U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

96-207 PS 2005

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California

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 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

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

(1)

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? 

2

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 lifesaving 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 

3

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. 

4

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. 

5

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 

6

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 

7

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. 

8

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 

9

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. 

10

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 

11

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 longterm 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, OCEANS21 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. 

12

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. 

13

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 NOAAwide 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, 

14

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. 

15

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 

16

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 

17

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. 

18

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. 

19

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 hurricaneresistant 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 

20

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 

21

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 

22

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 

23

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. 

24

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. 

25

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 

26

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, 

27

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 

28

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 

29

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 

30

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 

31

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 

32

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 

33

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. 

34

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 

35

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 

36

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. 

37

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 

38

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 

39

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 

40

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. 

41

• 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, 

42

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. 

43

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 ecosystembased 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 

44

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 

45

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 decisionmaking. 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 

46

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 

47

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 mid1990s. 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 

48

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 responsibilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:59 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\96207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
49

ities 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 ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:59 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\96207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
50

mittee 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? 

51

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 hodgepodge 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 

52

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. 

53

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 accomVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:59 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\96207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
54

pany 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 

55

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 acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:59 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\96207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
56

company 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. 

57

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 holisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:59 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\96207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
58

tically. 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 

59

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 

60

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? 

61

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 

62

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 midNovember, 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. 

63

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 

64

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 

65

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 boggeddown 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. 

66

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. 

67

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? 

68

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. 

69

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.]

Æ