January 25, 1967
Page 1508
CREATION OF A SELECT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators BARTLETT, BIBLE, BOGGS, GRUENING, HARRIS, INOUYE, JAVITS, KENNEDY of New York, LONG of Missouri, MANSFIELD, MCGEE, MONDALE, MOSS, NELSON, PELL, PROXMIRE, RANDOLPH, SCOTT, and TYDINGS, I would like to introduce, for appropriate reference, a resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment.
Mr. President, this is identical to the resolution I introduced during the past session, Senate Resolution 298, on which the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations held a hearing on December 15, 1966.
The legislation I am proposing would provide a special forum for learning more about the problems which will be caused by advancing technology, and about the ways that science and technology can provide solutions to these problems. It is to be a study committee, with no jurisdiction over legislation. It would have no permanence, its life being limited to 3 years, at the end of which it would render a comprehensive report. It would not interfere with the work of the standing committees, but rather would provide a much-needed central source of information not now available to the Senate -- information which the standing committees do not have time to develop for themselves.
The particular merit and strength of this proposal, I believe, lies in the varied membership of such a committee. It would be composed of three members from each of the following standing Senate committees: Banking and Currency -- concerned with public and private housing and urban development, private investment, and financial aid to commerce and industry; Commerce -- with major interests in transportation, oceanography, weather science. and communication; Interior and Insular Affairs -- handling public land development, recreation, irrigation, and development of natural resources; Labor and Public Welfare -- primarily responsible for health, education, welfare, and employment capabilities; and Public Works -- concerned with the building of roads and public facilities, water and air pollution, economic development, waterpower, and other public improvements.
At least one member appointed from each committee must be a member of the minority party. It is most important that a forum of this nature have bipartisan support.
Thus, the standing committees most involved with legislation affecting human needs would have a direct participation in this comprehensive inquiry. These permanent committees in the past have been virtually inundated by legislative proposals. Little or no time has been available for them to collect or evaluate information on the future nature of our environment. What I am proposing is a means of alleviating the pressures of time on those committees to assure that needed information will not be overlooked.
But one of its most important features is that such a committee can provide a forum where our scientists and technologists can confront the politicians across the table, on a broad range of subjects affecting technology and human development. An opportunity of such scope as envisaged here does not exist today in the Senate. In the light of the pressing need for scientific information among our nonscientific committees and Members, I feel that this experiment is well worth trying.
We are living in a time of great scientific and technological revolution. It is perhaps the single most important happening in our world. We have learned more and invented more in the past five generations than in all previous years of humanity. The acceleration of this learning and invention in the next 50 years will be awesome.
Its impact on man's human development -- physical, psychological, and philosophical -- will be vast and critical.
At the same time, we in this country have developed a national prosperity and growth second to no other nation in the world, and our prospects for continued growth remain bright indeed.
More and more people are asking the question: Why can we not tap more of our massive scientific and technological effort and economic capability to help State and local governments meet the increasing physical and human needs of our urban and rural communities? Thus, science and technological change become very important ingredients in the area of intergovernmental relations. Man's technology is national, and international, but his environment is really a local matter. How we improve that environment in large part depends upon how well State and local governments plan and program their efforts to meet public needs. They are the first to be concerned with the problems that advanced technology will bring to their jurisdictions; they are the first to feel the pressures from the people to do something about these problems, because they are on the firing line of human activity.
Thus, as we explore the areas of scientific and technological achievement and expectations, and weigh the problems as well as the benefits, we should give serious thought to how we can better equip our Government administrators -- Federal, State, and local -- with a science orientation and a continuing source of information and know-how. This is a responsibility of not only our National Government but private industry as well.
Creative federalism, as we are beginning to understand it, involves the partnership between our several governments and with the private sector, to focus on the hard-core problems of the people and make our land a better place in which to live. Thus far in our intergovernmental inquiry, we have been talking about the management, manpower, and money needed to make our Federal system more creative and effective. This resolution brings in a new dimension -- an indispensable one, I believe.
The subcommittee hearing on Senate Resolution 298 on December 15 was one of the most interesting I have ever chaired. Witnesses were Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr. James A. Shannon, Assistant Surgeon General, National Institutes of Health; and Dr. Roger Revelle, Director, Center for Population Studies, Harvard University.
Leading off, Dr. Ripley said:
For a century or more we have been ignoring man's dependence upon his environment, with consequences that we cannot yet foresee but which will be of increasing importance to public policy.
Dr. Ripley called the proposed Select Committee study of these consequences an "excellent" idea.
Following Dr. Ripley, Dr. Shannon stated:
At the moment of our great victories over many infectious diseases, and in the midst of our full engagement with the major diseases and conditions of basic biologic origins, we are now confronted with the realization that the most formidable and pervasive challenges to the well-being of man lie in the hazards man has created for himself in the products, processes, and living patterns of his increasingly technological world.... As to environmental hazards:
Accidents now rate as the major cause of death from the first year of life to age 36. The increasing dispersal of toxic chemicals and other substances of largely unassessed biological effect in air, water, and food engenders mounting public apprehension.
The expanding use and diversity of sources of ionizing radiation threatens widespread biological damage.
The complexity of industrial development and activity, and urban living with consequent growth in noise, strain, speed, tension, and social instability, pose grave psychogenic potentials.
These and similar environmental hazards have been brought about by the transition of man from an environment dominated by nature to an environment dominated by technology. They will long present a major potential for harm to individual and community well-being.
Dr. Shannon strongly endorsed the proposal for the select committee.
The third witness, Dr Revelle, also supported the need for a Senate study in this central area. He said:
We live in a world of such rapid change, and are beset by so many perils and instabilities, largely created by our own actions, that thoughtful men everywhere on earth today are trying to pierce the curtain of the future with an anxiety and a concentrated intensity that did not exist in past generations. Attempts to plan the future, at least for a few years ahead, are characteristic of most modern governments, and a new science of technical forecasting is rapidly developing in our universities and research institutions. But the rhythms and traditions of politics in the United States are such that our governmental agencies have had very little interest in. or capability for, making long-range plans based on valid technological forecasts. Hence, it is of the utmost importance that the Congress should take a pioneering lead in this direction.
Mr. President, the need for the politician and the government administrator at every level to become educated and oriented in the directions of science and technology has never been greater than it is today. What are some of the environmental issues that lie ahead?
The world's population is increasing at levels higher than were predicted 15 years ago. By the year 2000 we will have 300 million people in this country, 85 percent of whom will be crowded into urban and metropolitan areas.
Our industrial and commercial output will be over the trillion-dollar mark.
We will need 30 million new dwelling units in 10 years, and schools for an additional 10 million children, as well as a half-million new teachers.
By 1980, urban use of water will increase 70 percent, and industrial use will more than double, to a total requirement of around 450 billion gallons. The additional water supply will have to come from sources not now available because of pollution.
By 1980, we expect over 250 million tons of pollutants in the air we breathe in our cities.
We will need transportation facilities for the daily movement of 250 million people.
The problem of eliminating solid wastes of all types will be gargantuan. What does this trend toward increased population, industrial activity, and urbanization mean in terms of energy needs, problems of water and air pollution, transportation problems, poverty, physical deterioration of our cities, mental and physical health problems, and education needs?
What factors will affect population distribution and profile, and how should public investment in public works be related?
What will be the character of urban areas in the year 2000 and how will public and private planning and investment in public facilities affect this character?
What technological advances will be necessary to maintain the character of the urban area consistent with a high standard of environment?
How will predictable technological change affect the cost and availability of public works and facilities?
What will be the relative values and impact on urban development of varying modes of transportation affected by technological change?
How will technological change affect housing, and what will be the relationship of such effect on water resources and parks and open spaces?
What do we know about the future health and psychological makeup of urban man, and what can we predict in the light of our future technological impact, so that we can plan our cities to reduce crime, mental anguish, and despair?
What technological potential is available to our Federal and State governments to help them conserve and utilize their natural resources for greater economic advantage? I am thinking particularly of the new opportunities developing in exploration, the tremendous energy potential of oil shale in the West, and the abundance of Government lands that can be developed for recreational purposes. These are some of the questions which the select committee could explore with benefit to the Senate and to the Congress.
Mr. President, the response to the proposal to create a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment has been most encouraging. Many of the letters I have received demonstrate the deepening concern of private citizens as well as professional scientists over the impact of modern science and technology on our society. I would like to have excerpts of some of these letters reprinted in the RECORD at this point.
From Leonard E. Schwartz, Consultant, Public Policy, Science and Technology for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris:
I was delighted to learn of your proposal to create a select subcommittee on technology and human environment. Your proposal comes at a most appropriate moment when dissatisfaction with urban problems and the failure to apply science and technology towards their resolution are becoming increasingly pronounced.... Much more needs to be done. I am gratified to learn of your initiative in the States as technology and human environment are the concern of inhabitants in all nations. Urban planning could use technology for the mutual enrichment of the environment of all participating nations.
From Everett P. Partridge, vice president of the Calgon Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa.: The creation of the Select Committee would be desirable if it led to:
1. The stimulation of a general continuing debate throughout our society concerning the entire environment, comparable to the flood of discussion induced during the past decade concerning the management of our water resources.
2. The encouragement of private as well as public enterprise in experimental development of new modes of relating socially productive effort to individually rewarding living.
The philosophy of science is to find out what is so by testing an initial belief, then, if necessary, modifying the belief successively to get a better and better fit with the way things actually are. This is a slow process, unacceptably slow to the enthusiast, but it is the way we have reached our present stage of control over energy and materials. From here on, in my opinion, we need eager, constructive collaboration of the social scientists with the physical scientists, the life scientists and the engineers to find out what really is so in our endless search for the good life.
G. Harry Stine of New Canaan, Conn., wrote me:
I have read with great interest an article in the December 16th issue of the New York Times regarding the testimony of Dr. Roger Revelle before your subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee. Of even greater interest to me was the part of the article describing your proposed select committee of technology and human environment .... It is most certainly time that we started serious consideration of future technology in order to assure that it remains a tool to assist human beings rather than a master to whom we are beholden.
From John Voss, executive officer of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, I received the following comments:
I have read your resolution for the creation of a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment in the Congressional Record of August 25th with great interest. It is a far-sighted and imaginative proposal.
From Margaret E. Kuhn, associate coordinator for the Renewal and Extension of the Church's Ministry in the World of the United Presbyterian Church:
The recent New York Times news release of the testimony of Dr. Revelle before the Senate Subcommittee which you have chaired was of special interest to our office. A task group of national staff members representing agencies of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. will propose to the 179th General Assembly of our denomination next May the appointment of a special study committee to examine the role and status of women in our church and in society.
Our staff group has recognized that the church has lagged in its recognition of woman's role in ecclesiastical affairs, and is also aware of the many changes which an expanding technology has brought to the lives of women. . . . The men and women in this staff group greatly appreciate your leadership in seeking to establish a select committee in the Senate to study problems brought about by technological change. We are keenly eager for groups in the United States to assess the social cost of technological development.
Finally, John E. Weinrich, professor of economics at the State University of New York at Binghamton, wrote me:
I must comment favorably upon the work contemplated by your committee on technological change. Economists have long understood how critical research and development and innovation are to growth. Despite the crucial force that technological change has played in our advancing economy and its importance to the world economies, we are still very much puzzled and ignorant about it. ... I would expect that your committee and the support that it gives to engaging scholarly interest in the topic will cast additional light on the causes of innovation and the spurs to diffusion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment be printed in the RECORD at this point.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution remain at the desk for 10 days for additional cosponsors, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the RECORD at this point.