October - November 2001

IEEE-USA President Ned Sauthoff (center) meets with Congressional Staff on Capitol hill during CVD 2001.

Who is Advising Congress on Science & Technology?

by Greg Hill

	OTA: Here Today...
	...Gone Tomorrow
	Current State of Affairs
	Where Do We Go From Here?
	H.R. 2148
	Public Law 107-68
	How Does IEEE-USA Provide Advice to Congress?
	In Perspective: Who's Advising the President on S&T?
	References

Bio- and cyberterrorism, missile defense systems, electric systems reliability, stem cell research, 3G wireless Internet, e-commerce, spectrum management, intellectual property, the 'Code Red Worm,' the 'Millennium Bug' — the list goes on and on. With daily agendas that read like a Michael Crichton novel, there seems to be a renewed interest on Capitol Hill in establishing — or reestablishing — a reliable source of timely, accurate, non-partisan advice on science and technology issues for Congressional decision-makers.

OTA: Here Today…

From 1972 to 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) served just that purpose, providing Members of Congress with technology forecasting and assessment. In 1972, Business Week reported on a bill "making its way through Congress…that would create an Office of Technology Assessment to determine for Congress the byproduct effects of new technology."¹ Under that House bill, the job of OTA "would be to spot impacts of technology, establish 'cause-and-effect relationships,' determine alternative technological methods of implementing programs, and estimate and compare the impacts of these alternatives."

The Technology Assessment Act of 1972 cited ineffective reporting of "adequate and timely information" to Congress on scientific and technological developments by existing federal agencies and Congressional resources. In response, the law established OTA "within and responsible to the legislative branch of the government." For the first time, an agency under Congress' oversight would provide Members of Congress with a platform on which they might engage in informed debate on many difficult, and otherwise inaccessible, issues. OTA fulfilled a role similar to that of other Congressional information agencies, such as the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), but its reports provided more in-depth, long-term analysis of the complex issues they covered. OTA also boasted strong connections to the science and engineering community — because scientists and engineers enjoyed working with OTA. 

Governed by a 12-member bipartisan congressional board of six Senators and six Representatives, OTA would undertake assessment studies at the behest of the chairman of any congressional committee, the OTA Board, the OTA Director, or the ranking minority member. With an annual budget of just $22 million, OTA was the smallest of the legislative branch's agencies, but during its tenure, it published 755 in-depth reports on everything from medical policy issues — such as whether to ban DDT — to the effects of nuclear war, to advanced computer technologies. Many members of Congress and the general public regarded OTA's reports as impartial, balanced and thorough, and presenting a number of different policy options, instead of endorsing one specific recommendation. It was not uncommon for both sides of the aisle to cite findings from the same OTA report.

…Gone Tomorrow

In 1994, OTA was under mounting pressure from congressional appropriations committees to "focus more sharply on science and technology, and ensure that work did not stray into other fields where it might duplicate the efforts of other (congressional) support agencies."² As a result, OTA underwent major restructuring, which included reorganizing its three major divisions into two and reducing its nine research programs to six. In fiscal year 1995, faced with the inherent challenges of major internal changes and new congressional leadership, OTA staff reacted as few do when faced with upheaval and uncertainty — they had their most productive year ever. That year, OTA prepared a record 61 reports for Congress — all completed by a staff of less than 200 — with a budget that made up less than one percent of the entire legislative branch budget.

OTA's detractors argued that some of the reports were "redundant," that the same information could be found at the General Accounting Office (GAO), or the Library of Congress, or from such private institutions as the National Academies. Also, the typical lifecycle of an OTA report ranged between one to two years from start to finish, which some critics believed was too long to provide relevant guidance on legislation that involved rapidly evolving scientific and technological issues. OTA countered that its experts had provided testimony or interim reports to congressional committees at times when reports weren't going to be released in time to meet legislative deadlines. In fiscal year 1994, for example, OTA's experts testified 38 times before congressional committees.³

ultimately reached a tie vote on an amendment to fund a scaled-back OTA, which meant that the measure failed to pass. In September 1995, the agency had reached the end of the line, another casualty of 'downsizing.'

Members of Congress, most of whom do not have science or engineering training, currently utilize a number of different resources to gather intelligence on complex science and technology issues. Many rely on their staffers, the GAO and occasionally the CRS the CBO. To a lesser degree, other federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency also provide limited guidance on science and technology issues.

Today, the National Academies (staffed by several OTA veterans) — the National Academy of Science (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC) — serve in an expanded capacity as advisers to the federal government on matters of science and technology. The charter that first established The National Academy of Science (NAS) in 1863 read, "... the Academy shall, whenever called upon by any department of the government, investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art..." However, unlike OTA, the National Academies must respond to both the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as to state governments on a limited basis. And while the National Academies receive the majority of their funding from federal grants and contracts, they are private and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work. Because of the organizational structure of the Academies' committees and because no congressional committee has oversight responsibility, their findings are sometimes too specific, too late or too expensive to be of use to Congress.

Professional societies (like IEEE-USA), think-tanks and universities provide their own brand of input to Congress through reports, position statements, briefings, testimony before Congressional Committees, and conferences. Since 1999, IEEE-USA has written more than 70 letters to Members of Congress in support of its legislative priorities.

Members of Congress also get advice on science and technology through outreach programs like the Congressional Science and Technology Fellows program, coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Through this program, scientists and technologists are appointed to the personal staff of a U.S. Senator or Representative or to the professional staff of a Congressional Committee, lending their expertise on a host of tough legislative issues. IEEE-USA has sponsored congressional fellows in the program since 1973.

And then there are the countless special interest groups, trade associations, and industry and consumer lobbies who inject their own agendas — and money — into the mix. According to Mother Jones, the high-tech industry contributed $37.9 million to support both Republicans and Democrats during the 1999-2000 elections.⁵ You need only look at the record to see industry's powerful influence at work. When Silicon Valley called for more skilled workers last year, Congress responded with a near doubling of the limit on temporary H-1B visas from 115,000 to 195,000.

Certainly, much has changed since 1972, when cloud seeding was an issue. But is there a need for a dedicated institution for technology assessment that would provide balanced advice to Congress? Some say there is, perhaps now more than ever. John Peha, a 1999 IEEE-USA Congressional Fellow and a current member of the IEEE-USA Communications & Information Policy Committee, addressed the issue in a pair of SPEAKOUT columns in the March and September issues of Spectrum.⁶ Peha is concerned that "Congress has no trustworthy source for technical information," a commentary that echoes a lead editorial in the May issue of Nature, declaring the U.S. legislature "bereft of objective guidance on issues that underpin much of its work."⁷

In June, IEEE-USA and 17 other co-conveners participated in a workshop organized by Carnegie Mellon University, in Washington, D.C., called Creating an Institutional Structure to Provide Science and Technology Advice for the U.S. Congress. The workshop's briefing notes have supplied the framework for much of this article. The focus of the day-long workshop, which brought together more than 100 Congressional staffers, policy analysts, and academic and industry leaders, was to gauge the need for a federally funded, non-partisan institution that would objectively aid Congressional decision-makers on matters involving increasingly complex scientific and technological issues. Most of the discussion at the conference centered around five alternative models that might be used to get better technical advice to Congress:

• Creating a mechanism to allow Congress to farm out analysis to think tanks and universities around the country

• Creating a new analysis group inside one of the existing Congressional agencies like the Library of Congress

• Creating a new, dedicated analysis group within the Congress

• Improving the way Congress draws upon the analysis capabilities of the National Academies complex

• Creating an independent think tank that would work exclusively for Congress

At the June workshop, Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) announced that he had  introduced the Office of Technology Assessment Reestablishment Act of 2001, H.R. 2148. Through minor amendments to the Technology Assessment Act of 1972, the bill would reactivate the old OTA with a $20 million budget for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2007. The bill, which has more than 50 sponsors from both sides of the aisle, has been referred to the House Committee on Science, chaired by a supporter of the bill, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.). However, despite bipartisan support for H.R. 2148, key congressional leaders who participated in doing away with the original OTA aren't likely to move on the bill any time soon.

On 12 November, President Bushed signed into law the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-68), which directs the U.S. Comptroller General to earmark $1,000,000 for "a pilot program in technology assessment" within Congress' General Accounting Office (GAO) in 2002. This initiative, championed by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), is designed to enhance science and technology advice to Congress. Traditionally a budget watchdog agency for Congress, GAO's pilot aims to fill the void created by the elimination of OTA. The allocation, however modest, seems to indicate that establishing such an assessment program within the legislative branch is again worth exploration.

Following are just a few of the ways that IEEE-USA serves as a balanced source of sound technological advice to Members of Congress:

IEEE-USA Policy Committees — IEEE-USA has 11 policy committees functioning under the auspices of IEEE-USA's Technology Policy Activities Council, as well as the Career and Professional Activities Councils. Committees are comprised of volunteer members of the IEEE, each contributing unique expertise to furthering their committees' agendas. IEEE-USA's policy committees prepare and promote official positions, recommend appropriate action to public and private decision-makers, and respond to member requests for information. Technical advice and information is delivered to Members of Congress through letters, face-to-face meetings, testimonies, briefings, conferences and other methods of interacting with lawmakers.

Congressional Fellowships — The IEEE-USA Congressional Fellowship program was created in 1973 to further the effective use of scientific and technical knowledge in government, to help educate the scientific and engineering community on the public policy process, and to broaden the perspectives of the science, engineering and governmental communities regarding the value of such interaction.

Typically, IEEE-USA selects two Congressional Fellows each year. Fellows are enrolled in the multi-society Science and Engineering Fellowship Program, and participate in a two-week orientation organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science during early September in Washington, D.C. at IEEE-USA's expense. Eligible IEEE members are competitively selected to serve one-year Fellowships, consisting of an appointment to the personal staff of a U.S. Senator or Representative, or to the professional staff of a congressional committee. Workshop participants seemed to agree that the Science and Engineering Fellowship program is an excellent source of science and technology advice for Congress, and is a program worthy of expansion.

CARE Initiative — The goal of the Congressional Advocacy Recruitment Effort (CARE) is to have U.S. IEEE members pay constituent visits to every U.S. Senator and Representative in their district or Washington, D.C. office sometime during the 107th Congress (2001-2002). CARE visits will help establish a link between Congress and IEEE member constituents.

Science, Engineering and Technology Congressional Visits Day (CVD) — IEEE-USA continues to take a leading role in CVD, which brings hundreds of technical professionals to Washington each year to increase congressional awareness of the importance of science, engineering and technology.

back to top

1. "The Debate Over Assessing Technology: Congress Wants to Set Up an Office To Evaluate the Impact of New Developments," Business Week, 8 April 1972.

2. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Annual Report to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1994, OTA-A-544, March 1995.

3. Ibid, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Annual Report to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1994, OTA-A-544, March 1995.

4. Packard, Rep. [Calif.]. "Tribute to Rhodes College Mock Trial Team." Congressional Record ONLINE 14 June 1995. Library of Congress. Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:2:./temp/~r104OhJ7T1:: . [6 September 2001].

5. Sara Miles, "Silicon Battleground," Motherjones.com, 5 March 2001.

6. Jon M. Peha, "Congress Needs Nonpartisan Advice on Science, Technology," IEEE Spectrum, pp. 19-20, September 2001.

7. "Time for a bipartisan OTA," Nature, vol. 411, p. 117, 10 May 2001.

back to top

Greg Hill is Member & Electronic Communications Coordinator at IEEE-USA in Washington, D.C.