[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4368, A BILL TO TRANSFER THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, September 30, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-108
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-207 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Joe Baca, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Randy Neugebauer, Texas Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, September 30, 2004..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 8
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Hayes, Robert G., General Counsel, Coastal Conservation
Association................................................ 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Keeney, Timothy R.E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce......... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Mann, Christopher G., Policy Director, Center for SeaChange.. 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association................................................ 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Palatiello, John M., Executive Director, Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS).. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Rosenberg, Andrew A., Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, and Professor, University of New Hampshire......... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4368, A BILL TO TRANSFER THE NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.
----------
Thursday, September 30, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Saxton, Pombo, Pallone
and Faleomavaega.
Also Present: Representative Farr.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
I want to welcome all of you here today, and thank you for
coming either to testify or to listen on H.R. 4368, the Weather
and Oceans Resources Realignment Act.
This legislation offered by the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Saxton, would transfer NOAA into the Department of the
Interior.
NOAA performs a number of vital services to the Nation,
including the monitoring and management of our oceans,
monitoring meteorological trends, and making life-saving storm
predictions. Its job is to bring together many pieces of
complex oceanic and atmospheric systems so that we can best
understand and utilize them as good stewards.
Since its inception, there has been much debate about where
to best place NOAA within the Federal Government. I want to
thank Mr. Saxton, the former Chair of this subcommittee, for
introducing this legislation and for bringing us together to
talk in pretty good detailed terms about this particular
proposal, and also about, as some of you mentioned in your
testimony, the details upon which the substance of the creation
of NOAA is being discussed here today: What are our goals with
NOAA? What are their objectives? And, as some of you have
mentioned in your testimony, can the existing structure meet
those goals?
But Mr. Saxton's contribution here as far as the management
of ocean resources in this committee has been invaluable.
Most recently the Senate Commerce Committee debated a bill
that would have, among other things, made NOAA an independent
agency, which, by the way, is still in the discussion stage as
far as the House is concerned. When the bill emerged from the
committee, the bill maintained NOAA within the Department of
Commerce, but creates a separate budget authority for the
agency. I believe this was done in recognition of the
difficulties of maintaining an adequate level of funding to
support the variety of missions of the Department of Commerce,
including the scientific and management missions of NOAA.
In addition, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's recently
released final report suggests a three-phase approach resulting
in an agency responsible for the management of all natural
resources. I think an argument can be made for the
establishment of an oceans agency.
Today's hearing is just a starting point for this
discussion and for a broader discussion of the suggestions made
by the Commission's report. I look forward to the
recommendations of the President.
We certainly look forward to the next Congress in
developing legislation and further evolving our understanding
of oceans issues; looking back into the history of this
Nation's involvement in fisheries, in oceans research, and in
oceans in general, and certainly throughout the last several
decades. But now we have reached a point where there needs to
be another evaluation of NOAA's place in being the lead entity,
whether in Commerce, in Interior, or as a separate agency, to
represent and develop policies for the United States and its
relationship with the international community, to deal with
fisheries on an international basis, to deal with oceans
issues, since oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface,
as far as an ecological system is concerned; and if we are
going to begin to understand in a much more pragmatic way, is
there some truth to global warming and climate change? And if
the United States is to be a leader in the world on these vital
issues, we have to understand whether or not the agency that is
now, for the most part, the lead agency in the United States
for these issues, is capable of performing those tasks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
I would like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing on H.R.
4368, the Weather and Oceans Resources Realignment Act. This
legislation would transfer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to the Department of the Interior.
NOAA performs a number of vital services to the nation, including
the monitoring and management of our oceans, monitoring meteorological
trends, and making life-saving storm predictions. Its job is to bring
together many pieces of complex oceanic and atmospheric systems so that
we can best understand and utilize them as good stewards.
Since its inception, there has been much debate about where to best
place NOAA within the Federal government. I thank Congressman Saxton,
the former Chair of this Subcommittee, for introducing this
legislation. His contribution to this discussion, especially with
regard to the management of ocean resources in this committee, is
invaluable.
Most recently, the Senate Commerce Committee debated a bill that
would have, among other things, made NOAA an independent agency. When
the bill emerged from the Committee, the bill maintained NOAA within
the Department of Commerce, but creates a separate budget authority for
the agency. I believe this was done in recognition of the difficulties
of maintaining an adequate level of funding to support the variety of
missions of the Department of Commerce--including the scientific and
management missions of NOAA.
In addition, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's recently
released Final Report suggests a three-phase approach resulting in an
agency responsible for the management of all natural resources. I think
an argument could also be made for the establishment of an oceans
agency.
Today's hearing is just a starting point for this discussion and
for a broader discussion of the suggestions made by the Commission's
report. I look forward to the recommendations of the President and note
that an interagency policy group has been formed by the White House
Council on Environmental Quality to respond to the Commission's report.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Farr be seated at the dais and
participate fully with the Subcommittee.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there objection? Hearing no objection.
Mr. Saxton. I am not sure about his tie, though. It has
frogs on it.
Mr. Farr. It is a Resources tie.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, the history of how NOAA ended up
in the Department of Commerce and not in the Department of the
Interior as initially intended is an example of how arbitrary
events have often directed the structuring of our government.
In fairness to NOAA, however, the agency has made the best of
an unusual situation. NOAA has matured into a focused advocate
for our Nation's ocean and coastal resources that was
envisioned essentially by the Stratton Commission over 30 years
ago.
I want to commend not only those administrators who have
led NOAA since 1970, but also the agency's many scientists,
uniformed officers, technicians and resource managers for their
dedication toward fulfilling NOAA's multifaceted and complex
mission, and essentially as the preeminent steward of our
Nation's oceans.
With the release of the final report of the U.S. Oceans--
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the real work of sorting
out NOAA's future and its place in the Federal establishment
should become a CONGRESSIONAL priority. If we are to take
seriously the recommendations of this report as well as those
of the 2003 Pew Ocean Commission's report, Congress should not
ignore this issue. And I am just pleased that several Members
have introduced legislation to begin the discussion. My
colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, introduced H.R. 4368,
which would transfer NOAA to the Department of Interior.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have future
opportunities to consider other relevant legislation such as
the bills offered by Mr. Farr, Mr. Rahall and our other
colleagues in the House Oceans Caucus. Most importantly, we
should consider the pressing need to develop an organic act for
NOAA. While the agency has performed admirably over its
history, it needs the certainty of a congressionally mandated
mission to give the agency direction and permanence.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on Mr.
Saxton's bill and whether or not it can achieve the
recommendation of the two ocean commissions, which is
essentially to strengthen NOAA. However, I must express my
disappointment that we do not have anyone testifying this
morning from the Department of Interior, from the Coastal
States Organization, the Sea Grant Association, or the
Consortium For Ocean Research and Education, because each of
these organizations has a vested interest in the NOAA programs,
and the Subcommittee would be wise to solicit their views on
this issue.
I appreciate the fact that we are having this hearing, Mr.
Chairman. It is certainly a beginning, but I do think that we
need to have some follow-ups on the legislation by Mr. Farr,
and we need to have some of these people testify in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The history of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA, ended up in the Department of Commerce, and
not in the Department of the Interior as initially intended, is an
example of how arbitrary events have often directed the structuring of
our government.
In fairness to NOAA, however, the agency has made the best of an
unusual situation. NOAA has matured into the focused advocate for our
Nation's ocean and coastal resources that was envisioned by the
Stratton Commission over thirty years ago.
I commend not only those administrators who have led NOAA since
1970, but also the agency's many scientists, uniformed officers,
technicians and resource managers for their dedication towards
fulfilling NOAA's multi-faceted and complex mission as the preeminent
steward of our Nation's oceans.
Now, with the release of the final report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, the real work of sorting out NOAA's future and its place
in the Federal establishment should become a congressional priority. If
we are to take seriously the recommendations of this report and the
2003 Pew Oceans Commission report, Congress should not ignore this
issue.
I am pleased that several members have introduced legislation to
begin this discussion. My colleague from New Jersey, Jim Saxton,
introduced H.R. 4368, which would transfer NOAA to the Department of
the Interior. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have future
opportunities to consider other relevant legislation, such as the bills
offered by Mr. Farr, Mr. Rahall, and our other colleagues in the House
Oceans Caucus.
Most importantly, we should consider the pressing need to develop
an Organic Act for NOAA. While the agency has performed admirably over
its history, it needs the certainty of a Congressionally mandated
mission to give the agency direction and permanence.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on Mr. Saxton's bill
and whether or not it can achieve the recommendation of the two ocean
commissions, which is to strengthen NOAA. However, I must express my
disappointment that we do not have anyone testifying this morning from
the Department of the Interior, the Coastal States Organization, the
National Sea Grant Association, or the Consortium for Ocean Research
and Education. Each of these organizations has a vested interest in
NOAA programs and the subcommittee would be wise to solicit their views
on this issue.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Certainly we can
follow up with another hearing as we move through the process
of developing a NOAA Organic Act, and prior to that, though, we
can probably sit down and talk to Fish and Wildlife in the
interim.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from California has left the
room.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
calling this hearing. It is late in the session, and we have a
lot of things to do, but this is certainly one of the more
important issues that we need to address.
During the two decades that I have had the pleasure to
serve this committee, and formerly on the Merchant Narine and
Fisheries Committee, I have learned a lot about ocean
management. I have learned about some successes that we have
had, and I have also learned about some failures that we have
had. And relative to this case, I am very concerned about the
performance of the National Fisheries Service as an integral
part of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
Just one fact that I think we should all keep in mind is
that with regard to the management of ocean resources, the set
of species that are the flagship species that may have a lot to
do with telling us how we are doing with the ocean, of course,
is fish, and it is no surprise to any of us who have worked on
these subjects that we know that the fish stocks are not in
good shape, and, as a matter of fact, many species are said to
be 90 percent deleted. That certainly cannot be viewed as a
success.
At the same time, I had an experience last week where Dr.
Hogarth came to visit me, and he said, Congressman, I
understand you do not like the way I am doing my job. And I
said, Bill, you and I are friends, and that is not how I would
put it. I have been working with these issues now for two
decades, and neither you nor your predecessors have been able
to do your job given the situation that you are appointed to.
And I think that what we are ought to do is to try to find a
way to change this.
So there are a number of issues that we should look at
here. We should look at the history of NOAA and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I think it is interesting to
look back. I am told by staff who have been very much into this
set of issues and by the Commission on Ocean Policy that in
1990, when the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, largely for
political reasons at the time according to this information,
was moved to the Department of Commerce and renamed the
National Marine Fisheries Service largely for political
reasons, not for reasons that have to do with the management of
natural resources, but for political reasons, and that was a
bad start in 1970, and that was not Dr. Hogarth's fault or
anybody else that works in National Marine and Fisheries
Service today.
So I guess what I want to say here is that we are in this
together. I have been here for 20 years. Others have been here
perhaps not quite as long as that, as I look around the table,
and still we find ourselves in a situation where many or some
fish stocks are 90 percent depleted, and we do not really have
a way to deal with them.
So I want to start this discussion in the House by
suggesting that there is a department--and this may or may not
be what we end up doing--there is a department that is
responsible for the management of resources. It is called the
Department of Interior. In the Department of Interior is housed
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage resources. We have
in Interior the Mineral Management Service to manage resources;
the U.S. Global Survey to help manage resources; the Bureau of
Reclamation to manage resources; the Bureau of Land Management
to manage resources known as land; the Office of Surface
Mining, a resource agency; the National Park Service, a
resource agency.
So when I then look at the Department of Commerce, and I
like to find logical routes that seem simple, and I look at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I find the
National Ocean Service manages resources; the National Marine
Fishery Service, which manages resources; the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research, which conducts scientific research on
the effect of the atmosphere on resources; and the National
Weather Service, which obviously has something to do with the
weather and resources; and the National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service. The prime customer for the
Satellite Data Service is the National Weather Service, again
for the talking about the effect of weather on resources.
So it seems to be a logical place to at least start to talk
about finding a more logical place to look at how we might make
some changes that might make some sense.
And then I found that there are some areas that the
Department of Commerce and NOAA have in common where they have
joint authority, and that would be the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. They have joint
jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act,
the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, the Atlantic
Salmon Act, the Atlantic Striped Bass Act--and thank you very
much, Bill Hogarth helped us save ourselves in New Jersey last
week on this issue. I say thank you for that. I would have
liked to say that directly to him, but he could not be here
today--the Central, Western and South Pacific Fisheries
Development Act, joint jurisdiction; the Yukon River Salmon
Act, joint jurisdiction.
So this seems to be a logical place to start the
discussion. But this is not the first time that we have had
this discussion. According to the final report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, since 1970, when NOAA was stood up
in Commerce, there have been more than 20 congressional
proposals to either move NOAA from the Department of Commerce
to another agency or to establish NOAA as an independent
agency. And I hope that we are more successful this time in
coming to some rational conclusion than we have been over the
past 34 years or so.
In addition to that, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
recommends a three-phase approach. I will not go into detail on
all three phases, but phase 3 of the recommendation is to
create a unified Federal agency structure to manage all natural
resources, again pointing to the same concept that we are here
specifically to talk about today.
So I look forward to these discussions. I know that Members
of both sides of the aisle are extremely interested in creating
a situation to improve our chances of success in managing one
of the most important sets of resources on the face of the
Earth, and so I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
and Mr. Pombo, the Chairman of the full committee, and my
friends on the other side of the aisle, and Sam Farr and I who
go back very far, and I look forward to these discussions.
I have a formal statement that I ask be included in the
record as well. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to discuss a bill I have
introduced, along with Congressman Young, H.R. 4368, the Weather and
Oceans Resources Realignment Act. This bill will transfer the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Department of the
Interior. Thank you to our witnesses for taking time out of their
schedules to be with us today.
An issue to which I have devoted a great deal of time and one that
I feel is very important is the protection of the diverse range of fish
stocks that inhabit our world's oceans, many of which are very close to
disappearing forever. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency
tasked with the protection of these species has failed to do so.
I have never been able to comprehend why the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is housed within the Department of
Commerce, which has nothing to do with the protection of our natural
resources. NMFS/NOAA has a dual mission: (1) to promote the consumption
of seafood and (2) simultaneously conserve and sustain the stock levels
of the same species they are promoting for consumption. This is
inherently conflictual. For this reason, I have introduced this
legislation, which simply moves NOAA to a more appropriate agency,
Interior.
Given the release of now three studies essentially stating that
what I have been talking about is likely to happen, I am more convinced
than ever that we need to take aggressive action immediately. Many of
our oceans' fish stocks are now reportedly 90% depleted, meaning only
10% of the stocks that once existed remain. And many of these stocks
are in grave danger of extinction if we proceed down the same path we
are on now--that is, continue to study these stocks and do little to
mitigate the damage that has already been done.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, created from the Oceans Act of
2000, which I helped shepherd through the House, released it's final
report earlier this month, with many of the same findings. When the
Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000, creating the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, one of their directives was to study our current system
of managing the oceans and develop a comprehensive analysis of what is
and what is not working.
One of the most significant findings is the need for a new national
ocean policy framework. I have long believed that there are far too
many Congressional Committees and Federal Agencies tasked with the
managing of our oceans, and consequently there is very often overlap
and duplication of efforts, and the resources suffer as a result.
To begin to address this problem, I agree with the Commission in
the need to establish in law, reconfigure and strengthen NOAA, to
enable them to balance the many roles they have in managing our oceans
and fisheries issues.
In addition, the Commission has recognized the need to ensure that
policies put in place to manage the oceans be based on unbiased,
credible and scientific information. To do so, the federal investment
in ocean research needs to be increased. The Commission found that
ocean research funding has fallen from 7 percent of the total federal
research budget 25 years ago to 3.5 percent today. In order for the
U.S. to utilize the capacity we have as a world leader on so many ocean
issues it is critical this funding be increased.
Finally, the issue of how we manage our fisheries is vitally
important, and yet, there are so many species that have plummeted over
the past few decades, and if we are to save them from extinction, we
need to take aggressive steps now.
I am also pleased the Commission has recognized that, while there
are many good parts of the current system in place to manage the
fisheries, the ways in which all of the different levels, from federal
to local work together, needs to be examined and streamlined, to create
a much better coordination of efforts.
In particular, an issue that I feel is very important is the
protection of the diverse range of fish stocks that inhabit our world's
oceans, many of which are very close to disappearing forever. Many of
our oceans' fish stocks are now reportedly 90% depleted, meaning only
10% of the stocks that once existed remain.
Thus, many of these stocks are in grave danger of extinction if we
proceed down the same path we are on now--that is, continue to study
these stocks and do little to mitigate the damage that has already been
done.
The United States is a world leader on so many important and
complex issues; it is hard to understand why the issue of fisheries
management, and enforcement of the regulations currently in place both
domestically and internationally, seems impossible to accomplish.
We need to take immediate aggressive steps to prevent the
disappearance of these fish species, before it's too late. These
studies should be a wake-up call that the process through which our
world's fisheries is managed is broken and needs to be fixed.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has demonstrated repeatedly
they are incapable of doing the job they have been tasked with as the
primary federal agency responsible for monitoring and protecting our
nation's fisheries. To place them within the Department of the Interior
would serve to strengthen the two agencies goals of resources
conservation.
This is an issue that resonates with anyone who has ever been to
the beach in states like New Jersey, or watched a television program
involving the deep blue sea. And given that 50% of the population of
the United States lives within 100 miles of a coast, there are many who
are personally affected by this issue.
We have a unique opportunity to do something amazing and I think we
owe it these wonderful resources that are our oceans to do all we can
to bring them back to a healthy and sustainable level, for future
generations.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that my statement also be included and made a part of the
record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection
Mr. Faleomavaega. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses this morning. This is a major proposal, and I think
we ought to certainly recognize the substance of the wisdom of
the Members especially, Mr. Young and Mr. Saxton for having
proposed this bill. I am looking forwards to hearing from our
witnesses on this matter.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Chairman of the full committee Mr.
Pombo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a short
statement. I would like to, first of all, point out to you the
book Mr. Farr just gave to me, Fair Play for Frogs, and I look
forward to reading this on the way home on the airplane.
I thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 4368,
introduced by our colleague, Jim Saxton. In the 106th Congress,
Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. Mr. Saxton introduced
the House companion to the Senate bill that was eventually
enacted. The Oceans Act of 2000 led to the formation of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
The Committee on Resources held a hearing on the
Commission's preliminary report on May 20 of this year. As
everyone here is aware, the Commission has just recently
released its final report. It is a very large document with
more than 200 recommendations on a number of very important
issues, everything from marine mammal management to marine
transportation and port security.
In addition to the report that was released, the Oceans Act
called for the President to make recommendations to Congress.
Some Members of Congress have conveniently forgotten about this
step and are calling for action on some selective portions of
this report in what could be the last few weeks of Congress.
If the taxpayers are going to spend $10 million for this
report, then at a minimum the President of the United States
should be given his legal right to review this document and
make his recommendations to Congress before we act. I think
that a hurried approach is exactly what we do not want to do
with this report. A rush to legislate is not an appropriate
response to such a complex set of recommendations.
This hearing is about H.R. 4368, a bill to move the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the
Department of Interior. On this issue alone there have been at
least three different proposals: to make NOAA an independent
agency; to leave NOAA within the Department of Commerce; and
Mr. Saxton's proposal, to move it to the Department of
Interior, a proposal that I feel has a great deal of merit.
In addition, I have heard calls for the creation of the
oceans agency and the creation of a natural resources agency. I
suspect all of these proposals do have some merit and deserve
to be debated.
I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Saxton, bringing this
forward. I know this is an issue that he has worked long and
hard on, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing
and to hear this debate as it moves forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Pombo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 4368,
introduced by our colleague, Congressman Jim Saxton.
In the 106th Congress, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. Mr.
Saxton introduced the House companion to the Senate bill that was
eventually enacted. The Oceans Act of 2000 led to the formation of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
The Committee on Resources held a hearing on the Commission's
Preliminary Report on May 20th of this year.
As everyone here is aware, the Commission released its final report
last week. It is a very large document with more than 200
recommendations on a number of important issues--everything from marine
mammal management to marine transportation and port security.
In addition to the report that was released last week, the Oceans
Act called for the President to make recommendation to Congress. Some
Members of Congress have conveniently forgotten about this step and are
calling for action on some selected portions of the report in what
could be the last few weeks of Congress. If the taxpayers are going to
spend $10 million for this report then, at a minimum, the President of
the United States should be given his legal right to review this
document and make his recommendations to Congress before we act.
I think that a hurried approach is exactly what we do NOT want to
do with this report. A rush to legislate is not an appropriate response
to such a complex set of recommendations.
This hearing is about H.R. 4368, a bill to move the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Department of the
Interior. On this issue alone, there have been at least three different
proposals--to make NOAA an independent agency, to leave NOAA within the
Department of Commerce, and Mr. Saxton's proposal to move it to the
Department of the Interior. In addition, I have heard calls for the
creation of an Oceans Agency and the creation of a Natural Resources
Agency.
I suspect all of these proposals have some merit and deserve to be
debated. That's the reason for this hearing.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Once again we want to welcome Mr. Farr, who
used to be on this committee, here today. He has come here
today to show his interest in this particular issue. We
normally don't have Members from other committees give opening
statements, but we will give you 20 second here if you want to
say something.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. I want to thank you very much for allowing me to
sit here. It is very comfortable to be back here in this
beautiful room. I would like to ask my opening remarks be
submitted for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify this morning
regarding H.R. 4368, Representative Saxton's bill which calls for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to be
transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the
Interior.
Starting with the first comprehensive consideration of our nation's
ocean policy--provided by the Stratton Commission in 1969--numerous
proposals have been put forth to give NOAA a seemingly more appropriate
home. The proposals have ranged from establishing NOAA as a new
independent agency, as argued for by the Stratton Commission, to
creating a new department of natural resources that would include NOAA.
In fact, according to the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, the Nixon Administration had planned to create a department of
natural resources that would have housed a newly-created NOAA, the
Department of the Interior, and several other agencies; instead, the
Administration eventually decided, for interesting political reasons,
to put NOAA within the Department of Commerce. In total, not including
initiatives introduced since April of this year, 23 reorganization
proposals involving NOAA have been offered by congressional,
presidential, and federal advisory committees since the Stratton
Commission released its report.
I appreciate Representative Saxton continuing the discussions that
have taken place over the past 30 years regarding the best place for
NOAA to call home. However, I do not believe that just moving NOAA from
Commerce into Interior offers a fix that addresses the history of
failures associated with our protection of marine natural resources--a
history recently highlighted in both the Pew Oceans Commission report
and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report.
Let's take a step back and look at the larger context in which we
consider this bill. Last week, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
submitted to the President and to Congress its final report on
``everything oceans.'' This comprehensive document makes
recommendations on a wide range of topics, from improving governance of
ocean resources to promoting greater marine stewardship and education,
from recognizing the need to manage the oceans on an ecosystem basis to
suggesting greater exploration of unknown areas of the sea, from
discussing reform of fisheries management to arguing for increases in
our marine science research budget, and from speaking to the
connections between coastal land uses and the oceans to implementing an
integrated ocean observation system. Based on this comprehensive
consideration, the first such effort by the federal government to occur
since the Stratton Commission in 1969, as well as the Pew Oceans
Commission report, we currently find ourselves at a critical juncture
with respect to reforming marine policy. Simply stated, we have an
unprecedented, once-in-a-generation opportunity. We can choose to
pursue reforms on a piece by piece basis or we can decide that enough
is enough and that the time has come for a comprehensive solution
responding to many of the problems.
The bipartisan co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Jim Greenwood,
Tom Allen, Curt Weldon, and myself, recently introduced a comprehensive
solution--an oceans bill that answers the calls of both the Pew Oceans
Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In addition to
providing a national policy to protect, maintain, and restore the
health of marine ecosystems, our bill, H.R. 4900, informally referred
to as OCEANS-21, calls for a presidential report on reorganizing the
federal government into a department of natural resources that would
include what we know today as NOAA. This is where I think we should set
our sights.
By introducing H.R. 4368, Mr. Saxton has successfully brought
attention to the very same point the House Oceans Caucus co-chairs made
in our bill: what is the best framework for management of our oceans? I
sincerely believe that Representative Saxton and I are on the same page
here--we need a new management scheme. But, instead of moving NOAA to
Interior now, I suggest that we pursue two tracks to deal with the
large governance challenges we face, a short-term one and a long-term
one.
In the short-term, we must considerably strengthen NOAA. We can do
this by passing an Organic Act that explicitly states that NOAA is the
lead agency on all ocean-related issues. Part of this Organic Act
should be a realignment of NOAA's organization to move away from the
inherent conflicts that result when you fail to recognize all of the
connections within marine ecosystems--when you fail to manage based on
ecosystems. Ecosystem-based management must also be taken to the next
level: we must establish regional ocean councils that bring the states
together with tribal and federal interests to do ecosystem planning for
the oceans. The oceans don't understand political boundaries, so we
must create boundaries that reflect ocean ecosystems. Let's not be
satisfied with a system that calls for people to come together only
when crises are at hand. Let's set up a system that will actually help
avert the crises. We all know that stopping a crisis from happening is
much preferable to trying to address one that has already occurred. I
do not see moving NOAA to Interior without empowering or realigning it
as comprehensively addressing the problem. Simply shifting the problem
is not the solution.
In the long-term, we should think about how we can address all of
the interactions between the land, air, and water. To quote from the
final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, ``Based on a
growing understanding of ecosystems, including recognition of the
inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all living things, a
more fundamental reorganization of federal resource agencies will
eventually be needed.'' This sentiment should guide our consideration
of reorganizing efforts. And, it is this sentiment that the Oceans
Caucus co-chairs had in mind when writing the provision of OCEANS-21
that requires an executive report on reorganizing the federal
government to create a department of natural resources.
As clearly illustrated, one of the vital pieces to responsibly
addressing the problems threatening the oceans, and the many sectors
that depend on healthy oceans, from tourism to fisheries, is getting
the federal government reconfigured to do ecosystem-based management.
But, this effort alone will not turn the tide.
Another important component of setting our country's ocean policy
on a path of long-term sustainability, and one that can be done in the
short-term, is to have a clearly-stated national policy for our oceans.
As I mentioned previously, OCEANS-21 provides such a policy. To quote
from H.R. 4900, ``The Congress declares that it is the continuing
policy of the United States to protect, maintain, and restore the
health of marine ecosystems in order to fulfill the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans.'' This national policy will compliment the commitments we
have already made, and should vigorously defend and loudly re-affirm,
to protecting our public lands, ensuring clean water, and safeguarding
clean air. Adopting this national policy must be a part of our
legislative answer to address the sad state of our ocean resources.
Simply moving NOAA to Interior does not fully address it.
Another immediate way to help fix our ocean troubles is to elevate
the level of attention paid to the oceans. Everything that we do on
land, from driving our cars to filling in wetlands, eventually affects
the oceans. For this reason, there must be a high-level position within
the White House, a National Oceans Advisor, to promote ocean issues and
to oversee greater coordination among the Executive departments sitting
on a newly-created National Oceans Council. Both the Pew and U.S.
Commission call for a National Oceans Advisor and a National Oceans
Council and OCEANS-21 includes them. Part of the responsibility of
these new positions is to change the atmosphere surrounding our oceans
such that every American, from a person in Kansas to the Secretary of
Energy, more readily recognizes our dependence on healthy oceans as
well as how our actions affect the oceans. I do not believe that moving
NOAA to Interior elevates the amount of attention paid to the oceans.
One other way that we can reverse the trends that threaten our
seas--and one that should not be underestimated--is to commit to
funding NOAA at levels that would actually allow the agency to do its
job. In this respect, we have a shameful record. But, I note that this
is not for lack of trying by many of the members of this subcommittee--
Representative Pallone, Representative Gilchrest, Representative
Faleomavaega, Representative Saxton, Representative Abercrombie, and
Representative Bordallo have all joined me and the other House Oceans
Caucus and Coastal Caucus co-chairs in sending request letters to the
Appropriations Committee outlining some of the most important NOAA
programs and the funding levels required for these programs. Sadly,
while the Weather Service usually gets the funds it needs, the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the National Ocean Service are regularly
left scrambling.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has done a marvelous job of
describing, in great detail, the resources needed to have a truly
functional NOAA. In addition, in its report, the U.S. Commission offers
a way to pay for much of the increased funding needed for better
management and conservation of our precious ocean resources. The
Commission suggests that revenues from offshore activities be funneled
into a dedicated trust fund. I think that this makes a lot of sense
and, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I sincerely
appreciate the Commission offering a method of paying for a large
portion of their recommendations. I do, however, note that the
Commission clearly states that these cost estimates and funding sources
are meant to complement currently appropriated levels--not be the sole
source of funds.
I do not believe that moving NOAA to Interior will solve its
funding woes. Simply transferring it would not mean that its
appropriations would be evaluated within the Interior Appropriations
bill--additional action from the Appropriations Committee would still
be necessary. What would help alleviate the lack of funding would be,
beginning immediately, to have the Office of Management and Budget
evaluate NOAA like it does other natural resource agencies. This simple
step has the potential to ensure a long term solution for getting a
more appropriate consideration of NOAA funding requirements.
While working to have NOAA evaluated outside of Commerce
guidelines, I hope that during next year's appropriations cycle I will
be able to depend on ALL members of this subcommittee to support
funding NOAA at levels that will allow the agency to fulfill its
responsibilities.
Our oceans represent the largest public trust resource in the U.S.
Being better stewards of this vast resource--something that both the
Pew and U.S. Commissions were adamant about--will require a change of
course. But, as the U.S. Commission reminds us, every American depends
on and is affected by the oceans, so fundamentally, this should be easy
way for members of both parties from geographically-diverse areas to
come together to do the People's business. Americans expect the
Government to safeguard our ocean resources and I hope that the final
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, considered alongside the
Pew report, will be the impetus for us to actually begin to do so.
While we have many crises, at home and abroad, that require our
immediate attention, we cannot overlook the fact that our oceans are in
a state of crisis, too. It is my sincere hope that Members of Congress,
especially members of this subcommittee, will read the U.S.
Commission's report and realize that our oceans need attention--now--
and that the country is looking to us--their leaders--to act and make
lasting changes. Having this discussion today is a step in the right
direction; I just hope that today's hearing is the first of many that
will take place to address the serious problems outlined in no less
than two comprehensive reports describing the imperiled state of our
oceans.
In closing, I thank Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone
for letting me participate in today's hearing. I also thank
Representative Saxton for his dedication to issues so important to our
responsible management of ocean resources. Finally, it is my sincere
hope that this subcommittee, and the larger committee, chooses to
consider, and subsequently mark up, legislation that is comprehensive
in scope, reflects the myriad problems detailed in the reports, and re-
directs this country to a path to protect its largest public trust
resource--our oceans.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Keeney, thank you very much for coming
this morning. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Mr. Keeney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Timothy Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to present NOAA's
perspective on H.R. 4368, the Weather and Oceans Resources
Realignment Act.
I would like to preface my remarks by thanking the bill's
author, Representative Saxton, for his dedication to serving
America's precious ocean resources. For the last 20 years he
has worked tirelessly and effectively for his constituents, and
he has been a supporter of NOAA while serving with distinction
as the Chairman, Vice Chairman and member of this subcommittee.
I also fondly recall in 1990 introducing you as NOAA's
keynote speaker at an annual conference. And the memory of your
passionate voice for environmental interests in the coastal
zone certainly remains with me today.
In commenting on this legislation, I wanted to focus on two
issues: First, has NOAA performed its mission successfully to
the benefit of the American people as part of the Department of
Commerce; and second, what are the anticipated costs of moving
NOAA to the Department of Interior.
On October 3, 2005, NOAA will celebrate the 35th
anniversary as part of the Department of Commerce. In a July
1970 statement to the Congress, President Nixon proposed
creating NOAA to serve a national need ``for better protection
of life and property from natural hazards, for a better
understanding of the total environment, and for exploration and
development leading to the intelligent use of our marine
resources.''
By every objective measure, NOAA has met or exceeded these
expectations. As the events of the past month have shown, the
United States is the most severe-weather-prone country on
Earth. Perhaps 90 percent of all Presidentially declared
disasters are weather-related. The modernization of the
National Weather Service and dedication of our employees has
resulted in the average warning lead time for tornadoes
increasing to 13 minutes, from less than 2 minutes when NOAA
was created.
President Bush visited the National Hurricane Center in
Miami this month and personally thanked our employees for the
accuracy of their forecasts and warnings which helped to save
lives and property when Hurricanes Charley and Frances swept
through the Southern U.S. And the Caribbean. The success was
truly a NOAA-wide effort, with virtually every line office of
the agency contributing in some way to the more accurate
forecast.
We also point with pride to NOAA's response to the
increasing migration of the U.S. Populations to our coasts.
Currently more than half of our population, approximately 141
million people, resides within 50 miles of the coast and Great
Lakes. New programs have been created to manage this historic
migration, such as the Coastal Zone Management Program, which
now encompasses virtually every coastal and Great Lakes State.
It should be stressed that during the timeframe being
referenced, NOAA has been an integral part of the Department of
Commerce. Due to its strategic impact on the economic and
environmental welfare of the Nation, NOAA commands a central
place within the Department of Commerce. As Secretary Evans
noted this past June when announcing the transmittal of the
Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act to Congress, NOAA's
products and services touch 30 percent of the Nation's GDP, and
supports jobs for more than 13 million citizens. The commercial
fishing industry adds approximately $28.5 billion in
recreational fishing activities and approximately $25 billion
to the national economy on a yearly basis. In fact, important
economic decisions are made every day based on sciences and
services that NOAA provides, including weather and climate
forecasting, sustainable fisheries, coastal zone management and
navigational safety.
With NOAA as an integral element of this organization, the
Department of Commerce is the only Federal department that
integrates economics, technology, trade and the environment as
part of a formula to expand the economy. It is a synergy that
exists nowhere else.
It is clear from other major governmental reorganizations
that the cost to the taxpayer of such moves it high. First,
there is a loss of productivity that can be expected with such
a large move of personnel. Second, the change of corporate
culture can adversely affect morale. Furthermore, the
Administration does not believe that transferring over to the
Interior Department would realize the benefits anticipated by
the legislation. Housing NOAA as a distinctive agency within
Interior will not provide for better integration of ocean
policy or coordination of ocean and coastal activities. This is
due to the fact that there are at least seven other agencies
with significant roles in ocean and coastal policy which would
not be affected by the legislation in any way.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration cannot support the changes
made in H.R. 4368 without having been afforded the opportunity
to fully review the final report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. However, we believe that the Administration and
Congress have a unique opportunity to work together to improve
meaningful improvements in ocean policy, science and
management.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I will be
happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Keeney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keeney follows:]
Statement of Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest and Members of the Subcommittee. I
am Timothy Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I
appreciate the opportunity to present NOAA's perspective on the Weather
and Oceans Resources Realignment Act, H.R. 4368.
H.R. 4368 proposes to transfer both the administration and
functions of NOAA, in their entirety, to the Department of the
Interior, where NOAA would be, ``maintained as a distinct entity.'' No
time line is provided for the transfer.
I would like to preface my remarks by thanking the bill's author,
Representative Jim Saxton, for his dedication to conserving America's
precious ocean resources. For the last twenty years, he has worked
tirelessly and effectively for his constituents, and he has also been a
supporter of NOAA while serving with distinction as both the Chairman,
Vice Chairman and as Member of this Subcommittee.
In commenting on this legislation, I wanted to focus on two issues:
First, has NOAA performed its mission successfully as part of the
Department of Commerce and through cooperation with other Executive
Branch agencies, and have the American people benefited from NOAA being
housed in the Department of Commerce? Second, what are the anticipated
costs of moving NOAA to the Department of the Interior?
NOAA AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On October 3, 2005, NOAA will celebrate its 35th anniversary as
part of the Department of Commerce. In a July 1970 statement to
Congress, President Nixon proposed creating NOAA to serve a national
need ``...for better protection of life and property from natural
hazards...for a better understanding of the total environment...[and]
for exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our
marine resources...''
By every objective measure, NOAA has met or exceeded these
expectations. As events of the past month have shown, the United States
is the most severe-weather prone country on Earth. Approximately 90
percent of all Presidentially-declared disasters are weather related.
The modernization of the National Weather Service and dedication of our
employees has resulted in the average warning lead time for tornadoes
increasing to 13 minutes from less than two minutes when NOAA was
created.
When President Bush visited the National Hurricane Center in Miami
earlier this month, he personally thanked our employees for the
accuracy of their forecasts and warnings which helped to save lives and
property when Hurricanes Charley and Frances swept through the
southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean. This success was truly a NOAA-wide
effort, with virtually every line office in NOAA contributing in some
way to the more accurate forecasts.
We also point with pride to NOAA's response to the increasing
migration of the U.S. population to our coasts. Currently, more than
half our population, approximately 141 million people, resides within
50 miles of the coasts and Great Lakes. New programs have been created
to manage this historical migration to the coasts, such as the Coastal
Zone Management program, which now encompasses virtually every coastal
and Great Lakes state.
It should be stressed that during the time-frame being referenced,
NOAA has been an integral part of the Department of Commerce. Due to
its strategic impact on the economic and environmental welfare of the
Nation, NOAA commands a central place within the Department of
Commerce. As Secretary Evans noted when he announced the transmittal of
the Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act to Congress, NOAA's
products and services touch 30 percent of the Nation's GDP and supports
jobs for more than 13 million citizens. The commercial fishing industry
adds approximately $28.5 billion, and marine recreational fishing
activities add approximately $25 billion to the national economy on a
yearly basis. In fact, important economic decisions are made every day
based upon science and services that NOAA provides, including weather
and climate forecasting, sustainable fisheries, coastal zone
management, and navigational safety. With NOAA as an integral element
of this agency, the Commerce Department is the only Federal department
that integrates economics, technology, trade, and the environment as
part of a formula to expand the economy; it is a synergy that exists
nowhere else.
Let me provide a few examples:
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) and NOAA
have collaborated closely in the development and implementation of the
NOAA-led Portfields Initiative. As sister Commerce agencies, EDA and
NOAA have been close collaborators on brownfields redevelopment,
coastal development, and marine transportation system development
issues; which come together nicely within the Portfields framework. The
Portfields Initiative, a spin-off from the larger Brownfields
Interagency Working Group (IWG), is a federal interagency project that
will focus on the redevelopment and reuse of brownfields in or around
ports, harbors, and marine transportation hubs with emphasis on
development of environmentally sound port facilities.
The economic value of the commercial fishing industry is
$28.5 billion annually. In 2002, the seafood processing and wholesale
sectors alone employed 72,000 people. NOAA is working with the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) to provide economic assistance to
fishermen and fishing communities that have been affected by NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service fisheries restrictions.
The value of the marine recreational fishing industry is
approximately $25 billion annually. NOAA aims to protect the value of
fish stocks to the economy by promoting healthy marine recreational
fisheries.
Last month, NOAA Fisheries released a draft of an options
paper for the economically distressed U.S. shrimp industry. The paper
provides guidance to shrimpers on how to remain competitive. Within the
Department of Commerce, the International Trade Administration provided
input in order to ensure that the paper accurately reflected the
current global commercial shrimp market.
Aquaculture is the world's most rapidly growing sector of
food production. Within the Department of Commerce, NOAA and NIST are
both working to develop technology could help restore depleted salmon
species, manage many wild fish stocks, and benefit the growing world
aquaculture industry. By the year 2010, it is estimated that nearly 1
billion hatchery fish will need to be processed worldwide. Current
vaccination practices in hatcheries are not fully reliable and add
stress to the young fish. The NIST Advanced Technology Program is
funding a three year project for $2 million for the development of a
faster, cheaper, and more reliable mobile vaccination technology to
vaccinate up to 2 fish per minute in a hatchery with traceable tags.
This research could greatly enhance NOAA's vision for sustainable
aquaculture for food production and stock enhancement.
Waterborne cargo contributes more than $742 billion to
Gross Domestic Product and sustains more than 13 million jobs.
Promoting safe navigation is a critical contribution of NOAA to the
nation's economy. Ninety-five percent of all goods in U.S. foreign
trade enter and leave this country by ship. On June 30th, NOAA
announced it would provide operational forecasts for ship traffic in
Galveston Bay, the second largest port in North America. This system
provides mariners, port managers and emergency response teams with
present and future conditions of water levels, currents, temperature
and salinity. All of this results in savings to shippers and the
American exporter and consumer.
Geomagnetic storms can wreak havoc on our Nation's
electrical grid, commercial aviation, and telecommunications. In 1997,
a solar storm partially destroyed a communications satellite. NOAA
helps provide early warnings allowing industry to take measures to
prepare for these storms. The net economic value to industry of these
forecasts has been estimated at over $350 million over a period of
three years, far in excess of the $100 million cost of the system.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
works closely with NOAA in developing hurricane-resistant structures.
For example, in 2001, NIST used propeller blasts from Hercules C-130s
turboprop aircraft to subject instrument-laden test homes to sustained
wind levels comparable to those of a hurricane. The wind resistance of
houses cannot be tested in traditional wind tunnels, which are too
small. Data analysis yielded computer models that can tell home-
builders and manufacturers the actual wind resistance of different
types of residential buildings and materials under realistic wind
conditions.
Travel and tourism is the Nation's largest employer, and
second largest contributor to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product,
generating $700 billion annually. Beaches are the largest tourist
destination, with coastal states earning 85 percent of all tourist
revenues. Through its National Marine Sanctuaries; National Estuarine
Research Reserves; Coastal Zone Management activities; coral
conservation programs; and partnerships with states to manage access to
coastal areas on a sustainable basis and provide recreational
opportunities, NOAA helps contribute to the vitality of this industry.
NOS and the Office of Coast Survey have worked well with
the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on Marine Transportation
System issues as co-leads for Commerce on the Interagency Committee for
the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS). NOS and BIS look forward to
further interagency cooperation in support of marine transportation
improvements for economic, safety and security reasons.
In addition to these examples of cooperation with other agencies
within the Department of Commerce, there are numerous examples of
interagency cooperation between NOAA and the Department of Interior
(DOI), which provide evidence that merging NOAA with Interior is not
necessary to ensure effective cooperation.
Just a few of these examples are:
NOAA and DOI, as co-chairs of the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force, participate in many joint efforts in the area of coral reef
conservation, preservation and restoration. These include over $2
million annually in state and territory management grants, and mapping
and monitoring of coral reefs. Also, NOAA works with the National Park
Service in siting and supporting NOAA's Coral Reef Early Warning
Stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and elsewhere.
NOAA and the National Park Service, U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) cooperate in
implementing the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, and in supporting
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The Department of Commerce is the co-chair, together with
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, of
the National Invasive Species Council. NOAA and the FWS are co-chairs
of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Among the many cooperative
efforts in this area is the development of new ballast water management
technologies.
DOI and NOAA are partners in implementing Executive Order
13158 on Marine Protected Areas. NOAA and the National Park Service
(NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) are working together on developing an inventory of Marine
Managed Areas, maintaining the MPA Website, and coordinating with the
Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee charted under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
NOAA, through the National Marine Fisheries Service,
works with DOI on many protected species and hydropower issues. The
agencies share jurisdiction for the conservation of marine turtles; FWS
focusing on nesting beach conservation activities, and NOAA working on
conservation and recovery of these species in their marine habitats.
NOAA provides scientific expertise and management advice on marine
species listed under the Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), which DOI is the lead agency for the United
States government. The agencies have multiple joint policies and
guidelines related to implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
Also, NOAA and DOI share authority under Section 18 of the Federal
Power Act to prescribe fishways to ensure safe fish passage at non-
Federal hydropower facilities licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
NOAA, through the National Weather Service, supports the
interagency fire program efforts by providing targeted weather
forecasts to support DOI's fire pre-suppression and suppression
activities. Also, NWS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cooperate
on the Federal Hydrology Infrastructure, which provides river and flood
forecasting.
NOAA works closely with and in support of DOI's Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), National Spatial Data Infrastructure
(NSDI), and Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) activities. The benefits of this
cooperation include enhanced access to marine and coastal data
utilizing metadata and the FGDC clearinghouse system and Geospatial
One-Stop; increased quality of marine and coastal geospatial data
through standardization and training; and, improvements in data and
systems interoperability.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, after three years of studying
the United States government's ocean policies, how agencies are
structured, and how they function, did not see any need to remove NOAA
from the Commerce Department at this time. In answer to my second
question, the Administration strongly believes that the American people
benefit from the strong integration of economic and environmental
issues which results from NOAA being part of the Commerce Department.
ANTICIPATED COSTS OF TRANSFERRING NOAA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
It is clear from other major government reorganizations that the
cost to the taxpayers of such moves can be very high. First, there is
the loss of productivity that can be expected with such a large move of
personnel. Second, the change of corporate culture can adversely affect
morale. The University of Virginia, in a study on Federal Executive
Reorganization, found that federal agency reorganizations result in
unforeseen difficulties. The study noted, ``the practical task of
merging a large number of different programs with their disparate
organizational structures, cultures, and procedures would take time and
meant that `true'' reorganization of the executive department would
take many years.'' Furthermore, we do not believe that transferring
NOAA form one Department to another would realize any benefit. A
transfer that houses NOAA as a distinct agency within Interior, as it
now exists within Commerce, will not provide for better integration of
ocean policy or coordination of ocean and coastal activities. There are
still many other agencies with significant roles in ocean and coastal
policy, and their roles would not be affected by this legislation.
Conclusion
The statement of introduction for H.R. 4368 highlighted the need to
make improvements in the way we manage marine fisheries and the unique
opportunity provided to us by the release of the report by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. The Administration shares the Committee's
dedication to advancing the next generation of ocean policy. We are
firmly committed to sound management and effective conservation of our
ocean and coastal resources to meet our nation's environmental,
economic, and social goals and our nation's legacy of ocean
stewardship. Indeed, demonstrating the President's commitment to NOAA's
mission, President Bush has personally visited NOAA facilities on
several occasions, including our principal offices in Silver Spring,
Maryland.
However, the Administration cannot support the types of changes
made in H.R. 4368 without having been afforded the opportunity to fully
review the final report of the Ocean Commission. We ask you to allow
the Administration to have the 90 days Congress authorized in Public
Law 106-256, as amended, to review the final report and discuss with
you and with other critical stakeholders how best to achieve our common
goals. We believe that the Administration and Congress have a unique
opportunity to work together to achieve meaningful improvements in
ocean policy, science, and management. Thank you again for your time. I
will be happy to take any questions from the Committee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. So, after the review of the Ocean Commission
report, will the Administration have specific recommendations
on any proposed changes recommended in the Commission's report
on NOAA?
Mr. Keeney. Certainly they will. The Administration
currently has an interagency ocean policy group, which is
chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality, and expects to
be making recommendations for the Administration's response,
which will be presented to Congress within the 90-day
requirement required by law.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am just going to ask a series of
questions, and I think we ought to--we might want to have the
lights running in case we need to have a second round of
questions, but just to keep the questions equitably distributed
amongst our Members.
One of the recommendations of Mr. Saxton is to make NOAA
function in all its varied responsibilities efficiently and
effectively. So each of the questions that I am going to ask
you now, Mr. Keeney, relates to NOAA's actions now to be able
to meet the goals that it has, whether it goes into Interior,
whether it is a separate agency or not, whether there is some
changes within Commerce, or--how do we effectively address the
issues of NOAA so that we can meet the needs of the
environment, economics, technology, trade, fisheries, et
cetera? Do you have any feeling for whether or not when we are
looking at geospatial areas or hydrographic data or electronic
navigational chart data--do you have any sense that NOAA
duplicates what is done in the private sector, or whether or
not NOAA now unfairly competes with the private sector on those
issues?
Mr. Keeney. We think there is a role for the private sector
and a role for NOAA. And our job is not to compete with the
private sector, but to provide it basic information with which
the private sector operates from there. So I do not think there
is duplication.
I am sure there are companies in the private sector that
would like to see NOAA doing less of what it currently does,
but we feel that, looking at our mission and the mandates of
legislation passed by the Congress, that we do what we are
supposed to be doing.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you feel there is a certain synergy, a
certain dynamic between the NOAA and the private sector that at
this point works fairly well?
Mr. Keeney. We do. It is a constant communication, a
constant review of what it is we do, and is there a way we can
do it better, is there a way we can work more effectively with
the private sector. We are very interested in that subject.
Mr. Gilchrest. One of the areas that you mentioned in your
testimony dealt with brownfields and NOAA's involvement in
ports, harbors, marine transportation hubs, and so on. Does
NOAA work now under its present structure well, for example,
with the Corps of Engineers, who have very similar
responsibilities dealing with ports and harbors and those kind
of things, or do you feel any of the responsibilities that NOAA
now has is a complement to the Corps of Engineers, or is it
something that duplicates what the Corps of Engineers does?
Mr. Keeney. We do not feel there is any real duplication.
We feel there is need for a lot of cooperative effort. Our
ports program, which is physical oceanography real time,
focuses primarily on the kinds of products that NOAA puts out
with regard to water levels, temperature, wave direction, and
charting, and we do not feel that that in any way competes with
the Corps of Engineers.
And then in the area of brownfields, report fields, we are
interested in trying to turn around and clean up to the extent
we can the resources that have been polluted historically in
these areas and turn them back into progressive economic
activity, and, again, we do not feel that competes with the
Corps of Engineers either. We deal closely with the Corps of
Engineers with regard to permitting. We have separate
responsibilities, but are required to work cooperatively, and
we believe we do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. My time is almost up, but I was interested
in your work with NIST to develop hurricane-resistant
structures. How do you--what is your strategy or plan to
develop hurricane-resistant structures? Is there actually
something you can build that is put, let us say, inside plywood
or inside concrete that makes a building a little more flexible
so that it can be more resistant to be buffeted by the wind;
and your relationship with NIST on that particular issue.
Mr. Keeney. Sir, I think the key is to be able to develop
models that can look at some of these materials, some of these
structures to see how they do under certain conditions. So our
job is to try to develop the conditions which might occur in a
severe weather occasion. In this job it is to try to figure out
what kind of requirements there ought to be for building
structures and what kind of structures hold up better.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would be interested in following up on
that.
Mr. Keeney. We will get back to you on that.
Mr. Gilchrest. With that kind of research and technology.
But given the fact that there has been 4 hurricanes in 4 or 5
weeks down in Florida and the devastation and destruction that
is pervasive down there now, we would also like when you bring
forth the recommendations from the Ocean Commission report
dealing with the structure and objectives and goals of NOAA,
how NOAA can in a way be synergistic to understand whether or
not the weather is going to get worse; is there a possibility
to develop a structure that can resist 135-mile-per-hour wind;
and can NOAA do those kind of things with its existing
structure, or does it need to change?
My time is up, so I yield at this point to the gentleman
from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keeney, your written statement extols the benefits of
NOAA's collaboration with other agencies within the Department
of Commerce, but conversely your statement also provides
numerous examples of NOAA cooperating with assorted agencies
within the Department of the Interior. So my question is if
NOAA is working well with agencies in both departments, why is
this argument by itself sufficient to oppose relocating NOAA
into Interior? And added to that, would there not be new
opportunities for synergies to benefit natural resource
management, such as closer coordination between the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Coast Survey and other observation
and measurement programs in the National Oceans Service? It
seems that you could almost--you could sort of go either way.
So I have just wanted to--I do not quite understand why you
seem to oppose the transfer under Mr. Saxton's bill.
Mr. Keeney. I would just like to say, first of all, that
with regard to the recommendations of the Ocean Commission, of
which there are over 200, there are many that relate to
responsibilities that NOAA should or should not have, and also
many that relate to organizations. So we would really like an
opportunity to be able to review those recommendations in
relation to our mission, in relation to the end outcomes that
that Commission report is aimed at, before we make any
determinations as to what are the appropriate organizations
that can best reach those end outcomes.
Mr. Pallone. Is it true, then, that really the
Administration does not have a position on Mr. Saxton's bill?
Mr. Keeney. Well, I think that right now we are saying that
we do not think the bill is something that we can support.
However, we are saying that at a later date, after we have
reviewed the Ocean Commission recommendations, we may change
our mind on that.
Mr. Pallone. What aspects of the report might influence the
Administration to support the bill?
Mr. Keeney. Clearly the points that you raised which deal
with closer coordination and cooperation amongst the various
responsibilities and missions that NOAA has might be one. I
know, for instance, right now I work very closely with
Assistant Secretary Judge Manson on the Coral Reef Task Force,
and we get along very well. We work cooperatively. We are in
separate departments. I am not sure that in any way interferes
with our ability to work together, but I am sure if we were in
the same department, we would probably see each other more
often, and communication would be easier.
So there is certainly pluses out there to be had by being
collocated, but at the same time you have to look at what the
costs of that are and what it may mean to the agency's
abilities to perform its mission.
Mr. Pallone. Some critics have complained that NOAA should
be moved to Interior to eliminate the conflict of interest with
the Department of Commerce, particularly in regards to
fisheries management. I just wanted your response to that
criticism. Is it valid? I have to say I am concerned, however,
that new conflict of interest could emerge if NOAA were to be
transferred to the Interior, particularly how the legislation
would affect NOAA's ability to consider fairly and objectively
appeals of Federal consistency under the CZMA.
What is your response to this criticism with regard to a
conflict of interest with regard to fisheries management? And
then if you want to talk about the consistency determination, I
would appreciate that.
Mr. Keeney. First of all, I would be interested to see what
conflicts are being referred to here. I am aware that in the
salmon department, we have some joint responsibilities, but I
am not aware of there being particular conflicts there.
Mr. Pallone. So you do not see--I guess some of the
industry representatives and also the fisheries, sports fishing
representatives, had expressed concern over the impact on
fisheries management, but you are not aware of that?
Mr. Keeney. Certainly we are aware of their concerns, for
instance, on the creation of marine protected areas and the
impacts on, say, recreational fishing. That is a concern of
ours as well. We believe that the recreational fishing industry
is an important customer of ours, and we look very carefully at
actions that we take that may affect those interests. But I am
not aware of a conflict that may relate to the Department of
Interior in that regard.
Mr. Pallone. Let me ask you this: The Administration
supported legislative provisions in the energy bill earlier in
this Congress to give the authority over OCS consistency
determinations to the Secretary of the Interior and to overall
weaken State consistency authority. I was very much opposed to
that because it would directly benefit oil and gas industries
that want to drill off the coast of New Jersey. Does the
Administration still support these changes in the consistency
determination, and does the Administration anticipate entering
into any future rulemaking concerning Federal consistency
determination, to your knowledge?
Mr. Keeney. With regard to Federal consistency, the
Administration, and particularly NOAA, has looked very closely
at the issue of oil and gas and consistency with State coastal
zone management plans, and we have had that review, we have had
that debate within the Administration. I personally have talked
with representatives from the Department of Interior about
that, representatives from the Corps of Engineers as well, and
we were able to work out any differences that we might have
with regard to proposed changes in regulations. And I believe
those regulations are have been put out for comment, and we
have agreement within the Administration on what they should
be.
Mr. Pallone. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if we are going
to have a second round, I can get back to this. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. I would like to follow up on the questions of
Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Pallone. First, with regard to the
subject of conflicts, I have long believed that there is a
conflict which is two conflicts that are built into the
housing, if you will, or the location of NOAA in Commerce as it
relates to fisheries management, because by virtue of the very
nature and definition of the Department of Commerce, the
Department is there to enhance commerce, and resources
management is in some respects inconsistent with enhancing
commerce. And so I have long believed that that is a conflict,
if I have said that correctly.
And the second conflict is in writing. The second conflict
occurs in the mission statement of NMFS when it says that the
mission of NMFS is to promote the consumption of seafood and
simultaneously conserve and sustain the stock levels of the
same species which NMFS is promoting for consumption.
I would just comment and then ask for your comments. I
would just comment that we do not need to promote the
consumption of seafood today any more than we need to promote
the consumption of chicken, and yet that is still in your
mission statements, and yet I know that, through my
observations, that does occur. So would you comment on those
two issues, which I think constitute conflict of interest?
Mr. Keeney. Certainly. The first one being resources
management responsibilities and enhancing commerce. I think
that what we particularly pay most attention to are the
authorization acts, and in this case the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I am not sure the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires us to consider
the enhancements of commerce even though on its face, because
we are in the Department of Commerce, you might think that that
is an important priority. Again, we look to the statutes that
guide our mission and our performance with regard to how we
carry them out.
The second question that deals with promoting the
consumption of seafood on the one hand and in the conservation
of stock levels, I agree with you that there is an inherent
conflict there. However, I am not the expert and cannot share
with you how that is balanced and what weight the promotion of
seafood has in making decisions that relate to management of
our stocks. Maximum sustainable yield is certainly something
that is part of the statute, and that is something we look at
for purposes of the management of stocks, and if that somehow
relates to the promotion or seafood consumption, be that as it
may. But that is a goal that we look to in the management
responsibilities that we have under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Saxton. OK. Thank you.
Let me return now to Mr. Gilchrest's line of questioning
where he asked if there were areas of duplication between the
Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS and Interior. I would point
out that, for example, in the Marine Mammal Protection Act
there are nine acts where you actually have dual authority. And
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has jurisdiction over sea otters, polar bears,
manatees, walrus, while the National Marine Fisheries Service
has jurisdiction over all other mammals. I am not sure why we
need to have two teams to do the same job. I think that may be
a duplication.
With regard to the National Aquaculture Act, the National
Aquaculture Act gives coequal authority to the development of
the National Aquaculture Development Plan and other functions
among Secretaries of Interior, Commerce and Agriculture.
Third, the Endangered Species Act actually splits
jurisdiction between the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Interior for listing, management, regulation and
recovery of threatened species.
The Lacey Act gives authority to both the Secretary of
Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to regulate the
importation, export or transportation of fish, wildlife and
plants.
The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 gives primary
authority to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of
Interior has been given limited authority under the act.
For the sake of saving time, I will just list others that
have the same type of duplicative authority: the Atlantic
Salmon Conservation Act of 1982; the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act; the Central, Western and Southern Pacific
Fisheries Development Act; and the Yukon River Salmon Act of
1995.
I guess I would let you go ahead and comment inasmuch as my
time has now expired.
Mr. Keeney. Congressman Saxton, I believe there is
certainly a division of responsibility here, and I think that
is very much directly related to the intent of Congress, so
that the fact that NOAA has responsibility--
Mr. Saxton. Could Congress be wrong?
Mr. Keeney. We just try to carry out Congress's will.
With regard to, for instance, the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, the division of species, I agree with you that there is
division, and there probably is some duplication. However, the
species are managed species by species and not as a group.
Marine mammals are not managed as one species. So the fact that
you have whales being managed by NOAA and the sea otter being
managed by Interior, I am not sure that there necessarily means
there is duplication of activity there, even though you may
have some administrative duplication in carrying out that act.
With regard to aquaculture, I am particularly familiar with
that one because I have spent a lot of time looking at the
potential for authorizing aquaculture within the exclusive
economic zone. You are right, there are some shared
responsibilities there. For instance, the Corps of Engineers
and EPA permit aquaculture activities right now. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture handles fresh water aquaculture.
However, I am not sure that putting all of NOAA into the
Department of Interior is going to help that issue out, for
instance. In fact, it might even frustrate it.
With regard to the Endangered Species Act, clearly with
split jurisdiction there, there are always issues that require
close cooperation and negotiation between the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Interior, the Department of
Agriculture in carrying out our responsibilities under that
act.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
Maybe we are moving in the direction of getting away from
single species management to more comprehensive ecosystem
management so the whales and the sea otters will be looked upon
as being a part of the same system.
Mr. Saxton. Neighbors.
Mr. Gilchrest. Neighbors.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I was reading portions of your statement
earlier. Do I get the impression that as far as the
Administration is concerned, you are not necessarily firm in
objecting to the proposed bill, but you seem to be wanting more
time to review the substance of the bill and make a better set
of recommendations as far as what the bill proposes to do? Am I
getting that just from you, or am I reading your statement
wrong?
Mr. Keeney. I think you are getting that from me. Again, I
think that because of the importance of the U.S. Ocean
Commission report, the fact of the matter is that the
Administration needs to comprehensively review the
recommendations, of which there are some 200, before it comes
up with its own determinations of how to best organize
governmental agencies to carry out the objectives and end
outcomes that that Commission report seeks to achieve.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Maybe I read too quickly your statement,
but you are talking about how many personnel, how many people
that work for NOAA? If this thing is to take place, you are
talking about the transfer of how many Civil Service employees
within Commerce?
Mr. Keeney. Approximately 14,400 employees. Interestingly
enough, NOAA's budget encompasses approximately 60 percent of
the Department's budget and 35 percent of its people.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically it is literally just
emasculating the Department of Commerce in that sense.
Mr. Keeney. I am not sure I would put it that way, but it
is a large part of the Department
Mr. Faleomavaega. What percentage would you say the total
administration of Commerce is within NOAA?
Mr. Keeney. Again, it is 60 percent of the Department's
budget is NOAA's budget, and 35 percent of the Department's
employees work in NOAA.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So this is not chicken feed; this is
really substantive?
Mr. Keeney. You might want to call it fish feed or
something.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Saxton and the Chairman explained
earlier about the conflicts. Of course, the conflict goes on
all the time. I have always wondered about this fish. This fish
goes into fresh water, then it becomes USDA responsibility; am
I right? It is no longer NOAA, but it becomes the Agriculture
Department. And if this fish continues to swim along the
saltwater reef, then it becomes the Department of Interior
responsibility. If it eats coral and all that stuff, it becomes
a National Marine and Wildlife, it becomes a regulatory
problem.
Mr. Keeney. That is correct
Mr. Faleomavaega. Then the fish looks outs in the blue and
says, boy, I want to be free and out in the ocean, and then it
becomes part of the jurisdiction of Commerce.
Mr. Keeney. For instance, some of these fish we try to--you
are right. Geography makes a big difference on who is
responsible for management.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to get a sense. Also, I
know the commercial fishing interests within the Department of
Commerce is over a $28 billion industry for which a lot of
constituents and people rely very much for their livelihood.
And I know that over the years this has always been a problem
between the Department of Commerce promoting and enhancing
industry trade, commerce. And then we have a regulatory agency
within the Department of Interior that always seems to put
constraints and problems in dealing with the commercial fishing
industry. And I just wanted to check with you, if NOAA was to
be transferred to the Department of Interior, I assume
currently it is under the Assistant Secretary's jurisdiction
within the Department of Commerce, or is it under the Deputy?
Mr. Keeney. It is under the jurisdiction of the Under
Secretary of Commerce, Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, and he
has Assistant Administrator Bill Hogarth directly managing the
responsibility of the National Fisheries Service.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So this--I can appreciate your concerns.
Given the fact that 60 percent of the Department of Commerce
operations comes out of NOAA alone is very substantive, and it
is something that we need to continue to dialog on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Sam Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keeney, were you at Senator McCain's hearing last week
when they unveiled the Oceans Commission report?
Mr. Keeney. No. I would have liked to have been there, but
I was at the International Invasive Species Conference in
Ireland last week.
Mr. Farr. I do not think you would have liked to have been
there, because I was there, and Senator McCain and other
Senators severely attacked NOAA essentially for your inability
to comment on any of the questions that were asked of Admiral
Lautenbacher. It was an embarrassment for the Department.
And I find today that your statement that you need
opportunity to review the Commission's recommendations
essentially trying to bury what is so important in this report.
This report came out in the draft form last April, and the
Commission recommended, based on growing understanding of
ecosystems, including recognition of inexorable links among
sea, land, air and all living things, a more fundamental
reorganization of Federal resources agencies will eventually be
needed.
That recommendation has been there for over 150 days, and,
in fact, since the Stratton Commission report in 1969, which
was 35 years ago, there have been no fewer than 23
organizational proposals involving NOAA offered either by
Congress, Presidents or Federal advisory committees.
What I find so amazing is that the Administration moved
very rapidly to create a new Commission, a new Department of
Homeland Security, which was a major reorganization of Federal
agencies, and borrowed from your agency as well as many others
to create that new Department. Congress has acted on the 9/11
Commission report, which has been given to Congress since the
draft of the Oceans Commission, and since Congress has had the
recommendations of the Pew Commission. I mean, these are not
new issues. And what I understand is that the Administration
forwarded to Congress its own legislative proposal for organic
authority for NOAA.
So to say that you have not had an opportunity to review
these recommendations seems to me a real misnomer. I will tell
you as a co-chair of the Oceans Caucus--and its co-chairs of
Congressman Weldon, Congressman Greenwood, Congressman Allen
and myself--we have many times written to Secretary Evans
asking him to meet with the caucus over a year ago, and every
time the Secretary refused.
We have been trying to work on issues of reorganization and
proper management of these resources for a long time in
Congress, and I find that with all of the activity and the
Oceans Commission being created by the President, who made the
appointees, these are his appointees, to come and now say that
we just need more opportunity to review it, when on one hand
you have already forwarded to Congress your plan for organic
authority--I think from the testimony just given, if your
Department is 60 percent NOAA, which is 60 percent of the
budget, why are we calling it the Department of Commerce? It
ought to be the Department of NOAA, and Commerce ought to be a
subentity of that.
There is serious--these bills that Mr. Saxton has
introduced are serious bills, as Senator Hollings' bill is on
the Senate side. We have a lot of work here, we have to get
moving, and to say that we need more time, we will delay it, we
will not start until a new Congress comes back in January I
just think is irresponsible.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are you done, Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. May I add something out of turn? I believe I
talked to you about it, and you had told me we had scheduled it
for this date in July before we left town. And we were pleased
to have Mr. Keeney here. And, in fact, Mr. Keeney and I found
out we had something in common that we did not know that we had
in common when I went down to shake hands.
But I will tell you something, I am offended that neither
Admiral Lautenbacher or Dr. Hogarth are here today. They both
had plenty of notice to be here. Recently in the last few days
we found out that they had to ``go out of town.'' we cannot
solve these problems if we cannot meet and talk about them. I
am just offended that they are not here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a difficulty
here in NOAA trying to respond in a detailed fashion to some of
these recommendations when indeed the Administration has a lot
at stake here with regard to the recommendations of the Ocean
Commission report. So that clearly we have been working within
NOAA and within the Administration to come up with what we
believe to be solid positions that relate to the
recommendations of the Commission.
However, the Administration does have 90 days. The report
came out just last Monday, the 20th of September, the final
report. I believe that there may be some decisions made, like
the Organic Act, before the end of the 90-day period of review.
But yet again, we at NOAA cannot say that, and, again, there is
some 10 different agencies and departments involved in this
review at the Council For Environmental Quality.
So certainly we have been looking at this for a long time,
but the fact of the matter is the Commission's report was also
delayed, as you know, and there is a period of review within
which the Administration is given by law to review those
recommendations before it comes with its suggestions. So I
guess what I am saying is that NOAA on its own, even though we
have been looking at this very closely, cannot come out and
give you its own personal views without the deliberation within
the Council For Environmental Quality.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Keeney. I think we
all recognize the difficulty of the split jurisdiction, the
fragmented way in which we deal with a whole range of issues,
not just oceans, estuaries, fish, hurricanes, marine mammals,
et cetera. And I think what we are going to continue to try to
do in this committee is to work as effectively as we can as one
of the leadership positions in the Federal Government to set
the tone of the debate; create legislation where there is
clear, workable, pragmatic and visionary goals and objectives;
and create a structure that is adequate and can function to
meet those in a professional, clear way.
I have just some follow-up questions, Mr. Keeney, and I
will conclude with these questions to sort of get clear in my
mind NOAA's relationship with the other agencies and
departments in the executive branch on the whole range of
issues, and I would like you to respond to those, and I know
you are working--those are specific questions that deal with
very specific details of the Ocean Commission reports on how
NOAA could work in a more efficient manner with its agency
partners. And a number of us up here mentioned already USDA,
Fish and Wildlife and NMFS. And Mr. Faleomavaega said depending
on where the fish is, depending on which agency deals with that
particular fish.
So as you move forward to look at the Ocean Commission
report and make some recommendations to us so we can change the
statute. USDA, Fish and Wildlife and NMFS deals, from your
perspective, in a fluid manner, there is no, when I say
conflict of interest, I am not talking about money conflict of
interest necessarily, economic conflicts, but such strong
differences of opinions based on each agency's statutory frame
of reference, what could be cleared up in that area.
Number two, dredging for our Nation's ports and a whole
range of other things that deal with our Nation's ports.
Generally, the Corps of Engineers is the lead agency on that,
and Interior, through Fish and Wildlife, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, usually are the commenting agencies.
So, is it fine the way it is where NMFS under Commerce and Fish
and Wildlife under Interior comments on those, not only the
dredging projects, but where the dredging material will be
disposed of, and who monitors that large disposal site for
decades to come, and how that is monitored?
You mention in your testimony, Mr. Keeney, Executive Order
1358, marine protected areas. In marine protected areas you
have the National Park Service, you have Fish and Wildlife, you
have Marine Management Service, et cetera, et cetera. Under
marine protective areas or that executive order, do you see the
structure the way it is now in all these various agencies
working on that issue, working harmoniously, or what would you
recommend to change in that particular arena?
Last is flooding. You mentioned in your testimony about
forecasting flooding. I am interested to see your synergism
with FEMA, USGS, and flood plain management depends on flood
plain mapping. And flood plane mapping, it seems to me, in many
areas of the country changes rapidly when you have new
construction, new development; and depending on the new regime
for stormwater management, you might change the whole regime of
where that water is going to be channeled. So either continue
the existing channeling the way it is, or exacerbate that and
create floods where they were never created before.
So, FEMA, USGS, NOAA, what is your relationship with
developing those kind of systems that are changing? They change
almost every few years. So in many areas, my area in particular
that I represent in the northern part of my district, FEMA's
maps are useless now for two reasons. One, there has been so
much development in some of those areas that the whole flood
plain has changed. And two, we are getting rainstorms that we
have not had in the history of that particular region of
weather forecasting.
So, is NOAA's relationship with all of these various issues
one that is succeeding? We know it is dynamic, but is it
successful? And I know that you are reviewing some of these
things with the ocean report, but I just wanted to have your
sense at this particular time on some of those questions. My
time is up.
Mr. Keeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You certainly asked a
series of questions here, and I will try to address them as
best I can. But at the same time I would like to say that we
would also like an opportunity to get back to you and work with
the Committee to get you additional information after today's
hearings.
Mr. Gilchrest. That might be the best thing, Mr. Keeney,
rather than go through all of those, unless you feel perfectly
comfortable in doing that. We certainly can discuss that in the
coming weeks.
Mr. Keeney. Very good.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Thank you very much.
Let us see. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two additional questions for Secretary Keeney. One,
is the Administration going to withdraw their legislative
proposal for organic authority for NOAA until you have had a
chance to review the Ocean Commission report?
Mr. Keeney. No, we are not. This is something that NOAA has
been interested in for some time. In fact, 20 years ago when I
was the Deputy General Counsel of NOAA, I spent at least 6
months working on an organic act at that time. NOAA has
realized for decades that it needs an organic act. We have been
in existence now for almost 35 years. We have almost 200 pieces
of legislation that have been passed by Congress, some of which
preceded the formation of NOAA, and we believe an organic act
would help us tremendously, give us direction with regard to
our mission and how we are going to carry it out. So we believe
an organic act is something that, with or without the
recommendations of the Ocean Commission, is indeed an
appropriate thing to proceed with.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to defer my time to Mr.
Farr, if he has any follow-up questions on this issue.
Mr. Farr. I will wait.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One other question, Secretary Keeney.
According to section 8 of the proposed bill, the Director of
OMB will be authorized to make any subsequent incidental
transfers of programs, personnel and assets as necessary. This
authority would come under without any requirements of review
or justification or even for approval by the respective
oversight committee in the Congress. In essence, there will be
no accountability. To say the least, this very broad
discretionary authority could be abused to dismember NOAA as it
currently exists and in reality perhaps even reduces the stated
purpose of the bill; that is, transfer NOAA as a distinct
entity to the Interior Department.
Do you agree with this interpretation of section 8 of the
bill?
Mr. Keeney. I must say I have not looked too closely at it,
but because the bill is put together by a member of your
committee, I suggest if you think there is a problem there,
that it could be changed at markup
Mr. Faleomavaega. I guess there would be no purpose of me
asking the question about the bill since you have not had a
chance to thoroughly review it. Am I correct in this?
Mr. Keeney. We have looked at the bill. The bill actually
lacks quite a bit of detail.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That is what we are trying to ask, Mr.
Secretary. Tell us what it lacks, and give us some good stories
about the provisions of the bill, too.
Mr. Keeney. Again, it is also interesting to note some 20
years ago I was asked by Secretary Baldrige when I was working
at Commerce as a Deputy General Counsel to look at what to do
with NOAA in light of his interest in creating a Department of
International Trade and Industry. So 20 years ago I got to
convene a group of people to look at what were all the options
that ought to be considered as to what to do with NOAA, and we
came up with, I would say, at least 10 different options. And
these are issues that have been looked at before, and we would
be very willing to sit down with the Committee to discuss what
might be the best options here. But as you know, the bill is
fairly straightforward and just saying NOAA as a whole and
putting it into the Department of Interior.
With regard to authority that OMB might have that might run
against that, I really have not looked at that in any detail.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary, probably in the lifetime
of your sense of expertise and the experience that you have
gained not only as someone in your capacity as a professional,
do you get the sense of our sense of urgency of how important
the oceans policy is for our country? It has some very serious
implications not only for our country, not only our security,
but economic, commercial, environmental. These things are
really serious issues. And I just wanted to know from your
experience of how many administrations that you have worked
for, not Republican or Democrat, it does not matter, but do you
sense that in your experience that this issue is really taken
seriously by those who are in positions to make important
decisions in our government to see how serious the matter is?
Mr. Keeney. Absolutely. In fact, there is a tremendous
amount of effort that went into working with the Ocean
Commission that reviewed these policies and has been reviewing
it for the last couple of years. It is tremendously serious,
and that is another reason why I believe that the
Administration needs additional time to come up with its
recommendations on what it wants to do in relation to the
recommendations made by the Commission itself.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So you do not think we have studied
reports to death? Paralysis by analysis, is that what they
said?
Mr. Keeney. No. I think the Ocean Commission report is very
thoughtful, very thorough, very detailed, and very much needed,
and is being looked at very closely. And I am sure that the
Administration will be agreeing with many of the
recommendations made in it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just address two issues which I think are
indications that perhaps NOAA and in particular the National
Marine Fisheries Service are maybe not working up to capacity
or not working up to a level of success that we would like to
see and is the real cause that gave me the inclination to draft
and introduce this bill.
I have had a lot of experience sitting here to observe
NMFS's activities with regard to regulatory activities, and
there are two sets of issues here which I just want to bring up
to you. With regard to individual species management, the white
marlin population at one time in the 1950s was an estimated
33,000 metric tons biomass. Today it is at an estimated 3,000.
That is a drop-off which is more significant than anyone would
ever want to associate with the term ``successful management.''
and I am sorry that I do not have a bigger chart, but this
chart is a picture of how that population has declined or
crashed.
The second is a related species, blue marlin, same thing,
same pattern, and I have worked on this particular issue, and
it is a favorite of mine and one of the least favorite of mine.
And so that is an indication that there are some changes that
need to be made with regard to regulatory function of National
Marine Fisheries Service. And as a result of that, I would just
ask for your comments.
Second, there is another indicator that maybe things at
NMFS are not working as well as they could, and that is in the
last 20 minutes or so in talking with my friend here, we have
identified 10 actions that have resulted--10 National Marine
Fisheries actions which have recently come about not because of
regulatory policy, but because of lawsuits. It has become
necessary for people to file and carry out lawsuits to protect
various species.
For example, there are six actions that we have identified
are as a result of lawsuits and four that were actions taken by
NMFS to avoid lawsuits. For example, as a result of lawsuits,
we now find that we have tents for shrimping vessels. Second,
we have had swordfish longline closures and gear changes that
have taken place to try to protect swordfish as a result of
lawsuits. We have had longline closures in Hawaii as a result
of lawsuits. We have had defining the zero mortality rate goal
under MMPA as a result of lawsuits. We have had New England
groundfish actions taken because of lawsuits. And six, we have
denied a permit to test marine mammal deterrence off California
as a result of lawsuits. Then there are four other actions that
we think NMFS took to avoid lawsuits, a determination that NEPA
applies on the high seas, and granting permits to require
complete EIS studies.
We have seen NMFS require changes to the New England
groundfish regulations which have been drafted by the Council
to avoid a lawsuit. We have found developed rotating closed
areas for New England scallops to avoid a lawsuit, and we have
found that NMFS has required observer coverage and VMS coverage
in new England to avoid lawsuits.
Now, lawsuits are part of our life, and the courts are a co
and equal branch of government, but it seems to me that this
number of lawsuits that individuals or organizations have
deemed to be necessary to get NMFS to do its job is an
indication that things are not working very well at NMFS.
And so with regard to these two species of white and blue
marlin and the population declines and conceptually the subject
of court action which is necessary to get NMFS to do its job,
would you comment on those two sets of issues?
Mr. Keeney. Certainly. The first with relation to white and
blue marlin, as you know, the U.S. Take with regard to the
world catch is less than 4 percent, and we are working as you
know with ICCAT to assist in the management of the species.
What we are doing domestically to reduce billfish mortality, we
have recreational limits of 250 fish annually. We have
implemented changes that involve the recreational fishery that
relate to reporting systems, including telephone reporting,
catch cards, dockside surveys. For longline or commercial
fishery species, we have area closures, prohibitions on the use
of live bait in the Gulf of Mexico, probation on large circle
hooks throughout the fishery to decrease mortality. And NMFS is
also working with the recreational fishing community to enhance
catch-and-release fishing throughout the fishery with the use
of circle hooks.
From the standpoint of regulatory actions, we have
developed amendment number 2 to the Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan, and amendment number 2 to the Billfish
Management Plan. These amendments consider potential options,
including closures, gear requirements and modifications to
existing regulations. NOAA fisheries has also provided funds
for research with the Institute of Marine Science and the
country of Brazil to focus on minimizing bycatch and bycatch
mortality in blue and white marlin and longline gear.
So those are actions that we have taken to try to reduce
the mortality of fish caught and also to restrict the number of
fish that can be caught.
With regard to the number of lawsuits and the actions taken
by the Administration, by the National Marine Fisheries Service
to avoid lawsuits, I think that you cannot avoid lawsuits, as
you know. One of our objectives is to try to win more lawsuits,
and I think we have been particularly successful in that arena
over the last 2 to 3 years. In fact, I would like to provide
for the record some evidence of that with regard to numbers of
lawsuits facing the National Marine Fisheries Service when this
administration started and our success rate with regard to
handling those lawsuits.
Mr. Keeney. So your implication was that the fact that
there are a number of lawsuits and a number of actions being
taken by NOAA to reduce lawsuits is somehow an indication of
the fact that NMFS is not doing its job very well. I am not
sure I really agree with that. In fact, I think that NMFS is
doing a better job because of its success rate on these
lawsuits. We cannot prevent a lawsuit from occurring, but we
certainly can affect the outcome of that lawsuit by our
administrative actions. And I guess I will leave it with that.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman I
would yield back.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, for your thoughtful
contribution.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I
thank the other members of the Committee for allowing me to
participate.
This hearing was set for H.R. 4368, Mr. Saxton's bill, and
I would like to submit for the record the legislation
introduced by the Oceans Caucus and the bills authored by
Congressman Greenwood and others of the caucus, and I would
like to submit that for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[NOTE: The bills submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Keeney, did I hear you tell Mr. Saxton
that the Department is opposed to his bill at this time until
you have had an opportunity to review the Commission's reports?
Mr. Keeney. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. What position did you take on Senator Hollings'
bill that was marked up last week in the Senate Commerce
Committee?
Mr. Keeney. Which bill was that? The Organic Act?
Mr. Farr. It was essentially Mr. Saxton's bill with some
more substance in it as to the direction of NOAA, to pull NOAA
out of the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Keeney. I am not aware of any administrative testimony
on that bill.
Mr. Farr. It has been marked up and is going to the Floor,
but you had no position on that bill?
Mr. Keeney. I am sure we do have a position on it, and, in
fact, we probably do not support it.
Mr. Farr. I would like to ask you in response to Mr.
Faleomavaega's question, it seems to me what you are saying is
two things: One, we want an opportunity to review the
Commission report. It was our Commission, it was done on our
watch and appointed by the President, and recommendations they
made in there, as I said, of more than 6 months ago, 5 months
ago, to fundamental reorganization.
Having said all that, you also said you are going to go
ahead with codification of NOAA in its historical position? How
can you go ahead with codification or the Organic Act for NOAA
at the same time you are telling this committee you are going
to review all of these recommendations for reorganization?
Would not you withdraw that proposal and write the new,
hopefully the new, thinking that is coming out of all of these
good reports and recommendations that have been made to the
President?
Mr. Keeney. I would like to say that I think that many of
the recommendations made by the Ocean Commission are subject
matters that NOAA has been looking at for some time. So I would
say that of the 200 recommendations, many are issues or
subjects that we feel we can move ahead with right away. And
the reason being is that we sort of look at it as low-hanging
fruit. These are things that are sort of no-brainers that we
can get agreement on within the Administration. This is
something NOAA has been interested in for some time. And now
the Commission has made that recommendation, it makes it easier
for us to move ahead with the recommendation without further
discussion within this policy review committee at CEQ.
Mr. Farr. And yet the Senate has decided that they need to
substantively give you more legal authority, NOAA legal
authority to carry out a more comprehensive job?
Mr. Keeney. Maybe the Senate is doing that, but I am not
aware that the Administration does not have a position that it
has taken on that bill.
Mr. Farr. I just want--cannot understand why you want to go
ahead with codifying the status of NOAA after the taxpayers
have spent 3 years and a million dollars on this report, and
you are indicating to this committee that you need more time to
review the report, but at the same time you are going to move
ahead with codification of NOAA. It just does not make any
sense at all.
I think you have already spoken. It sounds like what you
were saying is, we have made up our minds; do not confuse us
with the facts.
Mr. Keeney. No. I think this is something that I have just
mentioned I have been working on personally for as long as 20
years. This is something that NOAA has been interested in for
some 20 years, and just because the Ocean Commission report has
it as one of its 200 recommendations does not mean that we need
to wait until the end of the 90-day review period to go forward
with that recommendation when it is something that is clearly
in NOAA's best interest, and we have a consensus within the
Administration that that is something that the Administration
would like to support. So it does not need additional review
and study and, as I said, can be looked at as low-hanging
fruit, and let us get on with it.
Mr. Farr. Well, it is not just the Commission's report that
made some recommendations on reorganization. It was also the
Pew Trust and 26 other entities before that in the last 30
years since the Stratton Commission report. I am shocked to
hear you want to go ahead with codification at a time when
people are talking about reorganization.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow
up Mr. Keeney again quickly on the questions I was asking
earlier about the OCS consistency determination.
I was trying to find out whether the Administration still
supports these provisions in the energy bill that they did
support earlier in the Congress to give authority over OCS
consistency determinations to the Secretary of Interior and to
in, my opinion, overall weaken State consistency authority.
I know you said--you mentioned something about all parties
coming to an agreement on this, but it was my understanding
that the coastal States strongly opposed the Administration's
revisions to Federal consistency regulations. And I guess I did
not the time before, but I am trying to get a handle on whether
you are implying that the States are now supporting these
changes.
The Administration is basically still looking to move ahead
with these changes, and are you saying that the coastal States
now support the changes, or they do not?
Mr. Keeney. I am not saying the coastal States support the
changes. What you are saying is that it is--part of the energy
bill seeks to give authority to the Department of Interior on
consistency. That is what you are telling me?
Mr. Pallone. Right.
Mr. Keeney. That is something that--NOAA thinks that
consistency is a very valuable part of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, is a very important element in the balance
between State and Federal interests, and is important to
maintain in its existing sense.
Mr. Pallone. So you do not want the changes.
Mr. Keeney. No.
Mr. Pallone. So you do not support the changes in the
energy bill.
Mr. Keeney. I can just tell you that is only one of many,
many interests in the energy bill.
Mr. Pallone. Then you started to talk about some rulemaking
that you are doing on this issue. That is a different issue.
Mr. Keeney. It has to do with consistency. We look at it as
administrative changes to try to make the appeals work more
efficiently that come in from State determinations. It is the
same subject, but different portion.
Mr. Pallone. Different aspect. OK.
Let me ask one more thing, Mr. Chairman. That is about,
again, going back to the whole question of conflict with NOAA
and the Department, because the bill before us, Mr. Saxton's
bill, would make it transfer to the Interior.
There definitely have been conflicts in terms of NOAA and
the existing Department of Commerce, and I just wanted to
mention this and get a response. On the tuna/dolphin issue, the
recent U.S. District court ruling against Commerce with respect
to Commerce's finding of no significant adverse impact of purse
fishing on dolphins I think is a prime example of the internal
tensions within NOAA. On the one hand NOAA was charged with
protecting, ensuring the recovery of dolphins. On the other
hand, Commerce came under intense pressure by the State
Department to issue the finding of no significant adverse
impact so as to benefit the Mexican tuna fishery. Now, in a
reversal, Dr. Hogarth issued the final finding of no
significant adverse impact after determinations based on NOAA's
own scientists that there was a significant adverse impact.
Again, I just want you to comment on this because it seems
to me there is a conflict, and that this is a good example of
the kind of conflicts that exist now within the Department of
Commerce.
Mr. Keeney. Congressman Pallone, I am not familiar with the
tuna/dolphin issues. Clearly Mr. Hogarth would be the right
person to ask that question. I can get that information for
you. However, I would like to make a statement with regard to
the leadership within NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Pallone. Well, that is fine, but would you get back to
me or have Mr. Hogarth get back to me on the dolphin issue?
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a
written response.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to know about that as well.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney. I used to work up on the Hill on the Senate
Appropriations Committee staff, and I worked with probably six
of the eight NOAA Administrators. I have been involved in 3
different administrations at NOAA over the 20 years that I have
been in government, and I can say that NOAA has never had a
better relationship than it has right now with the leadership
within Commerce, with regard to the Secretary, the Deputy
Secretary, and the ability of NOAA to do its job without undue
influence, without politicization. And I think we have been
very fortunate, and we have a great team, and you may think
that team is not very effective, but I will tell you it is more
effective than it has ever been before.
Mr. Pallone. I started out this morning, I guess, saying
that I thought you did have a great team, so I am not
questioning that, but I would like to have a response to that
question.
Mr. Keeney. We will get you that.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Are there any other questions from any Members for Mr.
Keeney?
Mr. Keeney, thank you very much for your testimony. It has
been very helpful here this morning. We would like to follow
up, sir, with two things; number one, some of the questions I
asked if we could either over the phone, since they were my
questions--if we could have a conversation about that. And we
may have some other questions that we would like to submit to
you in the coming days to deal with this issue of the NOAA
Organic Act.
Mr. Keeney. Certainly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Keeney.
Our next panel will be Mr. John M. Palatiello, Executive
Director of the Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors, MAPPS; Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Member,
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; Mr. Robert Hayes, General
Counsel, Coastal Conservation Association; Mr. Christopher
Mann, Policy Director, Center for SeaChange; Mr. Rod Moore,
Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I think there are some
seats in the room, so anybody standing over in the corner,
there are probably a half a dozen chairs vacated now, so you
are welcome to sit down.
Gentlemen, thank you for coming. We welcome you for coming.
We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Palatiello, please tell me how to pronounce your name.
Mr. Palatiello. I would not be offended if you called me
John.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, John. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. PALATIELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS (MAPPS)
Mr. Palatiello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am John
Palatiello, Executive Director of MAPPS, which is a trade
association of private mapping and geospatial firms.
I remember fondly, Mr. Chairman, we had the pleasure of
visiting the Maryland State Department of National Resources
several years ago to look at their mapping and geographic
information systems together, and the work they were doing with
regard to using geospatial technologies for wetlands
delineation, and you have been a great assistance to our
profession. And we are grateful for that and for the
opportunity to share our views today.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Palatiello. There are a number of fine programs in NOAA
in which our members are participants as both prime and
subcontractors.
A few years ago NOAA began a shoreline mapping program to
contract with private companies to take advantage of the
technologies that are available in the private sector, and
those contracts and that program is moving along very well.
This subcommittee is very familiar with the Hydrographic Survey
Program and the effort to work down the survey backlog on our
coasts and ports and harbors, and our members are the
contractors in that program as well. And again, working within
budget limitations, there are a number of successes there.
The Coastal Services Center in Charleston, South Carolina,
utilizes a number of our member firms, and that, we think, is a
best practices model that should be more extensively emulated.
Over the last 10 or 12 years, the advent of private
commercial high-resolution remote sensing satellites has met
the marketplace, and they are actually licensed by the Federal
Government, and NESDIS is the agency that does that licensing.
There are, in addition, though, a number of areas for reform in
NOAA, and I will just touch on them very briefly.
We would respectfully disagree with Mr. Keeney and indicate
that we do believe that NOAA still is in a position of
competing with the private sector in a number of their mapping,
charting, and activities, and we think there is an opportunity
to embrace new technology in the private sector to a much
greater extent.
The hydrographic survey backlog, we think, is somewhat
crippled by NOAA's continued reliance on their own ships rather
than the efficiencies that are resident in using the private
sector. And we are deeply concerned that NOAA is not moving
forward on implementation of section 104 of the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act with regard to development of a
quality assurance program so that private charting data, ENC
(Electronic Navigational Charts) data, can be used which is
already in existence in the private sector.
But the Ocean Commission highlighted the urgent need to
modernize, improve, and expand Federal mapping efforts to
improve navigation, safety and resource management
decisionmaking, and we believe that there are a number of areas
where that finding can be advanced.
With regard to the legislation that Mr. Saxton has
introduced, specifically let me raise a couple of issues that
we have with the approach taken by the bill. First of all,
there is already a terrible proliferation of mapping and
geospatial agencies in the Federal Government. The General
Accounting Office just earlier this year completed a report on
that at the request of Mr. Putnam's subcommittee on the
Committee on Government Reform. Section 2(c) of the legislation
calls for NOAA to be a distinct entity within the Department of
the Interior. We believe that for there to be a full
integration of mapping and charting and geodetic activities in
the Department of Interior, there should be a full integration,
not kind of a stovepipe of NOAA within Interior.
There is an issue with regard to the NOAA Corps, and
integration the NOAA Corps into the Department of Interior, we
think, is going to be a significant personnel challenge.
I mentioned earlier the NESDIS program that licenses
commercial and remote-sensing satellites. That licensing or
regulation empowerment of the private sector, we believe, is a
function of the Commerce Department, and that is one that we
really think ought to be left in the Department of Commerce and
not moved to the Interior Department.
With regard to the actual mapping, charting and geodesy
programs in NOAA, we believe that a transfer to the Corps of
Engineers may be a more appropriate place to put those portions
of NOS. As you have already indicated, Mr. Chairman, the
hydrographic program is very similar. I would not say that it
is duplicative. They do work well together, but NOAA does the
coasts and the Great Lakes, and the Corps of Engineers is
responsible for the harbors and the inland waterway systems.
But they are very similar activities, and maybe there is
greater synergy with the Corps of Engineers than there is with
Interior. The Corps is the most experienced procurer of these
services of any agency in the Federal Government. They have
literally written books and manuals on contracting for these
professional services, and they do an excellent job.
Finally, the most recent data we have seen shows that the
Corps of Engineers actually has more FTEs that are identified
by OPM as geodesists than even NOAA does. So ingesting the
geodetic program of NOAA into the Corps in some respects makes
more sense than just moving it lock, stock and barrel into the
Interior Department.
The final point that I would make is that our experience,
we have a lot of good friends, a lot of good work that we do
with various agencies within the Department of Interior,
including the Geological Survey and others, but those programs
are terribly, terribly underfunded, and they are not high-
priority programs within the Department. Our experience is that
the Interior Department, particularly the Geological Survey, in
very good faith accepts programs that are moved to them from
other agencies, but that the funding does not go along with it,
and the programs suffer as a result. So based on that history,
we are very concerned that that same fate may accrue to the
mapping and charting programs of NOAA if they were moved to the
Department of the Interior.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment. We certainly
look forward to working with you on this legislation and help
create as effective a geospatial program in the government as
possible. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, John.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palatiello follows:]
Statement of John M. Palatiello, Executive Director, MAPPS
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am John M. Palatiello,
Executive Director of the Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors, MAPPS, the nation's oldest and largest trade
association of firms in the geospatial profession. We are honored to
have been invited to present our views on the future of NOAA.
The member firms of MAPPS provide a variety of geospatial
activities for commercial and government clients. These include
mapping, photogrammetry, aerial photography, hydrographic surveying,
nautical and aeronautical charting, GPS surveys, LIDAR, airborne and
satellite remote sensing, and other geographic and location based
services. Additionally, our member firms provide commercial products in
mapping, charting and remote sensing.
Our member firms interact with NOAA in a variety of ways. For
example, all the prime contractors, and a number of subcontractors, on
NOAA's shoreline mapping program, are MAPPS member firms. Virtually
every prime contractor, and numerous subcontractors, in NOAA's
hydrographic survey program, is a MAPPS member firm. The work done at
NOAA's Coastal Services Center in Charleston, SC, and the way it
utilizes the private sector for geospatial products and services to
provide assistance to states and localities on the nation's coasts, is
a ``best practices'' model that should be more extensively emulated
throughout NOAA's National Ocean Service. And our member firms that
operate high resolution commercial remote sensing satellites are
licensed by NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service (NESDIS). Each of these programs is very successful
and enjoys the support of our members who are involved.
We understand the intent of H.R. 4368 and agree that a new
structure for NOAA is needed. However, we are concerned about the
bill's proposal to transfer NOAA, in total, to the Department of the
Interior.
Certainly, there are areas in which reform of NOAA is needed. Our
member firms encounter an on-going difficulty with many NOAA
activities.
For example, NOAA continues to unfairly compete with the private
sector in a number of geospatial areas. For example, despite the
Inspector General's recommendation that NOAA's aerial photography
program be privatized (Light Aircraft Fleet Should Be Privatized, STD-
9952-2-0001/August 1998), NOAA not only continues to operate this
activity in-house, but it is building its capacity, in competition with
the private sector. A case in point was the National Ocean Service's
acquisition of a new digital aerial camera or sensor system (DSS) last
year. This was done without consideration of the capacity in the
private sector to provide digital airborne imagery services. This
activity, we believe, is a violation of the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act, Public Law 105-270, and Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 (both the old circular and the
newest version). As a result of this action, the House Appropriations
Committee included language in its FY 2005 committee report (H. Rept.
108-576), providing, ``The Committee expects NOAA to work with the
private mapping community to develop a strategy for expanding
contracting with private entities to minimize duplication and take
maximum advantage of private sector capabilities in fulfillment of
NOAA's mapping and charting responsibilities. NOAA shall submit a
report on such a strategy to the Committee no later than November 1,
2004. This report shall include a description of activities currently
performed by NOAA, and activities performed by contractors, accompanied
by cost and percentage information for each.'' NOAA has not yet
communicated with or engaged the private mapping community to develop
that strategy.
As you may know, despite the progress that has been made on the
hydrographic survey backlog, due in large measure to the leadership
exerted by this Subcommittee, the NOAA survey ship operation activities
have long been on the General Accountability Office list of high risk
programs. As recently as 2001, NOAA's hydrographic program of operating
its own ships continued to be a major management challenge and program
risk in the Department of Commerce. GAO found, ``NOAA continues to rely
heavily on its in-house fleet and still plans to replace or upgrade
some of these ships. Consequently, continued oversight of NOAA's plans
to replace or upgrade ships will be needed to ensure that NOAA is
pursuing the most cost-effective alternatives for acquiring marine
data.'' (GAO-01-243, Commerce Challenges, January 2001). NOAA still
does not fully utilize the capacity of the private sector, which has
been proven by the Inspector General to be more efficient than
operation of NOAA's own ships.
NOAA still has not worked with the private sector to fully
implement the mandate of Congress under section 104 of the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act to develop a ``quality assurance program''
which was that, ``by not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, shall,
subject to the availability of appropriations, develop and implement a
quality assurance program that is equally available to all applicants,
under which the Administrator may certify hydrographic products that
satisfy the standards promulgated by the Administrator under section
303(a)(3) of this Act''. This provision became law when signed by the
President on December 19, 2002 (Public Law No: 107-372) and the two
year deadline is December 19 of this year. It should be noted, Mr.
Chairman, that privately produced ENC (Electronic Navigational Charts)
data for the entire U.S. exists today. For NOAA to duplicate this
effort is a waste of taxpayers' money. The certification and
utilization of such data is exactly what Congress envisioned when it
passed this provision in HSIA, in order to prevent such waste and
duplication.
And NOAA still does not support, nor does it fully embrace, the
time-tested and proven qualifications based selection (QBS) process,
under the Brooks Act and subpart 36.6 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) for the full spectrum of surveying and mapping
services. As demonstrated by the GAO protest that was filed in the
matter of Terra Surveys, B-294015, August 4, 2004, NOAA avoids QBS when
the public interest, and the HSIA, calls for it. Moreover, MAPPS has
been deeply disappointed in NOAA's management of its electronic
navigational chart (ENC) program. NOAA's lax contract management has
permitted firms to circumvent the terms of the small business set aside
program and facilitated this work going offshore to non-U.S. firms. We
do not believe this is in the public interest, nor is it consistent
with our homeland security needs.
Earlier this summer, the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
released a report: ``Geospatial Information Infrastructure for
Transportation Organizations: Toward a Foundation for Improved Decision
Making''. It can be found at http://trb.org/publications/conf/
CP31spatialinfo.pdf.
Among the report's key findings and recommendations ``
The roles and responsibilities of decision-makers must
evolve if we are to leverage geospatial information and tools to our
best advantage. This entails building and maintaining different
relationships and enabling new and creative ways to do business. To
accomplish this:
The role of government should shift from implementer to
facilitator/enabler and role model, allowing agencies to become more
flexible and responsive.
Different relationships should be established, both
horizontally across functions and vertically across levels of
government and the private sector, to ensure that resources are used
most effectively.
The committee concluded that to respond to a world in
which data and technology are evolving more rapidly that the
institutions that use them, a new model for development and use of
geospatial information by the transportation system is needed...The
actions necessary to make widespread use of geospatial data in a
systematic way could be achieved through a focused alliance and
collaboration among public, private, and academic communities. A key is
in recognizing that the role of federal agencies is to enable state and
local agencies and the private sector to carry out their missions. A
practical role, rather than to mandate data requirements, would be to
solicit data from data owners and providers and to encourage data
sharing among agencies, users, and decision makers.
The past decade has shown that it is impractical for
federal and state transportation agencies to collect, maintain, and
develop comprehensive geospatial data sets to support broad decision-
making activities. A more viable approach appears to be to encourage
agencies--public or private--that are closest to the source to collect
and maintain data necessary for their missions and to facilitate
sharing of these data while developing expertise to integrate them into
broader decision-support environments.''
This describes NOAA as an agency that supports various
transportation modes with geospatial activities. The new business model
suggested by TRB, with a strong partnership with the private sector, is
needed by NOAA, wherever it rests in the Federal Government's
organizational chart.
Mr. Chairman, the recent report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy highlighted the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and
integrate Federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and
resource management decision making. While a satisfactory resolution of
the areas of concern I just discussed is needed in order for NOAA's
mapping-related activities to realize the need identified by the
Commission, we believe another set of issues and unintended
consequences may be created with specific regard to the transfer of
NOAA activities to the Department of the Interior. They are as follows:
There is already a proliferation of geospatial activities
within the Department of Interior. This has been well documented in the
recent GAO report on Federal geospatial activities (Geospatial
Information: Better Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce
Duplicative Investments, GAO-04-703, June 2004) and the 1998 NAPA study
(Geographic Information for the 21st Century, National Academy of
Public Administration, January 1998). Section 2(c) of H.R. 4368 calls
for NOAA to be a distinct entity with the Department of the Interior.
We believe that for the mapping, charting and geodesy activities of
NOAA to be successfully integrated into those activities already spread
among various agencies (USGS, BLM, NPS, FWS and others) in Interior, a
consolidated geospatial bureau in the Department of the Interior is a
better approach.
The largest portion of the NOAA Corps officers is in the
mapping, charting and geodesy activities of NOAA. We believe that
imposing the NOAA Corps on the Interior Department would be a difficult
personnel transition, either by dismantling the Corps and ingesting it
into the civilian personnel system, or asking Interior to simply assume
responsibility for management of the NOAA Corps.
We do not believe that National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) program which licenses high
resolution commercial remote sensing satellites systems belongs in
Interior. This activity should remain in the Department of Commerce.
Moreover, our experience with some activities in
Interior, including the USGS, is that they too readily accept new
responsibilities, but fail to secure sufficient funding along with
those new activities. This ends up hurting existing programs. This has
been particularly true of the cooperative topographic mapping program
in USGS, which is being subject to re-programming to cover the deficit
in operational income from LANDSAT.
When legislation to dismantle the Department of Commerce was
prominent in Congress in the mid-1990's, Rep. Royce of California
introduced a bill that took an approach to the mapping, charting and
geodesy activities in NOAA that we believe deserves the attention of
the Subcommittee. His bill would have transferred the mapping,
charting, and geodesy functions to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The bill also provided that ``the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers of Army Corps of Engineers, shall terminate any
functions transferred...that are performed by the private sector or
obtain by contract from the private sector those functions that are
commercial in nature and are necessary to carry out inherently
governmental functions.''
We believe such a transfer has merit and is worthy of consideration
by the Subcommittee. There are a number of reasons why such a transfer
makes sense.
There are NOAA and Corps of Engineers programs that are
quite similar. NOAA conducts hydrographic surveys and publishes charts
on the coasts, shorelines and Great Lakes. The Corps of Engineers
conducts hydrographic surveys and publishes charts of the inland
waterway system.
While accurate data is not presently available, at the
time of the introduction of Rep. Royce's bill, the Corps of Engineers
had more geodesists on staff than NOAA, even though NOAA operates the
National Geodetic Survey.
The Corps is the most experienced and talented procurer
of mapping, charting and geodesy services in the Federal Government.
The Corps has literally written the book (actually a manual) on Brooks
Act, QBS contracting, and teaches a course for government officials.
Several NOAA personnel who award contracts for shoreline mapping,
hydrographic surveys and the Coastal Services Center, have taken the
Corps' course.
Finally, integrating the NOAA Corps into the military
personnel system already in place in the Army would be significantly
easier than integrating or managing the NOAA Corps in the Interior
Department.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these
important issues. We look forward to working with you as this
legislation moves forward.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Rosenberg, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, MEMBER,
U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
I am Andrew Rosenberg. I am a member of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy and a professor of natural resources at the
University of New Hampshire. The Commission found that our
ocean environment is at risk, and the Nation does need to make
real policy changes to reduce that risk. I am very pleased to
hear this discussion today as well as the other actions in the
Congress that have been noted in the discussion this morning on
these issues of ocean policy.
The Commission report contains four overarching themes: the
adoption of the principle of ecosystem-based management for
ocean and coastal areas; improving the governing structure we
use for managing human activities and impacts; improving our
scientific understanding of the oceans; and increasing
awareness and educating the public concerning ocean issues. And
I would point out that while the legislation before you today
discusses movement of NOAA to the Department of Interior, all
of these overarching themes are important in consideration of
that move.
The Commission recommends four components for a new
governance framework to implement ocean policy: a national
coordination on leadership, a strengthened and streamlined
Federal agency structure, the development of regional solutions
to national problems, and the establishment of a coordinated
offshore management regime. In my opinion, these four elements
should be included in a national ocean policy act that also
specifically sets national goals for managing our ocean and
coastal activities, and, most importantly, helps knit together
the extensive and often confusing framework of statutory
mandates and policy direction that we now have as ocean policy
in the U.S.
These national goals, I believe, should be based on the
guiding principles in the report of the Commission. The
Commission found that Federal-level coordination and leadership
is fragmented at best and inconsistent in too many cases, and
therefore the Commission calls for a National Ocean Council to
coordinate across the agencies. The Council can help resolve
conflicting mandates, improve the leverage that programs can
obtain from one another, and present a more coherent leadership
for the Nation on ocean policy.
While councils may seem just another layer of bureaucracy,
I think this Ocean Council must do much more than just oversee
ongoing activities. The Council must have the authority to make
real change in ocean governance. And with regard to H.R. 4368,
it is important to note that the need for such a council as a
formal coordinating mechanism will be true regardless of the
location of the lead ocean agency and the Federal structure.
The Commission recommends a stronger NOAA as the lead ocean
science and management of policy agency for the Nation. In my
view, NOAA has remained a collection of agencies rather than a
lead ocean agency. The National Ocean Policy Act should
strengthen NOAA by drawing programs together from across the
government to reduce program fragmentation. As new imperatives
come forward, such as the implementation of the new Integrated
Ocean Observing System or the implementation of ecosystem-based
approach to management, NOAA must grow into these programs in
stride.
NOAA must also remain a science-based agency as one of its
core attributes. Prediction, monitoring and management
functions depend upon the science and research enterprise of
NOAA and its internal partners. As a former NOAA scientist, a
NOAA Regional Administrator, and former Deputy Director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and more recently as a
member the NOAA Research Review Team, I very strongly believe
that research and the provision of science advice for
management must remain together as opposed to separating off
the research function and leaving science advice strictly with
the management function. The linkage between science and
management needs to be strong enough to ensure that the
scientific advice is of the highest quality and is available on
a timely basis.
I believe there are a couple of clear restructuring options
for NOAA. For example, the agency could be restructured into
three lines according to core functions, such as ecosystem-
based management, operations and predictions services, and
scientific advice, research and education.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry. Could you say those three again?
Mr. Rosenberg. Sure. Ecosystem based management, operations
and predictions services, and scientific advice, research and
education.
That would be according to core functions; alternatively,
along mission lines, coastal and marine ecosystem services,
weather and climate services, and research operations and data
services, and that is included in my written testimony, Mr.
Chairman.
The budget, of course, then must follow that structure and
allow programs to be streamlined and consolidated. The end
result, I believe, should be a stronger and bigger NOAA that
logically might become an independent agency in order to fully
meet the challenges of ocean policy. In any case, the issues of
coordination across the government working cooperatively with
the States and becoming a true leading ocean agency must be
addressed as first priorities to determine where NOAA is best
placed.
Mr. Chairman, the Commission recommends that we adopt the
principle of ecosystem-based management, that is, managing
human activities within a large marine ecosystem, in concert
rather than separately considering the cumulative impacts of
those activities on the function of an ecosystem as a whole.
This will be an enormous challenge for NOAA in the future,
which I believe NOAA needs to change in order to meet that
challenge.
I see my time has expired. I would be happy to discuss any
of these issues in more detail and the other Commission
recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you Dr. Rosenberg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
Statement of Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Member, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and Professor, University of New Hampshire
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today concerning the future of U.S.
ocean policy and the Commission's view on H.R. 4368, the Weather and
Oceans Resources Realignment Act. I am Andrew Rosenberg, a member of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and a Professor of Natural
Resources in the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at
the University of New Hampshire.
The Ocean's Act of 2000 formed the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and directed us to ``make recommendations for coordinated and
comprehensive national ocean policy...'' The Act set out eight specific
objectives for this policy paraphrased here:
1. protection of life and property;
2. responsible stewardship of ocean and coastal resources;
3. protection of the marine environment;
4. enhancement of marine-related commerce, resolution of conflicts
among diverse users of the marine environment and engagement of the
private sector in developing approaches to the responsible use of
marine resources;
5. expansion of knowledge of the marine environment and the
advancement of education in fields related to the ocean and coasts;
6. development and improvement in technological capability for
ocean related activities
7. cooperation among all government agencies to ensure coherent
regulations, appropriate use of funding, efficient operation of federal
agencies, and enhancement of partnerships with state and local
governments; and
8. leadership by the United States in ocean and coastal
activities.
I believe our recommendations truly meet the spirit and intent of
the Oceans Act. Further, I, and my fellow Commissioners, believe that
the oceans are in trouble and that the current management regime and
the science supporting it are inadequate to address the growing suite
of complex and interrelated problems facing these economically,
ecologically and aesthetically valuable ocean resources. These
concerns, voiced by virtually every stakeholder that appeared before
the Commission, clearly indicate that we must immediately begin to make
changes in U.S. ocean policy to reverse the distressing, widespread
degradation in the health of the oceans and coasts, vital living marine
resources, coastal communities, leadership in ocean science and the
life-support system of the earth. Our ocean environment is at risk and
a change of course is needed to reduce that risk.
The invitation was to provide the Commission's views on H.R. 4368,
however; before I discuss the legislation it is important to put my
remarks into context. The Commission's report focus on four overarching
themes; the adoption of the principle of ecosystem-based management for
the oceans; the governance structure we use for managing our activities
and impacts on the ocean; the availability of credible and useful
scientific information to decision makers at all levels; and the
importance of promoting interdisciplinary education and improving
public awareness of ocean and coastal issues. My testimony will focus
predominantly on the themes of ecosystem-based management and changing
governance structures since I believe that they are most pertinent to
today's discussion. However, I want to be clear that the
recommendations put forward by the Commission are based on the need for
changes in and support for all four areas.
The Commission recommends four components for a new governance
framework to implement Ocean Policy: 1) national coordination and
leadership, including 2) a strengthened and streamlined federal agency
structure, 3) the development of regional solutions to national
problems, and 4) the establishment of a coordinated offshore management
regime. In my opinion, these four elements should be included in a
National Ocean Policy Act that also sets national goals for managing
our ocean and coastal activities and helps knit together the extensive
and often confusing framework of statutory mandates and policy
direction we now have. These national goals should be based on the
guiding principles in the report of the Commission. In particular, I
would like to highlight: stewardship, resources are held in the public
trust for all Americans; ecosystem-based management, understanding and
mitigating the cumulative impacts of human activities on the ecosystem
as a whole; adaptive management, continuously re-evaluating management
as new information becomes available and making adjustments as needed
to meet the goals; understandable, clear rules, making the rules that
govern various activities coherent for the public; accountability, to
ensure that government and the public do what is needed to conserve
marine ecosystems; and international responsibility, working
cooperatively on ocean issues and meeting our responsibilities for
global ocean policy. Using these and the other principles an
overarching ocean policy can be articulated for the nation.
The Commission found that federal level coordination and leadership
is fragmented at best and inconsistent in too many cases. I had the
privilege of working for NOAA for ten years, and served as Deputy
Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The NOAA personnel
are talented and dedicated but they don't have all the tools they need
to do the job. Nor do they have an overarching framework for all of the
conflicting mandates that the various statutes and demands of the day
bring. The Commission calls for a National Ocean Council to coordinate
across the agencies. The Council can help resolve conflicting mandates,
improve the leverage that programs can obtain from one another, and
present a more coherent leadership for the nation on ocean policy. The
Council should be chaired by an Assistant to the President for Ocean
Policy, not by any one agency head. The goal of the Council should be
to work toward a coherent national policy with regard to management,
science and education, with agencies working together, not in
opposition to one another.
While Councils may seem just another layer of bureaucracy, I think
this Ocean Council must do much more than just oversee ongoing
activities. Its mandate, following on from the Oceans Act mandate to
the Commission, should be to implement a more coherent and efficient
national governance system. The starting point for the Council should
be planning and coordinating the implementation of the Commission's
recommendations. Somewhat analogous to current discussions in the
intelligence realm, the Council must have the authority to make real
change in ocean governance through the budget process, resolving
conflicting mandates and streamlining of programs across the federal
government. However, note that it will still be the agencies that have
responsibility for implementing specific actions to address mandates.
The Council serves as a planning, coordinating and conflict resolution
body for the implementing agencies, as well as a monitor for progress
toward national goals.
The call for the establishment of a National Ocean Council
represents a significant change in how the federal agencies with ocean
and coastal responsibilities operate, and has bearing on the
recommendation to move NOAA to the Department of Interior. Regardless
of where the lead ocean agency, NOAA, is located in the federal
government structure there is an urgent need to consolidate and
coordinate federal activities but there is currently no clearly
established mechanism to do so. While the White House can pull together
teams to address specific issues, such as Northwest salmon, the lack of
a permanent high-level entity responsible for coordinating policies,
programs and strategies across the spectrum of federal agencies with
mandates and authority to function in marine systems, has perpetuated
and even exacerbated the operations of the existing dysfunctional
system. Additionally, the lack of a clear mandate, or Organic Act, for
NOAA, has hampered the agency's ability to take a leadership role in
helping set a national ocean policy.
Recognizing these problems, the Commission recommends a phased
approach, one that begins by establishing a National Ocean Policy
Framework--which includes the creation of a National Ocean Council--
while simultaneously taking a close, hard look at the operation and
structure of NOAA. It is crucial that this process includes the careful
scrutiny of NOAA and the initiation of institutional changes necessary
to ensure its resources are focused on its three core functions--which
I will discussed shortly. Once completed, the next step is an
evaluation of federal ocean and coastal activities government-wide,
consolidating, eliminating or modifying programs as needed to develop a
more responsive and coordinated national ocean and coastal science and
management regime, which is a role for the Council and the Assistant to
the President. After these two actions have been taken policymakers and
stakeholders will be in a better position to consider future actions,
which may include making NOAA an independent agency or the eventually
unification of federal natural resources functions, a final phase
envisioned by the Commission. The Commission believes that the first
priorities are strengthening the agency, and establishing a strong
coordinating mechanism within the Executive Office of the President if
we are to develop a coherent national ocean policy.
The Commission recommends a stronger NOAA as the lead ocean science
and management policy agency for the nation. We recognize that many
ocean related activities are going to remain in various agencies across
the government and the National Ocean Council will need to coordinate
between these agencies. NOAA was created in response to the Stratton
Commission recommendations and has done an enormous amount for the
nation. However, in my view NOAA has remained a collection of agencies
rather than a lead ocean agency. In some ways, within NOAA there is a
mirror of the problem that we found across the federal ``ocean''
agencies, that is, program fragmentation and conflicting authorities.
The National Ocean Policy Act should serve as an organic act, taking
the opportunity to strengthen NOAA by drawing programs together from
across the government to reduce program fragmentation. It should also
take the opportunity to focus NOAA on its core competencies and
mandates; assessment, prediction and operations, ecosystem-based
management of ocean and coastal areas and resources, and science,
research and education. The current NOAA line structure reflects the
agencies they were created from rather than the tasks they will need to
undertake in the 21st century. Again, I have high regard for the people
and mission of NOAA and in many ways feel a part of the agency. But I
also know it is hard to change the way business is done without a
change in structure because working patterns become set. But as new
imperatives come forward, such as the implementation of a new
integrated ocean observing system, the implementation of an ecosystem-
based approach to management, and increasing demands for research and
scientific advice, NOAA must be restructured in order to grow into
these programs in stride. To take another example, the Commission
recommends as a guiding principle the integration of atmospheric, land
and water related science and policy. Unfortunately, the ``wet'' side
of NOAA still struggles to talk to the ``dry'' side of NOAA.
Restructuring organizations can be a tricky process to say the
least. There is still however an urgent need for the overall agency to
act as a corporate whole. Several principles must be kept in mind. NOAA
must remain a science-based agency as one of its core attributes.
Prediction and monitoring functions for weather to climate to ocean
observations, or the management functions for ocean and coastal areas
and resources including sanctuaries, fisheries, aquaculture or habitat
protection rely on the science and research enterprise of NOAA and its
external partners. There has been much discussion of separating the
research in NOAA from management and operations. As a former NMFS
scientist and a former NMFS Regional Administrator and serving on the
recently completed NOAA Research Review Team, I strongly believe that
research and the provision of the science advice for management and
operations must remain together. Separating out research from the
advisory functions will leave the other parts of NOAA without the best
scientific basis for decision-making. The science advisory function is
a fundamental job for the best scientists in the agency as part of the
science and research enterprise. Then, if the science and research
enterprise is to be structurally separate from management and
operations, the linkage between these lines needs to be strong enough
to ensure science advice of the highest quality is available to respond
to management and operational needs on a timely basis. To put it
bluntly, researchers cannot refuse a call for science advice because
they are more interested in something else. If this linkage cannot be
reliably made then the science and research enterprises must remain
within the operational lines.
Overall, I believe there are a couple of clear restructuring
options for NOAA. One possibility is to restructure the agency into
three lines according to the core functions of ecosystem-based
management; operations and prediction services; and scientific advice,
research and education. This would require the linkage of science with
the other two lines as discussed above. Another alternative is to
structure along mission lines, coastal and marine ecosystem services,
weather and climate services, research, operations and data services.
In this case the research and science functions would remain
distributed across all the lines with the research, operations and data
services line serving an integrating function for the science program.
Clearly there are other configurations, but, to me, breaking down some
walls is necessary to open the architecture of the agency and create a
new NOAA. The budget must then follow this structure and allow programs
to be streamlined and consolidated. Such restructuring will then
provide the basis for NOAA to grow and strengthen through consolidation
of programs from across the government. The end result may be that the
stronger, bigger NOAA logically becomes an independent agency, in order
to fully meet the challenges of changing ocean policy. The Commission
report doesn't recommend an independent NOAA, but as stated in the
hearing upon release of the report, that remains an option. It is the
function, structure and strength that must be addressed in order to
make the decision on the appropriate location and stature for the
agency.
A major challenge for governance of ocean activities is changing to
a perspective of ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem-based management
means managing human activities within a large marine ecosystem in
concert, rather than separately, and considering the cumulative impacts
of those activities on the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. The
perspective is that the natural system sets the bounds for management,
rather than political boundaries. This is because within an ecosystem,
effects on one component can logically be expected to impact other
components. Therefore, as we seek to manage across the full range of
human activities and mitigate their impacts on the natural environment,
we need to consider the interactions between different management
actions. For example, coastal development interacts with pollution
abatement programs and affects the productivity of the coastal ocean in
salt marshes and nearshore areas such as along the New Hampshire coast.
In other words, fisheries are affected by more than just fishing and
pollution is affected by more than just controlling the amount of
discharge. Because humans are an integral part of the ecosystem, social
and economic impacts are part of the ecosystem-based management
perspective.
Ecosystem-based management does not mean that we don't have to
manage each of the sectors of human activity. Fishing still needs to be
managed to prevent overfishing or restore overfished resources for
example. But the management of the fishery should be linked to the
management of other sectors to provide a more coherent set of policies.
The focus for ecosystem-based management should be to maintain the
function of coastal and marine ecosystems including both their goods
and services. We want to maintain the ability to harvest fish as goods
from the ecosystem, but we want to ensure the ecosystem services
provided by overall productivity and ocean health isn't undermined. In
other words, we want to enjoy a healthy ocean for many other reasons
than just fishing.
In order to implement ecosystem based management, five changes are
needed; creating regional councils and information management systems,
developing the capability for the federal government to manage on a
ecosystem basis, structuring science programs to support ecosystem-
based management, having an overall set of policy goals to guide the
management process and developing a comprehensive offshore management
regime to deal with gaps in current management authorities. I have
already commented on the needed changes in NOAA to support ecosystem
level science and management. For the federal government to have the
capability to bring together the various sector activities and
mandates, and provide the needed flexibility for ecosystem-based
management a stronger NOAA and a National Ocean Council with
substantial authority are needed. Regional councils must be developed
in order to plan and coordinate across the various sectors of human
activities that impact an ecosystem. Large marine ecosystems are
generally on a regional scale such, as the Gulf of Maine, or the South
Atlantic Bight. Multiple jurisdictions are involved and many types of
human activities occur within each ecosystem. The Commission recommends
setting up regional councils on a pilot program basis (voluntary with
substantial flexibility to start) as planning and coordination bodies.
The National Ocean Council needs to facilitate their work. Each region
may choose different issues to begin work on ecosystem based management
and this flexibility is essential. Further, these activities must be
funded in order to foster real change. This means funding data and
information management so policy makers have the science to develop
management plans, funding ecosystem assessments to bring everyone onto
a common footing for planning and impact analysis, and funding the
management actions themselves.
Regional ocean councils have a difficult task, fitting together the
pieces of management across the sectors. This means, for example,
making the fisheries management program work in concert with coastal
zone management programs, pollution abatement programs and protected
species programs. The goal is management plans that specifically
include consideration of the cumulative impacts of all of these
actions, creating a system where they leverage one another. The federal
government must provide sufficient flexibility to allow this to happen
but also ensure that the primary goal of maintaining functioning
ecosystems is met.
Finally, there are major gaps in the current set of authorities for
management particularly in offshore (federal) waters. There is no real
governance structure for newly emerging activities such as energy
production, aquaculture, and bioprospecting to name a few. Also
included are specific conservation measures such as marine protected
areas. Delineating rights and privileges in offshore areas held in the
public trust is complex. For offshore oil and gas there is a well
developed management system in place, but for other activities that
result in exclusive access to areas there is no such system. Without an
overarching policy framework that sets goals for ecosystem-based
management, ensures that analysis considers impacts across the sectors
and specifically sets criteria for deciding protection or access
privileges, development will be poorly managed.
Ecosystem-based management is not some theoretical construct. It is
common sense. It means looking at all the parts of the machine to
understand how they can work together. The goal is a more effective
management system that does a better job of protecting the oceans from
unwanted changes and further degradation.
The Commission applauds the Chairman's efforts at prompting a
national dialogue on ocean and coastal issues and his recognition of
the need for a careful and thorough evaluation of our exiting
governance structure. Progress towards an ecosystem-based management
approach is heavily dependent upon changes in this structure.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I have only touched on a few of the
important issues in the Commission report. I would be pleased to
discuss these and other matters with you further at your discretion.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hayes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. HAYES, GENERAL COUNSEL,
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hayes. Good morning. I would like to submit my
testimony for the record and just go through two or three
points which I think are important in that testimony, and try
to address some concerns that Mr. Saxton raised this morning
with respect to NOAA and its inherent conflict.
First of all, I would like to point out I may be the oldest
guy in the room, I do not know, but I actually was around in
1972 right after NOAA was formed. The reality was that when
NOAA was formed, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was part of
the Department of Interior. It was a half of the Fish and
Wildlife Service at the time. Its only regulatory authority was
some very preliminary authority under the Endangered Species
Act because the treaty had been signed in 1969.
Basically, NMFS was transferred--or the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries was transferred to the Department of
Commerce, because its primary goal and its entire budget and
personnel structure was designed to promote and to augment and
support commercial fishing. It had the fish inspection program.
It had geared development programs. It had fish marketing
programs. There were 20 fish marketers in the Agency who went
around just like ag people and told people how to prepare
squid. There is a whole component section of this, which today
we find remarkable, but, in fact, it existed, and it existed up
until about 1988. That program is essentially gone.
What has happened, and the reason that I think the
frustration inside the Department of Commerce is, is that that
mindset of promoting commercial fishing carried through
probably until the mid-1990s. I do not happen to think that
that mindset is there anymore. That is a cultural problem that
I think has changed.
Now, let me see if I can sort of--and that gets you back to
the Department of Commerce. The problem with the Department of
Commerce is that the Department of Commerce cannot understand
resource agencies management. What has happened in the last 20
years is that the National Marine Fisheries Service has 30 or
40 statutory mandates that have been applied to it, and those
statutory mandates are something that require essentially a
regulatory outcome.
I agree with Dr. Rosenberg. Science supports management.
You should not separate those two things. Those things have to
go together, and, therefore, I think you will see that in my
testimony, one of the things I argue for is the Agency has to
be managed as a regulatory agency. So at least from my
perspective, the conflict has been wiped out. That conflict
does not exist anymore. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is
dead, although they could, frankly, and you could--the next
time you do the Magnuson Act, you could take all those words
about promoting seafood consumption out of the Magnuson Act.
That is where that stuff comes from. That is the purpose of
that.
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize, Mr. Hayes. I need to quickly
ask you what controversy or conflict does not exist anymore?
Mr. Hayes. This concept that you had a Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries which was transferred to NOAA and became the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the mindset and programmatic
emphasis that was in that Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, all
those programs have been basically eliminated. There are very
few of those programs that exist today. Some of those still
exist, but, frankly, they are a shadow of what they were 15
years ago, and there is a reason for that, of course. I could
go into that, but the obvious reason was because you needed
those programs in order to displace foreign fishing. That was
one of the original objectives of the Magnuson Act. That has
been achieved. So now the question is what is the new objective
to the Magnuson? So I just sort of point that out.
Let me talk about the two things I think are clearly
important here: transferring recreational fisherman. If you ask
a recreational fishermen on the street today, would
transferring the National Marine Fishery Service to the
Department of Interior delight them, they would say yes. I
could not find anybody that said no. There is a reason for
that. It is because they understand recreation, and they
understand fisheries management.
However, I think people who have looked at the National
Marine Fisheries Service for a long time and looked at the
management of those resources would argue that there is a
balance that is necessary between the commercial activities,
the recreational activities and the emphasis that is put on
those. And there are very, very clear fundamental problems in
the National Marine Fisheries Service. I will just emphasize
two of them.
One, as Mr. Rosenberg suggests, you have to improve the
science. You have to have better science. That is the problem
with white marlin. The answer you got from Tim Keeney was an
answer about regulatory actions. That is not the question you
asked. The question you asked is how could you possibly let
this thing decline without putting any emphasis on its
recovery? Well, the emphasis that is necessary is science. That
is what is missing there. So the first issue is science.
The second issue is that NOAA, NMFS if you will, has
incredible statutory conflicts between all of the various
statutory responsibilities it has. At some juncture someone has
to take a look at those statutory responsibilities and
harmonize them. I am not talking about abandoning them, I am
not talking about significant modifications, but somehow those
have to be harmonized. Those are the two major things I want to
say.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hayes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Statement of Robert G. Hayes, Coastal Conservation Association
It is a pleasure to be here today on behalf of the Coastal
Conservation Association (CCA) and our 90,000 plus members. I am Bob
Hayes and I am the General Counsel for CCA. I am here today to discuss
H.R. 4368, the Weather and Ocean Resources Realignment Act, which makes
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) an
independent agency within the Department of Interior. First, I'd like
to provide you with a little background on CCA and my qualifications,
and then discuss the substance of such a change.
The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading marine
recreational fishing membership organization in the United States.
Formed by a small group of sportfishermen in Houston in 1978, CCA has
grown to a fifteen-state operation with over 90,000 members. Each of
our states operates somewhat independently focusing on issues in the
state that are important to marine recreational fishermen. However,
like so much in fisheries management, conservation issues require a
regional and national perspective; therefore, CCA learned long ago that
federal and international fisheries management were just as important
to the local marine recreational fisherman as conservation of the most
local fish population.
CCA pursues conservation policies set by our state and national
Boards of Directors. These boards are made up of active volunteers
concerned about the health of the nation's fisheries. CCA has been
active in a number of conservation issues in the last twenty years,
including: all of the East and Gulf Coast net bans; gamefish status for
redfish, speckled trout, tarpon, striped bass, river shad, marlins,
spearfish, and sailfish; and the reduction of bycatch through the use
of closed areas and technology. We have also pushed for improvement of
the management system through the restructuring of state and federal
management systems; the elimination of conflicts of interests by
decision-makers; and the active involvement of our membership in the
management process. CCA has not addressed H.R. 4368 and therefore has
no position on it. We have a meeting in late October and would be happy
to address the bill and provide any additional views at that time. The
views here reflect the attitude of the organization but until they are
approved, the thoughts in this testimony are essentially my own.
I have had 30-plus years experience working with, for and against
NOAA. I have been the lawyer to five fishery management councils, a
deputy general counsel for fisheries, an office director at NMFS
responsible for displacing foreign fishing, a member of various
committees and boards advising NMFS and NOAA, and, at the moment, the
recreational Commissioner on the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Almost all of my fisheries
practice for 20 years has focused on improving fishing for recreational
fishermen. For most of that time recreational fishermen have said to me
that NOAA or at least NMFS should have stayed in the Department of
Interior. Such a change would be extraordinarily popular in the marine
recreational fishing community. The question today is would the change
amount to something or would it simply be the rearrangement of the deck
chairs on the Titanic. I am of two minds on this issue.
From a recreational angler standpoint, moving NOAA to the
Department of Interior, as a unit, would give the recreation community
a boost. When I go to the Department of Interior, I am often greeted as
a colleague, sportsman, stakeholder and conservationist. When I go to
NOAA, I am often referred to as a ``rec guy,'' user of the resource, or
some other less-than-friendly term. In our view, the intrinsic and
economic value of recreational fishing is not well understood by NOAA
or the Department of Commerce.
Two examples will suffice to make this point. The Administration
sent a Marine Mammal Protection Act amendment to this Committee that
described marine recreational fishermen as ``non-commercial''
fishermen. (The MMPA needed to be fixed because of the bycatch of
marine mammals by commercial gear, some of which was authorized to be
used in North Carolina by recreational fishermen.) It did not seem to
matter to DOC that the term, no matter how accurate, was offensive to
recreational fishermen. Fortunately, the Chairman, members, and staff
of this Committee have a far better understanding of the sensitivity of
this problem and have properly addressed it in the House bill.
The second example concerns striped bass. Striped bass fishing is
the most popular recreational fishery in the country. It can only occur
in state waters because NMFS has closed the EEZ to all fishing for
striped bass. NMFS, in an effort to allow the commercial landing of a
small bycatch in the offshore commercial fishery, is investigating ways
to open the EEZ to striped bass fishing. Recreational fishermen are
opposed to this because it will shift the fishery offshore, allow
access to larger fish which will disrupt the recovery of the stock, and
undermine state gamefish laws. No one inside of DOC/NOAA/NMFS wants to
address the recreational concern. Rather, to solve a small bycatch
problem, DOC would rather put the entire recreational fishery at risk.
There are millions of saltwater recreational fishermen. So why do
recreational fishermen think there is no one home at the Department of
Commerce or NOAA?
Part of the problem is that recreational fishermen are hard to
communicate with by traditional means. There are no conventions or huge
annual meetings. No one group speaks for the whole community. Although
there are some 12 million saltwater anglers, angling advocacy groups
cannot count 3% of them as members. As a result, consensus of opinion
on specific issues is hard to get. It is also hard to get the angling
public focused on federal issues when most of the real problems they
have are in the states.
On the federal side, this administration has made it clear that
fish problems (commercial or recreational) should not go to the
Secretary. NOAA has made it clear that bureaucratic success is keeping
issues bottled up at the NMFS level. The measures of success for NMFS,
as a result, are not stocks recovered or economic value enhanced, but
rather reduction of controversy from the Congress and fewer lawsuits
filed. This leaves NMFS focused on today's problem, which is almost
always a commercial problem. Such problems often get fixed at the
expense of the fish or the angling public. So the common view that the
DOC does not care about recreational fishermen gets strengthened daily
by the decisions NMFS makes.
NMFS' treatment of commercial longline bycatch is a good example.
About four years ago, it became obvious that the North Atlantic
longline fleet was interacting with lots of endangered turtles. NMFS
proceeded to develop a research program to develop technology to avoid
catching turtles on longlines. Over the next three years, NMFS spent
about $15 million to successfully develop alternatives so that some 15
longline vessels could continue fishing the North Atlantic. The
research is now being expanded to other areas and holds great promise
as a viable way to avoid turtle bycatch.
In the same four years, NMFS has been faced with effects of the
bycatch of marlin. White marlin in particular is subject to high
bycatch mortality. In the last four years NMFS has not increased its
scientific effort to address white marlin mortality. Many think
increases funding were blocked by NOAA and the Department, so the
recreational community went to Congress and got its own money for
research. The recent $2.5 million appropriated was entirely a result of
recreational fishermen's efforts to earmark monies for cooperative
billfish research. The DOC message to the recreational community is
clear. If you are a commercial fishing entity, we're here to help you.
If you're one of those rec guys, go help yourself.
To my knowledge, the leadership of NOAA has had one, hour-long
meeting with the leadership of the recreational fishing community in
the last three years. In contrast, the American Sportfishing
Association (ASA) and CCA have met with the President on two occasions:
once in D.C. and once in Texas, for a total of four hours. The D.C.
meeting was attended by Secretaries Gale Norton and Ann Veneman. No one
from NMFS, NOAA, or the Department of Commerce attended. The leadership
of ASA and members of CCA routinely meet with Gale Norton and her staff
about issues, which get addressed and fixed. There is no similar level
of attention at the Department of Commerce.
NOAA and DOC will tell you this is because they have delegated
responsibility for recreational fishermen to NMFS. Bill Hogarth and his
staff have worked hard on reaching out to the recreational community.
Today, NMFS has a recreational liaison office, which is developing a
recreational fishing strategic plan. Bill Hogarth has met with
recreational fishermen all over the country. When he asks what
recreational fishermen want he gets lots of answers, but they all can
be covered by ``reasonable access to a sustainable fishery.'' On the
whole, Bill Hogarth gets high marks from everyone for his efforts. But
NMFS' efforts at understanding recreational fishing are not the issue
here. Presumably, all of the NMFS outreach would continue and be
supplemented in the Department of Interior. The question is would NOAA/
NMFS operate better in the Department of Interior?
Generally, I have concluded that changing the hat on the head and
body of this beast, will not change the beast. As the Oceans Commission
correctly concluded, a stronger, more effective service-oriented ocean
agency is needed. How to get that agency--and to make NOAA and NMFS the
agencies we all think they ought to be--is the real question. Shuffling
them to a different Department or making them an independent agency
without addressing the fundamental problems will not result in positive
change.
The fundamental problems in oceans management are clear and well
documented. First and foremost is the layering and multiplicity of
jurisdictions addressing management of ocean resources. Some 15 federal
agencies and departments now have a hand in federal oceans policy.
Combine those with 29 coastal states and territories and three
interstate commissions and you have a political nightmare. Each of
these jurisdictions has different priorities, budget structures, and
statutory schemes. Most of them overlap somewhere in the ocean inside
of the 200 mile limit. All of them are important to some constituency
and all of them have some political support.
Secondly, we have the problem of population. In the next ten years,
some 70% of the nation's population will live within an easy day's
drive of the oceans. Many of those people have reached a degree of
affluence that allows them to recreate in a marine environment. One
facet of that growth will be in marine recreational fishing, which will
require continued access to healthy resources. The tackle manufacturers
will tell you that their largest growth sector is marine recreational
fishing. The recreational boating industry will tell you that some 70%
of recreational boaters also fish from their boats. Most people I talk
to in the industry think the federal number of 12 million marine
recreational anglers is a low number. Recreational fishing is growing
and competing for space and resources. It will need to be managed to
ensure maximum economic value while controlling its impact on the
resource.
People who live near the coast affect it. The Chesapeake Bay is a
classic example of destroying the health of an ecosystem through
population growth. You don't have to live within 100 miles of it in
order to impact water quality in the Bay. The same is true of Delaware
Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Puget Sound and any number of
estuaries that people in this room can name. Coastal population growth
doesn't need to be managed by NOAA, but ocean policy makers need to
manage for it.
Increased populations also mean more food consumption. Our waters
are not capable of accommodating increases in fish consumption if the
increase is to be met by sales of wild fish. We already have too many
overfished fisheries, too many commercial vessels, and too little money
to address the problem. The common answer to the consumption issue is
mariculture but it comes with its own set of environmental, health, and
economic problems.
Lastly, you have the science. Ocean and atmospheric science is done
by a hodge-podge of private institutions, academic programs, and
government science centers. Much of it is superb; however, priorities
are hard to set and outcomes that support better, more predictable
outcomes are hard to achieve. We need to specifically identify the
sampling universe of recreational fishermen. We need better data on
what is landed and the total mortality of recreational and commercial
fisheries. Unfortunately, we lack basic science on any number of
species. The nation needs to focus its research programs to compliment
the management system.
The list of potential answers to these management problems includes
ecosystem management, preservation of biodiversity, more regional
commissions, council appointments, circumventing states, White House-
level ocean czars, and any host of governance changes. These look to me
like we are taking a complicated system and making it more unworkable.
Since I don't know a great deal about ocean mining, offshore oil
exploration, coastal zone management, or marine and estuarine
pollution, let me offer some ideas on something I do know something
about--fisheries management.
The single most important thing about fisheries management is that
done properly, it works. It has worked in stripped bass, redfish, king
mackerel, and most of the North Pacific fisheries. It is working in
summer flounder, many of the reef fish fisheries in the Gulf and a
number of mid-Atlantic fisheries that were overfished just recently. It
works when the management system has decent science, takes a
responsible precautionary approach, and weathers the political pressure
from interest groups (recreational, commercial, and environmental),
which for whatever reason don't like the answer. It is a system that
requires courage and conviction to achieve success. It does, however,
have a few flaws.
The first flaw is the quality of the science. Fisheries science is
a good guess at best. Scientific inaccuracy is the reason that CCA
pushed for application of the precautionary approach in the 1980s. Most
of the science is not directed at the entire ocean system. It has
traditionally been done on a species or group of species. Today,
scientists tell us it ought to be done on a holistic basis. Ecosystem
management is all the rage. The Oceans Commission jumped at the
opportunity to embrace ecosystem management. A cynic might think they
like it because, as of yet, no one can explain what it is or how it
would work within the existing statutory structure. It sounds good, but
it is unattainable in today's budgetary and statutory world?
What is attainable? Better fisheries data, better quality,
reputable fisheries scientists, and protection of their unbiased
conclusions from the chorus of criticism from those who don't like the
conclusions. Congress can accomplish this by establishing the
improvement of science as clear priority, by appropriating funds to
accomplish it, and by insisting that agency managers take the political
heat and not pass the buck onto agency scientists.
The second problem is the statutory structure. If, as a nation, we
intend to move toward management of ecosystems, then there needs to be
a rationalization of the statutory goals. The present fisheries
management system lacks a single clear goal. Some would suggest that
the goal should be preservation of ocean biodiversity. Some would
suggest the goal is to prevent overfishing and recover fish stocks.
Some would suggest it is the preservation of marine mammals.
Recreational fishermen would suggest the goal ought to be maximum
access to a sustainable resource. Some would suggest it is the
maintenance of economically viable stocks at the expense of all other
things in the oceans. (This probably is the present de facto goal).
There are certainly others.
Congress needs to face this problem directly and develop a clear
unified objective for NOAA's management of the fishery resources. The
Administration should take some leadership here as well, by
articulating a single goal that blends all of their statutory
responsibilities. Once everyone knows the objective, it should be a lot
easier to develop a coherent policy.
CCA has suggested for some time that the next step is to use the
fishery management planning process as a real plan. Most FMPs are not a
plan; they are a description of a fishery with the measures that manage
it. There is no real attempt to plan in a strategic sense where the
fishery is going and what it ought to look like five, 10, or 20 years
down the road. How does NOAA expect to react to the increase in ocean
recreation in the next ten years if it doesn't have a planning
mechanism to do so? Congress needs to look at this next year.
Finally, in the bigger picture, NOAA needs to be run as a
regulatory and service agency supported by sound science, not as a
science agency which also has regulatory and service functions. The
tool in fisheries management is regulating the users of the resource.
There clearly are other impacts on the health of fisheries, but the
primary control is over the harvesters. The science programs in the
agency need to support the regulatory function and the entire
regulatory system needs to be streamlined all the way to the Secretary.
Before I close, I would like to thank Congressman Saxton and
Congressman Young for introducing this legislation. This legislation
raises the issue of reorganization, which ought to be part of the
debate on oceans management. For three years now the recreational
community has watched and participated in discussions about the
governance of ocean issues. The size of the problem and its complexity
often seem to dwarf the concerns of the average recreational fisherman.
But let there be no doubt: our love of the ocean and our need for it to
be healthy are as great as any interest represented in this debate. We
are willing to think outside the box, so long as the result is a
healthy marine ecosystem to which we have reasonable access. Thank you
for allowing us to testify here today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Mann and Mr. Moore are on the opposite
ends of the dais now from whence they came.
Mr. Mann. In some ways we always have been.
Mr. Gilchrest. This is a subcommittee for marine fisheries.
Mr. Moore. I was here first before he got here.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you say you may be older than Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Moore. Considerably.
Mr. Gilchrest. Welcome, gentlemen. We should have held this
hearing down the hall. It would have been a little more
nostalgic.
Mr. Mann, welcome. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER G. MANN, POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SEACHANGE
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Mann. I
am the Policy Director for the Center for SeaChange, a
nonprofit organization established to reform U.S. Ocean policy
to protect, maintain and restore the health of marine
ecosystems.
As you mentioned, I am a former member of the staff of this
committee, and so I am particularly pleased to be here today to
give the views of the Center for SeaChange on H.R. 4368. I also
hope that as these reforms proceed in Congress, you will
eventually have a chance to hold a hearing like this before a
full committee on oceans and coasts. It has a nice ring to some
of us.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found that in 2000 the
oceans contributed $117 billion annually to the U.S. Economy
and supported more than 2 million jobs. To put this in
perspective, this is 2.5 times the total economic output and
1.5 times the employment of the farm sector. Yet our laws and
policies governing the oceans have allowed this incredible
resource to be severely degraded.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission both found that our marine ecosystems and the
resources they produce are in an alarming state of decline. To
cite a few examples, nearly two-thirds of our estuaries are
degraded by nutrient pollution. Last year there were more than
18,000 beach closings as a result of water pollution. Nearly
one-third of federally managed fish stocks whose status is
known are in jeopardy, and the status of most stocks is not
known. Habitat vital for coastal species and for maintaining
clean water is being lost at an alarming rate due to a
combination of unwise and unsustainable development.
So this is the context in which this bill and other reform
proposals before Congress should be evaluated.
Although I agree that NOAA in its present circumstances is
unable to be a good steward of our marine resources, I do not
believe that placing NOAA in the Department of Interior at this
time is the appropriate solution.
Mr. Mann. NOAA is essentially a science and natural
resource management agency. It is part of the Commerce
Department, which is generally responsible for promoting the
interests of U.S. business and industry at home and abroad.
The United States' long-term economic interest is
completely compatible, in fact is dependent upon healthy
oceans. Unfortunately, the perception is that in the Department
of Commerce short-term interests may take precedence over the
long-term health of the resource. As long as this cloud hangs
over NOAA's head, its credibility as a science-based resource
management agency will be compromised. As a result it makes a
lot of sense to move NOAA out of the Department of Commerce.
Interior Department certainly has a culture of natural
resource management. There is validity to the idea of creating
a Department of Natural Resources, consolidating all or most
natural resource management programs in the Federal Government,
but I do not see that proposal as politically viable any time
soon. Without the substantial changes in policy and structure
that would need to accompany the establishment of a true
Department of Natural Resources, there is a real danger that
ocean issues would be lost at Interior.
Second, while ocean issues can certainly be contentious,
they are typically less contentious overall than the Department
of the Interior's resource management portfolio. I would hate
to see this committee take steps to move NOAA out of the frying
pan and into the fire.
Last, moving NOAA to Interior, as other witnesses have
addressed, does not address the Agency's fundamental problems
which are more the result of inappropriate and ambiguous
policies and mandates than they are about its placement within
an organization chart.
What actions should Congress take to ensure NOAA is
empowered to manage our ocean resources for the greatest public
benefit? There is a great deal of common ground between the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the
Pew Oceans Commission. That common ground provides a strong
basis for ocean policy reform.
Where do the two commissions agree? First, we need a
comprehensive national ocean policy. Both commissions found
that a major cause of ocean degradation was the fragmented
stovepipe nature of Federal ocean law and policy. They agreed
the Nation's marine resources should be manned on an ecosystem
basis. Congress has established strong national policies
protecting our water, air, and public lands. It is now time to
establish a national policy for clean, healthy and productive
oceans.
Second, NOAA needs to be strengthened so that it can be the
Nation's lead oceans agency. Congress should enact an organic
act providing the agency with a clear stewardship mission, the
internal structure to facilitate ecosystem-based management,
and the authority it needs to get the job done.
Third, there needs to be greater attention to ocean issues
at the White House and an effective mechanism for interagency
coordination and implementation of ocean policy. Both
commissions recommended the President appoint a national oceans
advisor and the establishment of a Cabinet-level National
Oceans Council.
Fourth, we need a forum and a process to better coordinate
across the arbitrary lines that separate State and Federal
ocean jurisdiction. Both commissions recommend establishment of
regional ocean councils to bring the appropriate players
together, identify common concerns and goals, and take action
to protect our oceans.
Last but not least, we need the resources to get the job
done. A substantially greater investment in ocean science and
management is needed.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very ambitious agenda that I have
outlined, but the response needs to be proportionate to the
serious problems we face in the oceans today. The work of the
two commissions provides a thoughtful blueprint for action. Now
Congress needs to act boldly to follow through.
I commend Congressman Saxton for getting this discussion
started. The Center for SeaChange and the members of the Pew
Oceans Commission share your concern that organization
stewardship, not just at NOAA but governmentwide, needs to be
improved, and we look forward to working with you to accomplish
that goal. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Mann.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mann follows:]
Statement of Christopher G. Mann, Policy Director,
Center for SeaChange
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Chris Mann. I am Policy Director for the Center for SeaChange, a
non-profit organization established to reform U.S. ocean policy to
protect, maintain and restore the health of marine ecosystems.
As a former member of the staff of this Committee, I am
particularly pleased to be here today to present the views of the
Center for SeaChange on H.R. 4368. Having worked with you, Mr.
Chairman, and Mr. Saxton, over the course of many years, I appreciate
the longstanding commitment both of you have shown to conservation and
sustainable use of our marine resources. I commend you for holding the
hearing today, which I hope is the first of many discussions within
this Committee regarding much-needed reforms to the nation's ocean
policy.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found that in 2000 the oceans
contributed $117 billion annually to the U.S. economy and supported
more than two million jobs. To put these numbers in perspective, this
is 2 1/2 times the total economic output and 1 1/2 times the employment
of the farm sector.
Yet our laws and policies governing the oceans have allowed this
incredible resource to be severely degraded. The U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission found our marine ecosystems,
and the resources they produce, in an alarming state of decline. To
cite a few examples:
Nearly 2/3 of our estuaries are moderately or severely
degraded by nutrient pollution.
There were more than 18,000 beach closings resulting from
water pollution in 2003, a sharp increase in the number of closings
over previous years.
Of the federally managed fish stocks whose status is
known, nearly one-third are overfished, are experiencing overfishing,
or both.
The status of more than two-thirds of our fish stocks is
unknown.
Habitat vital for coastal species and for maintaining
clean water is being lost at an alarming rate due to unwise and
unsustainable development. The United States is losing more than 20,000
acres of coastal wetlands each year. Most of the seagrasses, which once
formed vast underwater nurseries in estuaries from Galveston Bay to
Chesapeake Bay, have vanished.
Both commissions concluded that dramatic changes in U.S. ocean
policy are needed to reverse these declines and preserve the ecological
and economic benefits provided by our oceans. Mr. Chairman, this is the
context in which H.R. 4368 and several other reform bills before
Congress should be evaluated.
If I'm reading correctly between the lines, H.R. 4368 was
introduced because of concern that NOAA in its present circumstances is
unable to be a good steward of our marine resources. That is a concern
I share, but I do not believe that placing NOAA in the Department of
the Interior is the appropriate solution.
NOAA is essentially a science and natural resource management
agency, yet it is part of the Commerce Department, which is generally
responsible for promoting the interests of U.S. business and industry
at home and abroad. At about 60 percent of the Commerce Department's
budget, NOAA is by far the largest component of that Department.
The United States long-term economic interest is completely
compatible--in fact, is dependent upon--healthy oceans. Unfortunately,
the perception is that in the Department of Commerce short-term
interests may take precedence over the long-term health of the
resource. Justified or not, as long as this cloud hangs over NOAA's
head, its credibility as a science-based resource management agency
will be compromised.
As a result, it makes sense to move NOAA out of Commerce, as was
recommended by the Pew Oceans Commission. However, placing NOAA within
the Department of Interior is not the right step to take at this time.
The Interior Department certainly has a culture of natural resource
management. In the long term, there is validity to the idea of a
Department of Natural Resources consolidating all or most such programs
of the federal government. This has been tried before without success
and I do not see that proposal as politically viable any time soon.
Without the substantial changes in policy and structure that would
accompany the establishment of a Department of Natural resources, there
is a danger that ocean issues would get lost at Interior.
Secondly, while ocean issues can be contentious, they are typically
less contentious overall than the Interior Department's resource
management portfolio. I would hate to see you move NOAA out of the
frying pan and into the fire. Such a step might diminish the chances
for bipartisan--and bicameral--agreement on ocean policy reform.
Lastly, moving NOAA to Interior does not address the agency's
fundamental problems, which are more the result of inappropriate and
ambiguous policies than they are about placement within the
organization chart. NOAA is currently charged to implement a confusing
and often conflicting array of mandates. For example, the agency is
responsible for protecting marine mammals and endangered species, and
with promoting and developing fisheries. It is not news to this
committee that these dual missions often run afoul of each other.
So what should be done to set U.S. ocean policy on the right track?
Specifically, what action could Congress take to ensure that NOAA is
empowered to manage our ocean resources for the greatest public
benefit? If you put aside all the hype and politics, and read the
reports of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission, you will find that there is a great deal of common ground.
It is this common ground that the Center for SeaChange believes
provides a strong basis for ocean policy reform. Where do the two
commissions agree?
First, we need a comprehensive national ocean policy. Both
commissions found that a major cause of ocean degradation was the
fragmented, stovepipe nature of federal ocean law and policy. They
agreed the nation's marine resources should be managed on an ecosystem
basis.
The Pew Oceans Commission recommended that Congress enact a
national oceans policy committing the nation to protect, maintain, and
restore the health of our marine ecosystems. Congress has established
strong national policies protecting our water, air and public lands. It
is now time to establish a national policy for clean, healthy, and
productive oceans.
Second, NOAA needs to be strengthened so that it can be the
nation's oceans agency. NOAA has taken some positive steps in this
regard, but the agency needs a strong mandate from Congress to finish
the job. Congress should enact an organic act for NOAA providing the
agency with a clear stewardship mission, the internal structure to
facilitate regional, ecosystem-based management, and the authority it
needs to get the job done.
Third, there must be greater attention to ocean issues at the White
House and an effective mechanism for interagency coordination and
implementation of ocean policy. More than half of the cabinet
departments and a number of independent agencies carry out activities
and programs affecting the oceans. Both commissions recommended the
President appoint a national oceans advisor and the establishment of a
cabinet-level National Oceans Council.
Fourth, we need a forum and a process to better coordinate state
and federal ocean policy. The arbitrary lines that separate federal and
state jurisdiction over oceans hamper our ability to protect the health
of marine ecosystems. Overlaid on this are local and tribal resource
use decisions that further complicate comprehensive management. If we
can find a way to bridge these gaps, the public interest in healthy
oceans will be better served. To address this need, both commissions
recommended the establishment of regional ocean ecosystem councils to
bring the appropriate players together, identify common concerns and
goals, and outline plans of action to protect our oceans.
And last, but not least, we need the resources to get the job done.
The U.S. Commission has done an extensive analysis of the cost of
implementing its recommendations, and while those costs are significant
they are modest compared to the value of healthy oceans to our nation.
Both commissions recommended doubling the budget for ocean science.
NOAA would have to be given substantially more resources to carry out a
new national ocean policy. The Pew Commission suggested that this would
require a doubling of the agency's budget as well.
Where would the money come from? Both commissions recommended that
Congress establish a dedicated fund to pay for ocean and coastal
conservation and management, and consider using revenue derived from
offshore oil and gas development to capitalize it. From a public policy
standpoint, it makes sense to reinvest revenue from nonrenewable marine
resource extraction into renewable marine resource stewardship. I
believe this can be done in a way that does not encourage oil and gas
development where it is not desirable. Such safeguards are built into
the GO Act and the OCEANS 21 Act, for example.
Mr. Chairman, I know I have outlined a very ambitious agenda. But
the response needs to be proportionate to the very serious problems we
face in the oceans today. People of intellect and accomplishment came
together in good faith on the two ocean commissions, looked at the same
set of facts, and reached very similar conclusions about the state of
our oceans and what must be done to save them. Now Congress needs to
act boldly to follow through.
Again, I commend Congressman Saxton for getting the discussion
started with this bill. The Center for SeaChange and the Members of the
Pew Oceans Commission certainly share your concern that ocean
stewardship--not just at NOAA but government-wide--needs to be
improved. We look forward to working with you to accomplish this goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Center
for SeaChange, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think what we will do, we have several
votes, and rather than rush Mr. Moore and have to leave in less
than 5 minutes from now, we will go and vote. And I would
strongly urge the witnesses and the other people in the room to
have lunch because we have one 15-minute vote--there are four
votes. So it is going to be about 40, 45 minutes.
Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I have a
plane to catch.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I will stay here and run to the vote
then, and I will listen to your testimony.
Mr. Moore. Whatever you feel best.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will listen to your testimony if you do
not mind talking fast. We will listen intently; then we will
break and have questions when we come back.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. I can talk real fast, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to apologize both
for the timing and if my voice goes, because I have been
traveling for about 8 weeks and getting a cold here.
Mr. Saxton's bill, in essence, really raises three
questions: Are there problems with NOAA? Can those problems be
solved by moving NOAA? And if you are going to move NOAA, is
Interior the best place to move it?
I think we all agree that there are problems in NOAA. I
have laid out a few in my testimony. You have heard from other
witnesses here. The problems run the gamut from funding, from
personnel, from conflicts within the Agency.
And I am interested in this idea of consumption versus
conservation. You have the same thing in the Department of the
Interior with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I think a
bigger conflict might be the conflict between the National
Ocean Sanctuary Program trying to manage fish at the same time
that the NMFS does.
But simply taking NOAA and moving it to another agency is
not going to solve those problems. And you do not fix a hole in
your boat by moving the boat to another dock. You fix the hole
in the boat. And that is going to require a great deal of
effort by the Congress, oversight, changing in statutory
mandates and so forth.
I think that the Committee should be looking at that before
we decide where we are going to move NOAA, if we are going to
move NOAA at all. And further, that this--the whole question of
where to put oceans--any kind of oceans agency needs to be
treated holistically. We need to wait for the President's
response on the Commission on Ocean Policy. We need to look at
the various proposals that have come up, including yours in
establishing an organic act, Mr. Saxton's on moving the bill,
and take the time to do it right, and the end of the session is
not the time to do it.
I will stop there, you have my written testimony.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director,
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Rod Moore and
I serve as the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association. We are a non-profit business trade association
headquartered in Portland, OR, that represents shore-based seafood
processors and associated businesses in Oregon, Washington, and
California. Some of our members also have facilities and operations in
Alaska, Texas, Utah, and British Columbia.
I am also the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's
Groundfish Advisory Subpanel; President of Pacific Groundfish
Conservation Trust, Inc. (PGCT), which is a non-profit science and
education corporation; and from 1996 until this year have been a member
of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee (MAFAC). Let me make clear that I am not representing the
Council, PGCT, or MAFAC today; I include this information only to
demonstrate that I have extensive interactions with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and especially the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
I have also dealt with 9 Directors of NMFS, plus a couple of acting
directors; at least an equal number of Administrators of NOAA; and
probably the same number of Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. I have lost count of how many Secretaries of the Interior and
of Commerce have served during the years I have been involved with
fisheries policy and management.
Your hearing on this bill comes at an appropriate time. Last week,
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy transmitted its final report which,
among other things, calls for changes in ocean governance including
creating an organic act for NOAA and eventually establishing a cabinet-
level Department of Natural Resources. Also last week, the Senate
Commerce Committee marked up S. 2647, which would establish an organic
act for NOAA but retain it within the Department of Commerce. Your
committee has pending before it H.R. 984, which would again provide an
organic act for NOAA while retaining the agency within the Department
of Commerce. So I think we see a trend starting here; there appears to
be agreement that--at a minimum--we need to codify NOAA.
But once we make NOAA a ``real'' federal agency, what do we do with
it? In the past 27 years that I have been dealing with this agency, I
have heard a lot of suggestions, some of which are best not shared in
polite company. Here's a brief tour through the history of ``Where's
NOAA?'' as best as I can remember it:
1969, the Stratton Commission recommends establishing an
ocean agency, sort of the ``wet'' version of a Department of Natural
Resources. The result was Reorganization Plan #4 of 1970, which
transferred various functions to NOAA in the Department of Commerce.
Several later Secretaries of the Interior made bids to at least return
NMFS to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but were unsuccessful.
1977, President Carter advocated a new Department of
Natural Resources, similar to the suggestion made yet again in the
Commission on Ocean Policy report, which would include NOAA's functions
along with those of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service. Upon its arrival in Congress, the proposal sank faster than a
half-ounce lure in a salmon stream.
1980's, and periodically thereafter, members of the
commercial fishing industry advocated moving NOAA to the Department of
Agriculture on the grounds that fish are harvested for food and thus
should be combined into the nation's food agency. In the early 1990's,
staff from the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the
House Committee on Agriculture met informally to explore combining
elements of NOAA into the Department of Agriculture; no formal action
ever occurred.
There was also a suggestion that NOAA be moved into the Department of
Defense to take advantage of funding possibilities and I once suggested
that--given the number of lawsuits that were then pending against
NOAA--we move the agency to the Department of Justice.
Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to look at the
alternatives and their costs and benefits. In each of these cases, I am
taking as a given that an organic act for NOAA will be enacted so that
we are dealing with a complete federal agency.
Status quo, NOAA stays in Commerce -- Obviously, this is the
simplest and most straight-forward. We have no costs to the taxpayer
that are inherent in moving any federal agency around. We have an
existing chain of command, budget structure, and lines of jurisdiction
within the Congress. No statutes would have to be amended to clarify
that ``Secretary'' means something other than the Secretary of
Commerce.
The disadvantage is that whatever problems people perceive to exist
with NOAA remaining in the Department of Commerce will continue. I have
never gotten a clear understanding of what those problems are, other
than a feeling that the Secretary of Commerce ignores fisheries issues.
I suggest that this can be a non-problem, depending on the Secretary of
Commerce. I know several instances, in both Republican and Democratic
administrations, where the Secretary was very supportive of NOAA. I
know similar instances where the opposite was true.
NOAA becomes an independent agency -- Under this proposal, NOAA is
left to float alone, similar to the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are some costs for changing stationery and logos. The budget
structure within the Office of Management and Budget might have to be
modified. There is no need to change Congressional jurisdiction.
Several statutes would have to be amended. NOAA would lose the
protections inherent in being part of a larger bureaucracy, but could
suffer less bureaucratic interference. Presumably, NOAA would be more
accountable for its actions, because the chain of command would end at
the Administrator of NOAA.
NOAA is moved to the Department of the Interior -- Again, there
would be costs to the taxpayers for the transfer. Numerous statutory
changes would have to be made to change responsibilities for such
things as all marine fisheries management and the National Marine
Sanctuary Program to either the Secretary of the Interior or the
Administrator of NOAA. Given the relative size of the Department of the
Interior as compared to the Department of Commerce, NOAA would become
even more of a non-entity in the bureaucratic maze. And to be fair,
these same problems would apply if NOAA were transferred to the
Department of Agriculture, as some commercial fishermen have advocated.
Speaking as a representative of the seafood industry on the Pacific
Coast, the thought of the Secretary of the Interior managing marine
resources terrifies me. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
relatively friendly towards hunters and recreational fishermen, the
National Park Service isn't. I know that Congressman Young can relate
to what happens if the National Park Service gets involved in
fisheries--there's a 20 year history of conflict in Glacier Bay
National Park that serves as a prime example.
I have heard recreational fishermen grumble that NOAA--somehow by
virtue of being in the Department of Commerce--gives no attention to
recreational fisheries needs. Anyone who says that has spent no time at
all on the Pacific Coast, where recreational fishing is given the same
amount of attention as commercial fishing, if not more. NMFS has
embarked on a recreational fisheries strategic plan and is going to
great pains to solicit recreational fishermen's ideas. There is a
recreational fisheries office in the NMFS hierarchy, reporting to the
Director; nothing similar exists for the commercial fisheries. Quite
honestly, I have trouble understanding this argument.
Mr. Chairman, in looking at the costs and benefits, I am hard
pressed to find any reason why you should abandon the status quo.
Further, any decision to make changes, other than codifying NOAA
through an organic act, should be considered in a holistic fashion,
looking at the recommendations of the Commission on Ocean Policy
report, and the President's responses which will be forthcoming. Given
the complex nature of our government, simply picking up NOAA and moving
it to another department of government is not a simple, easy, or cheap
task.
Finally, let me make clear that just because I advocate the status
quo does not mean that I think NOAA is an agency free of problems. On
the Pacific coast, we have a National Marine Sanctuary program that is
running wild and trying to take over fisheries jurisdiction along most
of the California coast, including establishing marine reserves without
much real input from recreational and commercial fishermen. We have a
recent proposal--now being seriously considered in NOAA--to consolidate
marine research, which could make it even harder to conduct the
research we need in support of fisheries management. We have data-
hungry fisheries management systems that are being operated with
virtually no data. We have to borrow research vessels from Canada
because there are no U.S. vessels available to conduct hydro-acoustic
surveys.
These and similar problems are not a function of which Secretary
the Administrator of NOAA reports to; they are a matter of funding, of
agency priorities, and of the statutes under which NOAA operates. My
recommendation to this subcommittee is that you spend some time in
thoughtful deliberation on where NOAA best fits, but spend even more
time on oversight of NOAA itself and most time on examining--and
fixing--the statutory problems that bedevil all of us.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
present these views. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to ask you a quick question
before we all leave, and we will come back, and everybody will
be well fed and rested. What is your opinion on the Senate
action, their Organic Act? Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Moore. I just had the opportunity to read the marked-up
version this week, Mr. Chairman. I think it has got some good
points, and it has got some bad points, the good points being
creating an organic act for NOAA and the way the budgetary
issue is handled; the bad points, in my view, creating yet
another layer of bureaucracy within NOAA. We have enough of
those.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you sat on the conference committee for
the omnibus appropriation bill, which is where we are heading,
and someone from the Senate wanted to stick that in there, what
you would say?
Mr. Moore. I would just say no.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
We will be back in 45 minutes. We will recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come back to order.
Again, our apologies for our schedule. We hope to be here
through the end of this hearing and will expedite it, because I
understand some have to catch a plane and perhaps see the
autumn leaves in New England with crisp blue skies, and bright,
white, billowy clouds, and the hint of ocean spray on the
horizon.
Mr. Rosenberg. I was hoping to briefly visit with my wife,
but I appreciate the sentiment.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are doing that with your wife in a
canoe, I would assume.
I am going--and we can sort of go back and forth here. But
I have a couple of questions, and each of you, please, give
your perspective on it.
Rod Moore gave his perspective on the NOAA Organic Act
coming on the Senate side, and given all of the various
proposals, whether it is Pew Oceans Commission, Mr. Saxton's
proposal, what we see now on the Senate side, what is coming
out of the Science Committee here in the House in the
subcommittee, and it is likely or possible to be a suspension
on the House Floor. Given all of this, is there any particular
preference that each of you might have with dealing not with a
full range of issues of NOAA, but dealing at this point with an
Ocean Organic Act that may come out and actually be signed into
law, given the variables that we have now in the House and the
Senate side; or is your preference hold off, the next Congress
will have the reports done, the recommendations done, hold a
few hearings and do it then? Could we start with John?
Mr. Palatiello. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I have been
around along enough to know that nothing good usually happens
in the final days of a Congress, and I would rather step back
and take a broader look at this and revisit this next year. I
am not--I am not of a mind that a really deliberative,
thoughtful product comes out in the final hours of a Congress.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Rosenberg?
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commission has
been careful not to comment specifically on legislation. I will
give you my personal opinion, but please understand that the
Commission does not take a position as a Commission on
legislation. I think Admiral Watkins was clear in the various
hearings on that.
I do believe that the Senate bill is--contains a number of
very important features and do hope that something along that
line can move forward. It does create a council, although not a
council in exactly the way that the Commission called for it.
It does call for real restructuring of NOAA and then thinking
through this issue of where NOAA should be placed in a phased
approach. Again, a little bit different from the way the
Commission called for it, but it does have that important
feature, does set some overall guiding principles to try to
bring together some of the conflicts in mandates and policy
that we currently have.
I think that it also creates some real independence, even
if NOAA remains within Commerce, by utilizing a mechanism like
the independence used for FAA or PTO or one of those
organizations. And that goes in, I think, in the sentiment, in
the direction of Mr. Saxton's bill of trying to deal with the
conflict issue.
So I think it has a lot of those features, and so I would
favor moving forward with that bill personally. Again, and I
would simply say that the organic act from the Administration
at this point really does not make any change, it simply
codifies existing practice, as far as I can see in my looking
at the bill when I looked at it a little while ago.
Mr. Gilchrest. So it is more positive than negative, and it
would be good, in your judgment--if I could paraphrase, a good
first step in a phased approach for better ocean policy to
actually sign into law the Ocean Organic Act on the Senate
side?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. I think that it would be an excellent
first step, and I am really quite concerned, while I understand
that you do not want to rush something through, I do not
actually believe it was rushed, as it was pointed out in the
discussion this morning. These issues have been discussed for
quite a long time. If we wait until the new Congress, there
will be all kinds of new issues coming up that will be new and
perhaps capture interest more immediately, and I am really
afraid that this will be lost.
Mr. Gilchrest. So Mr. Moore said if he was sitting at that
conference for the omnibus bill, and this was to be put in, he
would try to stop it. You would put it in?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hayes?
Mr. Hayes. I think there are some good things in that bill,
and I think there are some important considerations in it. The
problem that I have is that a lot of recreational groups and a
lot of recreational fishermen, we have participated in all of
the oceans reports. We have participated in the commissions. We
have watched the study. But one does not get as focused until
there is a legislative debate. And if this bill was going to
pass and preclude a further legislative debate, much along the
lines that Mr. Saxton suggested--and, frankly, lots of other
people have suggested there are a lot of things to fix here.
There is a lot more things to do than are being addressed in
those bills, although those bills do address a number of the
recommendations--if passing that bill precludes a debate, I
would oppose it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. Mann. I guess I am of the view of capturing progress
while you can. You know, I do not have to tell you, Mr.
Chairman, how hard it is to make progress on legislation in
Congress. And if a bill can be enacted that does some of these
things that the two Commissions are talking about and that the
community wants, I think we should lock it in.
I do share Bob Hayes' concern that we not preclude
additional steps. In other words, if the bill cannot be
strengthened to do what needs to be done, and its enactment
would take the energy out of the system so that additional
reforms could not be made, I wouldn't want to see that happen.
But the bill as already reported from the Commerce Committee
does make some important steps toward NOAA independence that I
think are beneficial. It sets up a great structural and
programmatic framework for the kinds of reform that the Oceans
Commissions have proposed.
We do feel that the policy statement that it makes, the
national ocean policy that it articulates, should be
strengthened--that what is in there now is not really far-
reaching enough to be a national ocean policy.
And I should add that we are working with the Pew Oceans
Commission to prepare a more formal set of views on that bill.
Mr. Gilchrest. I thank you very much. I don't think there
is any legislation that can't be reviewed or changed or
modified. I understand your perspective on capturing progress
while you can, and I also understand your statement about once
something is done, the wind is out of the sails, and there does
not seem to be motivation to do anything else about it. So we
will look doubly closer at the Senate version, because we are
going to have some time to make a decision on our comments, I
would imagine sometime until mid-November, before this actually
takes place.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. The notion of moving NOAA somewhere,
whether it be Interior or to be an independent agency or even a
department as some would wish, that notion is a simplistic act,
and that notion is embodied itself in my bill as a simplistic
act. But I think we all recognize that we ought to have a
legislative debate, or as least a conversation, as Mr. Hayes
put it, as to what other changes we need to make perhaps at the
same time.
And if we could--for purposes of this discussion, if you
could talk a little bit about your perspective of what other
changes we would need to make to NOAA, but within the context
of just dealing with NOAA for now, because that to me is a
realistic objective, where some other objectives are maybe not
as close at hand.
So let's just suppose that we were to move NOAA to Interior
because of the arguments that I made earlier. What else should
we do, if we can do something else, at the same time?
Mr. Palatiello. Mr. Chairman, I--there is an issue related
to that that I think the Committee ought to keep in mind. I had
an interesting conversation just a week or so ago with
Congressman Frank Wolf, who, as you know, chairs the Commerce-
State-Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, and we were talking
about NOAA funding. And his comment was, my subcommittee, we
have to fund the FBI, we have to fund the prisons, we have to
fund the State Department. And with the way the budget rules
and the process are here in Congress with regard to allocations
to the appropriations subcommittees, NOAA becomes--the Commerce
Department, and NOAA in particular representing 60 percent of
the Commerce Department's budget, it becomes a relatively low
priority compared to funding the FBI, funding the prisons,
funding the State Department.
So if we look at where we might be moving NOAA, we ought to
think about what stature and standing are they going to have
with regard to funding when it comes to sustaining or improving
the programs in NOAA that we all may support. I think that is
an important consideration to keep in mind.
And I am not sure I have enough experience in working
issues on behalf of programs that we support in USGS and other
places. I am not sure that the Interior appropriations process
is any better way of getting these programs funded than we have
now.
Mr. Rosenberg. Congressman, I think there are five kinds of
change that are needed, irrespective of where you move the
Agency. I do think that NOAA needs to have, from both the
science and regulatory perspective, actually more stability in
leadership, independence of leadership than it currently has,
where the Administrator really is responsible for all of the
programs. And that is why I mentioned the concept in the Senate
bill of having a 5-year term for the NOAA Administrator, much
like FAA or PTO or NSF or one of the other organizations. I
think that would help quite a bit in stabilizing the sort of
basis for decisionmaking within the Agency as well as crafting
a longer-term plan for how you would proceed in development of
programs.
I actually believe--even though I worked in NOAA for quite
a while in the National Marine Fisheries Service, I believe
that the line structure needs to change, as indicated in my
written testimony, for two reasons. First of all, I think that
the needs have changed, as I think all of our testimony has
indicated. National Marine Fisheries Service no longer has the
task that it originally was created to do, which is in part to
Americanize fisheries. It has lots of other things it needs to
do. It needs to work toward ecosystem-based management and work
much more closely with NOS and NOAA research.
And so I think that rethinking the line structure is
important simply because of the task. But I also think that it
is very hard for people to view their jobs differently if the
name is the same, the structure is the same, the offices are
the same and so on. So a little bit of shakeup can sometimes be
very helpful; even though I have very high regard for NOAA and
the people who work there and consider them my colleagues and
friends, that shakeup is still needed. Even if I was still
working there, I would think that. I just might not be able to
say it.
I do think there needs to be consolidation of programs as a
third element not only within NOAA, but from other places. Some
of that was raised with regard to things such as marine mammal
authorities. I think it also occurs with habitat programs,
mapping programs, the whole estuary programs which are
scattered across the government and are fragmented. And there
needs to be some thinking about where the programs need to be
located, how you fit them together, and who actually is going
to have a primary role for a particular kinds of program. So
consolidation of programs, I think, is an important element.
Conflicting mandates where you are supposed to be
regulating fisheries and managing marine mammals and managing
habitat all at the same time, but the mandates do not actually
fit together is a big issue and a very difficult issue, and the
only way that I can see that it will be solved is by partly the
coordination at a national Ocean Policy Council level, and then
obviously following Congress' lead in looking at some of those
conflicting mandates.
And finally, on funding, I do think that there are major
funding issues, particularly for the science within NOAA, that
need to be stabilized and, on the science side, certainly
increased. But also the way that the budgets are developed, the
Commission recommends, and I happen to agree, that the review
of the budgets within OMB, the management of the budgets needs
to be greatly improved, and that includes external programs as
well as internal programs.
NOAA granting and contracting is notoriously bad and has
been notoriously bad for as long as I can remember, and it is
not getting fixed, and so something needs to change, but
something also needs to change in the way that the budget is
managed and developed as a resource agency budget.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. I have about five of these as well. And let me
just echo this whole concept of funding. If you are going to
have ecosystem management, my view of the science is that they
are woefully prepared and funded to do that. The reason they
are doing species-by-species management is because they have
some capabilities to do species-by-species management. I don't
think the scientific basis or the basic infrastructure in the
science programs inside of NOAA or NMFS are capable of
producing what most people would consider good ecosystem
management, so I think there are some funding concerns there.
They need to rationalize their statutes. You can't have, as
we have today, two separate entities essentially managing
fisheries as we have in the sanctuaries program and we have in
the National Marine Fisheries Service. You usually have fish.
Those fish are not that smart. They tend to swim in and out of
those places, and as a result you have to have a unified view
as to how that management ought to occur, and you have to have
a unified view as to what your basic objectives are. That is an
essential of this rationalization of the statutes.
But that rationalization exists in how do you treat marine
mammal endangered species, whales and coral, any other
component part of the environment? That is not to say that I
have a great idea as to how that rationalization would occur.
That is not going to be an easy policy job to do. But it is
something that I think needs to be done if you are going to
improve the management of species, and if you are going to go
to ecosystem management.
The third thing I have is what I call streamlining the
regulatory system. My view is the regulatory system inside the
National Marine Fisheries Service is not a very streamlined
activity. Let me give you one example, because I think it
really describes it so well. People were concerned about
ecosystem management 10 years ago, and so the South Atlantic
Council went forward and said, look, there is something out
here called the Sargassum Sea, so maybe we will go ahead and
manage seaweed basically. There was one harvester of this stuff
who used to land it in North Carolina or South Carolina, so the
South Atlantic Council went through this process, forward look,
they developed all of those things you are supposed to develop,
the maximum sustainable yield of sargassum, and they went
through this incredible process of trying to fit the statutory
language into what they viewed as a problem, and at the end,
they delivered a document to the National Marine Fisheries
Service. I think 6 years later, those regulations were returned
to the South Atlantic Council and essentially they said, we
have some problems. Can you look at this?
It is an impossible process if you are trying to create
councils that make policy decisions and establish objectives
and then come up with what they think are good answers. The
last time I looked, the statute says they are supposed to come
up with good answers and then go back up through this
incredible process to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
On top of the National Marine Fisheries Service--and in
their defense, you, the Congress, have given them 15 other
statutes that they have to deal with. You have economic
analysis, you have environmental analysis, you have this
analysis, you have that analysis. And I am not suggesting that
those components parts are not important. What I am suggesting
is that somehow we are going to have to think about unifying
and rationalizing that process so that it can be responsive
when the scientists come forward and say, we have a problem
here. At the moment, frankly, it is such a bogged-down process,
it is very difficult to work in.
The last thing I would like to suggest, which really deals
with white marlin, my perception of good management, and this
is the perception that is in the Magnuson Act, is that the
lower you place the management of a species as far as
government goes, the better. White marlin, if you sort of look
at that, is as far away from the American public as it could
possible get. It is done in meetings in Dublin. That is where
white marlin is discussed. We discuss it at ICCAT. You were at
ICCAT last year.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dublin is a fair city.
Mr. Rosenberg. It is a wonderful city, but it is a long way
from public opinion. And it is fun drinking Guinness, but it is
not much fun coming back with some of the answers we get.
Mr. Gilchrest. And having to vote on the energy bill when
you get here.
Mr. Rosenberg. The process here ought to be brought down,
frankly, in my view, to a council-type situation. There are
advisory committees that domestically advise the Department of
Commerce as to what ought to be done. Those advisory committees
are treated exactly as that, advisory committees, not people
who develop policy, not people that have the same clout, if you
will, as a fishery management council.
Mr. Gilchrest. I really regret interrupting you, but I have
to leave at 1:30.
Mr. Rosenberg. I will make this my last point. We ought to
create for HMS species a council, and that council ought to
have authority.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Chris?
Mr. Mann. I will be brief. The reforms in the larger sense
that are needed I think I outlined in my written testimony. I
think we need a larger set of reforms than just NOAA. And I
would put at or near the top of the list funding. It is not the
only thing, but without additional resources to address these
problems, I think there is a lot of agreement at the table here
we are not going to get it done. And I think Congress should
take a very serious look at funding mechanisms proposed, the
use of OCS revenue in a way that does not encourage unwanted
OCS development.
That pot of money is--comes from the use, the development
of natural resources, and I think it makes good policy sense to
plug it back into the management of renewable resources. That
is the only way we get a long-term benefit from that resource
extraction.
You need to do more than just fund it, obviously. We need
to address the mandate question, and that is at two levels. One
is within NOAA. Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion
about the conflicting mandates that NOAA faces in its resource
management mission. You need to straighten that out. An organic
act would help with that. A mission statement like we have for
the Park Service, like we have for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, that helps. But you are going to have to go in and
amend other statutes like the Magnuson Act to make conservation
a priority, and an unambiguous priority, because you know the
situation was improved with the 1996 amendments, but I don't
think we are there yet.
No matter how much you straighten out NOAA, and
consolidation of programs is a good idea, you are not going to
put all the programs in one oceans agency that have an effect
on oceans. You are still going to have, you know, USDA, you are
still going to have Transportation, you are still going to have
defense operations. So we need coordination as recommended by
both of the Commissions.
And last we need--it is not just about the Federal
Government. Three miles of the ocean, in some cases 10 miles
out are controlled by the States. And although the real estate,
the total real estate, is less, these are some of the most
important resources to the American people. Yet the marine
ecosystems do not respect these boundaries. So we need to find
a way to harmonize State and Federal ocean policy, a regional
forum and process to come up with place-based approaches for
addressing problems.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Mann.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. I know you are all leaving at 1:30. I think I
can get done in 5 minutes. At least I can.
To what Mr. Mann said, I was going to ask the other panel
quickly to respond. This idea that NOAA operates under many
different statutory authorities, and specific programs have
their own governing statutes, like CZMA, National Marine
Sanctuaries Act; the idea to actually strengthen NOAA, the
Congress has to revise or revamp these other laws. If the
others could just briefly respond to that what Chris said, or
answer the question, you know, in order to really strengthen
NOAA, do we have to revise or revamp, or should we revise or
revamp these other laws?
Mr. Palatiello. Mr. Pallone, obviously my perspective is
very narrow, and I am not--pardon the pun, I am a fish out of
water with these gentlemen. But with regard to the mapping and
charting, NOAA's mapping and charting, for all intents and
purposes, still operates under the Act of 18--I forget the
year--1883? A lot has changed in technology in the mapping and
charting fields since then. So I think revisiting that organic
act is very much in order.
The other thing that I would add to the equation is I
believe Congress has asked NOAA to do much too much with the
resources it is given, and I think we need to revisit what is
the core mission of NOAA and what is it that we really want
this Agency to do, and what is it that others can probably do
better, and bring it back to assigning priorities and defining
its core mission.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Rosenberg?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do believe that the issue of conflicting
mandates is a big one. To address it you need to have an
overarching framework in an organic act or ocean policy act
that says this is the goal that we are trying to achieve
broadly with all of these various statutes, and give some
ability to fit together the various solutions you come up with.
I don't think any of the mandates are going to go away, and
even if you move their responsibilities to other agencies, that
does not necessarily help; although I agree to some extent that
the mission has drifted or expanded, sometimes not because of
statutory mandates, but just because of the way that policy is
developed within NOAA.
But you need some kind of overarching framework such that
you can resolve the conflicts when they occur between the
different statutory authorities. And you do not need to do the
same thing in four different places. So if you are going to
manage habitat, let's have an overall habitat goal and
understand how the various statutes relate to that goal so
there is some specific work to be done there.
Mr. Hayes. Andy said it very well, the answer is yes.
Mr. Pallone. Let me ask Mr. Rosenberg a couple of
questions. With regard to the future of NOAA, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy decided that it would be the
preferred course of action to authorize NOAA in statute,
strengthen the Agency, but to defer for future consideration of
whether to make the Agency wholly independent or relocate it
within the Federal Government, as Mr. Saxton's bill would.
Did the Commission conclude there is an inherent conflict
of interest due to NOAA's location in the Department of
Commerce, anything of that nature?
Mr. Rosenberg. The Commission did not specifically conclude
that there was that conflict of interest. We discussed that
issue, but we felt that the changes in the way that NOAA works
and operates were the first priority, and then you can make the
decision about structurally where does it best fit.
Mr. Pallone. Did they consider the option proposed under
Mr. Saxton's bill, and if so, was it rejected?
Mr. Rosenberg. We did consider it at length in discussion,
and we decided that while some might favor--and sometimes you
might change your mind over the 3 years of the Commission--that
our conclusion was we really needed to do this restructuring
work. And, frankly, the concern was that NOAA was created by
moving bits and pieces from other places into an agency, and
they somewhat retained their features from their homes. If we
move NOAA to another place without making a change in the way
that NOAA operates, the danger is it would continue to do just
as it is doing without real change even though it would have a
different home.
Mr. Pallone. What about the idea of the creation of a
larger department-level agency focused on natural resource
management? Was that rejected or just considered?
Mr. Rosenberg. We considered it and felt that politically
it would be extremely difficult to do, and, again, it should be
part of that final phase once you really decide how the agency
should be shaped. Is it departmental, is it an independent
agency, or should it be moved from its current location.
Mr. Pallone. The last thing, if it is OK, Mr. Chairman, the
way I read section 8 of the bill, the Director of OMB would be
authorized to make any subsequent incidental transfers of
programs, personnel, and assets as necessary. This authority
would come without any requirements for review or justification
or any approval by the respective oversight committees in the
Congress. So my concern is that there would be no
accountability.
It is sort of a broad discretionary authority that might be
abused to dismember NOAA as it currently exists. I am not
saying that is the intention, but that seems like a
possibility, and in a way reduces the stated purpose of the
bill if you read it that way. So I just wanted to ask you if
you agree with this interpretation, my fear and this
interpretation.
Mr. Rosenberg. I am afraid I am a biologist, not a lawyer,
so I am not sure I understand the interpretation of that
section of the bill. It would seem to me that the funding
provisions for NOAA, the appropriations provisions and
reprogramming authority are such that it would make that kind
of a provision impossible to work, even if OMB decided to move
things around. You couldn't move the funding around, because
the reprogramming provision for NOAA has a very, very low
ceiling.
Mr. Pallone. In other words, I am not saying that it does
that, but assuming that were the reading of the bill, you
wouldn't want to delegate that kind of authority to OMB.
Mr. Rosenberg. I certainly wouldn't want to delegate it to
OMB, no.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Frank made me think of a question that I will oversimplify.
The wet and dry sides of NOAA, are they compatible the way they
are, or could they be separated to function more efficiently
and in a NOAA, in a NASA, in a separate agency?
Mr. Rosenberg. Very quickly, I do not think they should be
separated. I think they should be brought closer together,
because as the science advances, we find out they are closer
and closer together in terms of the actual processes and the
natural processes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Any other questions, Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Pallone. I was just going to ask if we could, with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, ask some follow-up written questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will have follow-up written questions to
each of the witnesses here today.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you so much. It has been
very, very helpful. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]