[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1349-E1350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1854) making 
     appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes:

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, during consideration of this bill, we are 
fortunate that the House will have two good amendments to consider 
regarding what I consider to be one of the most ill-considered cuts in 
the bill--the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA].
  At a time when the Speaker talks constantly about the cyber-Congress 
and bringing this Congress into the space age of modern communication 
and the effective use of technology, one of the first steps as we take 
up this year's 13 annual appropriations bills is to eliminate the very 
agency--OTA--which gives Congress an independent capacity to analyze 
complex and technical issues.
  My personal preference is that we simply restore OTA in its present 
form. My amendment does include a reduced funding level for OTA of 15 
percent, in keeping with the cut applied to the General Accounting 
Office and other reductions in the bill. Certainly, OTA should not be 
immune to legislative downsizing.
  However, I also think our colleague, Amo Houghton, has offered a 
thoughtful amendment that would essentially abolish OTA but hold on to 
its core function and its core staff by moving them to become a new 
component of Congressional Research Service. I think this approach has 
much to commend it. In fact, 10 percent of OTA's annual budget goes to 
pay for its leased space. If we could just move OTA into a Federal 
office building like House Annex No. 2 or another appropriate Federal 
facility, we could recoup that cost as well as a number of 
administrative costs associated with maintaining OTA's facilities.
  Although I would prefer to leave OTA alone, the Houghton amendment, 
making a 32-percent cut in OTA's regular budget, is probably the best 
long-range solution for retaining OTA's important mission while 
allowing it to be carried on as cost-effectively as possible in keeping 
with overall legislative branch reductions. I intend to support his 
approach.
  For my colleagues who may not be as familiar with OTA as some of 
their seniors, perhaps an introduction is necessary. OTA is a 
bipartisan organization analyzing science and technology issues in 
depth for Congress, primarily for House and Senate committees.
  OTA is a bipartisan organization. For example, last year, OTA issued 
21 major reports, and 85 percent of them were requested on a bipartisan 
basis. The reports are begun only after OTA's congressional governing 
board, which has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, gives 
the green light to proceed. The Board also reviews all reports for bias 
before they are released.
  Although OTA is a small agency with only 143 full-time employees and 
an annual budget for fiscal year 1995 of about $22 million, we get a 
tremendous bang for our buck because OTA draws on the expertise of over 
5,000 outside-the-beltway specialists from industry, academia, and 
other institutions each year in contributing to its reports and its 
policy recommendations.
  OTA is a lean, cost-effective organization. Since 1993, OTA 
voluntarily has reduced its middle and senior management by almost 40 
percent. OTA relies wherever possible on the use of temporary expert 
technical staff to avoid adding to its spartan number of full-time 
employees.
  The most important thing to know about OTA is that it saves taxpayer 
dollars. Again and again, OTA analyses have been the basis for wise 
policy decisions as Congress formulates legislation. Here are just a 
few examples:
  First, OTA's reports on health care services have saved taxpayers 
billions by analyzing which medical treatments are cost-effective for 
inclusion under Medicare and which are not.
  Second, OTA's study of the computers at the Social Security 
Administration last year saved an estimated $368 million.
  Third, OTA's cautions about the Synthetic Fuels Corporation saved an 
estimated $60 billion in spending for energy research.
  Fourth, OTA's study of technologies permitted FAA to choose the most 
cost-effective explosion detection device standards for airline safety.
  Fifth, OTA's recommendations concerning the electric power industry 
contributed greatly to deregulation of the electric power industry as 
part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  In the past few days, we have each received several impressive 
bipartisan Dear Colleague letters that tell about the special role 
played by OTA. Curt Weldon and John Spratt, the chair and ranking 
member of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee of the 
National Security Committee respectively, told us how, in response to 
the bombing in Oklahoma City, they had occasion to draw on OTA's work 
about countering terrorism. They said their committee has drawn on OTA 
work on such topics as the former Soviet Union and proliferation, 
preserving a robust defense technology and industrial base, and 
evaluating the potential for using a dual-use strategy to meet defense 
needs. Weldon and Spratt concluded by saying, ``The type of work they 
perform is just not available from other congressional agencies.''
  John Dingell and Jim McDermott told us of OTA's importance in 
evaluating Medicare, rural health care, pharmaceutical research and 
development, and tough issues like defensive medicine and medical 
malpractice, unconventional cancer treatments, forensic DNA testing, 
and other very technical issues related to health. ``Time and time 
again,'' they said, ``OTA reports have provided the timely information 
necessary for Congress to make good policy decisions to spend federal 
health care dollars well.''
  Mike Oxley, chair of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, and Rick Boucher, a 
Democratic member of that subcommittee, brought our attention to OTA's 
work on environment issues before their subcommittee including 
Superfund, nuclear contamination in the Arctic Ocean, alternatives to 
incineration for cleaning up selected Superfund sites, and new 
biological pesticides.
  A letter from our colleague George Brown, the former chairman of the 
Science Committee, and others cited a small sample of the leaders from 
business and industry, science and academic who believe the committee 
made a mistake in trying to eliminate OTA.
  Leaders from business and industry endorsing OTA include Norman 
Augustine, the president of Lockheed-Martin; David Potter, former vice 
chairman of General Motors Corp.; Doug Decker of Johnston Controls; 
Robert Klimish, vice president of the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association; John Seely Brown from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; 
Michel T. Halbouty, president of America's largest independent oil 
company; David Hale, chief economist for Kemper Financial Services; 
Mitch Kapor, chairman, of ON Technologies Inc. and the inventor of 
Lotus 1-2-3; John Diebold of the Diebold Institute for Public Policy 
Studies, Inc.; Brooks Ragen, chairman and CEO of Ragen McKenzie; and 
Jim Christy from TRW.
  Scientists and academics endorsing OTA include Sally Ride, America's 
first woman astronaut; Guy Stever, Science Advisor to Presidents Ford 
and Carter; Ed David, Science Advisor to President Nixon; Charles Vest, 
president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jim Hunt, former 
chancellor of the University of Tennessee Medical Center; Harold Brown, 
former president of Caltech and former Secretary of Defense under 
President Carter; Robert Frosch of the Kennedy School of Government at 
Harvard University; Granger Morgan and Marvin Sirbu from Carnegie-
Mellon University; Daniel Bell of the American Academy of Arts & 
Sciences; George Connick, president of the
 Education Network at the University of Maine; John Dutton, Dean of 
Earth Sciences at Pennsylvania State University; Rosemary Stevens of 
the University of Pennsylvania; Chase Peterson, president emeritus of 
the University of Utah; Max Lennon, past president of Clemson 
University; Alvin L. Alm of Science Applications International Inc.

  Other supporters include our most eminent scientific organizations: 
the American Association for the Advance of Science; the National 
Academy of Sciences; the Federation of American Scientists; the 
American Physical Society; the American Association of Medical 
Colleges; and American Psychological Association.
  The Dear Colleague letter pointed out that technology offices modeled 
after OTA have 

[[Page E1350]]
been established by the parliaments of England, France, Germany, the 
Netherlands, and the European Commission. Clearly, OTA has a national 
and international reputation for excellence.
  Coming from a State where agriculture is of pre-eminent importance, I 
am struck by the number of important analyses OTA has provided in the 
agriculture area, a policy area where one might not normally think of 
complex or highly technical issues. For nearly 20 years, OTA has 
provided exceptional support on agriculture technology and policy to 
Congress. As we begin the Farm Bill debate this year, we are already 
armed with a major, new assessment from the agency--``Agriculture, 
Trade and the Environment''--which presents several ways to achieve 
trade growth and environmental quality in complementary fashion.
  OTA is completing another study using the best scientific expertise 
available in the country to identify agriculture's environmental 
priorities for better targeting of the Conservation Reserve Program and 
others under continuing budget stress. In a second study, OTA is 
assessing ways that agricultural research can generate new technologies 
at a faster pace, so as to ensure continued growth in trade while still 
meeting environmental, food safety, and public health goals. Another 
assessment now underway examines the roles biologically based pest 
controlled technologies can play in reducing the risk and use of 
pesticides while maintaining competitiveness. This subject affects 
several farm bill titles, including research, technology transfer, and 
land management.
  In closing, I'll emphasize several points. First, it is imperative 
that Congress retain an independent analytical function. We don't want 
to rely on executive branch agencies.
  Second, OTA's work cannot be picked up adequately by GAO or CRS, 
which focus on entirely different types of studies. The idea that OTA's 
work somehow could be contracted out is also unworkable. We would 
either be beholden to organizations supplying studies slanted to their 
own interests, or if we were willing to pay top dollar for the type of 
long-range studies OTA now undertakes, we would lose the important 
capacity inherent in an established professional staff to give 
testimony or to assist with legislative proposals sometimes years after 
the studies have been completed.
  third, policy questions are increasingly complex and technical. 
Environmental risk assessment and telecommunications are just two 
examples of complicated policy issues that confront Congress this year. 
Our colleagues have pointed out many others in the areas of national 
security, health, agriculture, and the environment. We make important 
policy choices every day, and we need OTA to help us sort out fact from 
fiction.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Fazio and the Houghton amendments 
to restore OTA and to hold on to the important mission of this agency 
in support of our congressional decision-making.


                          ____________________