions of things that are going to
happen, which in the real world, in the world of business and
the global marketplace, just have not occurred.
I would ask that you be sure to include on the commission
business people, people who are focused on jobs and practical
results. Because if you do not include them, this is all going
to be just so many words on paper and another file-and-forget
report.
Mr. Farr, I have heard you say that when it comes to oceans
it comes down to the economy, and I agree with that. It comes
down to the folks back home, and you need to be sure that the
people with the practical experience and knowledge of taking
big ideas and translating them into jobs, that those people are
involved. I didn't quite see that emphasis in this commission.
Those are my two ideas and suggestions: focus on food, and
include business people.
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutting may be found at end
of hearing.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutting, for the very
thoughtful and articulate statement.
Mr. McManus?
STATEMENT OF ROGER McMANUS, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR MARINE
CONSERVATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. McManus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr and Mr.
Bilbray.
I am Roger McManus, and I am the president of the Center
for Marine Conservation. I am very pleased to be here to talk
about these bills. I understand my written testimony will be
made part of the record.
I want to go back initially to your comments, Mr. Chairman,
regarding public interest. I think from our perspective the
public is extremely interested in changing ocean policy. I
would comment that for all of us here in Washington sometimes
we are a little bit behind the rest of the country, and I
believe the rest of the country will lead us on this issue,
just as I think the rest of the country led us in some Magnuson
Act reforms that you, sir, and others here helped champion and
get through the Congress.
In particular, though, today I want to emphasize what
others have alluded to that this nation has an enormous
potential in its marine environment. Over 4 million square
miles of our territory, so to speak, is marine as compared to
3.5 million square miles of land. We have the largest marine
territory of any nation on earth and in that we have an
enormous opportunity for ourselves and future generations.
I think it is time now, time is ripe, for an answer to the
challenge before us to take care of the resources in this area.
The important point of these bills is that despite the threat
to these resources and despite the opportunities available to
us this nation has no plan for the exclusive economic zone. We
have no plan for the largest portion of our country. This is
the singular most important reason why these bills need to be
passed and passed expeditiously.
In the ``International Year of the Ocean,'' you and your
colleagues are taking important steps to respond to the
challenge of this need. I think the people of the United States
will, indeed, support it and will be very thankful for this
effort.
We have a few suggestions about the House bills that I
would like to put forward, some of them differing from my
colleagues, but I think there is much agreement as well. We do
see a clear mandate for the commission engaging the public, and
I would argue that the hearings around the country should be
required so that people can participate and there is a special
effort made to encourage public participation.
I think the Stratton Commission also was successful because
of the leadership of its chair and the effectiveness of the
executive director and staff of that commission, and we urge
that everything be done possible to make sure that those kind
of conditions exist in this new initiative.
However, we also support the development of the council
that is in the Senate bill, and for some reasons that are
different than have been discussed here previously. I am not
particularly anxious for the council to interfere with the work
of the commission. I share your views, Mr. Chairman, and
particularly watching the growing debate during ``Year of the
Ocean'' in the executive branch, that what we do not need is
the executive branch dictating or controlling the views of the
commission. We need some fresh thinking.
In the meantime, business has to go on. I do not think the
challenges that we face in the oceans can suffer any longer
from the lack of coordination that is required within the
executive branch to move forward while we wait for the
commission's advice.
Therefore, we would support the establishment of the
council. We think it needs to be done by Congress. We do not
think the administration will do it by itself, and we do not
think it will be effective if it does not come with your kind
of leadership and direction, sir. While we urge rapid passage
of the Oceans Act, we have articulated in our written testimony
10 points for implementing sounder ocean policy in light of the
``Year of the Ocean.'' While I don't propose to go through all
of those now, I would like to hit a few high points.
Particularly, I want to point out with respect to your recent
work, sir, the problems regarding funding.
[Chart.]
Mr. McManus. As the chart on my left shows, we are seeing a
decline in the amount by percentage being made available for
research in ocean issues. The other chart I would call to your
attention as pointing out why we need to change our ways
through the commission and through other work is the fact that
the greatest sources of coastal and marina pollution now are
recognized now to be nonpoint sources of pollution.
What we see is that most of the money goes to wastewater
treatment. I am not arguing against wastewater treatment. We
actually need to do more of it, but we recognize in the
scientific community now that the real threat to coastal and
ocean environments is nonpoint source pollution, and we need to
deal with that.
If I may just take a few moments and go on with just a few
other points. One of our major points is that we need to
strengthen the National Marine Sanctuary program and other
efforts to set aside and protect marine protected areas. In the
very broad sense of the exclusive economic zone, this nation
does not have the kind of protection and zoning that has worked
and has contributed to conservation on land. This needs to have
a fresh thinking and it needs to be addressed more effectively.
We also need to make sure that the great advancements in
the Magnuson Act reauthorization are not subject to a retreat.
We are seeing a lot of growing sentiment among folks that are
concerned about the efforts that will be made to recover our
fisheries, that we should roll back the protections that have
been afforded by that new Act. While it is not perfect, we
would argue strenuously that as part of the year of the ocean
we move forward.
We also need to strengthen the Clean Water Act, protect in
a greater way the coastal and marine environment and make the
same kind of advances in the marine environment as we have done
for fresh water. As part of that, I would argue that we need to
give Americans peace of mind when they go to the beach. Your
state, sir, has done a lot of work in this area, for which I
think a lot of credit can be taken.
Nevertheless, for most Americans when they go to the beach
they have no idea what their families or their children will be
getting into. We need Federal standards to establish quality of
water that is acceptable for coastal areas and also to have
public officials monitor those areas and tell the public when
it is safe and when it is not. I don't think it is very
responsible at all in this country to allow people to be
subject to harmful pollution when we can do something about it.
I would also say that similar steps need to be taken to
better ensure the quality of our seafood. Two other things that
I will raise in closing, sir. Last year, was the
``International Year of the Reef.'' While there is much done to
promote education of the reefs and also much done to improve
research, we did very little to actually protect reefs from
further degradation. I would argue that as part of the ``Year
of the Ocean'' that we initiate legislation to establish a
national program to protect America's coral reefs, which are
some of the finest coral reefs in the entire world.
Finally, sir, dealing with the issues that have been raised
about the economic values of the ocean, I would suggest that a
carefully managed and healthy ocean is going to provide a lot
more economic benefit than anything else we can do that may
come out of our deliberations on the ocean. One of the areas
that offers tremendous value for humankind has been addressed
in this hearing, and that is in the pharmaceutical area.
Right now if I was representing a company from another
country, I could come into the exclusive economic zone of the
United States, and I could harvest the resources of the United
States of America, the pharmaceutically valuable organisms. I
could destroy their ecosystem and I could even destroy what was
left of them, if I could figure out how to do it. I could take
it all home. I could process those chemicals and make billions
of dollars, and I would not even have to tip my hat to the
United States of America.
I think that is wrong. I think we need new legislation that
will seek to manage and conserve these resources, which may be
the largest economic value we will get from the oceans. Today,
the success of drugs on the market may be measured in terms of
billions of dollars, and that certainly is a rich area for us
to protect.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of McManus may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. McManus.
Mr. Kelly?
STATEMENT OF PAUL L. KELLY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ROWAN
COMPANIES, INC.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am Paul Kelly with Rowan Companies, which is an
international drilling contractor based in Houston. I serve on
the Department of Interior's OCS Policy Committee as a
representative of the petroleum industry and I have served as
past chairman of that committee.
Today, I am here to represent six major oil and gas trade
associations in America that represent most of the companies
involved in this business: the National Ocean Industries
Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Domestic
Petroleum Council, the International Association of Drilling
Contractors, the Independent Petroleum Association of America,
and the Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
The organizations that I am representing today are mindful
that 1998 is the ``International Year of the Ocean.'' I also
serve on the Heinz Center Year of the Ocean Steering Group just
like most of the other gentlemen at this table, which as you
know is a partnership of industry, government, the
environmental community and academia charged with planning U.S.
activities for the Year of the Ocean.
I do not want to be ``the skunk at the garden party,'' but
I think we as an industry probably have more concerns over the
establishment of the commission than have been expressed by
most of the other witnesses today. The petroleum industry has
not been totally well-served by some of the institutions that
came out of the Stratton Commission Report.
During the past decades, statutes such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act have
sometimes been used not always in good faith to block
activities of our industry in the offshore. While it is always
difficult to get six different trade associations to agree on
any policy, we do agree that if the work of the commission were
to lead to an excessively protective approach that does not
take into consideration adequately multiple use of ocean
resources in a balance of environmental and economic interests
that it will be a nonstarter.
At the same time, I hasten to congratulate my colleagues
here on the Heinz Center Steering Group. If our work on ocean
policy in the future could be like the work we have done in the
steering group, it could have much merit. I think the spirit of
the YOTO Steering Group has been one of interest in each
other's ocean activities emphasizing how we can do things
working together in an economically and environmentally
balanced way, not emphasizing on how we should not do things or
where we should not do things. I think that there has been a
real spirit of consensus building and partnering in the
steering group from which we can take an object lesson for in
the future.
We have several ideas on this legislation that we urge you
to consider. We certainly hope that the nation's interest in a
sound energy policy will be reflected in the work on ocean
policy that goes forward. First, we are concerned that in the
background materials of the Subcommittee's work and in some of
the testimony from the administration on the various bills
there has not been enough regard to the success we have had
with offshore oil and gas development in America, both from the
standpoint of benefits to the taxpayers and technology advances
which are great.
Chief among our recommendations is that you should not
begin with the assumption that all ocean policies and statutes
necessarily constitute a problem. For example, the policies
that govern energy development in the Central and Western Gulf
of Mexico have been a resounding success. They have fostered a
robust industry that produces jobs for our citizens, energy for
the Nation and revenue for the Treasury.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Saxton. I am sorry to interrupt. I gather from your
testimony that you have got several minutes at least of things
you would like to say?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, I do.
Mr. Saxton. Well, Mr. Farr and I have to go vote, and so we
will pick up your testimony in about 15 minutes when we return,
if that is all right with you?
Mr. Kelly. Very good.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Kelly, why don't you continue. We are very
sorry about the interruption, but that is how Congress
operates.
Mr. Kelly. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I have been here
before.
I think when we broke I was talking about the success we
have had in the Gulf of Mexico exploring for hydrocarbons on
the shelf and in deep waters. I want the Subcommittee to know
that these activities have been managed with specific regard
for health, safety and the environment. Offshore oil and gas
operations are highly regulated to meet stringent environmental
standards.
We are governed by an extremely complex, comprehensive and
numerous set of statutes and regulations. These include the OCS
Lands Act, NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
Oil Pollution Act, the Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, as well
as RCRA.
Moreover, new technology has eliminated or minimized the
effect of offshore operations on plant and animal life. Indeed,
production platforms serve as artificial reefs that are used by
a diversity of marine organisms for spawning, feeding and
shelter. This has been of benefit to both commercial and
recreational fishing. There has also been a huge benefit from
the offshore oil and gas program in terms of environmental
research, and this should not be overlooked.
The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service
has now spent in excess of half a billion dollars on
environmental studies offshore, and they have accumulated a
tremendous library of useful information that could be
extremely useful to other ocean resource users. At the
suggestion of the OCS Policy Committee a couple of years ago,
they computerized this data to make it more available to the
public.
The economic and environmental success of the nation's
ocean management policies in the Gulf raise the question of why
other offshore areas are precluded from producing similar
benefits to the nation. It seems to justify a reexamination of
current offshore minerals management policies to eliminate such
prohibitions.
In these areas, it seems that scientific and technological
advances have moved out ahead of public policy and knowledge of
those advances. I believe this is something all the witnesses
could agree on, that it is time to look at ocean policy in
light of the technological developments we have had in the past
30 years. That is why I liked the comments made earlier about
taking a fresh look, because conditions have really changed.
As I indicated before, there is some uncertainty in our
industry whether there is an ocean policy problem that warrants
the establishment of a commission. If, however, it is
determined by members of the Subcommittee and the Congress that
one is needed, we feel that it is premature to recommend the
establishment of a council before the commission even meets and
deliberates.
We have had successes in U.S. ocean policy and we have had
failures. If Congress determines that a commission is needed,
it should be charged with examining these and determining what
has worked and what has not worked. It should take its input
directly from all stakeholders with an interest in the ocean,
as well as the work of the YOTO Steering Group, which would
provide good background data.
I associate myself with the comments of Mr. Gutting made
earlier that it is important to work this from the bottom up as
well as from the top down in terms of Federal, state and local
relations. It is very important that any work done involve the
business community and the stakeholders who are actually doing
things in the ocean.
Moreover, we feel that a commission should only make policy
recommendations to Congress. Neither the President nor the
commission should adopt new ocean policies without full
consideration, approval and oversight by Congress. The
Commission's recommendations also should be subject to cost-
benefit analysis, risk assessment and peer reviewed science.
The commission should ``sunset'' shortly after making its
report to Congress, as is the case in S. 1213. It is our view
that the addition of another federally supported permanent
entity is not needed and may run contrary to the objective of a
leaner, more efficient government.
The commission should be charged with managing a broad
range of interests with a stake in oceans policy, as I
indicated, and Congress should mandate that the membership on
the commission be balanced among stakeholders including
geographic, scientific, regulatory, economic, and environmental
interests.
Moreover, the commission should be required to consider a
range of the nation's many important concerns--agriculture, the
environment, energy, fishing, marine transportation, and
others. To that end, the commission's recommendation should
balance environmental and economic issues and concerns.
In conclusion, as significant stakeholders in ocean
resource management decisions, we in the energy industry are
hopeful that the Subcommittee will carefully consider these
comments, and we are prepared to participate with you in the
future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Farr. [presiding] Thank you very much. Mr. Saxton had
to step out for a moment, and I am going to proceed with the
questions that I have. I want to, first of all, say how much I
appreciate Mr. Gutting and Mr. Kelly talking about the need to
involve the stakeholders.
I think we all agree. I am a little concerned with some of
your last statements on the standards that you would apply to
the commission. I would suggest that those are probably
standards that you would not want applied to every oil and gas
exploration if you had to go through all of that checklist,
because in many cases you would find that you could not hold up
to sometimes the cost-benefit analysis.
I mean, because when I found that in our area when lease/
sale 63, I think it was, off the central coast of California
was proposed, that another industry, the tourism industry and
the agricultural industry, lobbied very effectively against the
drilling for interests in their own industry. They were saying
that this was a high-risk/low-gain for local businesses, and
perhaps a high-gain/low-risk for a national oil policy. If you
are going to do a bottoms up and really listen to people at the
local level, your industry may not come up on top. The need to
have a balance is obviously there.
I also take issue in your complaint about the OCS
legislation affecting policy on oil and gas. I think the Exxon-
Valdez experience had more subsequent law making affecting
tanker trafficking and the cost of doing business in the near
shore than anything that could have come out of the OCS
legislation.
I think that there is also a concern here, and that is--and
I would like to just step back for a moment. We have had a
history of following development of resources, essentially,
whether there has been risk capital put in to develop resources
and to harvest resources. As a nation, we have just kind of let
that happen, and the only areas that we did not let it happen,
I think, is where we sat aside some national parks. I am
thinking back a hundred years.
What has happened, though, as people overharvested for us
or overmined and had downstream damages there was an economic
consequence which led to environmental management issues. I
really think that a lot of the regulation that has hit industry
has been because the excesses of that industry ended up
damaging somebody else's economic interests. It was not just a
bunch of greedy environmentalists saying ``This is not good.''
There are economic interests out there for everybody. I am
reminded of the fact that we just released two condors in the
Big Sur region. You have the most expensive hotels in the
country, the Post Ranch Inn and Ventana where it is $450
minimum at the Post Ranch, I think, to spend the night. You
have an increased interest in staying there because people now
think they can now see a condor. That is an economic interest
that is enhanced by resource management. What we do in politics
is we try to make it all fit.
The point I want to ask both of you gentlemen is we have a
chance with the oceans now to bring it all together. You know,
if you want to shut down a fishery, overfish it. If you want to
shut down an oil and gas exploration, do it wrongly. I mean,
create an impact that has a negative consequence.
It seems to me that we have the ability through this oceans
legislation, and I would hope that you would both get your
industries to support it. If we were talking about doing space
exploration, Lockheed would be in here and Boeing would be in
here. Those industries that build the machinery to get us into
space and all of those vested interests would come to the
format and say, ``A council,'' as Dr. Baker said, ``or a
commission would be right up our alley. Although we are not
going to own it, we embrace the fact that you are going to
spend money to do it.''
That is what I think is lacking in the ocean area. We do
not have that commitment by the private sector industry to walk
into a big picture situation, because of fear that the big
picture may end up somehow with some environmental restriction
that will hurt our industry. I think that is really
shortsighted and that is not traditionally how American
business goes.
As we venture out with this new legislation, because it is
your vested interest in it, I would hope you would embrace the
legislation, Mr. Kelly, and say, ``No, we are going to stand by
this.'' I kind of heard you say, ``We are going to stand on the
sidelines and watch.'' I think that is wrong.
Mr. Gutting, I think you are absolutely right. Your best
interest is to manage these fisheries so they will be there to
be able to be harvested appropriately. I think if you are going
to have all of the heads of industry together I hope that you
will commit yourselves to this interest that we have got to
lobby the ocean agenda. We have got to lobby it all together,
because if we do not, what is going to come out of it is those
who are interested in lobbying it will cut out what they think
is just best for them, and that will not be the big picture.
That is my comment and a question. I think the question is,
Will you commit yourselves to that kind of effort and get the
industries behind you?
Mr. Gutting. If I might respond, Mr. Chairman.
This Committee has just spent 4 years taking an
extraordinarily intensive look at how fisheries are managed. As
a result, we have a long list of reforms and changes and
additions that we are now implementing. We in the industry are
optimistic and excited about some of these changes, and we
think that within the fisheries we are now on the path to
building that sustainable future that you were talking about.
Where this commission becomes very important for our
industry is not in the internal aspects of fishery management,
which have been addressed, but it is in the interface between
what we are doing in fisheries and the other economic
activities out there. These activities can have a tremendous
impact on our ability to provide food to the American people.
I mentioned pfisteria, but there is a whole panoply of
phenomena out there--red tides, brown tides, pathogens. We have
experienced pfisteria here. You were at the forefront in
looking at that phenomena. These are the concerns now that are
on the minds of my members, and these are outside the realm of
fishery management.
As I indicated, we welcome a national focus. We welcome a
commission to address the interfaces between fisheries and
other activities. I think it is extremely important for our
future, and so you will find us supporting any kind of
organized effort to bring the best science together with the
stakeholders.
I will make another statement, which is in my written
testimony but I didn't mention it to you. Right now ocean
policy is being formulated on the front pages of the newspapers
and in the nightly news. We see and hear many sensational
stories. They may or may not be based on fact.
One of the things that is very attractive about what you
are proposing in this legislation is that you are going to, I
hope, bring the very best science and facts--not romance, not
emotion, but true facts--to bear and the results will be in a
definitive report.
There has been a lot of emotion; we have heard a lot of
rhetoric; we have seen a lot of romance about fisheries and
oceans. They go so far, but it is time now for us to bring
science and fact and business and the stakeholders together and
try to make some sense out of this.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Farr, if I could give my answer to your
question as well. You have said a lot and there is a lot to
comment on, but let me say up front that you can be sure that
if Congress proceeds with this legislation the offshore
petroleum industry will be a participant. We will hope to be
involved in the deliberations of a commission or any other
organization that is established. We will definitely play a
part, just as we are now in respect of the Heinz Center
Steering Group.
You mentioned cost-benefits analysis, risk, and Exxon-
Valdez. What we would hope to show--and the kind of cost-
benefits analyses you are talking about is a very large one--
that the cost, the perceived cost, has been reduced. The risk
has been reduced by new technology that has evolved over the
past 30 years as well as by better safety practices in our
industry.
Exxon-Valdez was a transportation accident and not an
offshore accident. What really hurt us was Santa Barbara in
1969. But if you look at the record, you will find that the
U.S. industry has had an exemplary environmental record since
that time which we think should reduce the risk perceived by
other ocean users.
I wanted to explain to you, too, in terms of being involved
in this initiative there is not an industry in the United
States that is more involved in ocean development today than
the petroleum industry. For example, just yesterday the U.S.
petroleum industry put over $1 billion on the table in bidding
on an offshore lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. We have had a
series of lease sales now where similar amounts of money have
been put up.
You talk about ``big ideas,'' the industry is proceeding
ahead with very big ideas in the deep water Gulf. We now have
oil and gas production in over 3,000 feet of water in the Gulf.
We expect to add 1 million barrels of crude oil per day to
domestic production from the Gulf of Mexico by the year 2000.
We have actually drilled a well in 7,700 feet of water two
summers ago. There are research consortiums, including one
called Deep Star that spent $9 million in the last 4 years
trying to determine how we function in these water depths.
Mr. Farr. I understand that. I do not want to debate this
and time is limited. We have got to exit the room and I know
that the Chairman has a question. I just think that sometimes
there may be overriding concerns, say, that this is not the
time now or the place to do oil drilling, regardless of the
technology. That is what all of the debate is about. You and I
we can debate that for years. I agree with you there are much
better technologies and I applaud the industry for developing
them.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
I am sorry. We have been asked to vacate the room at 1 p.m.
and it is after that. I would just like to commend all of you
for very good testimony. I would like to conclude the hearing
by just reading a couple of paragraphs which I think are
particularly important and really quite powerful from Mr.
Gutting's written statement. Mr. Gutting writes:
``Thirty years ago, our fishing fleets lacked the capacity
to harvest all the fishery resources off our coasts, and we
faced overwhelming competition for these resources from very
powerful foreign fleets fishing off our coasts. Today, those
fisheries which once were unavailable to our fleets, are now
producing billions of pounds of food for Americans. New
technologies have been incorporated into our processing and
distribution systems and many new products have been
introduced.
``Most of the large underutilized stocks referred to in the
Stratton Commission 30 years ago are now fully harvested, and
the Commission fully considered the growing need for bringing
recreational harvest under effective management. Nor did the
Commission fully consider the growing need in bringing
recreational harvests under effective management. The
jurisdictional premise of the Stratton Commission's fishery
management recommendations are no longer valid. Obviously, it
is time for Congress to set up a mechanism through which
America's ocean policies can reflect today's reality.''
I would like to include letters that have been sent to the
Committee.
[The letters follows:]
The Honorable John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McCain:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the Administration's views
on the Oceans Act of 1997 (S. 1213) as reported by the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation. As you prepare to bring the
bill to the Senate floor, your consideration of the Administration's
views would be appreciated.
The Committee has developed a bill that supports and furthers the
Administration's ocean policy goals. The Administration has in place
robust interagency mechanisms for coordinating ocean policy issues. We
believe that the bill as modified by the Manager's Amendment that was
recently provided to us, would be consistent with, and assist in
achieving, the Administration's domestic ocean policy objectives.
Accordingly, the Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1213, as
modified by the Manager's Amendment.
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that
there is no objection to the submission of this letter to the Congress
from the standpoint of the program of the President.
Sincerely,
William M. Daley,
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for coming to today's
hearing. We look forward to moving this bill together. We thank
you very much for your very thoughtful contribution.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Good morning. I am James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity
to testify on pending House bills, H.R. 2547 and H.R. 3445,
legislation to review, recommend, and implement national ocean
policies for the next century. I agree with the Subcommittee
that 1998, as the International Year of the Oceans represents
an excellent opportunity for the nation to initiate a major
review of its ocean policies and to take actions to improve our
understanding of ocean resources and systems. For the reasons
stated below, the Administration believes that the creation of
a limited term, nonpartisan commission to review U.S. domestic
ocean policies and programs will yield substantial and
worthwhile benefits for the Nation.
The Administration has been reviewing the three bills that
are the subject of today's hearing, H.R. 2547, which was
introduced by Rep. Farr with thirty-four cosponsors, including
you, Mr. Chairman, and Reps. Abercrombie and Gilchrest; H.R.
3445, which you introduced last week, Mr. Chairman, cosponsored
by Reps. Gilchrest and Bilbray; and the bill passed by the
Senate at the end of the first session of the Congress, S.
1213. Just before the Senate consideration of S. 1213, the
Administration indicated its support for Senate passage of S.
1213, as modified by the Manager's Amendment. The
Administration looks forward to working with you, the members
of the Subcommittee and the full Resources Committee to craft
an ``Oceans Act'' that builds on these bills. We will provide
detailed Administration comments on the House bills in a views
letter in the very near future.
The three bills are quite different and the Administration
would like to work with you to address the issues that they
raise. The guiding principle for the Administration is an
Oceans Act that contributes to preservation of the Nation's
oceans and coastal areas and does not infringe on the
prerogatives of the President and the Executive Branch.
Today, half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of
our shores and more than 30 percent of the Gross Domestic
Product is generated in the coastal zone. Coastal areas are
also prime areas for recreation. But, many of our ocean and
coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely
depleted. Wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by
pollution and other human activities. This year natural forces
are again threatening communities and economies along all of
our coasts. Even if this were not the International Year of the
Ocean, there are ample reasons to focus national attention on
the health of our ocean and coastal regions and resources.
More than thirty years ago in 1966, legislation was enacted
calling for a comprehensive national program to explore the
oceans, develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the
sea. The 1966 Act established a Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering, and Resources, commonly known as the Stratton
Commission for its chairman, Julius Stratton. The importance of
the Commission and its report cannot be underestimated. The
passage of the legislation and creation of the commission
itself helped call national attention to the ocean and the
coast. The Commission's report has helped shape U.S. domestic
ocean policy for three decades. NOAA, the agency I am proud to
administer, was born from the Stratton Commission study.
Important national programs for defense, coastal and fisheries
management, offshore development, oceanography, and marine
transportation were initiated or advanced in the study.
Much has changed in 30 years. Scientific and technological
advances now provide tools and insights that could only be
imagined in the 1960s. Ocean-going commerce and the size of
international fleets have increased dramatically; international
maritime trade is expected to triple again over the next
generation. Exploration of the deep ocean has discovered new
mysteries such as thermal vents and many new species. Some
discoveries have led to bio-medical advances. These modern
changes, discoveries, and advances have improved our
understanding of the ocean, its resources, and the relationship
between ocean, climate, and the coast. But we still have much
to learn and do. For example, satellite imaging and ocean
observing systems in the Pacific have made monitoring
phenomenon such as El Nino possible, making it possible to
mitigate the impacts such events can have on diverse aspects of
our economy and infrastructure. Other technologies have
dramatically improved our capability to monitor how human
activities alter and affect the health of sensitive coastal
regions and habitats. New technologies will help offset the
risks of increased marine commerce and larger ships by
providing mariners with much more accurate and timely depth,
water level, and related information. The role of governments
and how
they administer programs has also changed dramatically.
Legislation and administrative policies have created a new
federalism emphasizing state and Federal partnerships.
Universities and the private sector are playing increasingly
important roles in achieving Federal goals and objectives.
Establishing an Ocean Commission will help highlight and
prioritize the direction our future national efforts to reap
the benefits of the ocean and its resources as we work to
preserve ocean uses and resources for future generations.
A new commission also will enable the nation's ocean
experts and interests to step back and review our ocean
policies and examine our existing tool box of scientific,
engineering and management tools. We will have the all-too-rare
opportunity to look at the big picture to see what works, what
does not, what needs changing, and what new opportunities,
ideas, and visions have emerged. The Commission will help focus
national attention on ocean activities, promote interagency
cooperation, and strengthen partnerships with private and
public entities engaged in ocean activities. The mechanisms
outlined in the bills to establish the commission will result
in a diverse body that is supported by the Congress and the
Administration. This should promote consensus on achieving and
implementing the commission's recommendations. The objectives
outlined in the Bills provide adequate guidance for the new
commission. Those objectives are broad enough to encompass most
every aspect of marine science, research, and management
without unduly restricting the discretion necessary for the
commission to conduct a successful and thoughtful evaluation
and analysis. For example, broad objectives to expand
understanding of the marine environment, promote stewardship,
protect marine resources, prevent pollution, and reduce risks
from natural and manmade hazards provide clear yet general
direction for the commission. Emphasizing the continued
development of new technologies and promoting interagency and
intergovernmental cooperation are also valid and necessary
objectives.
The 104th Congress recognized the importance of
coordination when it established the National Ocean Partnership
Program (NOPP) to strengthen cooperation in ocean research and
development through partnerships between Federal agencies,
academia, and the private sector. NOPP has successfully
increased interagency cooperation in the area of ocean research
and provides a good example of how coordinating an integrated
Federal effort can maximize use of limited resources and
implement change in a timely and efficient manner.
We have learned much in the three decades since the
Stratton Commission completed its work. It is time to re-
examine U.S. programs and policies with respect to the oceans
and Great Lakes. The pending legislation provides a starting
point to establish policies to guide future research,
exploration, utilization, and conservation of ocean and coastal
resources for the next generation. I support the need to
enhance and maintain the Federal coordinated, comprehensive,
and long-range national policy with respect to domestic ocean
and coastal activities. The legislation pending before this
Committee supports an important, initial step in that process
through the creation of a Commission on Ocean Policy is a
worthwhile step.
Mr. Chairman I would be happy to answer any questions
members of the Subcommittee may have.
------
Statement of Dr. Kenneth H. Brink, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution and Chair of the Ocean Studies Board,
National Research Council
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today as you
consider the proposed Oceans Act of 1998. My name is Dr.
Kenneth H. Brink and I am a senior scientist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. I also serve as the chair of the
Ocean Studies Board (OSB) of the National Research Council, and
I am here today primarily in that capacity. The National
Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise
the government on matters of science and technology.
The Ocean Studies Board was established to advise the
Federal Government and the nation on issues of ocean science
and policy. The Board's members are leaders in ocean science
and policy, employed both in academia and in the private
sector. Most of our activities are initiated at the request of
Federal agencies. For example, we have carried out a number of
studies for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) on topics such as coastal and fisheries management (see
accompanying list).
It has been about 30 years since the Stratton Commission
was formed. It was a broad-based group that included
scientists, policy makers and the ocean user community. The
Commission was given a relatively broad mandate to examine
ocean activities across a range of agencies in the United
States. Based on its study, it produced a number of
recommendations many, but not all, of which were implemented.
Those that were carried out include the creation of the Sea
Grant program (NRC 1994c) and, most notably, the creation of
NOAA as an agency responsible for both oceanic and atmospheric
affairs. Thus, the Stratton Commission cast a very long shadow
and its recommendations had a profound influence on the
structure of ocean sciences that exists in the United States
today.
The United States is the pre-eminent power in ocean
sciences research in the world. This position has been
maintained in part by a multi-faceted, flexible institutional
structure as well as by a Federal commitment to fund research
in the basic sciences. Technology has also contributed heavily
to the U.S. leadership position and has grown in ways that
would probably have been inconceivable 30 years ago. For
example, computing power has made possible extremely
sophisticated ocean measurement systems and powerful numerical
models of ocean phenomena. Satellite technology and Internet
communications have made it possible to gain sweeping views of
the ocean's surface and disseminate this information rapidly to
scientists.
Improved technology and growing scientific sophistication
have led to a number of remarkable accomplishments over the
last decades. One stunning achievement in support of national
security was our capability to detect and track foreign
submarines in the open ocean, an accomplishment requiring an
understanding of acoustics, signal processing, computing,
sensors and ocean physics. Another impressive accomplishment
involved the prediction of El Nino, an ocean-atmosphere
phenomenon originating in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Nowadays, we hear about El Nino daily, but it took a twenty
year sustained effort of observations and modeling to make the
present impressive prediction capability possible. Routine
prediction may, in time, lead to substantial savings to the
U.S. economy by making adaptive agriculture and other
mitigation practices possible (NRC 1997).
Finally, the last 20 years has seen the astounding
discovery of deep-sea hot-water vents. These hitherto
undiscovered sites contain unique life forms that have given us
a deeper, broader understanding of the structure of life
itself. A fundamental discovery such as this sparks our
curiosity, opens new doors for potential applications, and
helps us to comprehend our place in the universe.
The overall success of the United States ocean science
enterprise to date suggests that the Stratton Commission did
its work well. For example, the prescience of placing oceanic
and atmospheric matters in one agency paid off handsomely when
it came to NOAA's important role in predicting El Nino events.
But, the world, including the ocean science world, has changed
dramatically over the last thirty years (NRC 1992). The Cold
War has ended, causing the nation to rethink the need for
national security related research, including in the ocean. In
addition, new fields of scientific inquiry have developed with
new national investments. As a result, although the overall
ocean sciences budget has increased somewhat, it has declined
by a factor of two when expressed as a fraction of the total
basic research funding in the United States. We are now faced
with a range of new ocean challenges and opportunities that we
were barely aware of 30 years ago. For example, we must address
the issue of sustaining ocean ecosystems, including the role of
fisheries management, and the importance of preserving marine
biodiversity (NRC 1998, 1995, 1994a). We need to maintain or
improve conditions in coastal areas in the face of pressures
from development and an ongoing flow of substances from the
land to the ocean (NRC 1994b). And we need to improve our
capabilities for climate prediction on time scales longer than
the few years typical of El Nino.
In this context of opportunities and challenges, proposals
for a new, broad-based, ocean commission are quite timely.
Ocean sciences in this nation have traditionally been scattered
across a number of agencies, having different mandates, and
having oversight by different congressional committees. This
diversity is desirable in many ways, but it makes it difficult
to gain an overall view of United States ocean activities. In
light of the pressing societal questions connected with the
ocean, and the changing context of science, it may be helpful
to review our ocean activities in a more comprehensive way.
There are a number of issues that a new Commission could
deal with, and I list a few examples here.
<bullet> In light of the important ocean problems that need to
be addressed, are we making the right investments, in the right
places, and at the right levels, to assure useful results and
their dissemination?
<bullet> For a specific problem, is there an appropriate
balance between long-term strategic research and more immediate
``tactical'' research, where answers are needed quickly? Within
any single agency, it may be difficult to strike the right
balance, given the press of immediate concerns.
<bullet> Ocean sciences involve complex, specialized
facilities, such as ships, that require substantial lead-time
and investment. Yet, facility needs change as technologies
change. Are we well positioned to provide the right mix of
facilities as they are needed?
<bullet> We deal increasingly with major scientific issues that
require efficient cooperation among many agencies,
institutions, and nations in order to meet our goals. Can
coordination among ocean agencies be improved? The ongoing
Global Change research program may provide useful lessons in
this regard. We can expect a growing internationalization of
many aspects of science, so coordination needs to be thought of
both nationally and, as appropriate, globally.
I expect that any examination of the U.S. ocean enterprise will
uncover both areas in need of improvement as well as praiseworthy
aspects that can serve as models for change. A fresh look at the health
and direction of the United States ocean enterprise could prove very
useful and the National Research Council stands ready to assist as
needed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.
References
National Research Council (NRC). 1998. Improving Fish Stock
Assessments. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1997. The Global Ocean
Observing System: Users, Benefits, and Priorities. National
Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Understanding Marine
Biodiversity. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1994a. Improving the
Management of U.S. Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1994b. Priorities for Coastal
Ecosystem Science. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1994c. A Review of the NOAA
National Sea Grant College Program. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Oceanography in the Next
Decade: Building New Partnerships. National Academy Press.
------
Statement of Richard E. Gutting, Jr., Executive Vice President,
National Fisheries Institute
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Richard
E. Gutting, Jr., Executive Vice President of the National
Fisheries Institute. Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving the
Institute this opportunity to testify.
The Institute represents more than 1,000 companies engaged
in all aspects of the United States seafood industry. NFI
members operate vessels in all of the major fisheries of the
United States, and they process, distribute, and sell fish and
seafood in thousands of facilities located throughout the
United States. We are the largest organization representing the
U.S. fish and seafood industry.
Our Institute supports the establishment of a Commission on
Ocean Policy. The recommendations from such a Commission could
help guide both government and our industry in further
improving the way ocean fisheries are conducted and in better
integrating the many different governmental and private
activities which effect ocean fisheries.
Thirty years have gone by since a similar Commission was
established. Since that time, the U.S. fish and seafood
industry has modernized and expanded. The challenges and
opportunities we face now are quite different than those we
faced in the 1960's.
Thirty years ago, our fishing fleets lacked the capacity to
harvest all the fishery resources off our coasts, and we faced
overwhelming competition for these resources from powerful
foreign fleets fishing off our coasts. Today, those fisheries
which once were unavailable to our fleets, are now producing
billions of pounds of food for Americans. New technologies have
been incorporated into our processing and distribution systems
and many new products have been introduced.
As a result, Americans are enjoying a wider variety of
seafood products of superior quality and seafood's contribution
to better health and nutrition has soared. On average,
Americans today eat about 15 pounds of seafood each year. This
compares to about 10.3 pounds in 1960, and 12.5 pounds in 1980.
Scientific reports and government studies cite fish and seafood
as low in fat, easily digestible, and a good source of protein,
important minerals, and vitamins. As Americans become
increasingly aware of these health and nutritional advantages,
their demand for more and better seafood products should grow.
Most of the large underutilized stocks referred to by the
Stratton Commission 30 years ago are now fully harvested. The
fish protein concentrate the Stratton Commission touted has
proved not to be feasible. Nor did the Commission fully
consider the growing need to bring recreational harvests under
effective management. The jurisdictional premises of the
Stratton Commission's fishery management recommendations are no
longer valid. And the Commission's recommendation that a way be
found to reduce excess fishing effort seems more urgent than
ever.
The challenges we faced 30 years ago in supplying Americans
with seafood, in short, are dramatically different than those
we face today. It is time, the National Fisheries Institute
believes, to take a second look at how the United States can
best use the oceans as a source of food to meet the growing
needs of its expanding population.
Opportunities abound if we can bring the challenges into
focus at the national level. Much more seafood could be
produced if we could find a way to avoid early fishery closures
because of bycatch. Scientists also tell us that significant
gains in seafood production are possible if waste is
eliminated, if the fisheries damaged by pollution or lost
habitat are restored, and if over-fished fisheries are rebuilt.
Aquaculture also offers a way to boost food production and
generate new jobs for coastal communities. Indeed, one academic
study estimates that as much as $5.6 billion in additional
economic activity and 181,000 jobs are already being generated
by aquaculture producers.
With many fisheries reaching biological limits, new ways
must be found to produce fish and seafood. And the new
strategies which are needed must be fashioned within the
realities of the global marketplace in which we find ourselves.
Today the world's population is 5.5 billion people. By the year
2020, it will increase 45 percent to 7.9 billion.
Our nation needs to focus on the oceans. An Ocean
Commission, which brings diverse interests together, could help
generate this focus.
Such a Commission also could help bring scientific
knowledge together with policy making. Today, ocean policy is
being driven by the media, which is well meaning, but not
technologically knowledgeable. It is time to bring together
science and policy makers in an open forum to separate what is
romance and emotion from what is scientific fact.
In this regard, it is important that the Commission be
given adequate resources to investigate and assess the issues
before it. It is equally important that the work of the
Commission not duplicate the efforts called for in the numerous
fishery-related studies that Congress has asked for in the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.
Our nation needs ocean policies that will meet the needs of
our growing population. The Institute is confident that through
public education and cooperation between all levels of the
government, our nation can develop long-range policies that
will foster the sustainable use of the oceans and its fishery
resources.
------
Statement of Paul L. Kelly, Rowan Companies, Inc. on behalf of the
National Ocean Industries Association, the American Petroleum
Institute, the Domestic Petroleum Council, the Independent Petroleum
Association of America, the International Association of Drilling
Contractors, and the National Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
I am Paul Kelly, Senior Vice President of the Rowan Companies,
which is engaged in worldwide onshore and offshore drilling
operations. I am also past chairman of the Department of the
Interior's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Policy Committee and
am pleased to appear here today on behalf of several trade
associations that represent American companies that are
actively involved in oil and gas operations in U.S. waters.
These associations include the National Ocean Industries
Association (NOIA), which represents more than 280 companies
and many individuals involved in the exploration and
development of domestic offshore oil and natural gas resources;
the American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents more
than 400 companies involved in all aspects of the oil and
natural gas industry, including exploration, production,
transportation, refining and marketing; the Domestic Petroleum
Council (DPC), which is a national trade association
representing the largest independent natural gas and crude oil
exploration and production companies in the United States; the
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which
represents America's 8,000 crude oil and natural gas
exploration companies that drill more than 85 percent of new
U.S. wells, including those in the OCS; the International
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), which represents
nearly 900 contract-drilling and well-servicing firms, oil and
gas producers, and suppliers of oilfield equipment; and the
Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, a national trade group
representing both major and independent oil and gas companies
on domestic exploration and production issues.
The organizations I am representing here today are mindful
that 1998 is the international Year of the Ocean (YOTO). I am
particularly involved because I serve on the Heinz Center's
YOTO Steering Group, which is comprised of leaders from all
major sectors concerned with the ocean--industry, government,
the environmental community and academia--and has been charged
with planning U.S. activities for the Year of the Ocean.
Since Congress is evaluating the need for a new ocean
policy commission, its composition and the potential scope of
its work, I am pleased to have this opportunity to share with
you the views of the six associations I am representing here
today.
We have several ideas on the subject that we urge you to
consider. We are especially hopeful that the nation's interest
in sound energy policy, environmental policy and ocean resource
management policy will be considered during the Subcommittee's
deliberations.
Chief among our recommendations is that your deliberations
should NOT begin with the assumption that current ocean
policies or statutes necessarily constitute a problem. For
example, the policies that govern energy development in the
central and western Gulf of Mexico have been a resounding
success. The policies have fostered a robust industry that
produces jobs for our citizens, energy for the nation and
revenue for the treasury. To illustrate these benefits,
attached is a summary of funds generated from OCS development
and distributed to the states and districts represented by the
members of this Subcommittee.
These activities in the Gulf have been managed with
specific regard for health, safety and the environment.
Offshore oil and gas operations are highly regulated to meet
stringent environmental standards. Existing Federal statutes
governing our industry in the offshore and OCS are numerous,
complex and comprehensive. They include the OCS Lands Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal
Zone Management Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and others. Moreover, new technology has eliminated or
minimized the effect of offshore operations on plant and animal
life and production platforms serve as artificial reefs that
are used by a diversity of marine organisms for spawning,
feeding and shelter. This has been a benefit to both commercial
and recreational fishing.
The economic and environmental success of the nation's
ocean management policies in the Gulf raise the question of why
other offshore areas are precluded from producing similar
benefits to the nation and seems to justify a reexamination of
current offshore minerals management policies to eliminate such
prohibitions. In these areas, it seems that scientific and
technological advances have moved out ahead of public policy
and knowledge of those advances.
As we've indicated, it is not clear that that there is an
ocean policy problem that warrants the establishment of a
Commission. If, however, it is determined that one is needed,
it is premature to recommend the establishment of a Council
before the Commission has even met and deliberated.
We have had successes in U.S. ocean policy and we have had
failures. If Congress determines that a Commission is needed,
it should be charged with examining these and determining what
has worked and what has not worked. It should take its input
directly from all the stakeholders with an interest in the
ocean, as well as the work of the YOTO Steering Group.
Moreover, a Commission should only make policy
recommendations to Congress. Neither the President nor the
Commission should adopt new ocean policies without the full
consideration, approval and oversight by the Congress. The
Commission's recommendations should be subject to cost/benefit
analysis, risk assessment and peer reviewed science.
The Commission should ``sunset'' shortly after making its
report to Congress, as is the case in S. 1213, as passed by the
Senate, and H.R. 3445. It is our view that the addition of
another federally supported permanent entity is not needed and
may run contrary to the objective of a leaner, more efficient
government.
The Commission should be charged with representing a broad
range of interests with a stake in oceans policy and Congress
should mandate that membership on the Commission be balanced
among stakeholders, including geographic, scientific,
regulatory, economic, and environmental interests. Moreover,
the Commission should be required to consider a range of the
nation's many important concerns--agriculture, the environment,
energy, fishing, marine transportation and others. To that end,
the Commission's recommendations should balance environmental
and economic issues and concerns.
In conclusion, as significant stakeholders in ocean
resource management decisions, we are hopeful that the
Subcommittee will carefully consider my comments here today. I
thank you for providing me this opportunity to present the
views of the industries, companies and individuals involved in
offshore oil and natural gas operations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7886.092
Statement of the American Association of Port Authorities
Mr. Chairman, the American Association of Port Authorities
(AAPA) submits this statement for the record for the
Subcommittee hearing on Ocean Policy Bills. AAPA represents the
major public port agencies throughout the Western Hemisphere.
This statement represents the views of AAPA's United States
delegation. The U.S. public port industry, made up of State and
local government agencies, develops, manages and promotes the
infrastructure needed to support the flow of waterborne
commerce. Ports act as catalysts for local and regional
economic growth. Commercial port activities in 1994 provided
employment for 1.6 million Americans, contributed $79 billion
to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and personal income
of $56 billion. Port activities also accounted for Federal
taxes of $15.4 billion, and State and local tax revenues
amounting to $5.9 billion.
Investments in our nation's maritime transportation system
pay tremendous dividends to the country through lower prices
for goods, increased trade, more and better-paying jobs, and a
safer, cleaner environment. Ports themselves are investing
heavily in their facilities, to the tune of over $1.3 billion
each year, to accommodate projected increases in international
trade and meet our customers' needs.
AAPA is pleased to support S. 1213 and H.R. 2547 and we
urge the Subcommittee's approval of the legislation. We ask
that the Subcommittee, in considering this legislation, keep in
mind the interests of our nation's ports and the need to
consider the use of the ocean and coastal resources for
international trade and commerce as an integral part of the
process to develop a comprehensive, long-range national ocean
policy.
These bills, which recognize the need for responsible and
economically beneficial use and stewardship of ocean and
coastal resources, would benefit from a more specific focus on
maritime commerce. Our national ocean policy has been recently
shaped by the recommendations of the 1966 Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering and Resources, or ``Stratton'' Commission.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which was an
outgrowth of the Stratton Commission, specifically gives
priority consideration to coastal-dependent uses and orderly
processes for siting national defense, energy, fisheries
development recreational, ports etc. It also sets a goal of
providing assistance in the redevelopment of deteriorating
urban waterfronts and ports, among other things. U.S. ports
hope that the creation of a new Commission to examine ocean and
coastal activities would include at least one port
representative and continue to include maritime commerce as a
priority in any recommendations.
Our nation uses the ocean for its fisheries, we mine the
ocean for its vast natural resources, we enjoy the ocean for
its recreational opportunities, and we use the oceans in trade
lanes connecting world markets. In ports around the country
there is a greater awareness than ever before about the
importance of integrating our activities with interests in
public access to the waterfront, recreational activities, and
protection of our environment. Likewise, ports are being
recognized as a valuable resource to their local and regional
communities, contributing to the national and local areas'
economic activity and national security, and also as an
important partner in meeting environmental goals by providing
cleaner alternatives in goods movement strategies. A thriving
port translates into fewer goods traveling long distances to a
market by truck, thereby improving air quality and reducing
congestion and wear and tear on interstate and local roadways.
From the perspective of a port, the oceans are our
lifeline; they provide for us the means of connecting with
markets and economies so distant from our own. In the arena of
international trade, ports provide the interface between the
ocean and the land, the seller and the consumer. Ports provide
the platform for the transfer of goods from ship to truck or
rail, as well as a home to cruise ship, ferry, commercial
fishing, and recreational users. Increasingly, trends in the
maritime industry are making new demands on our ports and
related landside infrastructure.
The worldwide economy is expanding. More and more nations
are enjoying improving economic conditions and are entering the
global marketplace. The result is the that the volume of goods
being traded worldwide is growing at impressive rates and is
expected to triple by 2020. While trade volumes are growing,
competitive forces within the maritime trade are as great as
ever. Shippers are seeking the cheapest and fastest way to get
their products from production to the consumer. Shipping lines
are responding to these customer demands by seeking the
greatest efficiencies possible to cut costs and improve
service. In some cases, at large ports the result has been that
shipping lines are carrying far more cargo on fewer, though
much larger, vessels. These larger vessels are expensive to
operate, so it is in the shipping lines' interest to limit the
amount of time a vessel is in port. The goal is to load or
unload as much cargo as possible in a port and sail out of port
as quickly as possible to maximize the value of the ship's
operating costs. In other ports, this trend means more feeder
vessels, barge activity, and lightering.
This development in world trade is having tremendous
impacts on all aspects of ports. Larger vessels typically
require deeper shipping channels and berths to accommodate the
deeper drafts of these vessels. This raises questions, of
course, about the physical and environmental consequences of
channel deepenings, including habitat impacts, dredge disposal
management, and operational safety. The volume of cargo being
loaded onto or unloaded off of these large ships is staggering
and requires greater upland storage areas for the cargo and
more equipment to move the cargo to and from ships. The demands
on the landside infrastructure requires difficult trade offs
for a local community in terms of adjacent land uses, and even
greater demand on local highway and rail systems.
These impacts are forcing ports to consider new investments
in their water and landside facilities to meet the demands of
the shipping lines and their customers, while being mindful of
the need to make these investments in a way that is sensitive
to the environment--producing a net environmental benefit. It
means that ports are dredging channels and berths deeper and
looking at areas to expand their marine terminals by taking
properties adjacent to existing facilities or creating new land
using fill. We are challenged to do so with broad consideration
for public concerns for environmental sensitivity, focusing on
how to use strategies to reuse brownfield sites and enhance
habitats. To more efficiently handle cargo on and off the
marine terminals, new investments are being made in highways
and highway connections, as well as improvements in on-dock
rail connections and overall rail service to and from the port.
Identifying the resources to make these investments is a
significant challenge to ports. More and more ports are looking
for partners to share the costs of these investments. This
includes seeking support from the Federal Government, as well
as partnerships with the private sector, especially private
terminal operators and vessel operators.
On the state and local levels, transportation planning
should account for the demands the port's activities will have
on the local infrastructure. Urban planners need to recognize
that waterfront property is a finite resource and that maritime
activities, unlike other commercial enterprises, can occur only
along the water. Waterfront zoning and development plans must
take this fact into consideration, just as we must also
consider public access and recreational requirements.
Another problem facing ports is the increased use of the
waterways. As mentioned above, many ports are seeing greater
service by barge lines, feeder ships, and passenger and
recreational vessels. This trend greatly increases the
possibilities of accidents, which can cause injury to humans
and the environment. We appreciate the leadership the
Subcommittee has shown in addressing the important issue of
navigation safety.
These are the types of issues that must be at the forefront
of any national ocean policy, and we urge the Subcommittee to
consider these important issues in its consideration of the
ocean policy bills before it.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47886.091