Senator NELSON. I want especially to welcome Governor Brown, whose imaginative leadership has made California the most progressive State in the Union in this new and creative effort to apply space age technology to our most complex and troubling domestic public policy dilemmas.

Let me say at the beginning that there is no doubt in my mind that the expertise developed by American industry in making travel to the moon no longer a fantasy but simply a complex engineering problem is desperately needed to help evaluate and resolve enormously complex domestic problems.

California has led the way by hiring four aerospace firms to analyze the problems of waste management, crime, transportation, and government information handling with systems analysis tools developed in defense and space research.

The bill we are considering today grew out of the experiment originated by Governor Brown.

Problems crying out for better understanding and more imaginative solutions are all around us. Here in Los Angeles the condition of the air itself makes clear the need-the critical need-for a better, a more comprehensive, waste management program. There is a critical need for a comprehensive waste management plan for the Nation.

We face an environmental crisis of almost unimaginable proportions right now. We have polluted almost every source of fresh water in America and are well on our way to polluting the whole atmosphere. Nothing short of a massive effort by industry and government at every level will solve this problem. This can be done only after a total analysis of the problem and development of an overall program of

action.

It will probably be necessary to set air and water purity goals, just as we have set travel to the moon as a goal, and then go out and develop the hardware to get the job done.

The systems analysis approach, I think, is the basis for a sound beginning in this effort.

Since this program with the four contracts was initiated by Governor Brown some few years ago, the literature in the country is full of references to it, and I am happy this morning to be visiting in Governor Brown's State, which for 4 years was my State while I was attending college at San Jose State a few years back, and I am pleased you have taken the time to come here this morning, Governor, and express your views.

You

may proceed as you wish, Governor Brown.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HAROLD R. WALT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Governor BROWN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson and members of your subcommittee.

It is a real pleasure to welcome you to our State. California is honored that you have chosen to open these hearings here.

We are particularly proud of you, too, because of the fact that you are a graduate of one of our great colleges in California, San Jose

State, and you have added luster to its name. And I am also happy to have you come back here to California.

Today I'm afraid you are going to find few, if any, unbiased witnesses. The people whose testimony you are about to hear will sound very much like proud parents of precocious children. And, as such, of course, we would like the record to show that we regard Senator Nelson as one of those rare neighbors who recognizes superior offspring when he sees them.

I am here to record my full support of the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act. Others will testify in detail about the four experiments in which the State of California and our great aerospace industries joined to apply systems engineering to social problems. I am here to discuss the circumstances which led to this pioneering effort. I will describe the high hope that we have for such programs, and I plan to discuss generally some of the promise that this dramatic project holds for improving the quality of life for Californians and for all Americans.

California's aerospace studies are part of a constant search for excellence in government services which has led our State into many pioneering programs over many years.

Now these studies arose from a concern not only for the quality of the life we lead today, but for the kind of a world we will pass on to our children. And the concern arises from the pressures which our tremendous population growth places on schools, highways, public utilities on every public and private institution in California-to expand to take care of this growth without destroying the very natural beauty which is the primary cause that people come to California and come to America.

Growth is not California's burden alone. By the end of this century, just 35 short years away-and I have been practicing law over 35 years and, in that time, time has moved so quickly that it is hard for me to realize that I have been practicing law over 35 years there will be 150 million more people in America than there are today. Where there is one house today, there will be two. Where there is one hospital, one school, they will need two. They will need five times as much electricity as we generate today. They will drive 240 million carsmore than three times as many as we have on the roads today.

But California has been riding the wave of the future longer than any other State. We grow enough each year to create a city the size of New Orleans, and every 5 years by nearly enough to fill a city the size of Chicago. This means that we have to hire and train 2,500 new policemen every year. We must build classrooms for 200,000 new students every year. And we spend nearly $1 billion a year on roads for some 10 million cars and trucks and for the 676,000 new ones we buy every year.

California is now the largest agricultural State in the Nation, but it is also one of the most urbanized. Nearly 90 percent of our people live in or near cities. We import and export more goods in foreign trade than any other State. Only New York leads us in manufacturing, and we are cutting down that lead at a fast rate. As a matter of fact, only four nations in the world produce more wealth than California at the present time.

But about one-third of our manufacturing is space and defense oriented. As such, it is subject to policies set nearly 3,000 miles from here and these policies can change on very short notice, as we have discovered in recent years with the phaseout of the Skybolt 2 years ago and the dropping of the M-1 hydrogen engine this year. I can't tell you how many people were thrown out of work by reason of that. So shortly after the Skybolt I assembled a panel of leading executives from the aerospace and electronic companies to meet regularly with me in various places throughout the State-to meet with me and members of my staff. We were looking for two things: earlier warning of cutbacks and the possibilities of conversion in the event of a continuing drop in space and defense contracts. We started out thinking in the conventional terms of conversion to consumer production as an alternative to space contracts, but over a period of time two facts kept cropping up in those discussions.

First, fully one-half of all of the engineers and scientists trained in space research and development live and work in this State.

Second, these men shared a talent that might well be applied to the development of systems to solve nearly any problem of any kind that might be presented to them. And when we began thinking in terms of the public sector-the many unmet needs of our State-we began to realize that we had a precious and unused resource.

These were men who had been trained to think in totally new dimensions; to solve problems and create systems for carrying out missions unique in human history.

Told to get a missile to the moon, they got a missile to the moon. Polaris and Atlas didn't come from a Sears, Roebuck catalog. They came from teams of engineers at Lockheed and General Dynamics.

The record of California's aerospace and defense projects is rich in similar achievements the Stromberg-Carlson tracking system for the pioneer Mercury orbits, United Technology's solid-propellant rocket for our first manned orbiting laboratory, Aerojet's nuclear rocket, and there are many, many others that I wish I had time to relate.

In most cases the teams that did this work are still right here in California. And as our discussions continued, we kept coming back to these questions.

If these men got John Glenn into orbit and back, could they get a father to work a little bit faster and get him home a little bit sooner? If they can keep one man in space, can they keep another off the welfare rolls?

These engineers had designed and built systems to prevent the destruction of our cities by enemy attack. Could they design systems that would prevent our destroying the cities themselves?

About a year ago the members of my aerospace panel said they thought the answer was "Yes," and we signed $100,000 contracts with four different firms.

North American Aviation was asked whether systems engineering could help us plan and build a transportation complex that would meet our needs for the next 50 years.

Aerojet-General was asked to investigate our methods of waste disposal, which cost California taxpayers $300 million each year, and which each year leaves the air dirtier; the water fouler; the land more littered.

Space-General was asked to study crime. We spend $600 million a year fighting crime. This is only in the detention and housing of the people that are charged with violation of the laws. We have passed laws that keep violent offenders in prison longer. We have enacted, I think, the Nation's best narcotic laws. We have tightened controls on firearms and we have raised our training standards for police officers, but the crime rate here, like the crime rate in the entire United States, continues to rise.

Finally, Lockheed was asked to develop a better system for information; a system that would permit one police department to get information about a suspect as fast as an airline clerk can find out whether there is a vacant seat on a plane 3,000 miles away, for example.

We believe the experimental phase of this project is over. In every case the reports said systems engineering is a feasible approach to the problem at hand. In some cases the engineers said it was the only workable approach.

Now you have had unofficial testimony to the success of the studies of New York only last week, where Mayor-Elect John Lindsay hired one of our systems engineering firms to supervise studies leading to a reorganization of New York City government. That is in the nature of a rescue mission. We in California look on the studies as a first step toward preventing the need for such rescue.

In California we have been so encouraged by the first studies that we are planning to call for bids on a fifth-a survey of our social welfare program. The nature and causes of poverty and dependency have changed since the 1930's, when most of our welfare programs were started. But the programs themselves have changed very little in response to new social and economic conditions. To the degree that they are out of touch with reality, they are ineffective. We want to know how to cut the costs of dependency by helping people avoid poverty. We want to know how to cut through the paperwork curtain that separates a social worker from the people who need his help. We hope to get the beginnings of the answers to these and other questions from this new study.

Now as you investigate the possibilities of systems engineering, you will hear claims made for it that put it in the class of sorcery. As a Governor I want to emphasize, with all of the emphasis that I have, that I do not expect magic cures from the systems approach, nor do I anticipate abdicating my responsibility as Governor for public policy to a bank of computers. Our pilot studies have been very clear on this point. The models the computer simulators can give us factual comparisons of the results we can expect from various approaches to problems, but they cannot make decisions. What the systems engineers can do is construct a set of facts without bias or prejudgment of the results.

Frank Lehan, of Space-General Corp., calls system engineers "the grand skeptics." Says Mr. Lehan: "We have to be shown everything; we don't take anything for granted. We are oriented toward the cold mathematical scientific engineering approach."

And it may well be that this "cold mathematical" approach is the only way that we can afford the compassionate goals of our society during the crucial decade just ahead.

Ironically, it is the heavy Federal investment in space and defense systems at the expense of the public sector that has led to the present major backlog of public needs.

From 1953 to 1963 Federal expenditures rose more slowly than the gross national product. During the same years, State and local outlay rose at double the rate of the GNP; from $28 billion to $65 billion. As a matter of fact, Federal spending in areas outside of space and defense has actually declined in the past 20 years. And what has hap pened to costs at the State and local level? Here is where we have human beings. Here is where we have the people that are living in this world of ours today.

Education-up 155 percent.
Highways-up 123 percent.

Sewage and sanitation-up to 140 percent.

By 1970, the Brookings Institution estimates that State and local expenses will total $103 billion and income, at present tax levels, will be $88 billion-a gap of $15 billion to be closed in 4 short years. And if you don't think every Governor and every mayor and every city council and every legislature is going to be faced with tough, hard problems in the next 4 years, I can just tell you that they are.

And yet, even with this huge deficit, large areas of the public sector are starving. Highway construction lags behind actual needs. The Federal highway program will run behind about $2 billion. Pollution clouds air and water. To even make a beginning on smog in California will cost almost $1 billion. Blight breeds slums faster than they can be torn down. A recent study by the Office of Education shows that 23 million Americans have never finished the eighth grade; 8 million more haven't had enough education to fill out an employment form.

Systems engineering will not turn Government fiscal night into day. But if it lives up to its present promise, it may brighten our prospect by permitting us to find less costly ways to do no worse than hold our own in important areas of public need.

Finally I want to support Senator Nelson's contention that Federal funds should be invested in such systems engineering studies in the various States. I have spoken so far of the struggle the States are having to meet their obligations in an increasingly complex society. But this is, as I said a moment ago, not only a problem of California; it is a national problem.

In a mobile nation such as ours, where people are on wheels, very few problems can be said to be truly local in character. Each of the studies California has produced could as easily be applied to any of the other 49 States. Air and water pollution, as Senator Gaylord Nelson probably knows better than any other person in our land today, do not respect State boundaries. Nor does education in these days when a family-or a baseball team-may move halfway across the continent between seasons or sessions or even games.

One factor-cost-makes these studies more national than local in scope. No State can afford to carry the burden of a fully engineered system in very many problem areas. And even those who could do so should not be asked to, since these studies will be useful in nearly all of the States.