dealing with them have not. Welfare, for example, is a maze of federal, state and local jurisdictions. Flood control is supposedly the domain of the Corps of Engineers, yet what happens 200 miles upstream in forest cutting and planting has a direct effect on floods-and comes under the purview of other government agencies.

Mr. Morse and his colleagues are to be commended for stepping back and viewing the problem in a new perspective. Congress should open hearings soon on this broad-gauge proposal. The richest, most powerful nation in the world should make sure it is availing itself of the best management tools available.

Mr. MORSE. With respect to the difference between the two bills, there are minor differences between the bill originally introduced in August in the House and in the Senate, and the bill which has been introduced this year by Members of the U.S. Senate.

Section 1 of the bill which has been introduced by Senators Scott, Dominick, and others in the 90th Congress makes specific reference to unemployment and education in section 1.

In section 2 of the bill, which deals with the membership of the Commission, the Commission would be composed of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and 11 other members. In the original bill and in the present House bill, section 2 specifically requires congressional Members, two Members appointed by the President of the Senate and two Members by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The bill which has been introduced by Senator Dominick, Senator Scott, and others in the Senate this year does not have the requirement for congressional Members. I would like to point out that in the event your committee does conclude that some combination of the Nelson approach and the approach we have offered previously is feasible and the Commission might be in order, I would urge that congressional Members be included in whatever recommendation the committee makes.

Section 5 of the present Scott-Dominick bill differs from the original bill in the compensation for members of the Commission, which was originally $100 a day. According to the current Senate bill, it is $75 a day.

Section 8, subsection (a) (6) of the bill identifies specific problems and includes in the new version unemployment, public welfare, education, and other specific problem areas. The new Senate bill in section 7 provides for the authorization of a half million dollars maximum for the first year. The House bill provides for an authorization of only $200,000. I think the Senate figure is far more realistic.

I do not see any basic inconsistency between the National Commission approach which I have recommended and the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act which the chairman has proposed. I think clearly the goals are the same, but I would warn against confining ourselves to a grant-in-aid approach at this time.

Senator NELSON. I didn't hear what you said.

Mr. MORSE. I think the two bills are compatible. There isn't any basic inconsistency. But I do have some doubt as to whether we should confine ourselves to a grant-in-aid approach, which seems to be the principal purpose of S. 430.

Since the initial introduction of the Commission bill, which is H.R. 20, a number of projects already underway by States and others have been brought to my attention. We are all familiar with the California projects, which involved State contracts. I am also aware

of other studies which have been initiated by private industry and then brought to the attention of Government agencies, of consortia of systems and nonsystems firms combining to develop a systems approach to a specific problem, and of systems models developed for one area, but with application for others.

In short, I think there is so much activity already underway in this field that we should take a comprehensive look at the "state of the art" and try to develop a coordinated approach to our mutual goal; in other words, take the "systems approach."

There is a danger that we will fragment our efforts in this field, just as we are now fragmenting our efforts in transportation, pollution control, and the other areas where we seek change. The California experiment worked particularly well in that State because of the presence of the leading aerospace firms with the system capability and the academic base for university-industry cooperation. I am not sure that this model would be as applicable in other States.

What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is a combination of our two approaches. I see no reason why a National Commission on Public Management with a broad mandate could not serve as the administering agency for the types of contracts you contemplate in the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act, while at the same time exploring other possible financial approaches and making a complete study of the techniques for the solution of the problems which plague us.

I do not suggest that the Commission bill does not lend itself to amendment. I would be interested in suggestions as to how to insure that rapidly advancing technology would be available to Government on a continuing basis. Rapid obsolescence is one of the principal problems we face. I would be interested in comments on the estimated cost of the Commission's efforts in terms of its very broad mandate. And I would welcome comments on any of the specific duties of the Commission as listed in section 8(a) of H.R. 20.

There is really much more at stake here than any individual piece of legislation. We are on the threshold of an entirely new approach to the management of the public business. Last year an esteemed political scientist told me that the concepts which were included in the bill which I filed and the bill which the chairman of this distinguished subcommittee filed were as much of a dramatic departure in the field of political science as the discovery of the atom bomb was in the physical sciences.

The hearings which you are holding this week are part of an important educational process both for the Congress and for the public. The implications of our mutual exploration are great: for intergovernmental relations, for the structure of Federal, State, and local governmental units, and for the relationship between business and government.

I think we can go forward with specific projects as contemplated in S. 430, but I think we must also make the broad inquiry that is suggested by H.R. 20.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator NELSON. Have you had the opportunity to check on what source of personnel there might be for heading up any kind of program in the systems analysis field; that is, where are they being trained, apart from the aerospace industry, for example?

1

Would it be part of your idea that the National Commission would explore the question of where you will get the personnel to be utilized by the States and the Federal Government to be used in this program of systems analysis?

Mr. MORSE. The trick would be finding the people to do the job, Mr. Chairman. There is a great abundance of competence in the private sector. I am pleased to note that in recent months a number of governmental agencies have obtained the services of the people who have been trained in the systems disciplines.

For example, Dr. William Whitson has recently been retained on a consulting basis by the Agency for International Development to inquire into the feasibility of the application of systems techniques to our foreign aid program.

The Department of State has a small office within it which is seeking to determine the application of systems management techniques on some of our diplomatic problems.

One of the great difficulties both agencies have had has been in finding qualified people who can participate in the type of activities in which they are engaged. I am sure that the Commission which I envisage would be charged implicitly with the respnsibility of determining the availability of skilled and trained systems people for this kind of public application.

Senator NELSON. You don't think there is any question about the idea of using a commission approach to make some kind of a study and evaluation of the status of the art and the need for the application of this concept. I certainly endorse that concept. However, is it not true that there do exist the specific problems right now in which we can apply the concept; for example, air pollution and water pollu

tion?

The big problem has been that we have tackled this issue of pollution piecemeal and in fragments in various parts of the country. The facts is it has to be tackled on a natonwide basis. Air and water travel across State lines. What happens in New York to Lake Erie affects all States bordering that lake. What happens to Lake Michigan on the southern tip, so far as pollution is conerned, affects Green Bay in northeast Wisconsin, and the whole coast of Michigan.

Senator DOMINICK. Did you hear what happened in Boston yesterday? They had an excess of air pollution. They found it was because the wind was coming from the southeast. The air pollution collector was heading northwest and it was getting all the smoke from the Health and Welfare Building and that is what was creating the air pollution.

Senator NELSON. I think that emphasizes the fact that the problem has to be looked at in toto and evaluated on a nationwide basis.

Mr. MORSE. Yes. I think it is appropriate that Federal agencies, wherever they deem the application of systems techniques to be feasible, should be encouraged to go on.

The Department of Commerce at the present time has let a systems analysis contract rather than a systems management contract, with reference to the high-speed rail transportation in the northeast corridor. I think this is a perfectly proper application.

It does seem to me, and I plead my own ignorance and lack of full understanding of the systems techniques, that it is desirable

that we get the best minds in our society to make a broad gage study as to just how the techniques should be applied rather than once again doing it piecemeal.

I am apprehensive about doing things on an ad hoc basis where it seems to me we should first make a comprehensive study of the areas of feasibility. There may be some areas which quite obviously would lend themselves to the application of systems techniques. The chairman has mentioned waste management and pollution control. Transportation is another.

There are perhaps many other areas in which systems techniques would immediately lend themselves or would lend themselves after study.

Our postal system certainly is something that ought to be thought of, perhaps, in systems terms. There are some of the problems of education that certainly would, with the proper understanding, be subject to improvement by the application of systems techniques.

I think we have to get the best minds in our country to think about this in an organized way before we can really hope to gain the full advantage from the techniques which our private sector, especially our aerospace and electronics industries, have developed.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I don't see anything inconsistent about this sort of study that I suggest and the solution of specific problems which are suggested by the chairman's bill. I do have some doubts as to the grant-in-aid approach. It is not that I argue against it; I don't. But as the chairman just noted, many of the problems that we have are national problems.

The matter of pollution is a national problem. The water that goes in the Merrimac River from New Hampshire to Massachusetts doesn't purify itself when it passes the State line.

I am not sure that limiting ourselves to grants-in-aid to the States is the proper approach. I think we confine ourselves unnecessarily when we do that. But I would certainly urge that you and your committee carefully consider the combination of the two approaches: the creation of the Commission and the inclusion among the Commission's responsibilities of serving as the agency which would make the awards which are contemplated in S. 430.

Senator NELSON. The bill that I introduced does contemplate grants to individual States and to groups of States where the problem is regional.

Mr. MORSE. Yes, and I applaud that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator NELSON. I think we all recognize that the so-called concept of systems analysis, itself, is very old; that the only thing that is new is that we are now able to use computers in order to implement the systems engineering concept.

It seems to me that one of the things we are going to have to do is to encourage the States, for example, to develop their own comprehensive State plan. One of the necessary tools in applying the concept of systems analysis, itself, to any problem is that we have the basic facts. Wisconsin is one of the few States to develop a comprehensive State plan.

We used the systems analysis concept, although we made very little use of the computers. It is necessary, it seems to me, for each State

itself to have a comprehensive State plan in order to really utilize the concept.

You need to know, No. 1, where your population was 30 years ago and where it is now, so that you can project where it is going to be 20, 30, and 40 years from now. We did a population analysis and a population projection. Then we used overlay maps so that we could take any area of the State and drop an overlay map down for 1980 and then see where the cities will be, where the people will be, and another overlay to see where it would be in 1990, and another one for the year 2000.

For example, once you have the basic population figures and a good, sound projection of where your population and traffic is going to be 20 or 30 years hence, you are in a position to start a transportation study now, recognizing where the traffic is going to be and recognizing that you ought to do some preemptive zoning in order to preserve areas for your traffic in the future. If we had done this in the past it wouldn't be necessary to condemn valuable property to create traffic arteries.

You proceed from there to an analysis of your public facilities. When you look at population, you also have to have a qualitative analysis of the population so that you know how many kids will be 5 and 6 years old and entering school 20 years from now; how many are going to be of college age 20 years from now; how many are going to be elderly; what percentage of the population will be elderly and retired 20 years from now; what percent of the population will be mentally retarded, so we can project our institutions for the mentally retarded, our institutions for the elderly, our institutions of primary and secondary learning, and college.

Once you have your basic population figures and a qualitative analysis of them, then you can proceed from there with a comprehensive public facilities projected plan, a transportation plan, a recreation plan, each of them using various techniques, including overlay maps to designate to the people who have to do the planning and the legislators who have to do the legislating as to what the problems are going to be 10, 20, and 30 years from now.

The only thing new in the whole business is that we now have computers so that we can ask a question and get an answer in a matter of minutes.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that systems analysis is the use of computers. Computers are simply a tool to be used in systems analysis. The first people in the business of using computers in systems engineering apparently were the aerospace industry and then, of course, over in the Defense Department.

Senator Dominick is a member of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee and a cosponsor of the bill on our side. We intend to work together to develop a bipartisan bill that will be acceptable to the Congress.

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be at these hearings. I want to congratulate Congressman Morse for having initiated the work in the House on this particular type of proposal.

I want to say I am going to look forward to these hearings with interest. Unfortunately, after you had set your hearings, the Armed