mend national policies for improving the quality of 
the. environment.’° 
CEQ consists of three members appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate 
and was modeled after the Council of Economic Ad- 
visors which was created by the Employment Act of 
1946. The Council and its support staff are attached 
to the Executive Office of the President. The advis- 
ory role of CEQ is aimed at providing independent 
assessment of environmental policy. Emphasis is 
placed on analysis of long-term trends and condi- 
tions in the environment. Based on such analyses, 
the Council develops and recommends to the Presi- 
dent national policies to protect and enhance the 
quality of the environment. 
CEQ differs from the prototype of other policy 
councils within the White House policy advisory 
structure in that the three members of the Council 
are full-time appointees like the Council of Eco- 
nomic Advisors, rather than representatives of the 
executive departments and agencies. This serves to 
insulate the Council from parochial views born of 
vested interests in organizational attitudes. It casts 
the Council in the role of honest broker. Its effective- 
ness as a coordinating mechanism depends largely 
on the skill and ability of the Council and its staff 
in persuading the mission agencies to pursue policies 
which will ensure adequate protection of the en- 
vironment. Its influence is proportional to the em- 
phasis that the President, and consequently the 
White House staff, places on CEQ’s advice.’” 
The broad environmental mission of the Council 
involves it in virtually every governmental program 
dealing with natural resources and energy. As a con- 
sequence, CEQ has devoted considerable attention 
to matters affecting the marine and coastal environ- 
ments. It has dealt with issues involved in OCS oil 
and gas leasing both onshore and offshore, ocean 
pollution questions and coastal zone management. 
In the past, CEQ has had considerable influence 
over the functional environmental policy of the 
agencies through the review of environmenta! impact 
statements required by Section 102(2)(C) of the Na- 
tional Environmental Policy Act. Reorganization 
Plan No. 1 of 1977, however, transferred the re- 
sponsibility for review of the adequacy of agency 
impact statements to the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), thereby eliminating the most direct 
leverage that CEQ had to influence functional policy. 
However, CEQ will continue to assert its opinions 
on the quality and substance of the individual impact 
statements. 
Because of the complexity and interactions in- 
volved in the White House policy process, it is im- 
possible to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of 
CEQ as a policy-formulating body. To the extent 
that CEQ’s track record has been evaluated, its 
weaknesses in the policy process have been ascribed 
to: (1) the limited size of CEQ, which has com- 
pelled it to concentrate on immediate problems at 
the expense of comprehensive, long-range policy; 
(2) absence of mission-agency authority to direct 
and implement policy; and (3) lack of control over 
development and initiation of legislative environ- 
mental initiatives.?® 
Implementation of the presidential review memo- 
randum process as a component of the White House 
policy staff management system may provide a more 
even-handed and less adversary atmosphere in which 
CEQ can play a significant role in formulating ocean 
policy with regard to protection of the marine en- 
vironment. 
Ocean Policy Unit for the White House: An Enduring Proposal 
The quest for an improved process for developing 
and assessing national ocean policy repeatedly leads 
back to proposals for recreating a Cabinet-level 
White House policy unit to oversee ocean affairs. 
Between 1966 and 1971 the National Council on 
Marine Resources and Engineering Development— 
known as the Marine Science Council—served as a 
focus for national ocean science policy.’ 
The Marine Science Council was as much a sym- 
bol of national commitment to the oceans as it was 
an effective policy mechanism: It existed during a 
period of rapid growth in the budget for ocean re- 
%® National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq. 
a Us. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. The Council on Environmental Quality—Oversight. 94th 
Cong., 2d sess., 1977, p. 34. 
48 Ibid., p. 42. 
Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1101-1108. 
search and development. Since termination of the 
Council in 1971, ocean policy, including marine sci- 
ence, has been determined in the context of func- 
tional problems within the framework of the domes- 
tic and foreign policy councils remaining in the 
White House. Coordination, on the other hand, has 
been relegated to the Interagency Committee on 
Marine Science and Engineering (ICMSE), which up 
to its recent abolition provided a modicum of coordi- 
nation through committee communications, but 
served no formal policy-making role. Thus a symbol 
of national commitment to a comprehensive ocean 
program has not existed in the White House since 
1971. Some maintain that such a symbol is not 
needed and that ocean issues can be successfully 
dealt with as they arise or are perceived within the 
present decision structure. There is little disagree- 
ment among observers that during the interim, 1971 
through 1976, the Congress has taken the initiative 
IX-9 
