1. What is the OTA?
Created in 1972, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was an office available to members of Congress that published reports on new technologies and their potential ramifications on U.S. public or government interests.1 The OTA’s express purpose was to serve the Legislative branch as an independent, bipartisan commission disseminating pertinent knowledge for consideration in the lawmaking process. The OTA’s final year of operation was 1995, when it was defunded amid a wave of congressional downsizing by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA).2
What does OTA do?
Under Public Law 92-484, The Technology Assessment Act of 1972,3 the primary purpose of the OTA is to, “aid in the identification and consideration of existing and probable impacts of technological application.” Under the act, studies may be commissioned, “by the chairman of any congressional committee acting for himself, or on behalf of a ranking minority member, or a majority of committee members; by the OTA Board; or by the OTA Director, in consultation with the board.” OTA publications are accessible to all members of Congress for policy considerations, and a year-end report summarizing the activities and findings of the OTA is mandated by the Technology Assessment Act. Areas of research have no limitations, and may include any field deemed relevant to policymakers for study.
How is OTA structured?
At the head of the OTA’s organizational structure is a bipartisan board of six Representatives and six Senators appointed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. The chair and vice-chair of the board are elected by its members, and according to custom are from the majority and minority parties respectively. The board is additionally responsible for electing a director, who abstains from voting, and is tasked with resource management and policy execution according to provisions outlined by the board. Serving in an advisory capacity to the board is a council of 10 experts in science and technology appointed by board members and joined by the Comptroller General of the United States and the Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress as honorary members. Together, these leadership apparatuses oversee a staff of 110 hand-picked expert researchers, subdivided into the Energy, Materials, and International Security Division; the Health and Life Sciences Division; and the Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division.4
Why was OTA de-funded?
In 1995, OTA was defunded as part of Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s balanced budget initiative and the “Contract With America.”5 The OTA is a casualty of spending cuts that prompted former Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) to ask in the Washington Post, “Why is Congress so dumb?” and dub the removal of scientific expertise as a “self-lobotomy.”6
“He [Gingrich] had to cut something,” commented former congressman and history of science professor Robert Filner (D-CA), “OTA didn’t have much political support.”7
2. Why is OTA needed now?
As the impact of science and technology developments on our country grows, it has become abundantly clear that informed congressional oversight is necessary to ensure members of Congress make appropriate decisions on science issues, and that the exploitation of consumers and taxpayers is halted. Rapidly developing innovations in the fields of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, autonomous and electric vehicles, advanced weapons systems, chemical production, genetic engineering, the aviation industry, renewable energies, pharmaceuticals, food processing, cryptocurrencies, education, housing, and numerous more fields may require review by a properly funded OTA to ensure that potential harms are anticipated and addressed.
The detrimental effects of Big Tech monopolies have been widespread on our society, with scandals surrounding privacy breaches and influence peddling all too common in the present market. Harmful operating practices, whether predatory or reckless, are allowed to continue in the absence of comprehensive regulation.
High-profile data breaches at Equifax, Microsoft, Yahoo, and dozens more companies put taxpayers at needless risk, preventable through updates in the regulatory standards set forth by the Legislature.8 Congress has long delegated the task of instituting corporate guidelines to administrative agencies, namely the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in abdication of its constitutional responsibility to regulate commerce.9 The resultant vulnerabilities in technological infrastructure compromise the position of both American consumers and the international position of the United States as a competitive force in responsible innovation.
Wide-scale financial fraud in the tech industry has proven to be a blind-spot in congressional regulatory capabilities, with start-ups like Theranos costing investors hundreds of millions in cumulative losses. Claiming to revolutionize at-home blood testing, Theranos artificially inflated earnings and falsely repudiated the legitimacy of its invention to capital investment firms, all the while being incapable of performing the tasks it so reported.10 With the increased research capacity provided by a watchdog OTA, the technology sector’s dubious practices may be addressed through the enactment of regulatory laws holding Big Tech accountable.
The artificial intelligence industry will soon grow to impact every aspect of public life. As corporate behemoths like ‘Big Four’ accounting firm Deloitte recommend that medical technology companies, “should consider making ‘bold plays’ that integrate these technologies [generative AI] into their operations,” federal laws mandating responsible AI roll outs are lagging behind the market.11 While industry leaders push corporations to implement AI as quickly as possible, experts from the healthcare and responsible AI communities are advocating for more research. According to medical device developer Orthogonal, “We owe it to our stakeholders, patients, providers, and payers to take a methodological and thoughtful approach to addressing these barriers so that Gen AI can be safely used to enhance the safety and effectiveness of medical devices.”12 Without a functioning OTA educating policymakers on the complex discussions taking place in fields like med-tech and AI for legislative considerations, the continued absence of protective regulations allows industry giants to ignore the experts.
Who benefits from OTA?
The benefits of a restored OTA will improve all levels of congressional decision making. The knowledge generated by a functional OTA could include everything from technological innovations in national defense and public health, to the environment and more. Though the immediate advantages of OTA research will be directed towards legislators, enhanced intelligence capabilities will abound to the benefit of the public at large.
Are there alternatives to OTA?
Critics of OTA have often cited the existence of technology assessment capabilities within the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) as sufficient substitutes for a re-funded OTA. In OTA’s F.Y. 1995 report, department officials outlined the specific processes implemented by OTA leadership to ensure its uniquely insightful role as distinguished from the CRS and GAO, including the strict adherence to its founding statute and a clarification campaign to members of Congress regarding the specific purposes reports may be commissioned.13
Under the present information regime, near-total reliance on CRS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) prevents Congress from keeping pace with the demand for current and reliable data needed to anticipate upcoming technology and science challenges. In 2019, the GAO formed its Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) division in an effort to supplement its additional responsibilities to Congress in the absence of OTA.14 Despite the newly established department expressly dedicated to technology assessment, overlapping staff obligations to perform their other GAO duties remained. According to the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)’s November 2019 report to the House Appropriations Committee, “The STAA staffs are currently tasked to work on both TAs (Technology Assessments), as well as the GAO’s other engagements, including performance audits of federal S&T programs … Several stakeholders expressed strong concern that, under this ‘shared-staffing’ model, there is no guarantee that the GAO’s TA work will receive sufficient resources and attention.”15 While the GAO has added responsibilities, it has fewer staff. Between F.Y. 2024 and F.Y. 2025, the number of GAO employees decreased by 126 individuals.16 Although the creation of this office is a useful stopgap measure, the immense task of grappling with new innovations requires OTA operating as an in-house resource led by a bipartisan joint advisory council.
The Congressional Research Service, cited as another would-be OTA alternative, came under fire from Senate Republicans for a 2012 study determining no correlation between top-bracket tax cuts and economic growth. As a result of partisan pressure, the CRS withdrew their report from circulation.17 Furthermore, CRS resources are stretched too thin to efficiently produce detailed reports on policy issues. According to one former CRS researcher, “More and more of my time was being diverted to helping congressional staff respond to constituent demands. In addition, thanks to growing pressure from a hyperpartisan Congress, my ability to write clearly and forthrightly about the problems of government—and possible solutions—was limited.”18 With an overburdening of individual case work requests diminishing the capacity of CRS staff to produce comprehensive reports, CRS cannot meet the institutional requirements to bridge the congressional knowledge gap on technological and scientific matters.
Can OTA be hijacked by partisan interests?
The leadership structure of OTA is such that no one party may dominate the selection of subject matters investigated, nor interfere with the findings of OTA studies in pursuit of a particular agenda. With a board split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, the founding statute of the OTA ensures that review of technology issues remains bipartisan, transparent, and accessible to the all members of Congress.19 Hostile reactions to the April 1984 report Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space, for example, stemmed from findings that did not support Reagan-era calls for increased spending on missile technologies.20 The integrity of OTA bipartisanship naturally induced political rhetoric of opposing-party infiltration when the objective conclusions incidentally favored the position of a conflicting agenda.
3. What are the next steps?
Recent attempts at restoring appropriations for the OTA have received bipartisan support. According to a Pell Center poll conducted by Salve Regina University, 39% of legislation passed in the Senate during the 118h Congress was not bipartisan, and an additional 14% was indicated to be only somewhat bipartisan.21 By contrast, S.2618 – Office of Technology Assessment Improvement and Enhancement Act was a bipartisan effort between sponsor Sen. Ben Ray-Lujan (D-NM) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced to the 118th Congress.22 With a focus on the shared benefits OTA offers, re-funding the office may itself become a point of unity between both chambers and both parties.
In the same congressional session, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) was joined by 11 Democrat co-sponsors in introducing an identical bill in the House. The present attempts at re-establishing an OTA budget are not a policy aberration, but follow a consistent legacy of lawmakers striving to renew the office as a functional resource. Since its budget was discontinued in the 104th Congress, measures to restore OTA appropriations have been presented in the 107th, 108th, 110th, 112th, 113th, 114th, 115th, 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses.23
The OTA empowers Congress to conduct comprehensive, independent fact-finding missions on its own accord, reducing reliance on executive agencies for intelligence that may be influenced by presidential policy objectives. With a focus on the ways OTA advances the Legislative Branch as one cohesive unit, the effort to re-fund the office must advance as a bipartisan initiative.