Background – Office of Technology Assessment
In the 1960s, members of Congress became increasingly aware of the rising importance new technologies played in our society and recognized their responsibility to be better informed about the impact of emerging technologies. Spurred on by skyrocketing federal budget requests for new military technology1 and a NASA budget that climbed from $500 million to $1.9 billion in the span of two years,2 legislators understood the necessity of creating a research arm to evaluate proposed expenditures for new technology.
Speaking in a January 22, 1963 hearing for the Panel on Science and Technology, Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics Rep. George Paul Miller (D-CA) noted, “We are concerned with whether or not hasty decisions are handed down to us, but one of our difficulties is how to evaluate these decisions … We are not the rubber stamps of the administrative branch of government … We recognize our responsibility to the people and the necessity for making some independent judgments … but we do not particularly have the facilities nor the resources that the executive department of government has.”3
Members of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics’ Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development proposed creating an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to serve legislators by publishing commissioned reports on novel inventions and scientific developments with the goal of protecting citizens, granting legislators much needed expertise, and identifying new opportunities in fields primed for growth.4
Support from members of Congress and the scientific community for nonpartisan, scientific information resulted in the passage of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972, formally establishing the OTA as a congressional resource. Under the guidance of a bipartisan advisory council of six Senators and six Representatives, OTA leadership acted as the conduit for a vast body of expert sources from the nation’s top scientific bodies and research institutions.5
The chief duties of the newly founded OTA were to “identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs,’” and to, “where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships.”6 The OTA was further charged with making its findings known to all members of Congress, unlike the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is not required to disclose information to any individual beyond the commissioning member of Congress.7
Performance Meets Pressure
From 1972 until the discontinuation of its funding in 1995, the OTA released an estimated 750 independent reports on pertinent subjects submitted to the organization by members of Congress.8 These reports were vital in evaluating such historic measures as the Clean Air Act and Foreign Assistance Act.9 OTA’s May 1989 report on expanding electric power grids, Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, contributed directly to the development of electricity infrastructure throughout rural areas of the United States.10 Multiple reports produced in 1985 explored the viability of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and assessed the best practices for defensive missile systems and satellite protection at a crucial moment in Cold War tensions.11 Safer Skies with TCAS: Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System—A Special Report published by the OTA in February 1989 led to the updating of Public Law 100-223, requiring commercial airliners to install modern communication systems to ensure safer flights for all Americans.12
Research conducted by the OTA was a direct means of evaluating the material impacts of scientific matters on the health and economic well-being of individuals and the nation as a whole. Reports like 1990’s The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Treatment: Implications for Controlling AIDS/HIV Infection13 informed the evolution of bill H.R. 4785 – AIDS Prevention Act of 1990, which supplied preventative and remedial care to victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.14 Similarly, 1994’s The Department of Defense Kuwait Oil Health Fire Risk Assessment15 paved the way for the eventual passage of S.2358 – Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, providing medical care for service members who suffered from the debilitating effects of hazardous material exposure in the line of duty.16
Defunding OTA
The OTA was defunded as part of Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s balanced budget initiative and the “Contract With America.”17 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.”18
“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.”19
The Knowledge Deficit
Nobel Prize winning scientists including astronomer and Cosmos host Carl Sagan and Burt Richter, a physicist renowned for his work on particle accelerators and science advocacy, along with respected institutions such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have called for restoring funding for OTA.20 In a 2010 petition to Congress, a coalition of 90 organizations, spearheaded by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), urged members of Congress to renew appropriations for OTA, writing, “The public health, national security, and environmental challenges that face our nation can be met only if members of Congress are able to make fully-informed decisions.”21 Unfortunately, attempts in the House and Senate have failed to secure funding for OTA.
Bills to restore funding for OTA have been introduced in nearly every Congress since 2001. Efforts were led by physicist and former congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), who introduced OTA restoration bills or budgetary amendments in the 107th, 108th, 112th, and 113th Congress.22 In the Senate, Chuck Hagel (R-NE) supported a $25 million annual appropriation to the OTA in the 110th Congress.23 A budget allocation of $6 million to the OTA passed in the House’s draft of the F.Y. 2020 Legislative Appropriations bill H.R. 2779 – 116th Congress, but was removed from the finalized budget by the Senate.24 Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) has sponsored legislation to re-establish OTA funding in every Congress from the 114th to the 118th.25 In the 116th Congress, Takano introduced H.R. 4426 – OTA Improvement and Enhancement Act, co-sponsored by 51 Representatives including Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY).26 Takano’s most recent proposal to the 118th Congress was H.R. 5055 — OTA Improvement and Enhancement Act; the act was co-sponsored by eleven Democrats.27 Sen. Ben Ray-Lujan (D-NM) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced an identical bill in the Senate, S.2618.28 For the vast majority of legislators the advantages of a properly funded and improved OTA would be invaluable in informing decision-making on pressing issues involving artificial intelligence, biomedical and vaccine research, renewable energies, nanotechnology, chemical development, cryptocurrencies, national security, and countless other fields of policy making interest that require congressional action.
An Unrivaled Resource
The House Select Committee on Modernization determined that re-funding and updating the OTA is an essential step in catching up with the technological demands of modern policymaking.29 Re-designated as the Congressional Technology and Innovation Lab, committee members noted the need for an objective and capable research group accessible to members of Congress. In their F.Y. 2020 Final Report, the Committee reported, “Not only would the Lab provide fresh, invigorated tech policy analysis and advice, it would lift a great burden off Members and their staff, as well as other support organizations like CRS.”30
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.31 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.”32 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.33 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.34 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.”35 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.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an executive agency within the Department of Commerce, is similarly a less than ideal alternative to OTA. As an Executive Branch entity, official NIST posture faces political pressure to align with the position of the president and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).36 Congress is a co-equal branch of government and needs an independent source of information for science and technology analysis. Moreover, cuts proposed by the current administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have drastically altered the functional capacity of NIST. OMB’s F.Y. 2026 budget slashed NIST’s appropriations by $325 million.37 Leadership in NIST’s Information Technology Lab including the chief of the Computer Security Division; the leader of the Security Testing, Validation, and Measurements Group; and the leader of the Secure Systems and Applications Group; as well as seventy-three probationary employees, have left the organization amid a sweeping wave of forced resignations.38
With little time to conduct independent research, members of Congress are often forced to rely on the limited data collection efforts of CRS and GAO. Consider the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees’ 2018 joint hearings on “Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data.”39 These hearings provided a forum for members of Congress to question industry representatives about privacy and algorithm practices that impact millions of Americans. Instead, the hearings are largely remembered for how unprepared many Senators were to ask detailed and probing questions about social media and search engine practices.40 Coinciding with Big Tech’s 2018 Capitol Hill subpoena, documented infringements on user privacy rights including the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica scandal, whereby the Trump campaign-employed research group mined Facebook user data for targeted political advertising during the 2016 election, was not thoroughly addressed by lawmakers.41 In the same year, the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee conducted a hearing with representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, AT&T, Charter Communications, and Twitter entitled “Examining Safeguards for Consumer Data Privacy.”42 Acknowledging the necessity for regulations on technology firms, Committee chair Sen. John Thune (R-SD) stated in the hearing’s majority statement, “The question is no longer whether we need a federal law to protect consumers’ privacy. The question is what shape that law should take.”43 Despite recent attempts including the 118th Congress’s H.R. 8818 – American Privacy Rights Act of 2024, no law to comprehensively protect user data privacy has garnered enough votes to pass at the federal level .44 With a functioning OTA at their disposal, members of Congress would have been better equipped to carry out more meaningful inquiries and enact remedial legislation.
As evidenced by the present shortcomings of congressional support systems to help members deal with science and technology matters and their consequences on legislative outcomes, it has become clear that the need for a sufficiently funded OTA is critical for effective oversight and policymaking.