integral part of the PRM process from beginning to 
end. To this extent, the Presidential Review Memo- 
randum serves as a means to develop a working 
knowledge of the issue under review in advance of 
the final decision. The success of the PRM process 
will depend on the skill of the White House staff in 
organizing and directing the interagency efforts. The 
performance record of interagency task groups is 
mixed, at best. Strong leadership is required to over- 
come the potential for interagency conflict and pos- 
turing. 
The four-Council system that operated during the 
period 1970 through 1977 was criticized for its lack 
of focus on specific ocean problems. The overlap in 
Cabinet membership among the Presidential coun- 
cils, which resulted in redundancy and cross-rnem- 
bership, was considered a strength of the system by 
some because the same Cabinet Officers and advisors 
were required to approach common problems from 
different points of emphasis—domestic, interna- 
tional, economic, and national security.1* To the 
extent that the former system encouraged cross- 
fertilization in the development of ocean policy, the 
new system of staff integration and NSC review must 
engender the same multifaceted thinking in the PRM 
process. The strength of the new Domestic Policy 
Staff/NSC decision system is its ability to deal with 
individual issues in a comprehensive manner and 
present well-reasoned and well-researched options to 
the President for final consideration. 
The National ‘Council on Marine Resources and 
Engineering Development (Marine Science Council), 
which was abandoned in 1971, was basically similar 
to the model of the National Security Council. Dur- 
ing its operation, the Council provided a focus on 
ocean science policy objectives. The National Secu- 
rity Council differs from the defunct Marine Science 
Council in that NSC considers foreign and domestic 
issues in light of its overriding concern for national 
security and foreign affairs. Cabinet-level representa- 
tion on the NSC is limited to the Secretary of State 
and the Secretary of Defense. 
Office of Science and Technology Policy 
With the dismantling of the science advisory struc- 
ture within the White House in 1973, there was a 
hiatus in top-level concern over science policy. 
While the director of NSF served in the capacity of 
Science Advisor, his remoteness from the President’s 
office and lack of access reduced his effectiveness in 
influencing White House policy, according to some 
observers. Furthermore, no specific ocean science and 
technology effort was developed within NSF for 
oversight of ocean science policy. 
4 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. National Ocean Policy, Hearing before Subcommittee 
on Oceanography. 94th Cong., 2d sess., Ser. 94-43, 1976, p. 7. 
Enactment of the National Science and Technol- 
ogy Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 
1976° by the 94th Congress reinstated a science 
policy mechanism within the Executive Office of the 
White House. The Office of Science and Technology 
Policy (OSTP), which was established by the Act 
and whose operations were subsequently modified by 
Reorganization Plan No. 1, is responsible for pro- 
viding input to the Presidential decision-making 
process for science policy and budget decisions. The 
three advisory and coordinating bodies established 
by the Act—the Intergovernmental Science, Engi- 
neering, and Technology Advisory Panel (ISETAP); 
the President’s Committee on Science and Technol- 
ogy (PCST), which was charged by the Act with 
examining and analyzing the entire Federal R&D 
effort, including ocean science and technology; and 
the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engi- 
neering and Technology (FCCSET)—were altered 
by Reorganization Plan No. i of 1977. In lieu ef 
FCCSET, which served briefly as the umbrella orga- 
nization for the ocean-related interagency coordinat- 
ing activities, the Committee on Atmosphere and 
Oceans (CAO), was reconstructed as a sub-Cabinet 
working group chaired by the science advisor. CAO 
incorporated functions of the former Interagency 
Committee on Marine Science and Engineering 
(ICMSE) and the Interagency Committee on Atmos- 
pheric Sciences (ICAS). ICMSE had served as a 
sub-Cabinet level coordinating committee to improve 
communication among the ocean-related agencies. It 
was chaired throughout its 6-year history by the 
administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos- 
pheric Administration. ICMSE served as an inter- 
‘ agency forum with a focus on marine science and 
technology and was a coordinating body, but it 
played no formal advisory role in the development of 
ocean policy within the White House. 
The director of the Office of Science and Tech- 
nology Policy serves as the President’s science ad- 
visor for a broad range of science-related govern- 
mental issues. The assistant director for Natural 
Resources and Commercial Services is responsible 
for the activities within OSTP concerning marine 
science and technology. Given the active role that 
the science advisory structure has played in the de- 
velopment and articulation of ocean policy, it is 
anticipated that the OSTP will assume responsibility 
for continuing the analysis and development of 
ocean-related R&D policy. 
Council on Environmental Quality 
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
was established by the National Environmental Pol- 
icy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to formulate and recom- 
% National Science and “Technology Policy, Organization, and 
Priorities Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 459. 
IX-8 
