lative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal 
Government through the identification of goals and 
the development of procedures and organizations to 
use the occan’s resources and protect its environ- 
ment. 
The United States, being a pluralistic society and 
Operating through a representative government, is 
pursuing a number of sometimes conflicting, societal 
goals, simultaneously. Balancing the objectives of 
society is the essence of the political process. U.S. 
ocean policy is an integral part of legislative en- 
actments dealing with natural resources, environ- 
ment, national security, science and technology, 
energy, education, labor, marine transportation, and 
commerce. Our national ocean policy is complex 
and sophisticated and has not been, nor can it be, 
reduced to a simple statement of goals and pro- 
cedures. 
“National goals,” although often referred to as if 
they are tangible items, are generally no more than 
broad, ambiguous genetalizations—Goals—are the 
wellspring of governmental policy and are derived 
from collective reasoning and public debate, often 
not in an institutional framework but in the value 
system of contemporary society. However, multiple 
goals often interact and even conflict with one an- 
other. Energy production and preservation of en- 
vironmental values are frequently in conflict. Energy 
conservation and economic growth may similarly 
work in opposing directions unless the Gross Na- 
tional Product can be decoupled from energy use. 
Within the context of competing demands on the 
Federal budget, almost every goal is competing in 
some sense with a subset of related and unrelated 
goals for available funds. One need look no further 
than the goal of protecting certain coastal resources, 
weighed against the development of Outer Continen- 
tal Shelf oi! and gas, deepwater ports, water pollu- 
tion control, ocean dumping, fishery management, 
and port development and use to be impressed with 
the close connection among these Federal resource 
management policies and the impacts they may have 
on each other. 
The setting in which ocean policy is established 
under the present organizational system tends to 
favor diversity at the expense of consistency. With 
ocean programs scattered throughout more than 50 
Federal governmental agencies, and with jurisdic- 
tion for ocean-related legislation shared by 39 sub- 
committees in 12 standing committees of the House 
of Representatives and 36 subcommittees in 10 
standing committees of the Senate, the policy-making 
machinery is diffused in both the executive branch 
and the Congress. 
To achieve consistency of purpose in public 
policy, however, there must be a mechanism to pe- 
riodically review the course of governmental actions 
and analyze both the effectiveness and currency of 
the policies as well as the interactions of the various 
programs. The responsibility for this review is shared 
by both the Congress and the Executive, but neither 
have adequate means for reviewing and formulating 
comprehensive and consistent ocean programs at this 
time. The task is made even more difficult because 
ocean affairs range broadly from energy policy 
through environmental protection to international 
diplomacy. To ask for complete consistency would 
be to hold out false hopes. How the rational devel- 
opment of ocean policy and the maintenance of 
consistency among the Federal ocean programs can 
be ensured presents a major challenge to both the 
Congress and the President. 
Rote of the White House in Ocean Policy 
Many observers in the ocean community believe 
that the White House should play a more active 
role in the development and oversight of ocean 
policy. These conclusions are based in part on the 
historical roie that the Executive Office of the Presi- 
dent has played in ocean affairs from time to time 
and in part on the concern that ocean matters do 
not receive sufficient attention on a consistent basis. 
Some also see what is perceived as a failure to coor- 
dinate the several Federal mission agencies which 
deal with disparate parts of ocean programs as a 
reason for White House intervention in the admin- 
istrative process. These observers have to recognize, 
however, that all issue areas of national importance 
cannot and should not receive individual attention 
from special policy groups within the White House. 
The prescription for a coordinating mechanism 
seems to take the same form whether dealing with 
oceans, poverty, science, telecommunications, or in- 
ternational and national security programs. The 
scenario follows a set pattern: (1) establishment of 
an interagency committee chaired by an agency head 
with no staff; (2) designation of a “neutral” chair- 
man whe is provided a staff; (3) transfer of coordi- 
nating functions to the White House or Executive 
Office of the President and reconstitution as a Presi- 
dential advisory council.® In the case of oceans, this 
circuit has been completed once and has started 
over again. The trend toward proliferation of special 
White House policy groups, which began with the 
creation of the National Security Council (NSC) 
shortly after the conclusion of the Second World 
War, was reversed by Reorganization Plan No. 1 
of 1977 which eliminated nine of the specialized 
policy units in the Executive Office of the President, 
° Harold Seidman. Politics, Position, and Power. New York: 
Oxford University Press, 1970, p. 165. 
1X4 
