[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9722-S9723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        CONTINUE FUNDING FOR THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of 
continuing the funding for the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] of 
the U.S. Congress. I believe that if more of my distinguished 
colleagues, as well as the public, knew what the elimination of the OTA 
would mean to our deliberative processes, they, too, would support this 
invaluable congressional resource.
  Mr. President, there is considerable dedication among my colleagues 
to reduce the Federal budget deficit and to streamline Federal 
agencies. This Congress deserves to be commended for bringing the 
budget deficit, and its burden on future generations, to the attention 
of the American people more dramatically than ever before. I, too, 
support the reduction of Federal spending, but only where it makes good 
sense to do so.
  However, I ask, what positive affect will the elimination of the 
OTA--a 143-person, $20 million-a-year agency that performs a great 
service to the Congress and that potentially saves billions of 
dollars--have on reducing the budget deficit?
  Mr. President, many of my colleagues know that the OTA does valuable 
work and that it is well-managed. However, some argue that the OTA is a 
luxury that the Congress and the country can no longer afford. Mr. 
President, I submit that the OTA is not an indulgence, but rather a 
necessity for the Congress and the Nation.
  I have frequently turned to the OTA for analysis and information. For 
example, in 1986, the OTA provided an invaluable service to the 
Congress and the American Indian community by taking an unprecedented 
in-depth look at native American health and health care. We learned an 
enormous amount about both the inadequacies of information technology 
and the health care delivery systems in the Federal agencies that are 
charged with implementing our nation-to-nation treaty agreements. As a 
result of the OTA's study, the Congress will now enjoy a much higher 
degree of accuracy in reports on the status of Indian health.
  Let me give you another example of how the OTA has responded to my 
requests to deliver impartial information. I was one of the first 
primary requesters of Adolescent Health--OTA, 1991--the first extensive 
national examination of the scientific evidence on the efficacy of 
prevention and treatment interventions directed toward improving the 
health of our Nation's adolescent population. The OTA clearly gave the 
authorizing and appropriating committees the message that we should not 
trick ourselves into thinking that by simply labeling Federal 
initiatives as ``prevention'' of adolescent substance abuse,
 delinquency, AIDS, or pregnancy, the programs were effective. In fact, 
many of us on both sides of the aisle were disturbed when the OTA 
concluded that there was very little evidence of success from the 
prevention efforts that we had promoted. However, the requesters soon 
came to realize how valuable it was to receive an open-minded and 
impartial review from the OTA. And, as the OTA was charged to do, its 
report went well beyond just giving us the bad news. Because its role 
is to provide useful information to the Congress, the OTA provided 
sufficient analysis for us to see where our federally funded prevention 
efforts were going wrong, and provided guidance to the executive branch 
on how to better target Federal dollars for adolescent health.

  I can give you numerous other examples of the OTA's rigorous approach 
in winnowing through cloudy data in order to provide us with 
information that is both accurate and useful. For example, since the 
late 1970's, the OTA has been an often lonely voice in the health care 
wilderness, carefully assessing whether the country is investing 
sufficiently in evidence-gathering on health care treatments. Valid 
information about what works and what doesn't work is critical to the 
public and private sectors of the health care industry, which 
represents one-seventh of the Nation's gross domestic product. Senators 
and staffers need this information as they consider budget requests 
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the 
upcoming reauthorization for the National Institutes of Health, and 
proposed reforms to Medicaid, Medicare, and the private insurance 
market. For example, policymakers need to know the extent to which 
consumers have sufficient information to choose insurance plans, health 
facilities and individual treatments. Just recently, the OTA, re-
examined how we know what works by looking at new health assessment 
technologies--OTA, Identifying Health Technologies That Work: Searching 
for Evidence, September 1994. I recommend that report to all of my 
colleagues and to their constituents in the health care business.
  As another example, a health technology study by the OTA in December 
1988, Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Certified Nurse 
Midwives: A Policy Analysis, concluded that nonphysician providers were 
``especially valuable in improving access to primary and supplemental 
care in rural areas and * * * for the poor, minorities and people 
without insurance.'' This information was very helpful in developing 
health care systems enhanced by the utilization of nonphysician care 
providers for our underserved populations.
  Similar, hard-hitting, tell-it-like-it-is analyses have been done by 
the OTA on subjects ranging from ground water to space. These include 
classic assessments of polygraph testing, DNA analysis, police body 
armor, seismic verification of nuclear test ban treaties and other work 
on weapons of mass destruction, and on risk assessment methods, all of 
which were greeted with accolades from Members. Right now, the OTA has 
work under way in areas as important and diverse as 

[[Page S 9723]]
earthquake damage prevention, advanced
 automotive technologies, renewable energy, wireless communications, 
and Arctic impacts of Soviet nuclear contamination.

  Some of my colleagues have suggested that we don't need an OTA--that 
is, our own group of experts in the legislative branch capable of 
providing us with these highly technical analyses needed for developing 
legislation. How many of us are able to fully grasp and synthesize 
highly scientific information and identify the relevant questions that 
need to be addressed?
   The OTA was created to provide the Congress with its own source of 
information on highly technical matters. Who else but a scientifically 
oriented agency, composed of technical experts, governed by a 
bipartisan board of congressional overseers, and seeking information 
directly under congressional auspices, and given the Congress and the 
country accurate and essential information on new technologies?
  Can other congressional support agencies and staff provide the 
information we need? I am second to none in my high regard for these 
agencies, but each has its own distinct role. The U.S. General 
Accounting Office is in effective organization of auditors and 
accountants, not scientists. The Congressional Research Service is busy 
responding to the requests of members for information and research. The 
Congressional Budget Office provides the Congress with budget data and 
with analyses of alternative fiscal and budgetary impacts of 
legislation. Furthermore, each of these agencies is likely to have its 
budget reduced, or to be asked to take on more responsibilities, or 
both, and would find it extremely difficult to take on the kinds of 
specialized work that OTA has contributed.
  I hope that the Congress does not become a body that ignores common 
sense. If it is to remain the world's greatest deliberative body--
possible only because of access to the best and most accurate and 
impartial information and analysis--the Congress must retain the 
OTA.


                          ____________________