Order Code RS21586
Updated June 7, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Technology Assessment in Congress:
History and Legislative Options
Genevieve J. Knezo
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972 (P.L. 92-
484) and terminated its funding in 1995. Since then the pros and cons of reviving OTA
or re-creating a similar body has been examined. Since 2002, the General Accounting
Office has published two pilot technology assessments at congressional request and has
begun two others. Legislative action in the 108th Congress includes proposals (1) to
restore funding for OTA (H.R. 125 and appropriations action), (2) to create a Science
and Technology Assessment Service in the legislative branch (H.R. 6 as passed in the
Senate, but not in the conference report), and (3) to fund GAO to conduct additional
technology assessments and to assess whether or not GAO should assume a larger role
in conducting technology assessments (report language on H.R. 2657). Issues under
debate include need for assessments, funding, usefulness of GAO pilot assessments, and
options for institutional arrangements. This report will be updated as needed.
Office of Technology Assessment. Congress established the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972 with passage of P.L. 92-484. The law effectively
augmented existing congressional resources by creating a support agency dedicated to
providing Congress with objective and authoritative analysis of complex scientific and
technical issues to aid in policymaking. This facilitated congressional access to scientific
and technical expertise and permitted legislators to consider objectively information
presented by the executive branch, interest groups, and other stakeholders to controversial
technological policy questions. During the period 1973 to 1995, OTA conducted
technology assessments, requested by committee chairmen for themselves, ranking
minority members, or a majority of the committee, by the Technology Assessment Board
(a body which was composed of equal numbers of House and Senate members and of
members from both parties), or by the Director of the OTA in consultation with the
Board. OTA produced in-depth, often long-range reports that assessed the consequences
of science and technology applications and identified the pros and cons of policy options
to deal with science and technology. The office had authority to hire staff and to contract
for personnel and studies. Peak funding in the early 1990s totaled about $20 million
annually, with about 140 hired staff plus additional contractors. Although OTA is still
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
authorized, it was effectively eliminated in 1995 when Congress did not appropriate funds
for FY1996 for its continued operation and appropriated funds to close it down. Its
archived reports are available via the internet at [http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/].
Several reasons were given for terminating OTA’s funding and numerous studies
have been written about the rise and fall of the agency. Critics of OTA cited such reasons
as difficulty in completing reports in time to meet congressional schedules, lack of utility
to congressional decisionmaking, alleged bias toward “liberal” solutions, or partisan
politics.1 Some say that Congress can turn to and fund studies by The National
Academies (composed of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National
Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council,
NRC), or utilize the services of the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) for information and analysis on science and
technology issues.2 Others disagree and cite the utility of OTA studies to congressional
decisionmaking and the need for Congress to maintain its own support agency devoted
to assessing technology.3 Some former OTA staff members and science policy analysts4
have called for resumption of funding for OTA or creation of a legislative organization
to perform OTA-like functions or to contract with outside groups to perform such
functions. Some Members of Congress and others have said that if the OTA were still
1 See “OTA Reconsidered, Letter by Robert S. Walker,” Issues in Science and Technology,
Spring 2001; Bruce Bimber, The Politics of Expertise in Congress, The Rise and Fall of the
Office of Technology Assessment, State University of New York Press, 1996, 128 p.; Bruce
Bimber and David H. Guston, “Technology Assessment; The End of OTA,” in Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Special Issue, Nos. 2 and 3, February/March 1997, whole issue;
Richard M. Jones, “Holt Sponsors Bill to Reestablish Office of Technology Assessment,” FYI
#76 (American Institute of Physics), June 18, 2001. A June 2001 conference on “Creating an
Institutional Structure to Provide Science and Technology Advice to the U.S. Congress,”
organized by Granger Morgan and co-sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, the Heinz
Endowment and Carnegie Mellon University, assessed ways to provide Congress counsel on
science and technology issues, including re-creating OTA and alternatives. A follow-up meeting
was held on July 14, 2003 in cooperation with the National Academies to discuss options for
advice, discussed in Science and Technology Advice for Congress, M. Granger Morgan and Jon
Peha, eds., Washington, Resources for the Future, 2003, 236 p.
2 See M. Davis, “A Reinvented Office of Technology Assessment May Not Suit Congressional
Information Requirements...,”Washington Fax, June 18, 2001.
3 See Daryl E. Chubin, “Filling the Policy Vacuum Created by OTA’s Demise,” Issues in Science
and Technology, Winter 2000, 31-32; “OTA Reconsidered, Letter From John H. Gibbons, Letter
From Roger Herdman” Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2001; John A. Alic, “OTA
Assessments Were Tailored for Congress,” Science, Feb. 1, 2002; Julie Wakefield, “Flunking
Science,” The Washington Monthly, January/February 2001, 23-27; Rep. Amo Houghton, “In
Memoriam: The Office of Technology Assessment, 1972-95,” Extension of Remarks,
Congressional Record, Sept. 28, 1995, E1868-E1870.
4 M. Granger Morgan, Amo Houghton, and John H. Gibbons, “Improving Science and
Technology Advice for Congress,” Science, Sept. 14, 2001; David H. Guston, “Prospects of a
Revived OTA for Congress,” Science, July 13, 2001; Wil Lepkowski: “The Restless Mummy,”
Science and Policy Perspectives, April 10, 2001, “The Mummy Blinks,” Science and Policy
Perspectives, June 25, 2001, and “The Mummy Returns,” Science and Policy Perspectives, June
25, 2001; and D. Malakoff, “Memo to Congress: Get Better Advice,” Science, June 23, 2001.
CRS-3
operating it might have provided Congress with information required to make important
program and policy decisions relating to technological issues.5
Legislation to Fund OTA. In the 107th Congress, Representative Rush Holt
introduced H.R. 2148, the OTA Re-establishment Act. It would have authorized funding
OTA at $20 million annually for FY2002-FY2007. Ultimately, the bill had 87 co-
sponsors and was referred to the House Science Committee. No further action was taken.
H.R. 125, introduced in the 108th Congress, is similar to H.R. 2148, 107th Congress. It
would rename the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 as the Office of Technology
Assessment Reestablishment Act of 2003 and would authorize OTA appropriations at $20
million annually for FY2004 to FY2009. The bill was referred to the House Science
Committee.
Representative Holt has also proposed funding OTA through appropriations action.
In 2002, he sought to introduce an amendment to H.R. 5121, the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act FY2003, to provide $4 million to fund OTA for FY2003. But the
Rules Committee considered the amendment not in order.6 He made a similar attempt in
2003 to amend the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, H.R. 2657, to fund
OTA at $7 million; but, he said, the Rules Committee ruled the amendment not in order.7
Legislation to Create a Science and Technology Assessment Service.
Proposals to create a Science and Technology Assessment Service in the legislative
branch to provide technology assessment-related support, have been made since 2001.
107th Congress. Such a proposal was made first in Section 153 of S. 1716, “The
Global Climate Change Act,” introduced on November 15, 2001 by Senator John F.
Kerry, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It
would have created a Science and Technology Assessment Service to provide ongoing
independent science and technology advice and specified that the Service “shall be within
and responsible to the legislative branch.” Assessment work would be performed using
experts selected in consultation with the NRC, the policy research arm of The National
Academies. Senator Kerry said that the Service “... would ensure that we in Congress get
the best independent scientific and technical expertise in our climate change oversight
role” and would support oversight in other areas. He explained the need for technical
expertise and a perceived drain on NAS resources to conduct studies for Congress:
... Since the Office [of Technology Assessment] ... was eliminated in 1995, experts
agree that Congress has suffered from lack of ongoing, credible advice. While some
objected to the OTA structure, all agree that expert technical advice for Congress is
essential to ensuring we hold up our end in efforts to make progress on this important
5 For example, “Need for Reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment,” Extensions of
Remarks of Hon. Rush D. Holt, Congressional Record, Dec. 5, 2001, p. E2212 and Ellis Mottur,
Technology Assessment in the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security: the Role of OTA,
Report Prepared at the Request of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings, Chairman, Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation , 107th Cong. 2nd Sess., S. Prt. 107-61, Apr. 2002.
6 Statement of Rep. Holt, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5121, Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2003,” on the Floor of the House, July 18, 2002, p. H4880.
7 Statement of Rep. Holt, Congressional Record, July 9, 2003, pp. H6427-H6428.
CRS-4
issue. Congressional requests for advice are overburdening the National Academy of
Sciences and threatening to compromise its independent stature.8
OTA had focused on providing information about technology’s impacts, notably
“early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of
technology” and other information. In contrast, the proposed Science and Technology
Assessment Service would focus more broadly on developing information about the uses
of technology, specifically information “relating to the uses and applications of
technology to address current national science and technology policy issues.” The
Service’s organization and functions would incorporate many features of OTA, including
bipartisan and bicameral congressional boards to govern activities, and a Director to carry
out policies and manage activities; a process to select studies using committee chairmen,
the Board, or the Director (in OTA by the Director in consultation with the Board); and
identical annual report requirements. The two organizations would differ because the
proposed Assessment Service would: use the NRC to select experts to conduct
assessments, a provision that was not in the OTA law; be smaller than OTA, lacking
OTA’s Deputy Director and Technology Assessment Advisory Council, the latter which
was composed of private science and technology experts, the Comptroller General, and
the CRS Director, to advise the Board on OTA operations and on assessment reports;
have authority to contract and use personnel, but the Service would have less specific
authority than OTA had, for instance, to purchase and hold property, detail personnel from
other agencies, or obtain information from other agencies; and not have OTA’s authority
to seek assistance from CRS and the National Science Foundation, nor OTA’s authority
to distribute reports to congressional committees or the public.
Provisions to create a Science and Technology Assessment Service subsequently
were included as Title XVI of S. 1766, the Energy Policy Act of 2002, which was
introduced on December 5, 2001, by Senators Daschle and Bingaman. On February 27,
2002, S. 1766 was incorporated as substitute amendment (SA) 2917 to S. 517, the Energy
Security Policy bill (which had been introduced originally on March 12, 2001). The
provisions relating to the Assessment Service in S. 517 were identical to those in S. 1716
and S. 1766. On April 10, 2002, during floor consideration, Senator John McCain,
ranking minority member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee,
submitted S.Amdt. 3089 to delete language to create the Assessment Service from
S.Amdt. 2917. However, on April 25, 2002, Senator McCain said on the floor of the
Senate9 that he would withdraw his amendment and, instead, urged the Chairman of the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, to hold hearings on the
proposal in order to assess “the needs and benefits” of such a Service to Congress. On
April 25, 2002, the Senate incorporated S. 517, as amended, into H.R. 4, and passed the
bill. Although a conference was held, no final action was taken on the bill.
108th Congress. During the 108th Congress, the Senate could not reach agreement
on energy legislation (S. 14) and decided to use as a substitute amendment to the energy
bill passed in the House (H.R. 6), the energy bill it passed in 2002, which contained Title
XVI to create the Science and Technology Assessment Service. Thus, H.R. 4, as passed
8 Remarks Upon Introduction of S. 1716, Congressional Record, Nov. 15, 2001, p. S11957.
9 Congressional Record, Apr. 25, 2002, pp. S3407-S3408.
CRS-5
in the Senate in 2002, was introduced as SA1537 to H.R. 6, as passed in the House and
sent to the Senate. The Senate agreed to SA1537, and H.R. 6 incorporating it was passed
on July 31, 2003. The Assessment Service provision was not included in the conference
report on H.R. 6, H.Rept. 108-375, which the House agreed to on November 18, 2003.
Legislation to Fund General Accounting Office Pilot Projects on
Technology Assessment. For three successive years, appropriations report language
has directed GAO to conduct technology assessments on a small scale.
FY2002. House Report 107-259, the conference report that accompanied H.R.
2647, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for FY2002, enacted as P.L. 107-68,
directed that up to $500,000 of GAO’s appropriation be obligated to conduct a technology
assessment pilot project and that results of the project be reported to the Senate by June
15, 2002. The provision had originated in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Jeff
Bingaman. Funding for the pilot study was specified at $1 million in S. 1172, as amended
by S.Amdt. 1026, and passed in the Senate. The Senate provision seemed intended to
focus on a pilot project that would be conducted by The National Academies and on a
model that might lead to possible funding for a small OTA-like organization that would
conduct assessments largely by issuing contracts to non-profit groups.10 The enacted
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill did not contain this language.
The conference report did not authorize an assessment topic, but Senators Bingaman,
Lieberman, Roberts, and Domenici requested GAO to assess technologies for U.S. border
control together with a review of the technology assessment process. At the same time,
six House members (Congressmen Hall, Boehlert, Holt, Houghton, Jim Moran, and
Ehlers) wrote to GAO supporting the pilot technology assessment project. After
consulting congressional staff, GAO agreed to assess biometric technologies. It used its
standing contract with NAS to convene two meetings which resulted in advice from 35
external experts on the maturity of biometric technologies and their implications on
privacy and civil liberties. GAO also did its usual audit work to gather information. The
resulting report was issued in November 2002 as Technology Assessment: Using
B i o m e t r i c s f o r B o r d e r S e c u r i t y ( G A O - 0 3 - 1 7 4 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03174.pdf].
FY2003. The FY2003 Senate legislative branch appropriations report noted the
utility of GAO’s work and said it provided $1 million in funding for three more
technology assessments in order to maintain an assessment capability in the legislative
10 Sen. Bingaman originally proposed that CRS manage the pilot study with a contract to an
organization like the National Academy of Sciences because he felt that CRS is “better suited to
conduct and oversee this type of long-term research activity.” He also said he expected “that
oversight would be provided by the Senate Rules and House Administration Committees and
through these Committees, the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.” He disagreed with
suggestions that the GAO might be better suited to manage the pilot than CRS, but that “it is
better to start an initial pilot program ...rather than no pilot program at all.” He also proposed an
assessment selection process and said he envisioned “...a small legislative branch staff using
outside non-profit groups to perform the in-depth research,” rather than the larger OTA model
with a staff of about 200 people and funding of about $20 million. (“Office of Technology
Assessment,” Discussion in the Senate on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
Congressional Record, July 20, 2001, pp. S8008-S8009.)
CRS-6
branch and to evaluate the GAO pilot process (S.Rept. 107-209, [To accompany S. 2720],
pp. 49-50.) This language was not included in the Senate bill (S. 2720); the House bill
(H.R. 5121) or the accompanying report; or in H.J.Res. 2, the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, enacted as P.L. 108-7, which included Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2003; or in the accompanying conference report. Although funds
were not explicitly provided for a study, GAO conducted a technology assessment that is
consistent with the Senate report language. It was printed as Cybersecurity for Critical
Infrastructure Protection, May 2004, GAO-04-321, 214 pp.
FY2004. The House Appropriations Committee report on Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2004 directed GAO to “... allocate within existing resources
funding that will permit three technology assessment studies that will be of relevance to
the Congress’s work in the upcoming fiscal year” (H.Rept. 108-186, July 1, 2003, on H.R.
2657, p. 25). The language does not appear in the House bill passed on July 9, 2003. The
Senate incorporated S. 1383 in H.R. 2657, and passed it, amended, on July 11. S.Rept.
108-88, accompanying S. 1383, recommended $1 million for funding two or three
technology assessment reports in FY2004 and said that the Committee expects GAO’s
technology assessment work to be undertaken only if it is consistent with GAO’s mission
(p. 44). According to the Conference Committee, GAO’s two-year evaluation of the need
for legislative technology assessment capability showed that “such a capability would
enhance the ability of key congressional committees to address complex technical issues
in a more timely and effective manner.” The conferees directed GAO to report by
December 15, 2003 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations “ ... the
impact that assuming a technology assessment role would have on its current mission and
resources. The report should be submitted by December 15, 2003” (House Report 108-
279). The bill became P.L. 108-83 on September 30, 2003. GAO reported directly to the
Appropriations Committees; its response was not released directly to the public.
In spring 2004 GAO initiated two new technology assessments, one focusing on
protecting buildings from forest fires, and the other on port security.
FY2005. In its FY2005 appropriations request, GAO requested $545,000 for four
new FTE positions and contract support to establish “a baseline technology assessment
capability,” allowing GAO to conduct one assessment per year.
Policy Issues. The following issues could be considered when evaluating
proposals to expand legislative technology assessment capability: (1) analysis of the need
for more technology assessment information and advice; (2) evidence of political support
for enhancing legislative capabilities for technology assessment; (3) with respect to
GAO’s conducting pilot technology assessments: the availability of funds and the possible
need for new funding, the timing, and the utility of GAO’s technology assessments for
congressional decisionmaking, and also, the harmony between GAO’s technology
assessment functions and the agency’s auditing and evaluation activities; and (4) the
potential benefits and costs of establishing a more independent legislative technology
assessment function, such as in a separate OTA-like support activity or organization.