CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
January 29, 1969
Page 2151
SENATE RESOLUTION 78 -- RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A SELECT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators BAKER, BIBLE, BOGGS, HARRIS, INOUYE, JAVITS, KENNEDY, MCGEE, MONDALE, MOSS, NELSON, PELL,
RANDOLPH, TYDINGS, and SCOTT, I submit, for appropriate reference, a resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment which would provide a special forum for inquiry into the broad impact of science and technology on man's thinking, health, work, living habits, and his individuality over the next 50 years.
This resolution is an expanded version of Senate Resolution 68, which I introduced in the 90th Congress, and which was reported favorably by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations to the Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. President, we are engaged in a scientific and technological revolution which might be described as the single most important happening in the world today.
We have learned more and invented more in the past five generations than in all the previous years going back to the beginning of man. But the prospective acceleration of this learning and invention during the next 50 years defies the imagination.
The vital questions are: Where is the technological revolution leading us? Will man develop the understanding and capability to make it work for a better human environment? Or as William Barrett suggests in his book "Irrational Man," will the human become "subordinated to the machine, even in the traditionally human business of politics"?
As legislators in a democratic society based on belief in maximum individual freedom and human development, we have a responsibility to study the total impact of scientific and technological change on that freedom and development in the years ahead.
We must learn the benefits of the new technology and how they can be applied to public and private planning and investment in resource development, housing, transportation, power supply, education, communication, health, employment, and other aspects of area and community growth.
At the same time, we need to assess the undesirable consequences of technological change, and devise an early-warning system for preventing serious injury to man and his environment.
We must evaluate our governmental institutions at the Federal, State, and local levels, to determine their capability to adapt to this new age of technology.
And we must analyze the impact of technological change on the minds and the value systems of our citizens, to better develop a policy of education designed to encourage them to understand and live within the bounds of a rapidly changing environment.
This changing environment, particularly in the urban areas, will put extraordinary pressures and demands upon our State and local governments in planning, facilities, and services. As a response to these public needs, it is essential that we develop a controlled technological system, capable of producing benefits by design rather than by accident.
To inquire into the broad impact and implications of science and technology on man and his environment, and to plan now for the future would be the responsibility of the select committee I propose today.
Mr. President, this would be a study committee where scientists and legislators can gather to discuss the gravity of environmental problems to be faced and what science and technology can do to solve these problems in cooperation with the Federal, State, and local governments.
It is not the intent of this resolution to establish a committee which would infringe in any way upon the existing substantive jurisdictions of the standing committees. The select committee would have no jurisdiction over legislation or powers of legislative oversight. Rather, its purpose would be to provide a source of information and analysis not now available in the Senate -- necessary information cutting across the environmental spectrum, and which the standing committees do not have the time or the mandate to develop for themselves.
Standing committees are increasingly burdened with legislative proposals within their special fields, together with the responsibility of overseeing the effectiveness of on-going programs and the expenditure of funds. The staffs of these committees are pressed with the necessary duties of developing legislative hearings, drafting legislation, analyzing proposals, and investigating facts related to their committee functions, and thus have little opportunity to explore the broader issues of science and technology.
The hearings developed by the select committee, as proposed here, would provide individual Senators, their legislative assistants, and committee staff members, with a wealth of factual and analytical material which could be used in developing new ideas for legislative and executive policy, and in assessing the problems ahead as they may affect their States, localities, and functional interests.
The real strength of the proposed select committee lies in the composition of its membership. It would be composed of three members from each of the standing committees most concerned with the individual and his environment:
Agriculture -- Responsible for agricultural and forestry research, production and marketing, soil conservation, agricultural education, extension of farm credit and security, and improvement of rural areas;
Banking and Currency -- With responsibility in housing, urban development, private investment, and financial aid to commerce and industry;
Commerce -- With major interests in transportation, oceanography, weather science, marine resources, communication, and economic development;
Interior and Insular Affairs -- Handing public land development, recreation, irrigation, conservation, and development of natural resources;
Labor and Public Welfare -- Primarily responsible for health, education, welfare, and employment opportunities;
Public Works -- Concerned with building roads and public facilities, water and air pollution, economic development, waterpower, and other public improvements, and
Government Operations -- Which has general oversight responsibility on the efficiency and economy of the Federal Government and has several subcommittees, including its Subcommittee on Research, which have been directly involved in investigations of environmental matters.
Thus, the standing committees most involved with legislation affecting human needs would participate directly in determining those areas for inquiry which they felt were most relevant to their needs. It would be in a position to guide the select committee's efforts along lines which would assure maximum benefit to the standing committees. Further, the close relationship which would be developed between the select committee staff and the staffs of the represented standing committees would provide an invaluable interchange of information and expertise.
In addition to its service to the Senate, the select committee would, through its hearings and reports, make an immeasurable contribution to Congress as a whole, to the executive branch, to academic institutions and scholars, to professional organizations, to State and local governments and to the public at large.
It should be emphasized that the proposed select committee would not have permanent status. Its authority is specifically terminated January 31, 1972. During its tenure, it is expected to issue interim reports and hold numerous hearings to which will be invited the Nation's most respected and experienced scholars in the physical and social sciences, in the application of technology to human needs, and in the fields of government -- Federal, State and local. Before its termination, it must render a final report, which could provide a meaningful base for the development of national goals for the environmental betterment of man, not only in America, but throughout the world.
Mr. President, the challenge we face concerning technology and the human environment warrants that this select committee be established as soon as possible to come to grips with it, and inform the Congress of its magnitude and effect on the lives of our citizens.
As a background for the understanding and development of this legislation in the 91st Congress, I feel that it would be helpful for my colleagues to have for their information a special staff report prepared for the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations highlighting some of the testimony and materials obtained during the course of our hearings on Senate Resolution 68 in the 90th Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that this report be printed at this point in the RECORD, and following the report, the text of the Senate resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution will be received and appropriately referred, and without objection, the resolution and report will be printed in the RECORD.
The resolution (S. Res. 78) was referred to the Committee on Government Operations, as follows:
S. RES. 78
Whereas man's ability to alter and control his environment through the use of new technology is increasing at an accelerating rate, bringing new problems as well as benefits; and
Whereas in the next fifty years, technological change will require a greater use of and have a substantial impact on the natural and human resources of the Nation; and
Whereas it is essential to the continued welfare of the United States that appropriate public and private planning and investment in resource development, transportation, housing, education, communications, community development, water resources (including oceanography), power supplies, technology, automation, and public works to be made to improve the quality of man's environment; and
Whereas the Senate, in order to evaluate properly the probable needs for public and private investment in these areas over the next fifty years, should have recommendations and information relative to needed programs and their character, extent, and timing: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That (a) there is hereby established a select committee of the Senate to be known as the Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") consisting of twenty-one Members of the Senate to be designated by the President of the Senate, as follows:
(1) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Agriculture;
(2) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Banking and Currency,
(3) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Commerce;
(4) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Government Operations;
(5) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs;
(6) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare; and
(7) three from among Senators who are members of the Committee on Public Works. At least one such Senator appointed from each such committee shall be a member of the minority party.
The Committee shall select by majority vote of the members thereof a chairman from among such members.
(b) Vacancies in the membership of the Committee shall not affect the authority of the remaining members to execute the functions of the Committee. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments are made.
(c) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum thereof for the transaction of business, except that the Committee may fix a lesser number as a quorum for the purpose of taking sworn testimony. The Committee shall adopt rules of procedure not inconsistent with the rules of the Senate governing standing committees of the Senate.
(d) No legislative measure shall be referred to the Committee, and it shall have no authority to report any such measure to the Senate.
(e) The Committee shall cease to exist on January 31, 1973.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be the duty of the Committee to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation of
(1) the character and extent of technological changes that probably will occur and which should be promoted within the next fifty years and their effect on population, communities, and industry, including but not limited to the need for public and private planning and investment in housing, water resources (including oceanography),education, automation affecting interstate
commerce, communications, transportation, power supplies, welfare, and other community services and facilities; and
(2) policies that would encourage the maximum private investment in means of improving the human environment, for the purpose of making the recommendations of the Committee and the results of such study and investigation available to the Senate and the committees thereof in considering policies for public investment and encouraging private investment.
(b) On or before January 31, 1973, the Committee shall submit to the Senate for reference to the appropriate standing committees a final report of its study and investigation together with its recommendations. The Committee may make such interim reports to the appropriate standing committees of the Senate prior to such final report as it deems advisable.
SEC. 3. (a) For the purposes of this resolution, the Committee is authorized to (1) make such expenditures; (2) hold such hearings; (3) sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjournment periods of the Senate; (4) require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents; (5) administer such oaths; (6) take such testimony orally or by deposition; and (7) employ and fix the compensation of such technical, clerical, and other assistants and consultants as it deems advisable, except that the compensation so fixed shall not exceed the compensation prescribed under chapter 51 and sub-chapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, for comparable duties.
(b) Upon request made by the members of the Committee selected from the minority party, the Committee shall appoint one assistant or consultant designated by such members. No assistant Or consultant appointed by the Committee may receive compensation at an annual gross rate which exceeds by more than $2,400 the annual gross rate of compensation of any individual so designated by the minority members of the Committee.
(c) With the prior consent of the department or agency concerned, the Committee may (1) utilize the services, information, and facilities of the General Accounting Office or any department or agency in the executive branch of the Government, and (2) employ on a reimbursable basis or otherwise the services of such personnel of any such department or agency as it deems advisable. With the consent of any other committee of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, the Committee may utilize the facilities and the services of the staff of such other committee or subcommittee whenever the chairman of the Committee determines that such action is necessary and appropriate.
(d) Subpoenas may be issued by the Committee over the signature of the chairman Or any other member designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or member. The chairman Of the Committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses.
SEC. 4. The expenses of the Committee under this resolution, which shall not exceed - - shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the Committee.
The report presented by Mr. MUSKIE is as follows:
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: A STAFF MEMORANDUM PREPARED FOR THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
BACKGROUND
A resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment
was first introduced by Senator Edmund S. Muskie in the 89th Congress, 2nd Session as S. Res. 298. It was reintroduced by Senator Muskie on January 25, 1967, as S. Res. 68, with 21 cosponsors.
The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, to which the legislation was referred, held. seven days of hearings during which the Subcommittee obtained testimony and statements from some thirty witnesses representing a wide scope of scientific, technological, and political experience and concern in the area of human environment. There was unanimous support for the general purpose of the resolution.
On June 28, 1967, the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations reported S. Res. 68 favorably, with amendments, to the full Committee for appropriate action. Although on the full Committee agenda, consideration of the legislation was not completed during the 90th Congress.
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION 68
The resolution expressed the Senate's concern over man's ability to alter and control his environment in the light of accelerating technological change during the next 50 years. It considered it essential to the continued welfare of the United States that we understand the impact of this change on our natural and human resources so that we can anticipate our needs and problems, and properly develop policies for public and private planning that will improve the quality of man's environment.
Under the resolution, the Select Committee was authorized to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation of (1) the character and extent of technological changes that probably will occur and which should be promoted within the next fifty years and their effect on population, communities, and industry; and (2) policies which would encourage the maximum private investment in means of improving the human environment.
The resolution further required that on or before January 31, 1971, the Select Committee should submit to the Senate for reference to appropriate legislative committees a final report of its study and investigation together with its recommendations, and that it should make such interim reports to the appropriate legislative committees of the Senate prior to such final report as it deemed advisable.
The Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment would be composed of eighteen members of the Senate to be designated by the President of the Senate, with three members each from the following standing committees: Agriculture; Banking and Currency; Commerce Interior and Insular Affairs Labor and Public Welfare; and Public Works. At least one Senator appointed from each such committee would be a member of the minority party.
The Subcommittee staff recommends, in the light of discussions held during full committee consideration, that the Committee on Government Operations be added to the list of committees represented. Its general oversight function into the efficiency and economy of Federal government operations has brought it directly into areas of research and development, Federal assistance to States, localities, and individuals, and Federal organization and management policies having a substantial effect on environmental development.
For carrying out the purposes set forth in the resolution, the select committee would be empowered to make expenditures, hold hearings, require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, administer oaths, take testimony orally or by deposition, and employ such technical clerical and other assistance as it deemed advisable.
In addition, it would be permitted to utilize the services and facilities of the General Accounting Office, of agencies of the Executive Branch, and of the staff of other committees and subcommittees of the Senate. It is further provided that the rules of procedure of such committee shall not be inconsistent with the rules of the Senate governing its standing committees.
The resolution specifically provides that no legislative measure shall be referred to the select committee and that it shall have no authority to report any such measure to the Senate.
Finally, the proposed select committee would be temporary in nature, its authority terminating under S. Res. 68 on January 31, 1971. This termination date would, of course, have to be updated depending on a final action on the legislation. However, it was the Subcommittee's intention that the Select Committee should have at least a three-year period in which to make its study and demonstrate its importance to the Senate.
In fact, there was discussion among Subcommittee members that during this three-year period, the House of Representatives might express a desire to expand the Select Committee into a Joint Committee on Technology and the Human Environment.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 298
As previously mentioned, hearings on S. Res. 298 were held on December 15, 1966. Witnesses at these hearings were S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Dr. James Shannon, Director, National Institutes of Health; and Professor Roger Revelle, Director, Center for Population Studies, Harvard University.
Dr. Ripley suggested that the interaction of technology and the human environment may become "the sovereign issue of our time", but he warned that too often we see advancing technology in only one dimension -- "that in which change is most apparent, as in increasing speed, increasing the output of land, or increasing the supply of energy." He saw the Select Committee as an "excellent" mechanism for studying the "other dimensions and countless effects" of technological change, and for bringing together a variety of disparate fields of scientific and technological information with "man as a central factor."
Dr. Shannon was more concerned with the increasing variety of hazards developing from advancing technology.
"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."
He saw these problems "among the most urgent and formidable of contemporary issues," but like Dr. Ripley, he was also concerned that too often the Congress and the Executive Branch have approached them on an individual basis. "The holistic approach has been missing", he said, "and the result has been widespread fragmentation of responsibilities. This way of doing business has diffused the Federal discharge of responsibilities; it has tended to confuse State and local relationships to these Federal efforts. For this reason he was "inclined favorably" to the comprehensive concept of the proposed Select Committee.
Professor Revelle agreed with Dr. Shannon that "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 are trying to pierce the curtain of the future with an anxiety and intensity that did not exist in past generations."
"Attempts to plan the future, at least a few years ahead, are characteristic of most modem governments", he said, "and a new science of technical forecasting is rapidly developing in our universities and research institutions" However, he went on to observe that "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," and thus "it is of the utmost importance that the Congress should take a pioneering lead in this direction."
"Very few of the great problems of the real world," said the renowned Harvard scientist, "can be solved within one discipline. They have to be solved by many disciplines working together." He saw the proposed Select Committee as a means of bringing the knowledge of these disciplines into a meaningful balance, and providing the Government with a forum for thinking about them "over longer time horizons".
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 68
Hearings on S. Res. 68 were conducted in three phases: eminent scientists, educators and government scholars; spokesmen from Federal agencies involved in environmental development; and interested Senators. On behalf of the Committee, Senator Muskie invited the chairmen and ranking minority members of the various standing committees which would be represented on the Select Committee (or other members as designated by them) to participate with the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations in developing the record.
First phase:
The first phase of the hearings on S. Res. 68 was held on March 15, 16 and 20, 1967. Those testifying were: Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Special Advisor to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology; Dr. Joseph L. Fisher, President, Resources for the Future, Inc.; Dr. Detley Bronk, President, Rockefeller University; Dr. Howard R. Bowen, President, University of Iowa; Dr. Harrison Brown, Head of Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute of Technology; Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission; Mr. Jack T. Conway, Executive Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO; Dr. Donald N. Michael, Professor of Psychology, the University of Michigan; and Dr. John T. Wilson, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation.
Each of these witnesses indicated a general endorsement of the resolution, and felt that such a Select Committee would be of assistance to the Senate, and to academic, governmental, professional and other institutions seeking to forecast the future impact of technological development on man.
Dr. Hornig saw the interaction between advancing technology and society as a problem rooted in history. "What is new," he said, "is the scale, the variety, and the speed of change, both in man's physical and his social environment."
Dr. Hornig said that we have "not mastered the problems of production," and unless we sustain or increase the growth of our per capital gross national product, and improve the distribution of that product, we will be unable to find the resources necessary to: maintain security; overcome poverty at home; improve our environment; and reduce the gap between rich and poor countries in the world.
But this is a "deadly serious game of tightrope walking," he said. As we "sustain rapid economic growth," we must also attempt to "foresee the consequences of major changes to protect ourselves from unintended secondary efforts." He cited pesticides as a well known example, along with the congestion of ground transportation around a heavily used airport, and the noise from aircraft. Dr. Hornig said that "technological change and its consequences must be incorporated in our planning, in our budget -- personal, corporate and governmental." He said that better means must be found for harmonizing continued technological development, rising incomes, rapid expansion of urban population, with the most appropriate long-term use of our environment.
"This is why I think it is very important that there be in Congress a forum for discussing the overall problems, and not just the problems as defined by the structures of Congressional committees," he said.
Dr. Detley Bronk, drawing from his distinguished career as a scientist and educator, also emphasized the importance of an agency in Congress to consider the "interrelatedness" of the technical and political forces which determine the nature of our rapidly changing environment.
Commenting on Senator Muskie's opening remarks, he told the Subcommittee: "Science is on every ballot. Science and Technology are obvious or hidden in every bill. They sit in the Governor's chair every day. And so when you say, 'each day we are asked to make decisions on legislation which may have profound implications in the years ahead', I say, I agree completely. And you go on to say a significant thing: 'our environment cannot be neatly divided into simple components'. Those two statements, I think, are complete justification for a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment that will foster a recognition of the interrelationship of the many bills that will have to be considered in the years ahead" .
The testimony of three witnesses, Drs. Fisher, Brown and Seaborg, joined by the written statement of Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, dramatized the tremendous benefits, but yet complications, of a "high-energy civilization", predicted for the year 2000 and beyond. But that time, with our present rate of development, more than half our electrical power capacity could come from nuclear energy, notably the "breeder reactor" and even more advanced energy techniques, but there would also be an expansion in conventional power sources as well.
The impact of trillions of kilowatt hours of low-cost electricity spread across our nation by massive interconnecting power grids could "revolutionize" nearly every facet of American living and economic development, according to these witnesses. These witnesses said that Congress must not continue to think of the development of electrical energy as a function apart from the total development of the individual and his environment, and that it should be the role of a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment to put this total impact into a meaningful perspective in line with national goals.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Seaborg see this "high energy civilization" coming on us before we may be ready to cope with it. They picture "self-contained cities" where we could learn to live in a closed system much like that in which the astronaut finds himself in space. The use of large amounts of cheap energy would allow us to desalt sea and brackish water economically, recycle water from sewage and industrial waste, provide clean water for agriculture and city use, and develop dynamic new methods for extracting raw materials.
Dr. Seaborg described the industrial complex of the future, powered by atomic energy and run by automation:
"Into [some] plants would pour all sorts of scrap from the outside world. This scrap would pass X-ray fluorescence analysis and automated examinations. On the basis of these, its materials would be broken down, sorted, electrolytically or electromagnetically separated, and the end products -- essentially new raw materials -- routed out to other plants in the complex to be reused. At the same time these other plants would also be receiving raw materials from other sources.
"What would these plants be producing? They would be taking in ilmenite, bauxite and clay and turning out aluminum. They would be using large amounts of hydrocarbons (no longer necessary as fuels) and in huge chlorination works producing solvents, insecticides, plastics and many other materials for industry and agriculture. They would be producing great supplies of nitrogen and phosphate for much-needed fertilizers. They would be making steel by hydrogen reduction, and in large electric furnaces would be turning phosphates, silica, lime and salts into glass, ceramics and ceramic fiber-reinforced alloys. Through electrolysis these plants would also produce caustic soda and magnesium -- the latter possibly having been extracted from seawater desalted by the dual purpose nuclear reactor.
"In addition to these, other plants might be associated with the reactor facilities which would allow the production of many essentially new materials -- a variety of polymers, special high-temperature metals, new alloys and perhaps large quantities of trans-uranium elements. Some of these trans-uranium elements would provide new nuclear fuel -- fuel which would operate equipment ranging from reactors in space to artificial hearts implanted in men.
"Underground arteries, conveyor belts and pipelines would replace mazes of roads and rails. And no forests of chimneys would fill the horizon, nor would any harmful pollution fill the atmosphere."
We have not established within the United States, said Dr. Harrison Brown, "institutions where people are charged with the responsibility of really thinking about these problems.... We experiment with almost everything in the way of industrial growth, in the way of military equipment, in the way of large energy plants, but as the single most important machine -- the city, a very complex machine -- we do almost no experimentation at all."
Dr. Brown suggests, for consideration by the Select Committee, that a scientific, experimental city be built to work on the problems of pollution, waste disposal, transportation, residential planning, and efficiency in size and comfort. "We can transform our own country . . we have the technological knowledge ... if we but agreed that we are going to do it," he said, "but the problem is to agree that we are going to do it."
Nuclear energy, and all that one can see flowing from it, constitutes a massive "technological fix" which Dr. Weinberg sees as reducing immensely complicated social questions, with the combined imagination and creativity of social and technological engineers. But he says "we have few institutions that can develop coherent social doctrines and technical components -- that are at the root of modern social problems. He suggested that a Select Committee could well give serious attention to recommending National Socio-Technological Institutes which would be laboratories concerned with the city, with crime, race relations, pollution, housing, and other leading environmental problems.
Drs. Bowen and Michael also expressed a concern that we were not developing fast enough the social and political technology to catch up with the "hardware technology.” Dr. Bowen testified:
"One of our difficulties is that we approach the problems piecemeal, without proper regard for their interrelatedness. In the intellectual arena, we divide our learning into narrow disciplines and sub-specialties with inadequate machinery for multi-disciplinary communication and cooperation. In the political arena, at any level of government, we divide our efforts among specialized agencies and committees which consider problems in specific areas without due regard for broad environmental and human objectives, often these agencies work at cross purposes. And the multiplicity of units of government, especially at the local level, defeats many of our best efforts because we deal with problems for geographic areas that are not commensurate with the scope of the problems. Many solutions are defeated also by vested interests or by the sheer inertia of tradition.
"When we do gear up to solve a problem, resolutely and appropriately, as we did in the case of nuclear energy or space exploration, we can accomplish marvels. But there is no reason to doubt that problems like housing or transportation or development of marine resources would be amenable to solution by the techniques that have been so spectacularly successful with nuclear energy and space exploration – if resolute decisions backed up by adequate resources were made."
He suggested the Select Committee consider a system of national accounting to measure the magnitude of social benefits and social costs involved in national programs. He said that our present system for measuring the gross national product, national income, and related magnitudes, although highly useful, is nevertheless based on values expressed in the market place. He felt that this system of accounting has "many limitations as a measure of our performance in terms of human welfare."
Second, he proposed for such committee consideration the development of a "systems analysis" approach for use by Federal, State, and local governments in meeting their human and environmental problems. Such an approach would be similar to that which has been so successful in the development of weaponry and space technology. "We should be seeking a transport system in which all the various means of transportation would play their part as a coordinated system," he said. "The systems approach could be applicable to such areas as community development, juvenile delinquency, abatement of pollution, even race relations."
Finally, he sees the great need for a continuing national body to recommend national goals, evaluate national performance, observe social changes, forecast possible trends, and suggest policy alternatives for democratic decision-making. "I would be pleased indeed if a Select Committee of the Senate were established for this purpose," he said.
Dr. Michael, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, and Director of the Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, told the Subcommittee that the social sciences and engineering are "data poor" with respect to forecasting the future impact of technology on human environment, just as the physical technologists are "much poorer comparatively when it comes to predicting the social consequences of their own hardware." He suggested that a Select Committee, as proposed in S. Res. 68, could make a contribution by recommending the kind of data to be collected systematically in the years ahead, and to "raise questions about value preferences."
What we need, said Dr. Michael, is a far greater development of the "social engineering" as compared with the "hardware technology", to influence the nature of plans for such major tasks as urban development, water supply, mass transit or educational systems. Social engineers are in short supply today he said. Thus a vital goal should be to develop an educational system to prepare the social planners and administrators for effective use of the physical technology which is so rapidly developing.
"To live in tomorrow's world," said Dr. Michael, "requires a kind of education – for wisdom, for compassion, for insight, for empathy, for appreciating the difference between manipulating people and being open and trusting."
Mr. Jack Conway, speaking from his extensive experience in the area of poverty, manpower development and training and economic development, expressed a particular concern over the impact of technological change on the working man, and his community life. "Today's problems, while important to us, are going to be minor compared to tomorrow's problems unless we can anticipate what they are."
He suggested we have reached a point where we have got to think about maintaining income for those who can't work. We have to know what kind and what amount of jobs are going to exist in the future. We have to think about a new structure of educational systems and the increasing length of time that people may attend school free of charge. We have to think more about how individuals can make productive use of leisure time. Finally, we have to develop a better method of comprehensive community planning.
"It is difficult, almost impossible, to get out ahead and treat in an orderly fashion the mass of information available.... the creation of this Select Committee, which would provide this kind of service to the (substantive) committee would be a major step forward," he said.
The second phase
The second phase of the hearings on S. Res. 68 took place on April 5 and 6, 1967, and involved the testimony of Federal government officials. They were Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Dr. George W. Irving, Jr., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture; Honorable Lee C. White, Chairman, Federal Power Commission; Honorable Alan S. Boyd, Secretary of Transportation, accompanied by Richard Copaken, White House fellow; Honorable Philip R. Lee, Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, accompanied by William Stewart, Surgeon General, Public Health Service; and Honorable Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Assistant Secretary for Manpower, Department of Labor.
Although careful to suggest that the creation of a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment was primarily a Senate matter, the witnesses generally supported the objectives of the resolution.
Secretary Udall was initially concerned with the "great damage" already done to man's environment by what he termed the "unbalance of science and technology." "We urgently need more basic facts," he said, "we need to be able to predict consequences – we need an early warning system for environmental protection."
He cited examples of "single-minded" industrial progress where we failed to anticipate the side effects: home detergents that polluted our streams, the high-powered automobile polluting the air, the accumulation of solid wastes, acid water drainage from mines, pesticide residues, and thermal pollution of our rivers from electric power production.
He said the 120,000 ton Torrey Canyon which spilled its cargo of oil along the beaches of Southern England, should be a warning to everyone.
"The thing they are trying to do is build a larger and larger tanker, and of course this is a technological advance that is welcome. It enables us to do our transportation cheaper, but we haven't asked ourselves the other questions – our preparedness in the event an accident occurs. I can tell you there was a lot of scurrying around in this city when the disaster occurred – how we could help the British rescue themselves. We weren't ready, and they weren't ready. There was no answer ready."
The Secretary stated that the resolution to establish a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment was both "welcome and timely" because it emphasizes the "total environment approach" to identifying problems and seeking solutions.
According to Dr. Irving, of the Agricultural Research Service, the major technological concern in his field – as with the Secretary of the Interior – is environmental pollution – from the air, water, radioactive materials, industrial wastes, mine drainage, pesticides and trash. But USDA research is doubling its efforts to do something about these things, he said.
To meet pest infestation, USDA is involved in studies of "insect sterility and diseases, attractants, predators and parasites of insects and weeds, and the use of sound, light and radiant energy," to replace harmful chemicals.
It is also developing ways of controlling saline soils and water, the conversion of hard-to- dispose-of agricultural waste products, the elimination of animal diseases.
But a most significant part of the Irving testimony centered on a vital issue that recurred a number of times throughout our hearings, that of the practicalities of reversing the population trend from the rural areas to the cities, where it is estimated that by the year 2000, 90 percent of our population will be crowded into 9 percent of our land space.
Senator Mundt put the problem in perspective:
"It seems to me a rather shortsighted policy to concentrate solely on trying to find methods of solving the problems in the big cities without doing something to keep the problems from continually getting larger, if it is possible ...
"If the influx of population from rural America keeps pouring in – that's where the economic opportunity is, the educational opportunities, cultural opportunities – progress toward a solution doesn't seem to make such headway. You are walking on a treadmill . . .
“ ... I wonder . . . what steps might be taken by the Federal Government or State governments, or by the local governments in order to diminish the acceleration of this trend from the country and smaller communities to our larger American cities ... I think this is a genuine problem. Were it not so, we would not be talking about these multibillion-dollar appropriations for the problems of the big city . . ."
Representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare gave specific endorsement to the creation of the Select Committee relative to their own needs for the coordination of information in the environmental field:
Philip R. Lee stated:
"... we need . . in the Congress, a committee which can be oriented to public policy problems and possibilities of the near and far future. So often now, decisions are based on today's needs, in reference to an immediate legislative problem, frequently considered to be narrow in scope, even though it may have implications in other fields far into the future .... We need a committee which can be so constructed as to look at public policy questions as broadly as possible, unlimited by traditional jurisdictions; we need a committee which can serve as a central point where all the diverse information in a host of interrelated fields can be collected, analyzed, integrated, and made available in logical form to the Government and the public. Today there is no such focal point in either the Congress or the Executive Branch, and I should add that one effort on the part of the Executive Branch, the Federal Council for Science and Technology, although it serves some useful purposes, clearly is not constituted to achieve this kind of broad objective."
Dr. William Stewart stated:
". . . It would be of value to us (the medical world) to have the benefit of the foresight and guidance of a committee whose task it was to study the changing impact of technology on the environment, to forewarn us of problems just over the horizon and to counsel us in reaching the decisions that are of critical importance to health, and to hear our concerns which lie outside the province of existing committee assignments."
A special report was submitted in June of 1967 to the Secretary of HEW on the broad problems of environmental pollution – water, air, urban noise and crowding, product hazards, and future planning for identifying the dangers to come. This report was by a special task force, headed by Ron M. Linton, and sponsored by HEW. It made 34 recommendations, 10 of which were described as immediate "action goals" which cut across virtually all phases of man's living environment. The work of this task force would be of substantial value to the study contemplated by the proposed Select Committee.
Chairman Lee C. White indicated his opinion of the important role that the Select Committee could play by saying:
“... The special advantage of the proposed Select Committee would be its ability to illuminate new and unexpected relationships between technological advance and human environment, without being limited by lines of committee jurisdictions or the bounds of a particular item of proposed legislation. Such a committee can follow any clue to the relationship between science and society which it believes to be important. We need studies of this type every bit as much as we need detailed examination of particular problems."
Secretary Alan Boyd said that in this last half of the twentieth century, "we are suffering from an embarrassment of technological riches," but that "the side effects of technology are creating new problems for society along with the new opportunities." He agreed we must find a way to anticipate and control these effects in order to achieve an environmental "net gain."
"Transportation technology," he said, "can no longer be viewed in isolation, either among modes themselves or in the total environment. Transportation is a subsystem within a larger set of social, economic and political goals, and this subsystem must be designed and developed with a clear understanding of these goals."
He said that he felt the object of S. Res. 68 – which would be concerned with the total technological impact – was "worthy of the highest consideration."
Finally, Assistant Secretary Ruttenberg stated that the proposal for a Select Committee "reflects a growing nation-wide concern for the condition of our human environment ... a more rational ordering of information so that governments at all levels can be better equipped to deal with the environmental implications of science and technology. "This forum," he said, "should be one where there would be no hesitation to propound a problem for which no solution was offered, and where solutions could seek problems.
"Science has provided the problem-solving techniques," said the Assistant Secretary, "whether we have the will to use this knowledge purposefully and effectively in solving the human problems arising from technology is our challenge"
The third phase
During the final phase of hearings, held April 11, eight Senators gave their views as to the merits of the S. Res. 68: Senators Baker (Tennessee), Inouye (Hawaii), Javits (New York), Mondale (Minnesota), Moss (Utah), Nelson (Wisconsin), Pell (Rhode Island), and Randolph (West Virginia).
All Senators gave unqualified support to the establishment of a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment.
The following is a summary of some of the general points they made:
(1) the need to develop in the Senate a central source of information as to the existing benefits and hazards of technology and what can be expected in the next fifty years;
(2) the need to have a unit – politically and socially oriented – to make an assessment of this information and devise a method for early warning of undesirable consequences, together with recommendations for prevention;
(3) the need to develop a meaningful policy for coordinating the benefits of technology to solve the problems of increasing urbanization and decreasing rural developments;
(4) the need to develop a comprehensive approach toward education on a continuing basis to prepare all of our citizens for life in the atomic and computer age;
(5) the need to put science and technology to work on a coordinated basis to conserve our natural resources, to develop new resources and to provide cheaper and safer materials for the basic needs of our citizens;
(6) the need to bring scientists and legislators closer together to develop a mutual understanding of the future of technology in line with national goals of environmental development;
(7) the need to understand fully what the anticipated "high-energy civilization" of the future will mean for our citizens in their total environment;
(8) the need to explore the best methods of preserving the rights, individual dignity and mental stability of every individual and his family in a complex technological world;
(9) the need to assess the advanced techniques of information retrieval systems, analysis, programming. and planning successfully used by the military and space discipline, for application in solving environmental problems;
(10) the need to bring together the standing committees most involved in developing national policy for improving the individual and his environment to weigh the implications of scientific and technological advance on a total basis, and to develop long-range goals for America as it moves into the twenty-first century.
The statement of Senator Nelson set forth some particularly thought-provoking questions which would be relevant to the Select Committee's investigation. He asked:
"Why cannot the same specialist who can figure out a way to put a man in space figure out a way to keep him out of jail?
"Why cannot the engineers who can move a rocket to Mars figure out a way to move people through our cities and across the country without the problems of modern traffic and the concrete desert of our highway system?
"Why cannot the scientists who can cleanse instruments to spend germ-free years in space devise a method to end the present pollution of air and water here on earth?
"Why cannot highly trained manpower, which can calculate a way to transmit pictures for millions of miles in space, also show us a way to transmit enough simple information to keep track of our criminals?
"Why cannot we use computers to deal with the down to earth special problems of modern America?
"Can we estimate the cost of various possible approaches – or mixes of approaches – and use computers to figure out the most efficient and economical way to do a job? In other words, can we get some idea of the cost-effectiveness of a variety of social programs?
"The answer is we can – if we have the wit to apply our scientific know-how to the analysis and solution of social problems with the same creativity we have applied it to space problems.
"We must test new ways to use the scientific manpower and know-how of the space age to solve a great variety of social problems."
Finally, Subcommittee Chairman Muskie and Senator Baker put the need for such a study unit on technology in a special perspective during their remarks on the legislation. Senator Muskie stated:
"We are well along with our scientific and technological planning and programming, our systems management, our cybernetic progress, in the military and defense sectors, and in our efforts to put a man on the moon. But what does the next fifty years of science and technology hold for man on the earth in terms of health, education, employment, housing and transportation, and community development? How can science and technology be applied to meet these human needs, and what problems will man face in adapting to our developing technological world? Where, indeed, are we heading? Will man's environment be what he wants it to be, or what science and technology determine it to be? How can we be assured that the new technology will be used for the progressive improvement of the conditions of our common life? These are some of the issues that a Select Committee could well explore. . . .
"The particular merit and strength of this proposal lies in the varied membership of such a committee. It would be composed of three members of each of the standing committees . . . most involved with legislation affecting human needs. They would have direct participation in this comprehensive inquiry.
"The 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 the needed information will not be overlooked."
Senator Baker expressed similar views in support of the proposed Senate Select Committee, which he said should provide a "clearinghouse" of information for those responsible for making political and economic decisions. He said:
"I think the primary distinction between this era and those that have preceded us in the development of this Republic is that the pace and velocity of technological development, and the pace and velocity of new sociological problems are such that the lead time, so to speak, between the emergency of the problem and the formulation of the palliative, or the discovery of the solution, is greatly diminished.
"I think we can no longer afford the luxury of waiting for the full-blown problem to present itself for the consideration of the national Congress. But rather, now in this age, both from the technological standpoint, we owe the additional, and substantially more difficult obligation, of anticipating, and trying to predict, the nature and the dimensions and the quality of the problems.”
Increasing national and international concern with the problem of technology and the human environment
The concept of a central study group in the Senate to look at the total impact of advancing technology on our environmental development is consistent with a growing national and international concern over man's future in the atomic age.
This concern has been heightened by the acceleration of scientific knowledge and technological invention growing out of our military and space research and development, spurred on by advancing computer techniques and closer informational ties between scientists throughout the world.
The subject is presently being investigated by a growing number of institutions and scholars, and these resources could be of substantial assistance to the staff of the Select Committee.
For example, from a grant by the Carnegie Foundation, the American Academy of Arts and sciences is sponsoring a Commission on the year 2000, headed by the noted sociologist Daniel Bell. The Commission is studying methods of predicting ecological change from scientific advancement, which looks toward a "post-industrial society" – one in which the economy has moved from being predominantly engaged in the production of goods to be preoccupied with services, research, the creative use of leisure time, and the comfort and convenience of living.
Harvard University has established a special program on Technology and Society, directed by Emmanuel G. Mesthene, to enquire into the effects of rapid technological change on the economy, on public policies, and on the character of the society, as well as the reciprocal effect of social change on the directions of scientific and technological developments. This is a ten-year program, funded by the International Business Machines Corporation. It draws on a combined faculty committee from Harvard's Graduate Schools of Public Administration, Business Administration, Education, and Arts and Sciences, including the Division of Engineering and Applied Physics.
Columbia University has established an Institute for the Study of Science in Human Affairs through a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The aim of the Institute is to help man understand more fully the scientific forces that shape his life and to make better informed decisions on what the proper direction of scientific and technological developments should be.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, located in Paris has embarked on a most ambitious program of technological forecasting. Its Committee on Science Policy has issued a series of reports and initiated conferences dealing with global and regional energy potentials, including nuclear energy, with assumed aggregated rates of technological change and the social and economic implications of automation. A recent OECD document entitled "Technological Forecasting in Perspective" contains an elaborate list of interdisciplinary activities in the United States and abroad with respect to developing the social technology of the future.
The International Biological Program (IBP), established in 1964 and coordinating the work of 40 nations is directed to measuring the adaptability of man of varying backgrounds to new environments. Its studies will include environmental stresses, such as tolerances to heat, cold, noise, high altitudes, and nutritional stresses; the adaptive processes with respect to disease; the biological consequences of human activity, the study of physical growth, aging and death, and human adaptability planning for the future.
The National Academy of Sciences is continuing pertinent studies through its Committee on Science and Public Policy. A Report "Applied Science and Technological Progress" was made to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in June 1967.
The National Academy of Engineering has established an Environmental Studies Board with a grant from the Kellogg Foundation. A Committee on Public Engineering Policy also has been formed.
The Hudson Institute has issued a report forecasting the appearance of very probable technical innovations by the year 2000.
The Institute for the Future has been established at Wesleyan University with initial funding from the Ford Foundation and the Connecticut Research Commission. The Institute will seek to organize systematic and comprehensive studies of the long range future.
George Washington University has established a Program of Policy Studies which includes analysis of the impact of technology on society.
Other private sector programs include those at the Tempo Center for Advanced Studies of the General Electric Company and the Stanford Research Institute.
Popular interest in the impact of science on man's future on earth has been stimulated by a series of television broadcasts entitled the "Twenty-first Century" produced by CBS News and sponsored by the Union Carbide Corporation. These programs covered a number of future projections from atomic power to the creative use of leisure time. Because they represent the type of issues of interest to a Select Committee as proposed, the verbatim transcripts of these television programs have been printed in the appendix to the hearings on S. Res. 68.
A number of significant developments are taking place to cope with the "technology gap" with respect to social and economic development under the auspices and incentive of our American government.
The Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of Representatives has a Panel on Science and Technology, which in 1966 held a three-day symposium on the topic of "Government, Science, and Public Policy," directed to seeking ways in which scientific and technological knowledge could eradicate many of the problems facing our modern day society.
The topic for the 1967 meeting was "Government, Science and International Policy" and in 1968, "Applied Science and World Economy."
In July 1968, the House Science and Astronautics Committee and the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee cosponsored a colloquium to discuss a national policy for the environment.
Attended by committee chairmen and concerned members of both houses, the discussion centered on resolving the conflicts in multiple demands on our natural environment.
The Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the House Science Committee, in a report, identified twelve major problem areas which it said require Congressional scrutiny from the scientific and technological standpoint:
1. Protecting the Natural Environment.
2. Providing New Sources of Energy.
3. Application of Cybernetics.
4. Strengthening Information Management.
5. Induction of Industrial R and D.
S. Stimulating Transportation Innovations.
7. Diminishing Urban Congestion.
8. Enhancing Adequate Housing.
9. Improving Food Production and Distribution.
10. Alleviation of Crime.
11. Upgrading the Quality of Education.
12. Protecting the National Health.
The Subcommittee expressed its conviction that the "big issues" of the future will be the ability of the Government, and particularly the Congress, to see and to cope with each technological problem in its entirety, and to join the social sciences with the physical sciences and engineering to solve such problems. In concluding its report, the Subcommittee said, in part:
"Time was when man could afford to look upon the innovations of technology with some complacency. For the innovations came slowly, they were put to use in a relatively slow and modest fashion, and their side effects developed at a sufficiently relaxed pace to permit man to adjust to them – or to alter his course if the threat were great enough.
"Surely it is obvious that this day is gone. The tempo of our times can almost be described as a gait of 'running away.' The sum of scientific knowledge is doubling every decade or so -- and our galloping technology is doing its best to stay on even terms. Human ingenuity has never had at its command a wider choice of tools with which to stimulate the economy, or defend the country, or provide for the general welfare or just to make money.
We can no longer blindly adapt technology to our needs with the traditional assumption that there will be ample time to iron out any bugs on a leisurely shakedown cruise. A bigger effort must be made not only to foresee the bugs but to forestall their development in the first place. The alternative could be disastrous and indeed might turn our physical and social world into something uninhabitable.
The issues which led to the proposal of a Senate Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment have also been of increasing concern to the Executive Office of the President.
Testifying at the hearings on S. Res. 68, Dr. Donald Hornig said: "It is becoming clear that the Office of Science and Technology must learn to look beyond conventional statements of an environmental problem in an attempt to systematically survey the sum of individual actions."
The Federal Council for Science and Technology has established a Committee on Environmental Quality to coordinate the research and development work of the government agencies in this area.
The report of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment is a step in the direction of comprehensive forecasting, as was its study on the Effective Use of the Sea, and its pesticide study. These have been essentially case studies.
The role of science and technology in the national effort to solve urban problems was the subject of a three week study sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of Science and Technology in June 1965, at the National Academy Study Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Some fifty non-government specialists in the physical sciences, mathematics, architecture, engineering, urban planning, law, medicine and sociology, joined by staff members from the Federal agencies, met to discuss new techniques for blending physical and social engineering disciplines to attack the decay facing our major core cities, and to recommend new courses of action.
Another encouraging example of Executive Branch initiative in bringing together assorted technological disciplines to attack a basic environmental problem is the recent International Water for Peace Conference, attended by some 5000 administrative officials, technicians and diplomats from over 90 nations. The conference dealt with every conceivable facet of water use and development, including desalting, flood control, pollution abatement, irrigation and sanitation.
In addressing the Conference, President Johnson stressed the need to quicken the pace of science and technology, and by way of example he referred to the authorization of a new desalting plant with 3000 times the capacity than the latest plant produced 10 years ago, and at one twenty-fifth of the cost. "If science can unlock the door to an unlimited supply of pure and drinkable water," the President said at a prior conference, "I think it will be an event in human history as significant as harnessing the atom.”
The above summary, by no means exhaustive, of activities to develop a scientific and technological know-how for human needs, and to blend the disciplines of the physical, social, and political sciences, provides an impressive background for the resolution under consideration. As these research efforts expand, and as the literature becomes more prolific, the Members of the Senate will want to keep up to date on the latest ideas and trends of environmental technology.
It is in this spirit that the resolution for a Select Committee was framed. Such a Committee could develop a basic library of information and could lay a foundation for the continuation of both information-gathering and analysis for the legislative committees.