SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER UTILIZATION, 1967 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1967 U.S. Senate, Manpower Utilization Of The Washington, D.C. The special subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, Senate Office Building; Senator Gaylord Nelson (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Nelson (presiding). Committee staff members present: William Spring, special counsel to the subcommittee. Senator Nelson. We will continue hearings today on S. 430, the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act of 1967, and S. 467, the National Commission on Public Management. This morning we will have testimony from ("senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania; Dr. Simon Ramo, vice chairman of the board, TRW, Inc.; and Dr. Robert Lekachman, chairman, Department of Economics, State University of New York. Mr. Kurt Bauer, executive director, Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, was unable to get a plane out of Milwaukee because of weather, so he will not be here this morning. We are very pleased to welcome the distinguished U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Hugh Scott, who is the author of S. 467, the National Commission on Public Management. We are pleased to have you here this morning, Senator Scott. STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH SCOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Scott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to be here and have the opportunity to discuss the approach embodied in S. 467. In the current issue of U.S. News & World Report, there is an article on the future, and there is a line in that article which says that the dreams often have a way of coming true. The point is made that in this past short decade alone, advances have occurred which greatly affect the present and will more greatly affect the future of all our citizens. The point is made that 10 years ago there were no jet commercial aircraft and virtually no activity in space, and that the use of computer systems was just beginning. Projections are made for the years 1970,1980,1990, 2000, with some fascinating prospects held forth for a long and better life in forthcoming eras. I believe the article ends with the statement that we were born too soon. The best is yet to come. It is in line with forward thinking, then, that I introduced S. 467. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and discuss a matter of vital concern to all Americans. Members of Congress have become increasingly aware that dynamic, innovative steps must be taken if this Nation is to continue its progress. The past decade has been a period of creative legislative action insofar as the establishment of policies and programs to solve our social and economic problems is concerned. Significant achievements have been registered in pollution control, {tlanned urban development and renewal, housing and education, pubic health, and the preservation of our natural resources. I might note, parenthetically, that in his state of the Commonwealth address yesterday, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Raymond P. Shafer, has taken note of many of these demands and has made very progressive and challenging recommendations to the legislature in the fields of urban transportation, public welfare, pollution, public health, and many other fields. I am glad to see that this Governor and, for that matter, most of our Governors, are becoming aware of the role of the States in this area. But it is the role of the Federal Government in partnership with local and State governments to which I address myself. In spite of this record of significant achievements that I noted a moment ago, the responsible authorities at all levels of government—local, State, and National—face a host of serious problems caused by a society which is characterized by its increasing complexity, rapid rate of growth, and high mobility. The magnitude of the problems leave no doubt that traditional solutions alone will not provide relief. The resources of all facets of this Nation must be marshaled to meet this challenge. This generation of Americans has lived through an era spanning the past 25 years that has brought numerous and deeply felt changes in our way of life. Atomic power, the space age, and various evolutionary changes in our defense capability have come about through the ingenuity, business acumen, and industry of all facets of society. As the result of the endeavors of private industry, the universities, and governmental components, a great deal of useful knowledge and an appreciation for new equipments and procedures have accrued. \Ye have seen new techniques of management analysis—often termed the "systems approach"—develojied, tested, and incorporated into the mainstream of industrial activity. While the systems approach most often is associated with the work performed bv the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, attention recently has been given to applying it to the problems in the public domain which I just enumerated. Although the United States is a wealthy nation—indeed, the mightiest in the history of the earth—its resources are not unlimited. The decisionmakers of the Nation must assess carefully where and how to expend these resources. No longer can we afford to expend 90 percent of all Federal research and development funds on defense, space, and nuclear energy developmental projects. Not only must the Federal Government increase its expenditures to combat pollution, urban sprawl, and natural resources dissipation, but the State and local governments must do likewise. What steps can be taken to achieve our ultimate goals? Two worthy efforts have been initiated within the Congress which can go far in helping to resolve the national and community problems in the nondefense, nonspace sector. You, Mr. Chairman, proposed a bill in October 1965, reintroduced as S. 430 last week, which delineates a course of action in precise terms: 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. A series of hearings were held last year which have been most useful in obtaining factual data and commentary from experienced participants in using the systems approach in various applications areas. A concurrent approach, which I believe to be complementary both in concept and ultimate ramifications, was introduced last August which called for the establishment of a National Commission on Public Management. I had the honor to introduce this measure, which was cosponsored by nine other Senators; a companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by the Honorable F. Bradford Morse of Massachusetts and more than 40 of his colleagues. 'With the convening of the 90th Congress, these bills were reintroduced by Representative Morse (H.R. 20); and myself (S. 467) with the same strong support. The mandate of the Commission, as I stated in my introductory speech on the floor of the Senate on January 18, will be to answer two fundamental questions: "Can the systems approach contribute to the solution of these problems? If so, how can it best do the job?" The Commission, to be composed of 13 outstanding representatives from business, labor, education, and Government, would have a fulltime staff. With a basic purpose of studying the ways in which modern systems analysis and management techniques may be utilized to overcome society's problems, the results would be m the form of specific recommendations for legislation, Federal executive action, and implementing action by State and local jurisdictions. Senator Nelson. If I may interrupt, Congressman Bradford Morse was before the committee yesterday. I understood him to say that last year your bill had on that Commission, Members of Congress, and this year your bill in this House does not. Am I incorrect? Senator Scott. I cannot speak with certainty about Congressman Morse's bill, but mine, both last year and now does not. Senator Nelson. He called my attention to that, and was urging that Members of Congress be on the Commission. I understand his version does include Members of Congress. Is there a policy reason for not including Members of Congress? Senator Scott. No, there is no policy reason, Mr. Chairman I would have no objection at all. Mr. Morse has told me of his willingness to accommodate me by combining the two approaches. I would, Mr. Haie. It will be doneSenator Xo^x. I want To ihank yon Terr mnch. It has been an excellent preseEtarioa. and it is very valuable for the record. I appreciate Tout taidnff this time. Mr. Habe. Thank von. Mr. Chairman. Senator Xelsox. Our next witness is Dr. E. R. Roberts, vice president. Aerojet-General Corp, El Monte. Calif. STATEMENT OFE.S. KOBERTS. VICE FBESIDEMT (DEVELOPMENT), AEBOJET-GEHEEAL COBP., EL MONTE CALIF. Mr. Roberts. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure, indeed, to testily before you on a subject which we consider to be very important. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen who have preceded me today have very aptly pointed out what the systems approach is and how it is used in solving problems associated with the design, development, implementation, and management of complex defense and space programs. There are, however, some fundamental differences between these problems and those of a social or socioeconomic nature. Therefore, a review of our experiences in this field might be appropriate. This is the third time that our company has had the opportunity of addressing you. In 1065 Dr. Culver, manager of our life sciences division, discussed the findings of our waste management study, and Mr. Lehan and Mr. Kuhn presented the results of our crime and delinquency study. Since then we have become engaged in two more studies of similar nature. Today, with vour permission, I would like to review our total experience from the standpoint of— (a) To what degree our talents and our methodology is translatable to solve socioeconomic problems. (b) What kind of difficulties we have experienced. (c) What contribution to the solution of these problems can be expected from the aerospace industry. And finally, to what time schedules could we perform? Let me start with the translatibility of our talents and methodology. We found that in all cases we studied, the system enigneer had no unusual difficulty understanding the problem, and with the help of systems analysts, statistician, computer scientists, and consulting experts from the particular socioeconomic field, he was capable of putting the methodology fully to use. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in all cases he could construct a system framework within which the problem could be logically attacked. I wish to emphasize that we had to construct a system framework, because as yet the various operations, which must contribute to the solution of the problem within a so-called socioeconomic system, do not operate in unison to accomplish a defined objective. Indeed, if we accept the simple definition of the svstem—that it is a set of operations designed to perform a specified objective—we must say we have very few, if any, socioeconomic systems operating today. We do have a number of socioeconomic problems, which may have grown to the proportion in which they exist today, exactly because of the lack of such systems. |