Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming.

The record will be kept open for those who could not attend to submit their statements and related material.

(The material on hand and subsequently supplied for the record follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL F. STOVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

In response to your invitation, I am pleased to offer my judgments on S. 2662—a bill to “mobilize and utilize the scientific and engineering manpower of the Nation to employ systems analysis and systems engineering to help to fully employ the Nation's manpower resources to solve national problems." These are my own professional views, however, and should not be construed to represent the position of any organization with which I am associated.

I am in full accord with the expressed intent and major provisions of this bill. If the Nation is to achieve effectively and economically the ambitious domestic goals the people have set, ways must be found to bring the best of the Nation's problem-oriented intellectual resources to bear on the task. Experience in the atomic energy, defense, and space programs has shown us how this can be done, drawing into common pursuits the capabilities of government, industry and the academic community. The time has come to employ similar patterns in dealing with domestic problems. Unless we make such an effort, we may not be able to resolve those problems at all.

One of the fruits of the atomic energy, defense, and space programs has been the development of more sophisticated techniques for analyzing problems, designing means for their resolution, and managing the implementation of those means. These techniques are often referred to as systems analysis, systems engineering and systems management because they offer ways of dealing with complex problems and tasks as functional integrated wholes instead of dealing with each of their parts in isolation. Clearly, this is exactly the kind of capability needed to deal effectively with such problems as unemployment, crime, delinquency, environmental pollution and transportation, which result from many varied causes and are closely linked to the total life of our metropolitan areas.

To some, the prospect of employing systems approaches to human problems seems reprehensible because they think it means that people will be "engineered." Briefly, they argue that systems techniques are largely the province of engineer: and have had their fullest development in handling physical tasks involving hardware not people, that systems engineers as a group have too little appreciation social and human factors, and that the idea of system management implies the control of individual action, which is undesirable in democratic communitie Certainly each of these points holds an element of truth and the dangers identifie should be guarded against, but there is much more to be said.

For example, although engineers are important in systems work, economists, psychologists, biologists and representatives of several other disciplines have also played a large part both in developing theory and in practice. The systems approach affords a way of integrating all relevant knowledge and technique in analyzing and formulating ways of handling a problem. It should also be noted that although physical and hardware problems have been central in the past, there have been many instances, particularly in the space program, where the emphasis has been on adapting technology to man rather than man to technology. In the final analysis, systems approaches are simply powerful tools, which like all tools can yield harm if badly used, but if used well can be a source of substantial good.

The foresight of the State of California in sponsoring feasibility studies to determine how systems approaches and the systematic development of appropriate technological means can help in such public problem areas as transportation, waste management, government information, and crime and delinquency has helped us all to understand that good. The State is to be applauded for this contribution to the Nation's well-being. The results of this work have implications for the entire country and have helped to demonstrate how the fruits of our national investment in advanced technology can be used effectively in the continued improvement of life for all our citizens-and, indeed, for the citizens of countries throughout the world.

As I understand it, S. 2662 will foster the extension of California's innovative pattern to other States and will provide funds to assist all qualifying States in this endeavor. These are highly desirable actions, not least because they encourage the active involvement of the States in projects designed to deal with their own problems and will thereby serve to strengthen the State's governmental capabilities.

In the past, much has been made of the importance of this kind of undertaking because it could result in new public markets for those firms now heavily employed in the defense and space programs, should federal defense and space expenditures be reduced. Although this could be important, I do not believe it is the primary reason for supporting this bill. The primary issue is not preparation for arms reduction or weathering an economic storm. It is the discovery and development of new opportunities for putting man's knowledge in the service of action to achieve high human purposes. Since industry's capabilities are relevant, industry should share in this-not because they need help, but because they have significant contributions to make.

If man can govern technology to release the atom's energy, move faster than sound, or travel to the moon, he can also govern it to help provide a clean environment, good cities, sound urban transport, and better lives for all our citizens. Your bill promises to strengthen significantly the beginning that has already been made in pursuit of this goal. It should be enacted.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGHES AIRCRAFT Co., CULVER CITY, CALIF.

WHY HUGHES IS BEHIND THIS BILL

The Scientific Manpower Utilization Act of 1965 will help put scientific knowhow to work in solving some of the problems of modern urban living. These problems include unemployment, crime, air pollution, transportation, water resources and waste disposal, among others. These problems are difficult. Some of them are chronic problems. But they can be cut down to size, and, in some instances be eliminated through the exploitation of scientific techniques. For this reason, Hughes Aircraft Company endorses the scientific utilization program. As an aerospace company, Hughes is convinced that the reservoir of scientific skills-indeed, the vast reservoir of what is now ordinary engineering skills—developed by the defense industry in recent years, is readily applicable to these tasks.

As a civic-minded company, Hughes is disturbed by the disparity between the accomplishments of military technology and those of social technology. The electronics type of engineering certainly doesn't have all the answers for society, but it just as certainly can help out on the technical aspects in a big way. Putting aside dramatic advances, like nuclear science and space flight, the ordinary benefits of modern electronic science, its engineering methods, materials and analysis techniques, are too seldom enjoyed in civil affairs, and for no good reason. Finesse with computers, for example, is an ordinary engineering skill to an aeroscape company. Its use hasn't yet scratched the surface in civil affairs and urban problems.

As a participator in American business, Hughes is anxious that the Nation's possibilities for economic growth be kept well stimulated by further departures in technique. This kind of stimulation that was brought on by the transistor, the computer, or jet engines, for example. Such purely technical stimulation will surely continue to be a most important catalyst in the economy, as it has been for the past 100 years.

TRANSPORTATION A GOOD EXAMPLE

A good example of how scientific methods can be exploited for everyday problems of society is in transportation. Transportation in all its forms is a major element of the gross national product-roughly 20 percent of it. Steps taken to improve the design and operation of transportation would measurably increase the productivity of the whole nation. This is because adequate transportation is one of the key requirements for economic growth. When transportation approaches saturation, or the transportation efficiency is poor, growth ceases.

Improvements, however, are easier to talk about than to achieve. Any changing, of course, has to be done on the basis of appropriate research. For example,

it has been estimated that the demand for intercity public transportation in the Northeastern part of the U.S. will almost triple by 1980, in comparison with the present demand, if the convenience to each traveler could be kept at the present (rather poor) levels. However, we believe that no economically feasible enlargement of superhighway, airway or airport facilities along current patterns could hold the line on convenience. There is simply not enough space, on the ground or in the air.

Hence this potential demand, representing net growth, will be incompletely realized unless new and better departures in transportation modes, or new patterns of employment, are devised. By any accounting, growth which might have been achieved but is not achieved is an irretrievable economic loss.

THE "SYSTEMS ANALYSIS" APPROACH

Supposing we are in agreement that improvements should be based on “appropriate research," how does one go about achieving that? One way it's achieved in the aerospace industry is through a research technique called "systems analysis."

Systems analysis is a scientific method of dealing with the total design problems of large facilities. It uses special techniques such as computer simulation to study the design alternatives and to find the best way to do the job for any given set of requirements.

Currently, Hughes is undertaking applied research, using the system-analysis approach, on the transportation problem. The ultimate goal of this research is the design and control and communication equipment for the proposed highspeed ground speed ground transportation system of the Northeast Corridor being studied by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The program affords an excellent example of the use of systems analysis on the solution of a complicated urban problem. In this instance, the basic difficulty is achieving safe, reliable and efficient operation of public trains moving at up to 400 mph.

An enormous number of technical problems must be solved in developing a system such as this, and they embrace much more than the disciplines of aerodynamics, propulsion or suspension design that one usually associates with railways. Whole new concepts of control and communication emerge, posing new problems in sensors and data processing that are quite similar to those in the military systems being created for our defense. The challenge to the systems engineer in all this will be to find the best configuration of energy, materials and information to balance equipment effectiveness against cost over the expected life of the system-just as he does now for his national assignments.

GREAT SKILLS AVAILABLE

Like many companies in the aerospace-electronics field, Hughes brings to the urban research programs the ability to analyze and solve exceedingly complex technical problems. Being a leader in five related fields: missiles, sensors, computers, satellites and communications, Hughes is well prepared to tackle large systems engineering jobs because of its diversity of talents. Indeed, all the experience and tools perfected by the aerospace industry in the last twenty years are available in some measure for use on urban projects. Along with the authors of the Scientific Manpower Act, Hughes believes the tapping of the scientific reservoir should be started. As briefly outlined in these paragraphs, there are three reasons as Hughes sees it for doing so:

(1) Many urban problems can be solved by scientific methods.
(2) Technical advances tend to stimulate economic growth.

(3) The skills of system engineering are well suited to the nature of the problems and are available in some depth.

The Congress is to be congratulated for its recognition of this situation and for taking the initiative in capitalizing on the scientific resources of industry.

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 18, 1965]

A SPACE AGE TRAJECTORY TO THE GREAT SOCIETY

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, why can not the same specialist who can figure out a way to put a man in space figure out a way to keep him out of jail?

Why can not the engineers who can move a rocket to Mars figure out a way to move people through our cities and across the country without the honors of modern traffic and the concrete desert of our highway system?

Why can not the scientists who can cleanse instruments to spend germ free years in space devise a method to end the present pollution of air and water here on earth?

Why can not highly trained manpower, which can calculate a way to transmit pictures for millions of miles in space, also show us a way to transmit enough simple information to keep track of our criminals?

Why can not we use computers to deal with the down to earth special problems of modern America?

The answer is we can-if we have the wit to apply our scientific know how to the analysis and solution of social problems with the same creativity we have applied it to space problems.

The purpose of the proposed Scientific Manpower Utilization Act of 1965 is to test new ways to use the scientific manpower and know-how of the space age to solve a great variety of social problems.

This bill authorizes the Secretary of Labor to contract directly with private firms, universities, or nonprofit institution, and with States or groups of States. They would undertake studies of the use of systems analysis and systems engineering for a broad range of local and national problems. A 5-year program totaling $25 million per year is suggested in this proposal.

This bill is an attempt to build creativity upon the successful first step work undertaken by the State of California.

A little over 6 months ago, Gov. Pat Brown, of California, decided to see if space engineers, and private space firms, could apply their know-how to a number of social problems faced by the State.

Approximately $400,000 was set aside for four research contracts. These were first-stage contracts, feasibility studies. They were surface-scratching efforts to test a new idea.

Four space companies, and four teams of space engineers, were asked to look at the problems of crime, pollution, information control, and transportation in the State.

They were asked to be broad gaged in their approach. The question was: Can we take a scientific look at each of these problems in a new way, as a system of subproblems, as an integrated whole, and thereby devise new, overall, integrated approaches to their solution?

Can we put the State in a laboratory and the problem in a computer?

Another question was stressed: Can we estimate the cost of various possible approaches or mixes of approaches and use computers to figure out the most efficient and economical way to do a job? In other words, can we get some idea of the cost-effectiveness of a variety of social programs?

The results of the first stage are now in. They are a success. California has proved that the concept of using space engineering on these problems is a feasible one. These preliminary studies reveal truly exciting possibilities for solving incredibly difficult social problems. I think Governor Brown's idea is the most creative idea in many years. We must now follow up the initial demonstration studies with full-blown experimental research. This means testing several projects to see how various proposals now sketched by the computers will actually work in practice.

This is one of the major purposes of this bill. Another is to try to find new uses for a great national resource: our highly trained scientific and technical manpower.

Let me give you one example of what just one California study showed.

We know that space engineers have designed a system to get information to and from space capsules. They even got us photographs from Mars. California asked whether they could not use the same techniques to help government get more accurate information right here on earth.

Our earthbound information problem is huge. In this 1 State, 23 county departments report information regularly to some 28 State departments. They submit almost 600 different kinds of reports. In 1 year, 1 county will typically transmit nearly 10,000 separate reports.

Today we are still using horse and buggy techniques to handle this vast amount of information. In California alone there are already 75 miles of State and local government filing cabinets which store information-in a more or less

efficient way. By 1990 there will be 354 miles of filing cabinets unless something is done.

By 1974 the documents stored could pave a paper trail to the Moon and backand anyone who knows typical office procedures knows that finding the one needed piece of paper in a filing cabinet may well be as difficult as getting it back from the Moon.

All this need not be. Scientists today can put the information collected at city, county, State and even Federal levels, into computers. With a flick of a button the precise information desired can be pulled back out of the computer. It can even be done by remote control as telephone wires connect one city to another and computers "talk to each other."

This is not only an efficient way to store and process information; it is economical, for one computer can eliminate thousands of filing cabinets, millions of pieces of paper, hundreds of file clerks, and scores of frustrated executives who never seem to be able to get the right information at the right time.

Another California study has showed that these same computers can provide the information necessary to effectively deal with crime and juvenile delinquency. The basic work of this study was completed before the tragedy of the Watts riots in Los Angeles. The study showed, with amazing pinpoint accuracy, that this clearly defined block-by-block area within the city was a dangerous and unstable spot. The study showed that there was every reason to expect troubleand it showed precisely where that trouble might occur.

It is estimated that the Watts riots resulted in at least $50 million in direct losses, and another $50 million in indirect costs. Had we understood the meaning of this study beforehand, we might have been able to apply the principle of an ounce of prevention.

As this example indicates, one feature of the computer, systems-analysis approach, is a scientific attempt to pinpoint the dimensions of a problem with high accuracy.

In Watts there was five menacing indicators that pointed out the troubles: Low family income; Negro population concentrations of more than 75 percentwith little integration; living conditions with more than 10,000 people per square mile; extremely high school dropout rates; and a high arrest rate-100 or more per 1,000 in the age group 10-17; 25 or more arrests per 1,000 total population. Using the proper criteria to identify the problem is only the first step. The second step is to find the answer or more important-to find the right combination of answers, at the lowest cost.

One way to fight crime is to put a criminal in jail for life. This will keep him from committing a further crime, but it is extremely costly. It costs a great deal of money to keep a man in jail for a year.

Another way to prevent crime is to take each first offender, and instead of putting him in jail at his first offense, spend substantial amounts of money for counseling, job training, psychiatric care, to try to help him onto the right track for a productive, noncriminal life. This may cost more at first, but if it means society would not have to pay to keep the man in jail for the rest of his life, the initial cost may be cheap in the long run.

Our first response to juvenile crime is often to call the police; it is not obvious that we might perhaps be better advised to call the employment and counseling service.

The first California studies indicate that it might even be wise to look to other parts of the social system if we really want the cheapest, most efficient way to reduce crime. It may well be that a new welfare system, and new poverty programs, dollar for dollar, could do more to reduce crime than could bigger and better prisons.

The studies do not attempt to offer a pat solution to crime. We have none. What is suggested is that we must look at a great variety of problems, seemingly distantly related, to see if pulling on one strand of the tangle here may untie a knot elsewhere.

This is one way to describe systems analysis. What we are really trying to do is figure out in great detail what that ounce of prevention idea is really about. We want to find out if an ounce of counseling, psychiatric care, and job training, at the outset of a juvenile delinquent's crime career will, in fact, prevent a pound of robbery and theft later on.

We want to see if 3 ounces of new probation counseling will prevent 5 pounds of crime.