Order Code RS21586
Updated May 20, 2005
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. The pros and cons of reviving OTA or re-
creating a similar body have been examined. Since 2002, at congressional direction, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly the General Accounting Office)
conducted two pilot technology assessments and is completing two others. Legislation
was proposed during the 108th Congress to restore OTA’s funding (H.R. 125); create an
entity to conduct assessments for Congress (H.R. 6 as passed in the Senate); conduct
technology assessments in GAO (report language on H.R. 2657, H.R. 4755, and S.
2666); and create a technology assessment capability in GAO (S. 2556) or under its
direction (H.R. 4670). Policy issues under discussion include the need for assessments,
funding, the utility of GAO’s technology assessment-related reports, and options for
institutional arrangements. This report will be updated as needed.
Office of Technology Assessment. Congress established OTA in 1972 with
passage of P.L. 92-484. It was mandated to assess the consequences of applying
technology by preparing comprehensive reports that discussed the pros and cons of policy
options about an issue. 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.
It was intended to facilitate congressional access to expertise and permit legislators to
consider objectively information presented by the executive branch, interest groups, and
other stakeholders to controversial policy questions. From 1973 until 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 OTA Director in consultation with
the Board. OTA had authority to hire staff and to contract for personnel and studies.
Peak funding in the early 1990s totaled over $20 million annually, with about 140 hired
staff plus additional contractors. OTA was effectively eliminated when Congress did not
appropriate funds for FY1996 for its continued operation and appropriated funds to close
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
down the office. 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 factors
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 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 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 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 to FY2007. The bill ultimately had 87 co-
sponsors, but no further action was taken. Similar legislation, H.R. 125, was introduced
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;
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; 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; and D. Malakoff, “Memo to Congress: Get
Better Advice,” Science, June 23, 2001.
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.
CRS-3
in the 108th Congress. It proposed to rename the Technology Assessment Act of 1972
as the Office of Technology Assessment Reestablishment Act of 2003 and to authorize
OTA appropriations at $20 million annually for FY2004 to FY2009. The bill was
referred to the House Science Committee.
Representative Holt sought, in 2002, to introduce an amendment to H.R. 5121, the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act FY2003, to provide $4 million to fund OTA for
FY2003. He made a similar attempt in 2003 to amend the FY2004 Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill, H.R. 2657, to fund OTA at $7 million. Both times the Rules
Committee ruled the amendment not in order.6
Legislation to Create An OTA-like Organization for Congress. Since
2001, proposals have been made to create an OTA-like office in the legislative branch to
provide technology assessment-related support.
Science and Technology Assessment Service. Section 153 of S. 1716,
“The Global Climate Change Act,” introduced in 2001 by Senator John F. Kerry, would
have created a Science and Technology Assessment Service to provide ongoing
independent science and technology advice “... within ... the legislative branch.”
Assessments would have been conducted using experts selected in consultation with the
National Research Council (NRC), the policy research arm of The National Academies.7
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 Service would have
developed information on “the uses and applications of technology to address current
national science and technology policy issues.” It would have incorporated many features
of OTA, including a bipartisan and bicameral congressional board to govern activities;
a Director to carry out policies and manage activities; and a process to select studies using
Committee chairmen, the Board, or the Director. The organizations would have differed
because the Assessment Service would have used NRC to select experts to conduct
assessments, a provision that was not in the OTA law; and be smaller than OTA, lacking
OTA’s Deputy Director and Technology Assessment Advisory Council, the latter which
was composed of private experts, the Comptroller General, and the CRS Director, to
advise the Board on OTA operations and on assessment reports. It would have had
authority to contract and use personnel, but would have had less specific authority than
OTA to purchase and hold property, detail personnel from other agencies, or obtain
information from them. It would not have had OTA’s authority to seek assistance from
CRS and the National Science Foundation, nor to distribute reports.
Language to create an Assessment Service was included as Title XVI of S. 1766, the
Energy Policy Act of 2002, introduced in December 2001. S. 1766 was incorporated as
substitute amendment (SA) 2917 to S. 517, the Energy Security Policy bill. The language
relating to the Assessment Service in S. 517 was identical to that in S. 1716 and S. 1766.
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. Statement of
Rep. Holt, Congressional Record, July 9, 2003, pp. H6427-H6428.
7 Remarks Upon Introduction of S. 1716, Congressional Record, Nov. 15, 2001, p. S11957.
CRS-4
On April 10, 2002, during floor consideration, Senator John McCain 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 Senate8 that he would
withdraw his amendment and 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 as passed in the House, and passed the bill. A conference
was held; no final action occurred. During the first session of the 108th Congress, the
Senate could not reach agreement on energy legislation (S. 14) and acted on a substitute
amendment to the energy bill passed in the House (H.R. 6). The substitute was the energy
bill (H.R. 4, 107th Congress) it had passed in 2002, which contained Title XVI to create
the Science and Technology Assessment Service. Thus, H.R. 4 (2002), was introduced
as SA1537 to H.R. 6, as passed in the House. The Senate agreed to SA1537, and H.R.
6 incorporating it was passed. The Assessment Service provision was not in the
conference report on H.R. 6, H.Rept. 108-375, which the House agreed to. No further
action occurred on this bill.
Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment. H.R. 4670 was introduced
in June 2004, by Mr. Holt, with 15 bipartisan co-sponsors and referred to the House
Science Committee. It proposed a Center that would consist of a Technical Assessment
Board, with 12 Members of Congress, 6 from each party and each body; the Comptroller
General; and as non-voting members, the CRS Director and the Center’s Director.
Operating the center would be a Director and Deputy Director empowered to act, with the
permission of the Comptroller General, to hire staff and enter into contracts to perform
assessments. The Director would have been authorized to establish an advisory panel for
each assessment; the panels would not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA; 5 U.S.C.App.). Different from the earlier OTA, any Member of Congress would
have been able to make requests to the Board for assessments. Requests would have had
priority as follows: “requests with bipartisan and bicameral support; requests with
bipartisan support; requests from other members.” Each assessment report would have
been subject to rigorous external peer review before delivery to the Director, who would
have sought release approval from the Board. Reports would have been released to the
public. The bill would have authorized $30 million annually to the Comptroller General
for the Center for the fiscal years 2005 to 2007. On July 12, 2004, Representative Holt
offered H.Amdt. 667 to H.R. 4755, the House’s FY2005 Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill, to add $30 million to GAO’s account for a Center for Scientific and
Technical Assessment; the House rejected the amendment.
Technology Assessment in GAO. For three years, appropriations language has
directed GAO to conduct technology assessments on a pilot basis and legislation has been
introduced to make the program permanent; there also were proposals to authorize an
assessment office in GAO.
FY2002. H.Rept. 107-259, the conference report to accompany 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 be reported to the Senate by June 15, 2002. The provision
8 Congressional Record, Apr. 25, 2002, pp. S3407-S3408.
CRS-5
had originated in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman.9 S. 1172 would have
authorized $1 million for the study; it was amended by S.Amdt. 1026, and passed in the
Senate. The provision seemed to focus on a study to be conducted by The National
Academies and on a model that might lead to possible funding for a small OTA-like
organization to conduct assessments largely by issuing contracts to non-profit groups.
The enacted Legislative Branch Appropriations bill did not contain this language.
The conference report did not authorize an assessment topic, but three Senators
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 wrote to GAO
supporting the pilot technology assessment project. After consulting congressional staff,
GAO agreed to assess biometric technologies. It used its regular audit processes and also
its standing contract with The National Academies to convene two meetings which
resulted in advice from 35 external experts on the use of biometric technologies and their
implications on privacy and civil liberties. The resulting report was issued in November
2002 as Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174.
FY2003. The FY2003 Senate legislative branch appropriations report noted the
utility of GAO’s work and said it provided $1 million for three studies in order to
maintain an assessment capability in the legislative branch and to evaluate the GAO pilot
process (S.Rept. 107-209, on 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, enacted as P.L. 108-7, which included Legislative Branch Appropriations for
FY2003; or in the accompanying conference report. Although funds were not provided
for a study, GAO conducted a technology assessment that was published as Cybersecurity
for Critical Infrastructure Protection, May 2004, GAO-04-321, 214 pp.
FY2004. The House Appropriations Committee’s 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, on H.R. 2657, p. 25).
The language was not in the House bill as passed. The Senate incorporated S. 1383 in
H.R. 2657, and passed it, amended. The accompanying S.Rept. 108-88 recommended $1
million for two or three technology assessments in FY2004 and said that the
Appropriations Committee expected GAO’s technology assessment work to be
undertaken only if it were consistent with GAO’s mission (p. 44). According to the
Conference Committee, GAO’s two-year evaluation of the need for legislative technology
assessment 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
9 Sen. Bingaman had proposed that CRS manage the pilot study because he said, CRS is “better
suited to conduct and oversee this type of long-term research activity.” He also 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, but said that “it is better to
start an initial pilot program ...rather than no pilot program at all.” 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,” Congressional Record, July 20, 2001, pp. S8008-S8009.)
CRS-6
Committees on Appropriations “ ... the impact that assuming a technology assessment role
would have on its current mission and resources” (H.Rept. 108-279). The bill became
P.L. 108-83. GAO reported directly to the Appropriations Committees.
FY2005. GAO requested $545,000 in FY2005 appropriations for four new FTE
positions and contract support to establish “a baseline technology assessment capability,”
allowing GAO to conduct one assessment per year. The House Appropriations
Committee in H.Rept. 108-577, to accompany the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill,
FY2005, H.R. 4755, did not address funding, but encouraged GAO to “... retain its core
competency to undertake additional technology assessment studies as might be directed
by Congress” (p. 27). In spring 2004, consistent with prior congressional directive, GAO
initiated two assessments, one on port security, and another, which was published in April
2005 as Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communication
During Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380. Representative Holt offered H.Amdt. 667 to H.R.
4755, to add $30 million to GAO’s account for a Center for S&T Assessment; the House
rejected the amendment on July 12, 2004. S.Rept. 108-307, to accompany S. 2666,
indicated that while the Senate Appropriations Committee supported GAO doing
technology assessments, it did not intend to appropriate specific funding for this purpose
and that GAO should conduct assessments that are supported by both House and Senate
leadership and that address issues of national scope. GAO was instructed to consult with
the committee regarding definitions and procedures to conduct technology assessment.
On June 22, 2004, Senator Bingaman, introduced S. 2556, co-sponsored by Senator
Joseph Lieberman, to establish a technology assessment capability in GAO. The bill was
referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee. It proposed to mandate the Comptroller
General to initiate technology assessment studies himself or at the request of the House,
Senate, or any committee; to establish procedures to govern the conduct of assessments;
to have studies peer reviewed; to avoid duplication of effort with other entities; in
consultation with The National Academies to establish a five-member technology
assessment advisory panel; and to have contracting authority to conduct assessments. It
would have authorized $2 million annually to GAO to conduct assessments.10 No further
action was taken. See also H.R. 4670 above.
Policy Issues. The following issues could be considered when evaluating
alternative technology assessment proposals: (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 augmenting GAO’s
“core capability” to conduct technology assessment, the availability of funds, the timing,
and the utility of GAO’s technology assessments for congressional decisionmaking, and
the pros and cons of locating a large assessment center within GAO, including its impact
on other GAO functions, including 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.
10 Congressional Record, June 22, 2004, S7180-S7182. Sen. Bingaman also documented several
reviews of GAO’s pilot technology assessments. He added “... GAO requested additional
legislative authorities so that the assessments could be part of their annual budget process.”