Thank you for asking for my comments on the issues involved as to the government's role in the setting of long-term goals and strategies for achieving those goals which your Committee has been evaluating. The mere fact that you and your colleagues are concerned with this process is an indication of great progress being made; for, as we know, organizing the information and setting the dimensions of a problem is the big step toward solution. It is my hope that my comments which follow might contribute in a small way to helping your Committee make firm and useful recommendations to assist our nation in formulating long-range plans. A government, any government, especially the U. S. government, can only last if it establishes goals which are accepted by those governed. The U. S. Constitution sets out such goals for its governed. Essentially, the laws of our land are in keeping with the goals set out by the Constitution. I believe the Constitution obligates the elected officials to continue to work for the goals spelled out in this document, along with its amendments and legal interpretations over the past twenty years. In my opinion, no new goals should be initiated by the government which are not extensions of those already outlined in the Constitution. Any government which has stood intact for 200 years must be, to a great extent, fit to serve those governed; and, I would argue, that no radical change in its objectives is desirable or permissable. MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY The Honorable John Glenn However, I believe there should and must be long-range planning that is compatible with the goals of the Constitution. I also believe that without long-range planning no significant national task can be achieved in a reasonable time frame. We have already witnessed and continue to observe basic ineptness with questions on the environment, energy, transportation, public health and urban deterioration. Even more obvious is long-range planning on the question of national security. Planning becomes extraordinarily complex under our system, since the Constitution establishes the goal of protecting personal liberty. Planning in any one of the areas I have mentioned affect human lives and, therefore, any plans to address ourselves to adequate solutions can drastically change an individual's way of life and what he or she might regard as personal liberty. In any case, long-range planning requires continuity. Consensus on the means for achieving long-range planning is dependent upon political and bureaucratic power. Changes in political philosophy, even in minor degrees, can result in partisan bickering and possibly loss of support from the governed. At the Federal level the government possesses the capability to achieve national, long-range planning. I also believe the Federal Government now has the ability and means to identify specific planning needs. What government has not been able to do in most cases, is to set the time frame necessary to meet long-range needs; nor can it, in and of itself, establish the continuity and public support to take care of those needs. Announced national needs such as the elimination of poverty, a balanced transportation system, or an adequately-housed nation are examples of requirements for long-range planning. Recently, detours have occurred and time tables have been eroded in the attempts to reach these objectives. One problem must be solved. Somehow the government must provide the means for the governed to thoroughly understand the needs and for them to provide input regardless of their economic or social-political status. Federal institutions; such as Congress, the Executive and Federal agencies, all use various sources to help them plan and to recommend ways and means of getting from here to there. There are hundreds of commissions, academic institutions and consultants preparing papers and advising the officials on long-range planning and implementation. I believe the governed should be able to know who these groups are, how they operate; and, what is more important, every citizen should be able to provide input as findings or studies are being made. Several steps can be taken to improve the capability of the government to achieve effective, long-range planning geared to meet national needs. The first is an absolute insistence that the Congress pursue its oversight responsibilities to the extent that is, in effect, a management review board. If a department, agency or bureau has not performed to expectations, the management should be dismissed if warranted. If enabling legislation is necessary to achieve this step, I would recommend the leadership in both Houses author such a measure. Secondly, I believe the Office of Management and Budget be opened up to allow the processes whereby decisions are made to be visible and those making these decisions should be accountable for them. The OMB has in recent years been held in violation of the law for many of its actions. Since the Congress gave OMB its present status, it too should stand the test of oversight, and if this agency has not lived up to the legal mandate, the law should be changed or OMB should be made to comply. Thirdly, I believe the national needs which have been outlined are too numerous to be achieved in the same time frame and with the same degree of care and attention. The Budget Committee of the Congress helped to set priorities. Political campaigns and elections also help, but this is not the complete answer. Establishment of a U. S. Long-range Planning Board might be considered. Such a Board consisting of distinguished citizens, would look at all of the needs that have been identified by all elements of our society; and, in their wisdom, advise the country on what priorities in long-range planning they have selected and why. The group would be selected perhaps this way: five by the Executive, five by the Supreme Court, and three each by the House and Senate. They would report to the nation once a year at a joint meeting of the Congress with the President and the key government executives in attendance. The fifty governors should also be there. Given that setting, the entire nation would, because of public attention, be aware of their recommendations. The member of the Board would serve for fifteen years with the first Board having a five, ten, and fifteen year break. They should not be reappointed and should not be removed except under impeachment proceedings. The citizens of this country would be advised that this Board would be filled and each selecting group would be asked to consider all those who applied for appointment. They would receive no pay but only expenses. The national goals set in the Constitution have been implemented by law and by interpretation of the courts. For those who are dissatisfied, or those who would recast those goals to reach what they perceive to be new goals is understandable. However, this is no justification to circumvent the principles of law and policy we have established and will continue to establish as we strive to meet our nation's long-range needs. Edmond Burke said, "...trust for the future preservation of the Constitution was not in future revolutions." Governments which continue striving to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens have already selected the most important of all goals. I trust the foregoing may be of some help to you and your colleagues, and if I may be of any further service, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Thank you for your March 12 letter requesting that I comment on the summary of responses to the three major questions which were used as agenda items for your Government Operations Committee symposium on long-term policy, development and planning. 1. While I would certainly agree that a long-range view of our nation's activities is vital and that discussion concerning the desirability of various long-range goals for the future would be desirable, my great worry about this entire type of exercise is that through some process or other a set of objectives called goals is prepared and then successive governments may well feel it necessary to try to force action through the exercise of governmental power to reach those goals even though there can be no certainty either at the time they were established or at the time we are supposed to reach them that they are the "right" goals for the nation. I would greatly prefer to rely more upon the individual actions individually motivated of our free citizens. There certainly are some things that the nation as a whole must do such as maintaining a strong national defense and assisting with research to help improve the health of the nation, etc., etc., but I would hate to see anything that would force the policy of the nation into a particular mold designed to reach a certain number of objectives established by what would inevitably be a small group of people at a given time. 2. I do not share the view that "the absence of any institutionalized requirement of government to react to and come to decisions on these studies was . . . a major deficiency." The fact that some group or some institution is making a proposal should not, in |