956 
We want some emphasis placed on it and not just an assistant secre- 
tary somewhere. We want a proper emphasis placed in an agency that 
1s going to say, “This is our purpose, to develop the resources of the 
sea and from the income that we can get from the resources of the sea, 
think what that can do for the economy of the Nation.” 
I was glad to hear you say that you had not come to a departmental 
position of opposition to any reorganization, and I think if we keep 
an open mind this can be helpful. Thank you. 
Mr. Tran. Thank you. 
Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. At this point in connection 
with your questioning, Mr. Rogers, according to the Department of 
the Interior’s own figures in the 8-year period from the beginning of 
1960 to 1967, commercial fishery landings did grow from $350 to 
$438 million in that 8-year period. That is approximately one-third, 
while petroleum production increased by almost 350 percent, from 
$423.6 to $1,404.8 million. 
That is petroleum, natural gas, fuel oil. That does not include mag- 
nesium and other compounds which also have had a significant growth 
at that time. . 
Mr. Rocrrs. I know there has been some slight increase in com- 
mercial landing, but I think you will find our standing among the 
Se nations of the world is that we have dropped to about what 
now ? 
Mr. Train. Sixth. 
Mr. Lennon. And pushing seventh, I might say. 
Mr. Roerrs. So that I wouldn’t want to give the impression that we 
are making progress in fisheries. I think we are not. 
Mr. Lennon. We discussed that with the Secretary before you came 
in and got into the record the international increase compared with 
our national increase, if any, and it was way, way out of proportion. 
The Secretary has indicated that we are importing a little better than 
75 percent of all edible seafood. 
Mr. Trarn. Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment at this point in 
the record, because I think it bears upon Mr. Rogers’ questions and 
remarks ? 
Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Tratn. I am not sure that my statement is clear on this. As you 
look at the Commission’s proposal for NOAA, it is very clear that 
NOAA as proposed does not, in fact, take all of the marine activities 
of the Federal Government and put them into one agency, because I 
think we all recognize that this would be impossible. So we are talking 
about a matter of degree and looking at the activities for example of 
the Department of the Interior, the same eight to 12 bureaus are very 
much involved in marine matters and yet the Bureau of Commercial 
Fisheries would be the primary loss to NOAA. I think this also is 
one of the things that troubles us about the NOAA approach. It does 
create the opportunity for greater emphasis, certainly much greater 
public visibility. But at the same time in achieving that there are also 
going to be some major losses in an organizational sense. 
We will find the marine affairs, for example, of Interior split almost 
down the middle, as far as budget is concerned, keeping about $40 mil- 
lion in Interior and $40 or so going over to NOAA. 
