[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OTA: DEFENSE AGAINST THE DUMB

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 29, 1995

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of 
existence for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment [OTA]. 
For 23 years OTA has served the American public by giving invaluable 
guidance and analysis on the dizzying array of technological advances 
we face in modern society. In its ignorance, Congress has voted to end 
this institution. It will be missed.
  In recent months, I have seen a lot of mindless things being done in 
the American public's name. First we saw science-based regulatory 
decisionmaking being used as a slogan for the process of gutting 
Federal health and safety regulations. Then we have witnessed the 
slashing of research budgets designed to provide the science upon which 
these decisions were to be based. Across government, research and 
development budgets have been cut in order to pay for tax cuts that we 
don't need.
  This mindless approach to government substitutes public relations 
gimmicks for policy, trying to palm off as reforms simplistic proposals 
to sell House office buildings, dissolve cabinet agencies, and end 
daily ice deliveries to House offices. The unfortunate irony of this 
process is that the victim of this irrationality has been an agency set 
up to make the legislative process more rational: OTA.
  I was serving in Congress in the mid-1960's when we first discussed 
the need for OTA. In what seems like the dark ages, before e-mail, 
genetic engineering, flip phones, and dozens of other technologies that 
have changed our lives, we were concerned that the rush of 
technological advance would overwhelm our ability to make rational 
political judgments. We looked over the various congressional support 
agencies and did not find the kind of scientific and technological 
expertise needed to address the challenge. So, we created OTA, an 
agency that has served Congress well in the intervening years.
  In recent months we have heard many criticisms of OTA, as those 
intent upon issuing press releases on the downsizing of government 
focused upon that agency's elimination. Some said that OTA studies took 
too long. But the OTA was established to provide comprehensive, 
balanced analysis of complex questions. It looked at the technology, at 
its social and economic impacts, and then made a range of 
recommendations for congressional action. That process takes a long 
time. For those with short attention spans, those who fear factual 
information because their minds are already made up, and those who 
never get past the executive summary of ``shake and bake'' boiler-plate 
policy reviews, OTA probably takes too long. For those of us who take 
our elective responsibilities seriously, careful analysis is a 
necessity.
  Some critics have maintained that other congressional support 
agencies could accomplish the same task. That was not the case in 1972 
and is even less true today. None of the support agencies have the 
expertise that OTA had on science and technology issues. None of these 
agencies employ the use of a balanced panel of outside experts and 
stakeholders to review the issue under examination. None of these 
agencies have a bipartisan, bicameral governing body to insure 
neutrality and independence. None of these agencies have a science 
advisory panel composed of world-class science and technology leaders. 
Each of these agencies have expertise and produce competent studies, 
but none can produce the high-quality in-depth studies for which OTA 
has become internationally known.

  And I disagree with those who say that the executive branch, or the 
National Academy of Sciences, or some department of science could 
provide this information. These are not congressional agencies. They 
cannot tailor information to the unique needs of the legislative 
branch. And, as we determined when we first looked at this issue in the 
1960's, we did not want the legislative held captive to information 
produced by the executive branch, without regard to which party is in 
the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who was around at the birth of this agency, 
it saddens me to be present at its death. It saddens me to see 
dedicated public servants turned out of jobs that they performed with 
outstanding competence, even up until the final hours today. Each of us 
owes a debt of gratitude to those people and each of us has a 
responsibility to help them make the transition to another position. 
For those of my colleagues who are unaware, these people cannot use the 
Ramspeck provisions to move into civil service jobs. In fact they do 
not even have active civil service status. We have treated these people 
poorly and they deserve much better.
  Let me conclude with an observation made by a former OTA employee who 
stated OTA's task as being to create for Congress a ``defense against 
the dumb.'' It is shameful that in the end, OTA was defenseless against 
a very dumb decision by Congress.

                          ____________________