Mrs. HANSEN. Out of a total of how much?
Mr. HARTZOG. I don't have the figure.

Mrs. HANSEN. Supply it for the record.

Mr. HARTZOG. I will get that figure and put it in the record for you. But I would call your attention to the fact that just the contribution of foreign national travel to the national park system is roughly three times the operating budget of the National Park Service. And this is new money, real, cold, hard cash, that comes in new.

(The information follows:)

In calendar year 1967 about 1.5 million people came from abroad-including Mexico and Canada—to the United States of America for business and pleasure and spent about $1,500 million according to Mr. William Dirks, Research Manager of the U.S. Travel Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Estimated totals in 1968 were some 1.8 million people who spent approximately $1,750 million.

ECONOMIC STUDY OF PARK SYSTEM

Mr. HARTZOG. Dr. Ernst W. Swanson of North Carolina State University, who was a former official in the Bureau of the Budget, was retained to do an economic study of the impact of the National Park system. He used 1967 data, because this was the most recent data available to him during the year 1968.

I have here with me a summary of his report. His full report is now being printed. Interestingly, what Dr. Swanson found is that there were 140 million visits to the National Park system in 1967. In his study he excluded from this total day-use visits, which are visits by people living just outside the park who drive in, spend the day, and come out. He excluded these visits, which represent about 25 percent of all park visitations because they are not income generating to the same extent as other visits.

Mr. MARSH. He used the total number of visitations, but he deducted 25 percent?

Mr. HARTZOG. That's right. He found that the overnight visitations to the national park system last year contributed to the travel industry in and around and on the routes to the areas of the national park system, $6.4 billion.

Mrs. HANSEN. This involves a very important point to the economy of the States and the municipalities where land has been removed, from the tax base and placed in the park system. The amount of tax base taken out could be equated by the expenditure in the areas adjacent to the parks which were once part of the area that encompassed the parks before they were removed from the tax base. Is this not true?

Mr. HARTZOG. Madam Chairman, Dr. Swanson found, as a matter of fact, although it is not included in this summary, but in his full report, that at locations on which we have current data, such as Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Grand Teton National Park, the tax revenues resulting from improved capital structure in the adjacent community have far exceeded the tax revenues accruing to the county on those lands that were included in the park.

Mrs. HANSEN. If visitations decline because we have to close the parks on certain days for economy reasons, then does this not have a corresponding influence on the return of revenue to the local governments?

Mr. HARTZOG. Madam Chairman, it certainly does. I can tell you that as a result of the management actions we had to take this year in order to cut the cloth to fit the pattern, of what we had in terms of manpower and money, that at one point I had in my office over 200 letters from across the United States complaining about the reduced park programs. It got so serious in the State of New Mexico that through the help of Senator Montoya, the State of New Mexico offered to finance the 2 days per week of intermittent employees needed to keep Carlsbad Caverns open the 2 days we had closed it. Mrs. HANSEN. Isn't it also true that this decrease would come at a time when the States and the municipalities find themselves faced with the problem of finding additional tax revenues?

Mr. HARTZOG. Right. Let me say to you that Dr. Swanson found with respect to this $6.4 billion gross park visitor expenditure, that $4.8 billion of it found its way into personal payrolls and small mer chant's profits in and around and along the routes to the parks. Mrs. HANSEN. Which again is reflected in the States' income tax base.

Mr. HARTZOG. That's right. And that we are not able to measure. We do have one measurement; that personal revenue derived from the park visits returned to the Federal Treasury $960 million in taxes. to say nothing of what it returned to the local and State governments. (A chart follows:)

Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Marsh?

Mr. MARSH. I think the record should show at this point that these visitation figures do not include the contributions that could be expected also from the National Forest Service. Isn't that correct? Mr. HARTZOG. That's right.

Mrs. HANSEN. Or BLM?

Mr. HARTZOG. That's right. These are national park visits.

Mr. MARSH. I know you probably can't venture an estimate, but I'm wondering if based on using this as a norm or a standard or measurement, you could make some estimate, or whether an estimate could be made by Forest Service and BLM, that would show an additional contribution on their part to these statistics. I think what you have done here is point to a part of a major contribution to the national economy that many people overlook.

Mr. HARTZOG. I don't have that information, I'm sorry. Those agencies may have it.

Mr. MARSH. If you could make this available to them, perhaps they could make some estimate based on your figures.

In those studies did he take into account the sales tax that might have been paid in the local jurisdictions based on the purchases in the areas?

Mr. HARTZOG. No.

Mr. MARSH. So that would be an additional revenue contributed to the State and local governments?

Mr. HARTZOG. That's true. We have no basis to make that analysis because they don't keep their data on a comparable basis all across the country. The only thing we could do was to use Internal Revenue's yardstick of Federal tax income based on personal income. And that is how we arrived at the $960 million of Federal taxes. In other words, Internal Revenue projects that if you have $4.8 billion of personal income or net profits to individual businesses, it will show up in taxes paid to the Federal Government of $960 million.

Mrs. HANSEN. What was your budget for 1967?

Mr. HARTZOG. My budget exclusive of land acquisition in that year was $123 million as I recall it. And this is the point I wanted to make. I appreciate your observations on it, Madam Chairman. Generally, you know, we look at economic cost-benefit ratios in terms of 1 to 1, 1 to 3, 1 to 5, and so forth. The National Park System generates through tourist expenditures an economic cost-benefit ratio, just simply in Federal taxes returned, of 1 to 8.

I don't know any place where you get that kind of return and at the same time are faced with diminishing resources.

ADDITIONAL COSTS IN 1968

Mrs. HANSEN. Based upon this $960 million and your $123 million budget for fiscal year 1967, what then did 1968 do to you expendturewise?

Mr. HARTZOG. We had a slight improvement, you will recall, in 1968 in our expenditure authority; but I was also faced with some new costs such as pay raises and a declining employment level.

Mrs. HANSEN. You had pay costs and increased postal charges. Mr. HARTZOG. Right.

Mrs. HANSEN. Were these instances where you had increased utility charges?