that USTS is the principal Federal source of tourism expertise. Thus, although USTS views are not made independently of the Department, they do serve as the basis for the views put forth by Commerce on tourism.

Secondly, I would suggest that there are some advantages to having the USTS position put forward under the name of this Department. Such a condition lends the full weight of a Cabinet level department to these views, and it ensures that views put forth on tourism issues reflect consideration of the impact which these issues may have on non-tourism sectors of our economy-a condition which I think we would all like to see apply in the reverse as well.

And thirdly, it should be stated that nothing in the legal opinion, in Department of Commerce Orders, or in applicable law prohibits USTS from working cooperatively with other agencies in the development or implementation of policies and programs which could affect tourism. If this were not the case, USTS could not engage in any of its current coordinating activities with such agencies as the Department of th Interior, the Economic Development Administration, the Regional Commissions, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, the Small Business Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, etc.

In light of these considerations, I believe that it is reasonable to expect that a Commerce-based mechanism could effectively coordinate and monitor tourism policies which cut across several departments. As I stated in my testimony, we are now undertaking an effort designed to develop that mechanism. As part of our effort, we will have to determine whether the implementation of that mechanism will require legislation.

Question 3. Based upon its assessment of interagency coordination, ADLittle states that officials almost unanimously reported little or no coordination of program activities and policies with the U.S. Travel Service. In several cases, officials of other agencies either were unfamiliar with the name and functions of USTS or were totally unaware of the agency's existence. In spite of this, you believe a coordinating mechanism should be in the Department of Commerce?

Answer. This condition may have applied in the past, but based on the high level of USTS coordination activity during the past year, I do not believe that it applies today. USTS has been working effectively and cooperatively with a wide range of Federal, State and local government agencies and with the private sector. I believe that this kind of effort indicates that, with the additional improvements expected as a result of our current review, Commerce can serve as the focus for an effective coordinating mechanism.

Question 4. Under the ADLittle proposal the staff of the Cabinet level Coordinating Council would have to review appropriate annual program and planning documents by agencies whose activities the Council may determine have broad and significant implications for national tourism and recreation policy. The purposes of the review would be to:

Determine if the agencies under review have considered the implications of their programs and plans on national tourism, recreation and heritage resource policy;

Determine if national tourism, recreation and heritage resource policy has been accorded an appropriate priority by these agencies in their programs and plans; Determine if tourism and recreation programs and plans reflect appropriate priorities of other agencies;

Identify potential program conflicts that might be resolved by council negotiations;

Identify areas of overlap and/or duplication that are potentially wasteful or inefficient;

Identify tourism-related programs and plans in two or more agencies that might be improved by interagency coordination; and

Identify tourism-related programs and plans that might be strengthened through a cooperative concentration of Federal efforts.

The staff would then prepare briefing papers outlining their findings and recommendations for the Council.

Do you believe a coordinating mechanism in the Department of Commerce could do this?

Answer. I believe that the Commerce Department could serve as the base for a coordination effort which could make such reviews. I would hope, however, that the coordination mechanism which emerges from our review of Federal tourism programs would go beyond the review you mention. A coordination process that is based on regular, on-going, staff-to-staff contact among agencies with

appropriate jurisdiction and authority should enable us to ensure that tourism considerations are built in, rather than added on, to the program planning process in other agencies.

I should also note, however, that I have serious reservations concerning the ability to resolve issues and coordinate programs on the basis of briefing papers prepared by a Council staff. Members on the Council can be expected to look to their own staff personnel for advice in considering such matters. In this context, it would appear to me that the work of the Council staff would be unnecessary and have little influence over final decisions made by agencies with tourism related programs.

Question 5. Under the ADLittle recommendation, the staff of the Cabinet level coordinating council would monitor new legislative proposals and proposed new administrative actions, principally of regulatory agencies (e.g., the Department of Energy, CAB, ICC, etc.) in order to:

Identify areas of potential conflict with national tourism, recreation, and heritage resource policy;

Identify proposals that may have a negative impact on tourism, recreation or heritage resources and determine the nature and approximate magnitude of the potential impacts; and

Identify tourism-related proposals that potentially overlap and/or duplicate existing activities.

The staff would prepare briefing papers outlining their findings and recommendations for the Council.

Do you believe a coordinating mechanism in the Department of Commerce could do this?

Answer. This type of monitoring and analysis will be part of the Department's overall industrial analysis effort that I mentioned in my testimony. The review of new legislative proposals and proposed new administrative actions affecting tourism will be an important element in that effort. Again, however, I would suggest that cooperative staff level work during the early stages of the development process could be an even more effective way of ensuring that any new legislative proposals or administrative actions are coordinated with tourism policies and programs.

Question 6. You say that the Federal coordinating mechanism recommended by ADLittle is too complex to work. Would you please explain the coordinating mechanism (Interagency Coordinating Council) which ADLittle recommended and tell the Committee why in detail it is too complex to work?

Answer. As proposed by ADLittle, the National Travel and Recreation Policy Council would monitor Federal agency compliance with the national tourism and recreation policy and would coordinate this policy with other national interests. Membership on the Council would include the following principals or their designated alternates: the head of each Cabinet-level department; the Chairmen of the Federal Trade Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission; the Director of the International Communication Agency; and the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency.

The designated alternates would not be below the rank of Deputy Under Secretary and would be the designated alternates for the duration of the principal's term in office.

The Council would be chaired by a person appointed by the President from among members of the White House economics advisory staff. The Secretaries of Commerce and Interior would alternate as Vice Chairperson. Council activities would be directed by an Executive Committee composed of the Chairperson, the Administrator of the USTRA, and the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, State, Agriculture and Labor.

The Council would have four policy committees for Transportation and Facilitation, for Economic Development, for Energy and Natural Resources, and for Health, Education and Cultural Affairs-with the chairperson for each committee appointed for a two-year term by the Council Chairperson. Membership on the committees would include agency heads or designated alternates from member agencies. Additional ad hoc subcommittees could be established as needed.

The Council would have an initial support and research staff of fifteen people headed by a Staff Director who would report to the Council Chairperson. There are a number of reasons why I believe that this proposal is too complex to work:

1. Membership on the Council is limited to principals or alternates no lower in rank than a Deputy Under Secretary. Because a wide range of duties and

responsibilities place heavy demands on the time available to them, it would be difficult to convene a meeting of all Council members. Given this condition, meetings can be expected to be infrequent, with the result that little in the way of operational or policy coordination would be accomplished.

2. The Committee notes that the Federal involvement in tourism encompasses 100 programs and 50 agencies. With this level of activity and the expected infrequency of Council meetings, it would be most difficult for the Council to substantively address any of the important issues affecting tourism.

3. The sheer size of the Council and the range of interests represented by its membership seems to preclude the possibility that any substantive issues could be resolved through Council meetings.

4. The existence of a structured coordinating Council means that issues which might quickly be resolved through direct agency-to-agency contact would be deferred until the Council could consider them. This tendency to defer staff resolution of issues would overload the Council with relatively trivial matters and would delay decision making on important issues.

5. The history of job stability among high level Federal officials is not such that I would expect to see the continuity of Council membership envisioned by the ADLittle Study. Moreover, Council members will be interested in other important areas beyond tourism. Under these conditions, I do not believe that the Council structure would provide the long term, systematic leadership on tourism issues required to effectively carry out the coordination responsibilities envisioned in the ADLittle study.

6. Since one of the major roles of the Council would be in policy coordination, three things should be noted:

a. Policy disagreement frequently originates in conflicting legislative mandates. When this is the case, the conflict cannot be resolved by Executive branch coordinating councils.

b. Policy problems seldom fall neatly into logical categories which can be dealt with effectively by pre-established committees. Having such committees creates potential for jurisdictional overlap and conditions in which important issues may not be considered from all appropriate points of view. In the Council structure, for example, only one of the four committees has jurisdiction over energy matters, yet energy is an essential concern for transportation and it affects economic development, both of which are handled by other separate committees.

c. Policies often emerge in the form of agency regulations. These regulations, in turn, emerge from the hundreds of individual proceedings, rulemakings and negotiations conducted by Federal agencies. Decisions in such cases are based on evidence and facts weighed by competent and reasonable authorities; they cannot be reached by interagency committees.

7. The ADLittle proposal assumes that Council meetings will focus on the pros and cons of various policy options, with policy decisions being made on the basis of such considerations. Aside from the fact that I think this would be a very time-consuming, inefficient process, such meetings would probably not be the best vehicles for seeking resolution of policy differences. By the time any meeting was called, agency positions might have hardened and resolution might be difficult. To the extent that it is possible at all, the resolution of policy differences can take place more effectively through staff level contacts among concerned agencies at an early stage in the policy development process.

These are the principal reasons why I do not believe that the ADLittle proposal will work. I should also note, however, that the views I have expressed are based on the experience gained during my 22 years as a Federal employee. During that time, I have found that coordinating committees, particularly those in which membership is limited to the highest level officials, are effective for dealing only with short-term or one-time issues. Tourism is neither a short-term nor a one-time issue. I believe that the coordination of tourism policies and programs can best be accomplished through a continuous process of interaction among agencies with programs affecting tourism interests. In order to have the dedicated leadership which this process requires, it must be lead by, and become an institutional part of, the agency responsible for carrying out the Federal tourism program.

Question 7. The ADLittle Study found that of 22 agencies administering 26 programs that had a program mandate which clearly included or supported travel-related goals and needs, one-half felt that their mandate did not include these objectives. In view of this myopia, wouldn't you agree that even if Congress

enacted a national tourism policy there would be little chance of the agencies following it unless Congress also created a monitoring or "watch dog" mechanism? Answer. I do not believe that a “watch dog” mechanism of the type envisioned in the ADLittle report is necessary. Coordination is much more effective if it takes place within a framework of mutual cooperation and respect. My experi ence is that "watch dog” mechanisms contribute little to the development of such a framework. Moreover, USTS' experience over the past year shows that agencles are willing to work with us in developing coordinated programs and policies. Question 8. I note that one of the three main functions of the President's Interagency Coordinating Council on urban programs is:

To promote coordination among agencies as needed to carry out immediate program operations. If, in pursuing these short-run coordination projects, the IACC discovers long-range management improvements, these suggestions and proposals are referred to the Office of Management and Budget which has primary responsibility for such reforms.”

Doesn't this kind of management coordinating problem exist in our travel programs? For example, USTS and ICA (formerly USIA); or Immigration and Customs; or Immigration and the State Department's Visa section?

Answer. There is no question that OMB has primary responsibility for affecting long-term management improvements across the entire operation of Federal programs. I think, however, that one of the additional reasons why the IACC is to refer suggestions on long range management improvements to OMB is the realization that, while the IACC can be effective over the short term, its efficacy over the longer term is questionable. The coordination of tourism related programs in Federal agencies must be carried out on a continuous basis. This is one of the major reasons why I do not support the formation of the coordinating council proposed by ADLittle. I believe that this coordination need can be met not only through the efforts of OMB, but also through the cooperative efforts of those agencies who manage tourism related programs.

Question 9. The ADLittle Study concluded that a national tourism policy could not be successfully developed while ignoring the need for a national policy on recreation.

The reasons for that conclusion, as stated in its report are as follows: "The natural ties between travel and recreation (as well as in national heritage development and preservation) have become increasingly evident in recent years. Public and private sector activities in these areas are increasingly widespread, interdependent, and interactive recreational attractions and surrounding facilities have increasingly been designed and operated to cater to recreationists arriving from outside the community. Moreover, public and private sector interests in these areas have many of the same underlying needs and face many of the same basic issues and problems."

Do you agree with ADLittle that without a consolidated Federal approach to meeting the needs of the public and private sector interests in travel and recre ation, it is impossible to maximize the effectiveness and flexibility of Federal involvement and to minimize interagency program duplication and conflict?

Answer. As I indicated in my testimony, I do not believe that tourism and recreation interests are as closely related as the Study suggests, principally because their basic missions are different. That is not to say, however, that these two interests are completely unrelated. There are enough mutual concerns to require coordination, but I think it goes too far to say that a consolidated approach

is necessary.

Question 10. I note that one of the three mair functions of the President's Interagency Coordinating Council on urban programs is:

To resolve conflicts in program operations. When one agency plans a project that tends to cancel the benefits of another agency's program or when a Federal project would have a serious negative impact on a locality, these conflicts can be brought to the IACC for discussion and resolution."

(a) Do you agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed where travel and recreation programs are concerned?

(b) If so, is it reasonable to assume that any one agency of government, such as the Department of Commerce, could resolve conflicts between say the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation; or between the State Department and the CAB?

Answer. (a) I agree that this is a problem.

(b) I think it is reasonable to assume that the Department of Commerce could serve as the base for a coordination effort which could resolve many such conflicts. I would only note, however, as I did in my response to Question 6, that such

conflicts frequently originate in conflicting legislative mandates. When this is the case, the conflict cannot be resolved either by any one agency or by an Executive branch coordinating council.

Question 11. The ADLittle report concluded (p. vi-5) that "the importance of creating an effective interagency coordinating mechanism cannot be overemphasized. At least half of the twenty-five top ranked tourism and travel needs identified by the tourism industry during the Ascertainment Phase of the Study can be met by effective interagency coordination and greater responsiveness to tourism needs."

(a) Do you agree with that conclusion?

(b) That conclusion was based on, and is documented by, the report in Phase II of the Study which consisted of 6 regional meetings across the United States; 7 national meetings in Washington; and 35 interviews with various Federal officials in Washington. Hundreds of travel industry executives and State and local officials participated in the regional and national meetings. If you disagree with the ADLittle conclusion, or what record or documentation do you base your disagreement?

Answer. (a) I agree with the conclusion. As I noted in my response to other questions, I disagree only with the ADLittle recommendation that coordination should take place through a National Travel and Recreation Policy Council. Question 12. In your testimony you cite the percentage increases in international visitors to the U.S. and foreign exchange earnings as evidence of the healthy condition of the industry.

(a) Are you aware that domestic tourism is far more important to the U.S. economy ($107 billion vs. $7.4 billion). And in that connection, according to the 1972 National Transportation Survey, 45 percent of our civilian population did not take a trip of "100 miles away from home and return?"

(b) With regard to our foreign exchange earnings, even though there is a percentage increase isn't it true that the $2.5-3.0 billion travel deficit continues? Answer. (a) Yes. This is one of the reasons why I believe it is necessary to reassess the current Federal role in tourism and the existing Federal tourist programs.

(b) Yes, but the latest information we have shows a desirable trend. For the first 6 months of 1978, foreign travelers to the U.S. numbered 8.6 million, a 7 percent rise over the first half of 1977. For all of 1978, USTS projects that some 20 million foreign travelers will visit the U.S., 7.7 percent more than for 1977. These arrivals are expected to generate $8.5 billion to $8.9 billion in foreign receipts, an increase of 18 to 24 percent over the 1977 level. On the basis of these projections we expect the travel deficit to drop below $3 billion for only the second time since 1971.

Question 13. The ADLittle report specifically recommends an “independent” coordinating Council rather than putting the Council in the White House. I understand ADLittle's recommendation was made after interviewing the Administration's Reorganization team who pointed out that the President had promised not to enlarge the White House Staff. Would you agree that the ADLittle proposal is consistent with the President's position in this respect?

Answer. No, I don't believe it is. The Council will have an initial staff of 15 people. The Director of this staff will report to the Council Chairperson who, in turn, is to be a member of the White House staff. Under these conditions, it will be difficult to disassociate the Council staff from the White House staff. In effect the White House staff will be enlarged by 15 people. I would also note that if this disassociation could somehow be made, the existence of the Council as an independent entity would run counter to the President's aim of decreasing the number of small, independent agencies.

Question 14. When we speak of a Federal coordinating mechanism is it your understanding that we are speaking of coordinating a tourism policy with other public policy principles such as energy conservation, judicious use of our natural resources, etc.? In other words, to the extent travel interests may conflict with other public policy principles, the travel interests would get a "fair shake" where interageny policies conflict or are not in step with one another.

Answer. As I indicated in my testimony, I believe there are two aspects to coordination. The first is ensuring that there is some coordination among Federal agencies' operational activities that relate to tourism. The second is coordination which ensures that Federal agencies are aware of and have adequately considered the impact which proposed policies, programs, legislation or regulations can have on tourism. The purpose of this second element in the coordination effort is to see that tourism interests do get a fair hearing and a "fair shake”.