Services Committee scheduled an executive session on the supplemental defense bill for Vietnam. Since I have been appointed to that committee, I will have to go there.

I want to welcome the valuable aid and assistance that Mr. Morse has given to this very important problem.

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I hope we can work this out in a fashion which will enable us to move forward in this session. I think it is of extreme importance.

It does seem to me that the major difference at the moment between the approach that you suggest in your bill, S. 430, and the one that we suggest in S. 467 is that you have more or less solidified on the system of grants to the States. We are asking that a commission be appointed to determine whether this is the best way to approach the problem. There is a pretty strong difference here, but I think perhaps we could work out a compromise. It does seem to me that there are certain problems which could be worked out by the States, such as the system that you mentioned you started in Wisconsin, but I would suspect there are a great many States in our country who are wholly, we will say, at sea as far as putting this type of operation into effect.

It would strike me that perhaps what we ought to do is to go fairly slowly to see if there might not be somewhere along the line a regional approach which would be more fruitful than the State approach. I am thinking of the Rocky Mountain area where I come from. The pollution problem in that area is growing. There isn't any doubt that the growth of population in that area will be fantastic over the next 20 or 30 years. Perhaps a regional approach to these problems would be more effective than the other. I don't know. I am not expressing any necessary predilection that way. It does seem to me that a Commission study of this might be fruitful.

Once again I want to welcome Congressman Morse for his initiative and able leadership in this field.

I apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, for having to leave, although I see I have my very capable senior colleague, Mr. Javits, to take care of our side of the aisle.

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Dominick.

Senator Javits is a member of the Special Subcommittee on the Utilization of Manpower and participated in the hearings last year. Senator, you did not have the opportunity to hear Congressman Morse's testimony, but if you have some questions you would like to address to him, the floor is yours.

Senator JAVITS. I express my pleasure in having him testify as one of our most gifted Members of the House, and to state for the record that his bill has been introduced here in the Senate by Senator Scott, of Pennsylvania, with me as a cosponsor.

Mr. MORSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Morse. We appreciate having you come. Even I recognize you as a very creative and brilliant Congressman.

Mr. MORSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator NELSON. Our next witness is Karl Harr, Jr., president of the Aerospace Industries Association of America.

STATEMENT OF KARL G. HARR, JR., PRESIDENT, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WARD DENNIS, NORTHRUP CORP.; AND H. L. WHEELER, NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION

Mr. HARR. Mr. Chairman and Senator Javits, the Aerospace Industries Association represents the principal manufacturers of aircraft, missiles, and spacecraft and their components-in short, the aerospace industry. This industry manufactures virtually all of the Nation's commercial and private aircraft, helicopters, and the like, but it is still, despite the tremendous growth in commercial air transport and general aviation, primarily a supplier of weapons and space systems to the Federal Government.

As such, it has been a principal partner in the evolution of a body of highly developed capabilities for the solution of complex problems which are frequently referred to as the systems approach.

My remarks will be directed at the feasibility of applying this approach beyond the national defense and space effort, particularly to problems connected with improving the quality of American life.

Many of these problems, such as air pollution and water pollution control, relief of traffic congestion, provision of adequate food supply, school systems, housing, and crime control are already fully identified and very much on the front burner of public concern.

The question is: How much, if any, of the systems approach techniques and capabilities developed in the course of our national defense and space efforts can be effectively transferred to the solution of those other problems?

Certainly the answer requires at least understanding how the systems approach came about, what it is, the scope of its potential application, and what is needed to effect that application. And perhaps first a word of caution.

One of the greatest values of the systems approach lies in the enormous number of variables it can encompass. But there is danger of being complex for complexity's sake, and that particular danger is nowhere more manifest than in the dialog surrounding this subject.

Most of the important considerations involving the systems approach are, to the contrary, quite simple. Such is certainly the case with respect to the genesis.

All of us are well aware of the technological revolution that has occurred since World War II. Equally obviously, one of our most vital national concerns was to master this technological revolution at least to the extent of our national security interests. Because of the growing complexity of technology, this task presented an unprecedented challenge both to Federal agencies having national security responsibilities and to those segments of industry upon which such agencies rely. Their joint responses in terms of technological mastery, advanced managerial techniques, and refinement of Governmentindustry roles created the systems approach.

What is it? In terms of general definition, it has three elements: systems analysis, systems engineering, and systems management.

The first of these embraces techniques for making a problem understandable, offering possible avenues for its solution, and establishing criteria for the selection of the best alternative.

Systems engineering consists of designing plans for the conduct of a system development program, including its schedules and costs. Systems management consists of directing and controlling such a program to completion, on schedule, and at the prescribed cost.

Following my remarks, witnesses expert in the use of the systems approach will describe it in detail. However, I should like to make some general observations which I think bear somewhat on the question of its potential application to nondefense and nonspace activities. First, the extent to which the systems approach is something new or radical or unique is merely one of degree. It is not an absolute science or a magical new formula or a sudden discovery or a brilliant invention. It is merely an extremely high degree of capability to evaluate, plan, and do certain complex and difficult things.

Its relevance to this discussion lies in the fact that many of the things necessary to the improvement of the quality of American life appear to require that high degree of capability.

A second important point is that this improved capability, called the systems approach, is not the exclusive province of industry. The challenges to and the responses by Government were no less staggering than those of industry, and the upgrading of industrial capability has had to be accompanied by a commensurate upgrading of the customer interface with which industry deals, in our case two agencies of the Federal Government, the DOD and NASA.

However, we must face the fact that at this point in time the advantages of the systems approach have been pretty well limited to those situations in which there has been recognition of a clear and present danger to the United States and for which there has existed an institutional framework able to exploit these advantages, in the form of agencies of the Federal Government having specific responsibilities to combat that danger.

However, the happy part of the story is that, whatever the genesis, in the course of forging these capabilities under the pressures of arbitrary and sometimes cruel national defense and space requirements, a new national asset has been created which obviously has broader application if the political and institutional keys can be found. The techniques and tools developed in fashioning an effective systems approach are in no way wedded to or limited by the purposes which gave them birth. They are somewhat complex, and while cheap, they are not inexpensive. But though superlative techniques and tools for problem analysis-and, therefore, improved bases for choice and decisionmaking for program planning and for program management they are of a more or less abstract character.

The questions seem to boil down to these:

What is it about our national society that has permitted our Federal Government and certain segments of private industry to come so quickly and effectively to grips with the hideously complex problems of defense and space programs? And do these same characteristics of our society portend successful coping with the socioeconomic problems that lie before us?

It is readily discernible that in achieving our national defense and space objectives, in fact in being able to develop and apply the required systems approach to these problems, our society has had three things going for it:

1. A superb technological base-a reservoir the scope and depth of which is unequaled anywhere else in the world or at any time in our own history.

2. The incentives of the free enterprise system-providing constant motivation for our competitive private industrial community to further refine techniques and capabilities; in short, to come up with better ways of doing things.

3. An adaptable and flexible governmental structure which could adjust to the fulfillment of its responsibilities in a time of rapidly changing public needs.

Each of these three elements plays an essential part in our Federal Government-private industry achievement of national defense and space objectives. The first two; that is, our national technological base and the motivations of private industry, are as applicable to the improvement of the quality of our environment as they are to achievement of defense and space objectives.

The third; that is, the adaptability of our governmental structure, will be tested in a new way. Rather than the Federal Government, it will be the lower echelons of our Federal structure; that is, the State and local governments, which will have to demonstrate their creativity and adaptability, although the Federal Government will still play a role.

So now it seems to me we get to the nub of the problem. Will we, as a nation, be able to devise the formulas that will bring into play the full strength of our political system? The only significant respect in which applying the modern systems approach to socioeconomic and human environmental problems will differ from its application to defense and space problems lies in the fact that, of necessity, the public authority will be primarily at a level other than the Federal Government. Otherwise the fundamentals will be the same.

Clearly, there must be a public-private mix. Ultimate choice and control obviously will have to rest with responsible public authority at the appropriate level.

Clearly, there must also be a pinpointing of responsibility for results. One of the most valuable lessons of our national defense and space efforts has been its demonstration of the values of competitive free enterprise in this respect. A company which risks its corporate life on the success of its performance experiences a pinpointing of responsibility of the most acute order. Whether we like to accept the fact or not, experience has shown that the diffusion of responsibility in public authority rarely produces so sharp a focus.

Senator NELSON. If I may interrupt, as to the statement of yours in the middle of the page, you say:

The only significant respect in which applying the modern systems approach to socioeconomic and human environmental problems will differ from its application to defense and space problems lies in the fact that, of necessity, the public authority will be primarily at a level other than the Federal Government.

I would like to say at this point that I think that is not quite correct. At least if you mean to the exclusion of the Federal Government, I certainly disagree. The very problems that you mentioned earlier in the statement, of water and air pollution, will demand action at the national level.

I agree with you that the question you seem to be raising is the question of the flexibility and adaptability of various units and forms of government at various levels.

Earlier you point out that the concept has been applied by NASA and DOD. This was really a relatively simple thing to do because the money was there and all they had to do was to make one decision within the Department of Defense or within NASA to apply the systems analysis approach to the problem, using all the modern techniques.

The problem, for example, of solving the pollution of the Mississippi River is, in my judgment—or to put it another way, the problem of making the systems analysis of that problem is much simpler than almost any problem that NASA or Defense has dealt with. But it is a very complicated political problem because the Mississippi River divides the Nation in half and runs all the way from up in Minnesota down to the Gulf of Mexico and involves innumerable political units of government.

But to apply the systems concept to analyze the problem and come up with a proposed solution would be a relatively simple one. What we would have to do is to analyze or compute all the factors that are polluting the Mississippi River, and then make an analysis of what it would cost to require compliance with certain water quality

standards.

In St. Louis, for example, the reason this is a tough political problem is that it doesn't make any sense for St. Louis to clean up her waste because all she would be doing is cleaning the water for someone downstream to use.

But I think applying the concept of systems analysis to the problem of the pollution of the Mississippi is not exceptionally difficult to do. But implementing a solution to the problem is very complicated because of the dozens and dozens of political units within various jurisdictions and various States involved. This kind of a problem has to be dealt with on a regional and national level.

The reason I raise that in respect to your statement about emphasis on State and local level solving these problems is that on this kind of a problem the State and local government cannot do much about it unless they are under compulsion to comply with some Federal standard. Then they might do it.

Mr. HARR. Mr. Chairman, I am not presuming, and it would be presumptuous for us to suggest from your vantage point that we have any hard answers on the political formulas or the scope in terms of political jurisdiction of the respective areas that will have to be involved in the solution of such problems.

It is certainly true, as you say, that identifiable ones among them are national in scope and are interrelated one to another.

I think the point that comes home to us from a supplier's point of view, from a private industry point of view, is as you turn from rather pure national problems such as defense and space efforts, in which lower echelons of our Federal structure are not involved at all, really, except as jurisdictions within which factories and plants are placed, you do bring into play to a degree not present before the question whether these lower levels of public authority can adapt themselves to this need effectively, either constructively and positively taking the initiative, or at least being able to accommodate to some broader scheme.

Senator NELSON. The reason these bills were introduced at all was that some people feel that this concept which has been utilized so successfully in the aerospace industry which you represent, in defense, in