Lee Hamilton of Indiana served in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 35 years and came to believe the most frustrating aspect of congressional service was that members “never have time to put their feet up on their desks, look out the window, and think about the long-term challenges coming down the road.”

It may seem highly aspirational, even implausible, to expect Congress to consider the future in a sustained and systematic way. This is, after all, an institution that frequently has trouble passing stopgap spending bills and conducting routine legislative business.

However, it was not that long ago that some in Congress actually considered emerging trends, anticipated problems and developed future-focused policies. They even created institutions to think and act strategically.

Government needs to revive this practice. To that end, I propose that our lawmakers create a 21st Century Institute for the Future to foster an awareness of, and then plan for, the extraordinary challenges barreling toward us.

Congress has an inherent short-term time horizon. Frequent elections, impatient constituents and the unrelenting pressure of the news cycle do not provide rewards for gazing into crystal balls or enacting visionary policies whose benefits may only be evident years later.

But half a century ago, many lawmakers viewed their responsibilities differently. Perhaps they were inspired by America’s cultural fascination with the future as exemplified by the bestselling book “Future Shock” by Alfred Toffler and prominent futurist groups such as the Club of Rome.

Congress created the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service and Office of Technology Assessment in the 1970s to examine an array of issues, often with a long-term lens. The House of Representatives even enacted a rule in 1974 that required its committees to undertake futures research within their jurisdictions.

Going further, lawmakers created the Congressional Clearinghouse for the Future in 1976 to study economic, demographic and technological developments. At one point, the clearinghouse had a bipartisan and bicameral membership of about 100 lawmakers. Once a month, they hosted an off-the-record discussion called “Dialogues on America’s Future” with experts such as Toffler, anthropologist Margaret Mead and economist John Kenneth Galbraith. U.S. Rep. Al Gore Jr. of Tennessee was the co-chair of the clearinghouse and argued that it gave lawmakers a crucial perspective as they drafted and reviewed legislation.

In 1984, Gore and Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania created the Congressional Institute for the Future as a nonprofit partner to the clearinghouse. Their reason is as compelling now as it was then. “Powerful institutional incentives in our nation—particularly in Congress—limit the focus of the national debate to short-term priorities and crisis management,” they wrote. “For policymakers, the budget cycle, the end of the fiscal year, the next election, and day-to-day crises demand attention. Schedules are so filled with meetings on one short-term problem after another that many leaders scarcely have time to consider the challenges the nation may face tomorrow.”

The Institute for the Future became a forum for members of Congress and business and academic leaders to discuss rising trends, problems and opportunities. The institute published reports, hosted conferences, sponsored speakers and commissioned public opinion polls. It studied global trade, the U.S. federal budget and disruptions triggered by the information age.

Unfortunately, this future focus dwindled and largely disappeared in the following decades as key leaders departed Congress, and their successors pursued other interests.

The Congressional Budget Office still publishes an annual long-term budget forecast, and reports by the Congressional Research Service and Government Accountability Office often offer long-range perspectives. Some congressional committees hold hearings that explore topics that look beyond the issue of the day. But few lawmakers think past the next election and their own political survival.

I suggest that a dozen congressional Democrats and a dozen Republicans create a 21st Century Institute for the Future. It could be housed in the Congressional Management Foundation, a respected nonprofit organization devoted to improving congressional management practices. This new institute should assemble and organize future-focused studies by government agencies, think tanks and the private sector — building a Future of America library.

Institute members would meet monthly for briefings from experts and hold quarterly roundtable discussions, reprising the “Dialogues on America’s Future” series. They would examine broad demographic and technological changes and also delve into specific issues such as the federal budget, immigration, climate mitigation, income inequality and public health. A small staff would draft background papers for all members of Congress, and lawmakers would craft policy proposals that focus beyond the horizon.

This initiative’s impact would be both intangible and tangible. It would encourage an institutional mind shift from the immediate to the enduring. More concretely, it would encourage lawmakers to explore the long-term consequences of issues that will profoundly shape the future of the United States.

I do not expect this idea to spawn a Congress bustling with futurists. However, it could incubate a cadre of thoughtful lawmakers who consider our long-range needs, goals and opportunities and urge their colleagues to join them.

And there is a bonus benefit — people who are concerned about the future tend to make more conscientious decisions about the present.

_____

John T. Shaw is a professor at Marquette University’s Les Aspin Center for Government in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is “The Education of a Statesman: How Global Leaders Can Repair a Fractured World.”

_____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.