1274 
terials, increased supplies of foodstuffs, new energy sources, and more effective 
defense. 
The oceans constitute 71 percent of the earth’s surface. Within the restricted 
land space left for man must be accommodated the needs of 3.5 billion people 
today. And somehow we must find room for the estimated 6.5 billion expected in 
the year 2000. Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel has suggested, in hailing 
the aquanauts who lived for 60 days under the sea in Project Tektite, that in the 
future “whole new cities” may be constructed under water. 
The world yield of food per capita, almost stationary since 1950, strongly sug- 
gests that new supplies must quickly be found. The ocean is capable of producing 
much larger harvests than the fishing industry is now gathering if new equip- 
ment, better methods and careful cultivation replace the archaic means being 
used in many places. The world need for fish is expected to grow by an additional 
40 million tons (67%) by 1985, according to latest estimates of the Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 
The increasing depletion, and rate of use, of mineral resources on land suggest 
increasing demands on marine supplies (see David Brooks’ article in this issue). 
One result will almost surely be to aggravate the existent pollution problem. 
The condition of the ocean near principal cities makes us painfully aware of the 
quantities of noisome wastes being dumped into the sea. As more oil wells are 
drilled on the continental shelf and 300 to 500,000-ton super tankers become com- 
monplace, the risks of pollution will rise exponentially. 
All of these issues suggest the need for national and international discussion 
of the general direction in which ocean policy should be moving. Should the 
federal government mobilize an effort comparable to that employed in develop- 
ing nuclear energy to accomplish new missions in the ocean? Or should private 
enterprise be left to get what it can with the means at its disposal, as the oil 
industry has done, restricting the role of government to licensing, overseeing, 
setting quotas, insisting on competition, and possibly controlling prices? 
How far should the United States go in cooperating with others, inside or 
outside of the United Nations, in joint surveying, mining, and food production— 
or in the search for new laws? Should we support the creation of new interna- 
tional machinery to control the use of the sea beds in the interests of mankind? 
The issues at stake are complex. What is done on some of them now will affect 
the freedom of choice on other matters later, regarding not only our livelihood 
but our power and influence in world affairs as well. A time of decision is at 
hand. 
THE MARINE RESOURCES ACT OF 1966 
Impetus for a new ocean policy in this country began with a recommendation 
by the National Academy of Sciences in 1959 for a 10-year national effort to 
extend research and knowledge of the seas, to draw additional manpower into 
marine science and engineering, and to develop new vehicles for underwater 
activity. 4 
Portions of this program were advanced by Presidents Hisenhower and Ken- 
nedy. But it remained to the 89th Congress to pass the first comprehensive ocean 
legislation in several decades—the Marine Resources and Engineering Develop- 
ment Act of 1966. This placed the Congress on record in favor of federal support 
for education, research and technological improvements in marine engineering, 
and affirmed the intention that this country remain a leader in ocean science 
and engineering. 
It created the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Develop- 
ment, under the chairmanship of the Vice President, to replace the ineffectual 
Inter-Agency Committee on Oceanography. To this Council the Congress gave the 
power to initiate programs, to integrate the activities of 27 government agencies, 
to assign responsibilities, and to advise the President. 
In its first three years, this Council has brought a measure of order into the 
national ocean picture. The task of fashioning a long-range ocean strategy has 
begun. The federal budget for spending on ocean research has risen from $20 
million in 1960 to $400 million in 1968-69. 
The 1966 Act also made provision for the appointment of a Presidential Com- 
mission to formulate recommendations for a more “adequate” oceanic program, 
together with proposals for a permanent administrative structure within the fed- 
eral government. The report of this Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering 
and Resources (chaired by Julius A. Stratton, President-Emeritus of M.I.T., now 
chairman of the Ford Foundation), entitled Owr Nation and the Sea: A Plan for 
National Action, is now before the government for action. 
