Of these, the most influential on decision-making across OEP's areas or responsibility is the Program Advisory Committee.

Since OEP is often involved in assisting the President or coordinating other agencies in highly technical matters related to preparedness-e.g., resources, production, imports, services-the Agency as warranted will contact individuals or groups in those fields for their advice, reaction, or opinion.

C. OEP has no programs designed to aid the poor specifically, and its decision-making is rarely applicable to the poor as a group. However, in major natural disasters, which may hit the poor the hardest, OEP does coordinate Federal and Red Cross relief measures to assure that human needs are met.

D. Because OEP normally has no regulating or adjudicating role, citizen complaints are rare and invariably in the form of letters questioning a government policy or action. (On a few occasions in the past, several similar complaints would come in as a consequence of a write-in campaign or a public criticism.) Often these are proper to some other agency and in such instances are promptly forwarded for reply. Those relevant to OEP are immediately routed for action to the OEP components with the most knowledge and experience on the subject. Each is answered, and every attempt is made to make certain that the citizen understands the basis and rationale of OEP's position. The Agency tries to reply to criticisms, as well as information requests, within five working days.

E. OEP functions entail communication mainly with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and segments of industry. News releases, correspondence, and briefings usually suffice to inform them. While the Agency activities are seldom of widespread public interest, its records are public property to the extent prescribed by law. Any withholding from inquiry is limited to matters classified in the interest of national security or matters subject to Presidential prerogative as to disclosure.

F. One of the primary functions of the eight OEP Regional Offices is to advise, assist, educate, and inform those who need to know about nonmilitary defense and disaster relief. Inquiries or complaints are sometimes addressed to them, and are answered by them or occasionally forwarded to headquarters for action.

II. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTING MORE RESPONSIVE AGENCY DECISION

MAKING

A. OEP decision-making procedures operate with appropriate speed. Normally, much of our work is coordinative, to arrive at a decision requiring concurrence of one or more and sometimes many other-agencies; this is time-consuming but has been successfully expedited when necessary.

B. OEP employs systems analysts, computers, and mathematical models to assess needs and capabilities, to develop nonmilitary defense options, and to determine cost-effectiveness. Consultants advise in specialized areas for which OEP cannot afford to maintain staff. The Agency depends heavily on other agencies for input data. Computer operations under OEP direction are performed by the Mathematics and Computation Laboratory, staffed by the Corps of Engineers. The managers and analysts are OEP personnel. Present

hardware includes the CD 3600 and UNIVAC 1108 computer systems. C. OEP sponsors or participates in several interagency committees in the development and coordination of nonmilitary defense policies. In addition, it maintains daily working relationships with many agencies to coordinate nonmilitary defense activities and to preclude overlap or conflict. To further assure consistency. OEP issues nonmilitary defense objectives and policy guidance for the other Federal departments and agencies.

D. In addition to a continuing test and exercise program of Federal, State, and local readiness capabilities, the Agency conducts internal audits of its own operations and procedures. The Director of OEP reviews the Agency's goals and priorities annually-and accomplishments quarterly-in order to set program objectives for the years ahead. OEP does use such modern techniques as cost-benefit analysis and PPBS. There are no significant gaps in OEP's statutory authority, but the Agency annually considers pertinent Federal and State and local legislative proposals.

E. We believe that the OEP staff has not had as much impact on decision-making as it is capable of, but we hope to remedy this through better leadership, organization, communication, and participation. In general, the staff has been adequately responsive to the needs of individual agency members. The Agency has suffered somewhat from attrition; many emergency preparedness objectives are not achieved as promptly as would be possible with a larger staff, but we realize that more personnel doesn't necessarily mean better output. Some benefit would accrue from the rotation of certain employees to other government agencies, but our small size makes this expensive in terms of efficiency and continuity. OEP is undergoing a gradual change in its staffing to include more computational and analytical capability. The questions pertaining to hiring of people from or by regulated industries are not applicable to OEP.

III. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

It took us approximately one man-day to consider, complete, review, and approve our answers to Sections I and II. The questions, while stimulating for us, will presumably be of more use, in the aggregate, to the Subcommittee. Coverage was adequate, although Section I is not particularly pertinent to OEP. Anonymity would not have affected our answers.

Response of the Office of The Special Representative for Trade

Negotiations

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE

FOR TRADE NEGOTIATIONS,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Washington, March 28, 1969.

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: As you requested, we have prepared the attached reply to the questionnaire of your Subcommittee. Our response is, of course, limited to such of the questions as are applicable to the administrative practices and procedures of this Office.

In conducting the responsibilities of this office we are deeply aware that, directly or indirectly, our foreign trade policies can and do affect the well-being of all private citizens and private groups. We have, therefore, made every effort within our capabilities to insure that their interests and involvement are known and taken into careful consideration. Many of the steps taken since the passage of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 have been frankly experimental in nature and we continue to seek further solutions.

Please feel free to call upon me if you would like clarification or additional information on any point.

Sincerely yours,

THEODORE R. GATES, Acting Special Representative.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRE OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

A. There is a very substantial input by private citizens and citizens groups into the decision-making process of the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (STR). In both the language or the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA) and in its legislative history, the Congress emphasized the need to assure full and open communication between the Executive Branch and American industry, agriculture, labor, and the consumer. In the subsequent organization and in the day-to-day operations of this Office, the emphasis in citizen involvement in the trade agreements program has been developed in a variety of ways.

The Trade Information Committee (TIC), a standing interagency committee chaired by STR, affords one major avenue of communication. All interested persons or groups may present information and views and describe their problems to the TIC during the formal public hearings that it holds from time to time. Private individuals and groups can also raise any matter informally at any time with the Chairman of the TIC or, if appropriate, with the entire interagency Committee. Finally, issues may be brought to our attention at any time through written communications to the TIC.

In addition to this channel, the STR staff is constantly in communication directly with representatives of industry, agriculture, labor, and consumers on issues of trade policy under active consideration or review. As much as 25 percent of the time of the senior members of the staff is normally taken up with such activities. On occasion, these discussions can account for the major portion of their time.

Finally, over its six years of experience, this Office has built up a very substantial body of experience and of contacts with private groups. During the course of trade negotiations in the Kennedy Round, these contacts were drawn upon to form ad hoc, informal groups of private citizens with expertise in specific areas. This technique was employed in particular in negotiations on individual sectors in both industry and agrculture and on special problem areas such as the development of an international antidumping code. The use of informal, ad hoc groups has continued since the conclusion of the negotiations.

Through these means, STR receives from private citizens and citizen groups a very large input of material which is reviewed and analyzed in the decision-making process for trade policy. Although these inputs could conceivably be increased in volume-within the present limitations arising primarily from the available time of the small staff of this Office-the procedures now followed appear to be satifactory in providing a wide spectrum of views and an opportunity for presentation of individual problems. The principal suggestions for increasing the volume of these inputs would involve augmentation of the staff. This suggestion has been made, in fact, by a variety of private spokesmen, notably at public hearings conducted by the TIC in 1968 to receive recommendations on future U.S. trade policy. (For a more detailed review of this Office's responsibility and future plans see Future United States Foreign Trade Policy, a report to the President submitted by STR available from the Agency.)

B. STR does not have any permanent citizen or industry advisory groups. However, for both the Kennedy Round and for the recently completed "Report on Future Trade Policy", public advisory groups were established by the President to consult with and advise the Special Representative. A Public Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations was established in March 1964, with approximately 45 members drawn from industry, labor, agriculture, education, and consumer groups. This Committee met regularly with the Special Representative to review progress and discuss problems of the negotiations, and many of its members visited the delegation in Geneva. In addition, a roster of some 290 technical specialists from industry, agriculture, and labor was available during the Kennedy Round as a source of technical information needed by STR.

In September 1968, the President abolished the earlier committee and created a Public Advisory Committee on Trade Policy. The 35 members of this second committee, "representative of various sectors of the economy of the United States", advised the Special Representative concerning the study of future trade policy which the President had directed him to undertake. The Committee met regularly with the Special Representative while the report was being prepared, and the alternates designated by the members also met with him. The discussions with both groups were most helpful and were taken into consideration in preparing the recommendations contained in the report. Inu addition, the members were given the opportunity to record their comments on any aspect of the report. See STR's "Report on Future Trade Policy."

Among other topics, this report dealt in particular with the subject of the Subcommittee's own inquiry. A section entitled "Relations between Private Sector and Government", which begins on page 86, discusses the problem and makes specific recommendations for improving the extent and quality of private participation in the decision-making process. The recommendations include the following:

A new and permanent public advisory committee, broadly representative of the public interest, should be appointed to advise the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations on trade policy issues.

The Special Representative for Trade Negotiations should designate a working-level group of individuals, experienced in trade and representing such major domestic interests as industry, labor, agriculture, and consumers, to exchange information and views with the STR staff on current trade problems.

As a matter of regular procedure, STR has at all times actively encouraged private groups and individuals to present their views and supporting information to STR in detail, either directly or through the TIC. Formal public hearings by the TIC-such as those held in 1963-64 prior to the Kennedy Round in accordance with TEA requirements, and those held last year in connection with the trade policy study-are well publicized several weeks in advance of the hearing date. Written submissions are welcomed from those not desiring to appear in person. On occasion, STR has invited submissions of replies in response to specific questions which it provided. Where confidential business information is supplied, it is received and held in strict confidence. Through these procedures, STR obtains the views of groups which otherwise might not become involved in the administrative process of their own initiative.

C. Although specific consideration is not ordinarily given to the relationship of STR's decisions to the needs of the poor, their interests are nevertheless protected by the fact that full consideration is given at all times to the effect of basic policy decisions on such factors as employment and prices, including the prices of consumer necessities. In arriving at decisions on what tariff reductions to offer in trade. negotiations, for example, or in the statutory review process for determining whether the escape clause relief afforded some industries should be modified or terminated, particular emphasis is put upon thorough investigation of the probable impact upon the jobs, skills, and individuals likely to be affected. All available data is assembled and, where necessary, special invesigations and field trips are conducted. STR has no sugggestions at this time for additional procedures in this area.

D. Since STR is not a regulatory agency, the questions in this section are not directly applicable to its activities. However, when complaints are received from individuals requesting remedial action against foreign or domestic measures or policies in the trade field, they are given careful consideration. Where possible recourse to remedies provided under U.S. law is indicated, complainants are referred to the appropriate agency-for example, to the Tariff Commission if the escape clause appears to be applicable, or to the Department of the Treasury if dumping is alleged. Where complaints relate to matters requiring interagency consideration, copies are distributed to the agencies participating in the interagency trade committees chaired by STR. As appropriate, formal consideration may be initiated by the Trade Staff Committee, one of the interagency groups chaired by STR. In some cases, approaches to foreign governments may be required, either through U.S. embassies abroad or through foreign embassies in Washington.

E. There is reason to believe that those affected by STR's activities know enough about it. In addition to the formal and informal contracts with the public referred to in preceding sections, STR maintains contacts with the press through close working relationships with indi