« 이전계속 »
the organizations that are really engaged in some of the most forward thinking in this country where government is too timid.
For example, the Carnegie Foundation, started a public library and mapped out a whole educational television network that has now grown into public broadcasting. Also, the Rockefeller Foundation has done a lot in the creation of miracle foods, miracle rice, and the 30 years work your brother John Rockefeller has done in population planning. Ten years ago the government would never have touched population planning and politicians would not dare discuss it. The foundations have been able to do it. The Brookings Institution is a third example.
I would like to ask you about Brookings Institution and other privately endowed institutions doing forward thinking and planning. How important do you think it is to keep and strengthen privately endowed institutions like these before we start setting up other governmental organizations and superstructures?
Vice President RoCKEFELLER. Your question goes to a fundamental question of whether this country should continue to encourage what in Biblical times was called charity, people doing for others.
I happen to think that it is a major and integral part of the whole character of America. Saving and giving are important to individuals and that the responsibility and the creativity and the initiative with which an individual assumes that responsibility is an important building of his or her personality and character, and I think this is one of the things that has distinguished our country from other countries which do not have this law and therefore have depended on government.
So I would think myself it would be a disaster for this country to eliminate this from every point of view.
I do understand, because I spent quite a bit of time before congressional committees seeking confirmation, that there is a philosophy, and perhaps a growing one, where certain Members of Congress feel that only Congress should—with any surplus be taken by Congress and with their wisdom they should be the only ones who give. But plurality, pluralism in our society, free individuals and their creativity, whether it is individuals or levels of government or associations, voluntary, nonprofit corporations; this is this pluralistic society to me is the enrichment of America.
When you get to Jean-Francois Ravel writing the book that he did, he was a left-wing intellectual and said the only hope for the future of the world is in the United States because the Catholic countries—he calls them the Marxist and Catholic countries do not have, as he puts it, the freedom and the flexibility and the creativity to adapt to change with the speed with which change has overwhelmed us.
This, in my opinion, is a very important part of that. Of course, it would knock out private education, it would knock out religious institutions, it would knock out all of the private hospitals, all of the things that communities have done.
This was, if you go back to de Toqueville, this was one of the extraordinary characteristics he found about America. He said, by God, you will not believe it. You go into a community, some citizen
jer foc 2
f there has an idea, goes across the street and talks to his neighbor, and 000 they agree there is a problem and they set up a committee and they blic Es do something about it. He says it is totally unrelated to the burk the reaucracy. He says it is unbelievable.
I think it is our great strength.
you very much. Chairman Glenn. Mr. Vice President, we could go on with this could all day.
You asked one of the more provocative questions and injected this Bred into your comments awhile ago—are we going to lose our freedom
in our quest for security. That is a provocative question and could be
a subject of many, many more days of discussion here. I wish we and es had time to get into that and all of the other questions.
I know you have a very busy schedule; you have already stayed 15 minutes beyond what your staff told us was your absolute last
ditch, deadline time. If, in the next couple of days you do have indice any free moments, we are going to be continuing this discussion
this afternoon with a panel – I will read the names without
giving all of their pedigrees here-Dr. Barry Commoner, Richard de Barnet
, Mary Bunting, Alvin Toffler, C. Jackson Grayson, Malcom Moos and Cliff Alexander in this afternoon's panel, and the former DE Vice President, Senator Humphrey, was unable to stay with us
here because of all of the voting problems. We hope he will be able thitte to join one of the later panels to expand, and perhaps comment on non at some of the ideas you have put forward here today.
We will have "Roy Ash, Nick Johnson, William Ruckelshaus,
Frank Zarb, Robert Seamans, Sol Linowitz, Walt Rostow and Alice ; cück Rivlin on the panel tomorrow morning. Probably that will carry
over into the afternoon because of Dr. Kissinger's appearance tomorrow before the Government Operations Committee at 11 as is
On Friday we will have Fred Bergsten, Linus Pauling, Murray
any time on those days you do find time, we would certainly welcome your appearance back. It is rare that a Vice President
sits with us and discusses things like this. We appreciate very much that your time and your frankness this morning, and it has been a great
Frankly, we do not know where all of this leads yet as I am ha sure you will agree, but we are trying to get some of the best
thinking going in this area, and we welcome your participation at
We will be continually in touch with you. We may want to sub-
most exciting moment in history, and I think we should strive to make it that way, not only for ourselves, but for the world.
So maybe out of your work, that will come. [General applause.] Chairman GLENN. I would like to place the statement of Senator Humphrey in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Senator Humphrey follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY
I am very pleased and honored to be a participant in this hearing and I want to congratulate Senator Glenn for having the foresight and the imagination to step away from the routine business that threatens to engulf all of us in Congress, and to look ahead at the future of our Nation and our society.
As I understand the title of the hearing or the symposium, “Our third century; directions", your purpose is to examine the Governments procedures for developing long range objectives and policies.
As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I began a similar inquiry a year ago focused specifically on the Government's long range economic objectives and economic policies. As a part of that effort I introduced, along with Senator Jacob Javits, S. 1795 the Balanced Growth and Economic Planning Act.
Without going into the details of the bill, it may be of some interest for you to know something about the principles on which it is based and the reasoning that is behind it. Obviously, our two committees are following a similar thread.
I believe that planning procedures need to be established at the Federal level in order for the Government to put its economic policy house in order. Anyone familiar with economic conditions over the past few years and who have studied the projections and forecasts for the next few years must know that the present situation is grim and that the future is bleak and uncertain.
There have been accidents which have hindered the performance of the economy-if you can call events like the oil embargo and the Russian grain deal "accidents”—but it is no accident, in my judgement that the economy is in as poor a condition as it is today.
The procedures followed by the Federal Government practically guarantee that the economy will not perform well. In many respects they are not rational. They are not systematic. They are not comprehensive. And they are not coordinated.
There is no Government agency or office which concerns itself with the medium and long range performance of the economy or with policies to influence that performance.
Policies are made by one or a few influential officials at the very top of the Government and are then announced or launched. Congress and the country are often faced not with a proposal to be debated but with a decision that has been made.
The decisions are made mostly by the President and his key economic advisors. These consist of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the President's own White House Economic Council. This is a small group of experts, an elite gathering, to make such momentous decisions for so many. And a group under great pressure to deal with today's problems. Under the present Administration, and often in the past, the cabinet is practically defunct. The significance of this is that even within the Executive Branch there is little or no coordination in the development and adoption of economic policies.
The Humphrey-Javits bill, therefore, adopted as one of its major objectives the establishment of broadly based, democratic institutions for the making of long range economic policy. To do this it is necessary to bring about some degree of coordination within the Executive Branch and it is also necessary that Congress be a full partner with the Executive. Congress as the representative branch of government, can not afford to delegate to others the policy making function.
Further, it is just as important to involve the states and local governments strie in the policymaking process. I do not believe it is necessary for me to speak
at length on the folly of the Federal Government excluding states and localities from Federal decisions that involve the entire nation and that may impact on individual regions and communities.
Now, there are other reasons which convinced me of the importance of adopting systematic planning procedures at the Federal level. I believe that Enaomic planning is necessary if we are to achieve greater efficiency and equity in our system. The two go together, although sometimes that fact is not recognized or is ignored. But we can not have an economy or a society that works well if it is unfair.
Our economy is unfair to the millions of people who are unemployed and who are at present condemned to remain unemployed for the duration. For
the duration of what? For the duration of the period during which the ir auto Federal Government and its leaders founder around without solutions and
Jr. Chairman, if we are to look forward we must look with vision. We can not hope that things will improve by themselves.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 21, 1975 Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself, Mr. Bayu, Mr. CLARK, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. Jack
BON, Mr. Javits, Mr. McGee, Mr. McGOVERN, and Mr. Nelson) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Government Operations
To amend the Employment Act of 1946 by providing for the
development and adoption of a balanced economic growth
plan, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the Employment Act of 1946 is amended by adding
4 at the end thereof the following new title: 5 "TITLE II-BALANCED GROWTH AND ECONOMIC
"SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the 'Balanced
9 Growth and Economic Planning Act of 1975.'