(The following letter was sent to prominent persons inside and outside of government requesting their views on long-range planning for the third century of the United States.)

On February 4, 5, and 5, the Senate Government Operations Committee held a symposium, at which I was privileged to act as Ad Hoc Chairman, on the subject of government's role in the setting of long-term goals and strategies for achieving those goals. The symposium, with the title "Our Third Century: Directions", was prompted by concern that our government has for too long used a "band-aid" approach to national problems--failing to focus on basic long-term policy considerations and neglecting to make optimal use of the talent, knowledge and experience that exists not only in government but also in the private sector of our country. The committee invited a number of prominent thinkers from both inside and outside the government representing various disciplines and philosophical points of view (see enclosed list) to evaluate the effectiveness of our long-term policy development processes and to discuss ways in which those processes might be improved. For your information as to the general purpose of the symposium the following excerpts from the letter of invitation may be helpful:

"In our private lives, organizations and businesses we try as

a matter of course to assess present positions and capabilities with
a view toward establishing worthwhile future objectives and goals.
Only then can logical steps be taken to achieve those ends. Just
setting well-considered objectives, of course, does not guarantee
success; e succeed or fail for a wide variety of reasons. However,
one thing seems most certain. If there is no looking ahead, if there
is no assessment of present abilities and future options, it will be
only blind luck if we drift into the best future set of circumstances.

"This is no less true of government than of individuals. There has
heen a rising concern for many years that our Federal Government has
too often operated on a stop-qan, "fire-engine" basis, taking action
on the immediate problem of the day with comparatively little time,
thought, or effort going into assessing and outlining our longer range
problems and potentials. Our current difficulties with energy supply,
urban sprawl, environmental pollution, and elementary and secondary
education, as well as others, are increasingly cited as evidence of
inadequate forethought and preparation by past governments. One can only
assume that future problers will bring forth similar criticisms of our
present ways.

69-838 0-76-20

Page Two

"There is also concern that our nation's vast talent and brain power is not effectively utilized in our attempts to solve national problems. I am sure we can agree that our elective process, effective as it is, does not guarantee that America's most innovative thinkers will automatically flow to either the legislative or executive branches of government. Fortunately, ours is a nation and society "of the people", and interest in our problems is not limited to government personnel. Historians and scholars of government, those in Foundations and "think tanks", present and former government officials, and other interested organizations and individuals consititute a reservoir of talent for studying and attempting to define present problems and future option. Too often, however, private studies, reports, and recommendations, generated after exhaustive work and no small expense, do little but gather dust unless and until some legislative or executive branch "champion" for the particular issue can be prevailed upon to follow through. At best this is an erratic process and one which hardly guarantees that our best thinking, both in and out of government, will be brought to bear on any issue.

"It is clearly the obligation of the Congress, and in particular the Senate Government Operations Committee, to address these concerns. In so doing, I believe it to be most important that we develop a thoughtful and comprehensive response to the following question:

What procedures are used by government--including those involving interaction with the private sector--to develop long-range objectives and policies; and what improvements, if any, are possible in these procedures?"

While the Committee learned much from those who participated in the symposium, we realize that our list of participants was necessarily much more limited than is desirable in dealing with such a broad and important topic. Because of your own interest in this area, I would like to invite you to submit your comments on the issues we are examining so that they may be considered for inclusion in a Committee report on these matters to be published in the near future.

In order to give you the benefits of the comments of those who did appear at the symposium, I have prepared the following summary of the responses to three major questions which were used as agenda items for each participant to address. It would be helpful if you could address these same questions and/or comment on the answers we have already received. I might also add that at this stage I am neither an advocate nor a critic of many of these ideas. I am making every effort to get all viewpoints out for consideration.

Page Three

Question 1: What role should government play in setting long-term goals and the development of strategies for achieving those goals?

For the most part, there was consensus by the participants that government has a responsibility to look ahead, to plan, to set obiectives, and to define goals for the nation. Most indicated that in the present period of rapid change in the world--a world in which the United States and other nations have become increasingly interdependent--a long-range view of our nation's activities has become imperative. A number of participants commented that defining a nationally agreed-upon set of goals could lead to a national sense of purpose and direction which we do not presently have.

Some emphasis was placed on the need to establish goals and objectives that are integrated and interrelated and that relate to mankind as a whole. In particular, it was urged that government avoid narrow parochial goals whose pursuit night warp and distort the progress of our society. More generally, it was agreed that there may be areas where it does not make sense for the government to do any long-range planning, and these should be indentified. In sum, planning should be selective.

A major theme which ran through each session in one form or another was the need for government to involve the public in a substantial way in the setting of goals. Suggestions for doing this included more effective dissemination to the public of government reports and hearing records, more and better public affairs programs on television, imaginative use of large-scale telecommunications networks for multi-lateral information transfer and the development of a nationwide system of citizen public affairs "juries" to communicate to the Congress public views on major societal problems and issues. Some speakers warned that we are in a crisis of confidence with respect to current public attitudes toward government. Better leadership and direction, a more realistic view by government of what it can achieve, and more openness and truthfulness were cited as necessary ingredients in restoring trust in governmental institutions.

Finally, although there was widespread agreement on the need to plan and set goals, there was also agreement that it would be unwise to lay out a rigid blueprint for the future to which we felt obliged to adhere regardless of changes in circumstances.

Page Four

Question 2: What is government presently doing in this regard, and is it in any way deficient?

It was pointed out that government-funded, as well as private, studies and reports on long-term plans and policies have sometimes created new intellectual climates which have enabled new policy decisions to be made. In addition, there currently exist many agencies in the government which incorporate a long-range planning function of some kind. The Domestic Council, OMB, the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Security Council, FEA and ERDA were cited as examples. A few participants mentioned the Environmental Impact Statement as a device which has forced the government to engage in long-range thinking in areas which had been relatively neglected before.

The general consensus, however, was that serious deficiencies exist in the government's activities in the planning area, and that the government is more accurately characterized as reacting to events rather than looking ahead. The planning that does go on is in specialized areas, is isolated, and is not interrelated with existing realities in other parts of government, the country, or the world.

Many excellent studies on long-term problems by prominent thinkers in and out of government now go unread or unheeded. The absence of any institutionalized requirement of government to react to and come to decisions on these studies was thought by some to be a major deficiency. It was also noted that

the Domestice Council's activities in the long-range planning area never really got off the ground and continue to succumb to the day-to-day pressures exerted by immediate operational needs.

Question 3: If it is deficient, what can be done to improve the effort either through reform of existing institutions or the development of new institutions?

There was some division of opinion as to whether new institutions are needed. All agreed that some reform of present institutions is called for. In particular, the following observations were made by one or more participants:

1. Congress needs structural reforms, including realignment of the Committee system to minimize jurisdictional disputes;

2. The information-gathering and organizing functions of government agencies need expansion and better coordination so that trends (demographic, economic, social, scientific, etc.) can be more readily indentified;