Mr. ROBBINS. I think the unemployed engineers are impatient. And I would be the first to admit I do not think our societies have been as responsive as we should have been in the long run. Again, we reacted rather than acted in advance. And this has contributed to the impatience of the unemployed engineers.

For the broad profession, I think they recognize a problem. They recognize many of the long-range implications of this and stand ready to be put to work wherever and whenever the economy may use them. Unfortunately, in many of the areas of societal problems, we have had a technical capability to go to work immediately. But the funds are not there and the funding is not there. Certainly this is true in the pollution area, where it is largely a cost question. The technology has made many advances that can be used. Of course, we need much more research, too.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any feel whether this kind of effort ought to be in the National Science Foundation, or the Commerce Department, or any other agency of Government?

Mr. ROBBINS. Certainly I would think the R. & D. effort is largely theirs. This is where the focal point of nonmission directed R. & D. is for the most part. I suppose this needs to be answered in terms of the fundamental duality of R. & D. There is R. & D. which is directed toward unknown answers; and there is R. & D. which is mission-oriented. The mission-oriented R. & D. normally is handled by agencies of Government which have that mission. It is probably in the housing field that HUD would be the logical place for R. & D. in this activity. Certainly this was true for defense in the Defense Department and space in the Space Department, and so on.

Whether or not it should all be brought together in one area could be debated, I would think.

I think there is a role, certainly, for NSF.

Senator KENNEDY. I recognize the need for some distribution of responsibility. But ultimately you have to have some focus of overall responsibility for it; and I think unless NSF is going to provide it, I am not sure any of the other agencies has the capacity or disposition to do so. I can see where the NSF can spin some of this off in terms of developing expertise and programing, but I would think that the leadership has to be focused in one agency. And it just seems to me in terms of the overriding long-term interest of science, research and technology, that NSF is the appropriate agency for it.

Do you have any feeling about the kind of role that has been exercised to date by the Federal Government in attempting to meet these needs? Have you been conscious of any kind of effort by any of the agencies of the Federal Government to move into this area?

Mr. ROBBINS. As you indicated earlier, I had the privilege of working with the various agencies of the Government in these areas for some time. I have a feeling that the Government has come to a point of reacting rather than planning ahead.

It was pointed out a number of times over the past, we needed more advanced planning on the impact of changing national priorities on people. There has been a tendency to study in great depth the impact economically, the impact on the gross national product, the impact on general unemployment as gathered in total statistics, but

not on various facets of it. And this is very dramatically, it seems to me, brought to the fore now in our scientific and engineering efforts.

I am sure you and the committee are aware of a number of studies that have been made on the impact of our balance of payments, our export situation. Traditionally, we have been a high technology exporter. This is rapidly changing in the world. And certainly we have a very serious problem in the country if we let our high technology abilities be diffused without concern on this. I think that this is a very serious problem the Government needs to take a look at.

Senator KENNEDY. I remember seeing a very interesting article on this point by former Congressman Daddario in the New York Times some time ago, who was the chairman of the companion committee over in the House, and who is enormously knowledgeable. He made this point in terms of the long-range balance of payments, in terms of export of technology.

What can you tell us about it?

Mr. ROBBINS. The December issue of our publication the professional engineer will be largely devoted to this problem, and when it is available I will make copies available to the committee. It has a number of commentaries on this. And there have been some studies made-I have one here a commentary that was made by an official of the Department of Commerce, with some charts, which are disturbing.

This shows the decline in our balance of payments and the effect based on high technology products. I will make it available to the committe for your study, if you wish.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. We appreciate your very helpful commentary.

Mr. ROBBINS. I appreciate the opportunity to appear.

Senator KENNEDY. Our next witness is Mr. Jack Golodner, executive secretary of the AFL-CIO Council for Scientific, Professional, and Cultural Employees. This council represents 17 unions, which include 700,000 professional people. I understand that Mr. Golodner is accompanied by Mr. Sanford Lenz, chairman of the Professional, Technical, and Salaried Conference Board of the IUE.

Mr. Lenz, if you would like to offer any additional comments, we would be glad to hear them.

We want to welcome you, Mr. Golodner, and Mr. Lenz. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JACK GOLODNER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE COUNCIL OF AFL-CIO UNIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC, PROFESSIONAL, AND CULTURAL EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY SANFORD V. LENZ, CHAIRMAN, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL, AND SALARIED CONFERENCE BOARD, IUE, AFL-CIO

Mr. GOLODNER. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate this opportunity to give our views on what we believe to be some very excellent pieces of legislation.

I would like to note for the record that Mr. Lenz, who is appearing with me, appears in behalf of Mr. Paul Jennings, president of the IUE, who unfortunately was unable to join me this morning.

Senator KENNEDY. I know Mr. Jennings very will. It is only typical that he and his union would be concerned and interested in this prob

lem that affects not only the particular people of his union but the country as a whole.

We appreciate Mr. Lenz appearing in his stead.

Mr. GOLODNER. Several months ago a highly regarded scientist insisted in a scholarly address that "man must cease destroying resources on this planet because it is cheaper or more efficient to start from the beginning than to recover and recycle." He was talking about material resources. My concern and the concern of the Council of AFL-CIO Unions for Scientific, Professional and Cultural Employees is with our human resources.

This is the concern of S. 32, with its "New Cities" amendment and S. 1261, and for this reason, we wish to encourage these legislative efforts.

You have been told, and we have been told, that the programs called for in these bills are insufficient to do the job that needs to be done and, frankly, we agree. Five years ago the AFL-CIO warned that we must have plans and programs to accommodate a decrease in spending and investment in defense-related enterprises by developing a diversified economy capable of responding to the growing need for expanded and improved public services.

In 1966, the AFL-CIO executive council took note of the fact that while World War II was followed by a huge demand for consumer goods, the Korean war was followed by three successive recessions in the period 1953-1960, in which there was little backlog of consumer requirements and little spending to meet our growing public needs. "Therefore," the council said, "the Government must plan at once for a rapid rise in its investment in the public services that should be instituted, expanded, and improved-not only for the public good but to provide necessary employment ***"

Two years ago the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee heard similar pleas, not only from the AFL-CIO but from others. Prof. Warren L. Smith testified that "there is a tendency to think of the problem as consisting entirely of special considerations." He proposed "to accelerate expenditures" on Federal programs that would contribute to the solution of our social and environmental problems. He called a "suitable fiscal and monetary policy" the main aspect of the problem without which "all special assistance we could imagine would not be able to solve the problem.

He was not talking of make-work, WPA-type programs and activities, and neither am I. We are speaking of a genuine need to finance a pent-up demand for expanded and improved health services, transportation systems, housing developments, environmental protection. These are not mean tasks. Providing for health, education, recreation, waste disposal, water, design, construction and maintenance of transportation facilities, police and fire protection is the essence of good government and a strong society.

The demand for these services among the American people is strong. Financing, however, by our governments-at all levels-is weak. If it were otherwise, the Nation would be employing the scientists and engineers who are the objects of our concern today.

Research and development programs employing technical professionals are not typically carried out in a vacuum. The demands_for such programs is derived from existing or potential markets. Just

as Government has been able to stimulate markets for sophisticated weapons systems, space exploration equipment, and the required R. & D. that goes along with it, so, too, Government can address itself to the needs of our communities and create the markets which will employ our brainpower.

Instead of diversifying Government spending by increasing expenditures in the public-need sector, the administration cut down on congressionally approved programs in these areas, and it has frozen billions of dollars in appropriated funds for needed public facilities. So we do not expect much assistance from downtown in promoting the kind of fiscal and monetary policy needed to get our technical professionals back to work. Absent this kind of assistance, legislation like that before you assumes great importance, and we endorse it wholeheartedly.

We have been told, too, that this legislation is unnecessary. That authority already exists to do many of the things contemplated or they can be done by changing and improving existing programs. To some extent, this is true.

If the unemployment insurance system were improved to provide federally financed extended insurance for those who have exhausted their benefits under State plans, the necessity for loan programs such as that suggested in S. 1261, would be somewhat lessened-though, not entirely.

Federal relocation allowances are long overdue for all unemployed workers seeking to move to areas of job opportunities. If such an allowance program were a reality today, such assistance would be available to engineers, scientists, and technicians.

But these reforms have not taken place.

Proposals have been made to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to end the iniquitous exemption from overtime provisions that is in effect for professional employees. Certainly there should at least be a triggering mechanism which in times of high unemployment would invoke the FLSA to discourage the employment of some professionals for long sweatshop hours while others are laid off and driven from their professions. If this were done, there would be less of a need for loans to keep our reservoir of technical professionals in a "holding pattern" until the economy revives.

If the State Technical Services Act of 1966 were properly funded and energetically administered, section 202 of S. 32, would not be needed and perhaps the ideas found in section 203, and the new cities amendment would have been translated into reality by now.

But "if" is a very big word, and these things have not been done, so we must look to you and to the specialized legislation being proposed.

And the manner in which mandates already granted have been carried out by the existing agencies leaves much to be desired, adding a further reason for the new approaches outlined in these bills.

In addition to suffering from the consequences of being hastily conceived and jerry-built, the retraining and job-locating programs thrown together in recent months by the Department of Labor, HEW, and HUD, with the help of various engineering societies, labor under the misapprehension that the problem lies in the engineer and scientist.

Blaming the victim is a easy substitute for attacking the problem but it leads to the kind of pointless programs that are frustrating, not only to the taxpayer who sees no gain from them, but also to the supposed beneficiary who perceives no real benefit. And so we have workshops and counseling programs based on the assumption that engineers and scientists, unlike other members of society, do not know how to look for a job. This suggests that jobs do exist and the fault lies with the unemployed individual. Job data banks are worthy innovations, but hardly a solution when the numbers of people registering for jobs far exceed the registered job openings. A $1.3 million program to help 400 unemployed aerospace engineers turn themselves into urban experts at MIT and UCLA in 4 weeks assumes that (a) cities have the funds to hire them and (b) they don't hire them because they need orientation which they cannot get on the job, but can get in 4 weeks behind ivy-covered walls.

Both assumptions are fallacious. Our cities do not have the money, but the new cities program could help.

Training on the job has proven to be the most practical and superior way of converting engineers to new jobs.

When Sputnik first circled the earth, no retraining of engineers in the laws of physics was required by the Federal Government-only the national resolve to meet the challenge and provide the funds to enable our engineers to make the moon walk a reality. The development of missiles did not require retraining in navigation and propulsion; just the advances in the state of the art which funds and commitment made possible.

Perhaps the various agencies downtown have been caught unprepared for coping with the current situation because the data for measuring and analyzing the professional manpower situation is so inadequate.

Both BLS and NSF manpower projections are based primarily on continuations of past trends with the built-in assumption of a 3- to 4-percent unemployment level. Allowances in the projections for shifts in demand of manpower needs are made only after the fact and after the employment picture has changed sufficiently to effect the previously established employment trend. Thus the projections for future needs become essentially a recapitulation of employment developments over the past decade and a description of what could be in the best of all possible worlds.

It is not surprising that in this assumed best of all possible worlds there would be large and widespread shortages of professional personnel which our colleges and universities would find difficult to satisfy and this, essentially, is what the NSF and BLS have been reporting for years.

As a result, immense resources were devoted to turning our more trained professionals, not only in the technical fields, but in other fields as well, while relatively little in the way of plans and funds were devoted to insuring their employment.

Furthermore, projections based on past experiences tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies in this way: when there is ample supply of professional engineers in the market, the educational criteria for technical jobs is raised. Employers require a degree for the holders of