9603.pdf

9603_pdf.txt

PAGE 1

Annual Report to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1995 March 1996

PAGE 2

dedicationto the Technology Assessment Board[pageone]The Office of Technology Assessment shall consist of a Technology Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) which shall formulate and promulgate the policies of the Office,..... (P.L. 92-484 s 3b). This Board, appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate, and consisting of six Senators and six Representatives equally divided by party, has been a unique and vital element of OTA since 1972, the year the Office was established and a Board first appointed. The Boards first meeting on April 10, 1973, preceded the receipt of funding for OTA in November 1973 and the beginning of operations in January 1974. Traditionally, OTA Annual Reports have not contained a separate section exclusively devoted to the Board. OTAs last Annual Report, however, would not be complete without recognition of this group of men and women who formed the continuing, integral core of the Office.[s]Certain congressional agencies may fall under the jurisdiction of one or another Committee or Joint Committee of Congress; but no agency except OTA has enjoyed the kind of equally bipartisan, close supervision, oversight, guidance and support given by the Board. The management and staff of OTA came to place great value and trust in the work of the Board and pride in the dedication of the Board and willingness of its members to attend meetings and spend time on the affairs of the Office. This was not a figurehead or rubber stamp group, nor were they, as they proved in the last year, fair-weather friends.[s]At the first meeting on April 10, 1973, the Board consisted of Senators Edward Kennedy, Ernest Hollings, Hubert Humphrey, Clifford Case, Peter Dominick, and Richard Schweicker and Representatives John Davis, Morris Udall, Charles Mosher, Charles Gubser, Olin Teague and Marvin Esch. Other Members of Congress who served on the Board, some such as Senator Ted Stevens for close to twenty years, were Senators Howard Cannon, Dave Durenberger, Charles Mathias, Jr., and Adlai Stevenson and Representatives Cooper Evans, James Harvey, Marjorie Holt, Joan Horn, Mike McCormick, Clarence Miller, Don Sundquist, s

PAGE 3

[pagetwo]Larry Winn, and John Wydler. OTAs last Board meeting was held on October 13, 1995, at which time the Board consisted of two original members, Senators Kennedy and Hollings, and Senators Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley and Claiborne Pell and Representatives Amo Houghton, Mike Oxley, George Brown, Jr., John Dingell and Jim McDermott. The members of OTAs Board were distinguished and thoughtful legislators, often Committee Chairmen or Ranking Minorities. They sought to join the Board and, with few exceptions, enjoyed and continued their service as long as they remained in office. They functioned in an exceptionally constructive and cordial spirit of bipartisanship toward the improvement of OTA and the provision of quality information and analysis to the Congress.[s]Domestic and international observers of technology assessment and the U.S. political scene have asked about the Boards role during this last year in pressing the case for OTA as a continuing intellectual resource to the Congress and the Nation. Without exception Board members spoke out publically at Appropriations Committee hearings, to the news media and on the floor of the House and Senate and privately in offices, hallways, conferences and caucuses to other Members of Congress. Representative Houghton and Senators Hollings, Hatch, and Kennedy introduced, with Representative Vic Fazio and Senator Ted Stevens, and others, amendments to fund OTA in the House and Senate. Led by Chairman Amo Houghton, the Board, Republicans and Democrats alike, communicated a clear and sincere commitment to the words and concepts of OTAs enabling statute, P.L. 92-484, and followed up through the final Conference Committee decision, by word and deed earning the lasting gratitude and respect of OTA staff.

PAGE 4

statementof the TAB chairmanAmo Houghton[pagethree]CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. EXTENSION OF REMARKS [ In Memoriam: The Office of Technology Assessment, 1972-95. Hon. Amo Houghton of New York, in the House of Representatives, September 28, 1995 ] satellite and space systems; methods for managing natural resources; systems for disposing of wastes. The list is endless. But to mention just a few more: OTA evaluated the environmental impacts of technology and estimated the economic and social impacts of rapid technological change. The agency offered sound principles for coping with, reaping the benefits of, that technological changein industry, in the Federal Government, in the workplace, and in our schools. The agency took on controversial subjects, examining them objectively and comprehensively for our benefit. It helped us to better understand complex technical issues by tailoring reports for legislative users. It provided us with early warnings on technologys impacts and it enabled us to better oversee the science and technology programs within the Federal establishment. Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], which served the Congress with such great distinction for more than 20 years, will close its doors on September 29, 1995. On behalf of all the Members of this body, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the more than 200 dedicated and talented individuals at OTA who have served us so selflessly. And I want to share with you a brief summary of their accomplishments. As you know, OTAs job was to provide the Congress with an objective, thorough analysis of many of the critical technical issues of the day. And that it did, examining cutting edge science in medicine, telecommunications, agriculture, materials, transportation, defense, indeed in every discipline and sector important to the United States. The agency appraised the costs and benefits of diverse technological systems: The computerization plans of Federal agencies;

PAGE 5

While pulling issues down to practical grounds, OTA has usually erred on the optimistic side. For example, OTA regularly spelled out its belief in the power of technology to improve our lives and help solve the Nations problems. It worked through a basic understanding of how technology works, how institutions need to change to accommodate new technology, how resistant to change such institutions can be when the conditions are wrong, and how swiftly they can adapt when the conditions are right. OTA helped us discover the conditions for change. [ A Scope Wide and Deep ] Once OTA was well underway, it had 30-60 projects in progress, published up to 55 reports, and started approximately 20 new projects each year. Its work ran the gamut of subject matter, with approaches tailored for each topic and congressional request. For example:[s]In 1975, one OTA program began a comprehensive policy analysis of the Nations energy future, which it provided incrementally throughout the energy crisis.[s]Between 1975 and 1980, another OTA group set the stage for todays booming industry in the technology assessment of health care by demonstrating the inadequacy of information on which decisions about technology were made; laying out the strengths and weaknesses of methods to evaluate technology; and crystallizing the process by which economic tradeoffs could be incorporated in decisions.[s]In 1979, OTA expanded its work in agriculture to include all renewable resources and laid the foundation for others efforts on sustainable development and, later, ecosystem management.[s]One OTA group examined each key mode of transportation in turn, focusing especially on urban transportation; better and less expensive ways to move goods; and technologies which used less petroleum. Another OTA program tracked materials through their total life-cyclefrom[pagefour]

PAGE 6

exploration and extraction through production to use, reuse, and eventual disposal. A third investigated policies related to the private use of Federal public lands and other resources, addressing questions of public equity, the responsibility of industry, and the longterm protection of the environment. In sum, OTA brought new, old important science into the center of many congressional discussions. At times, OTA took part in high-profile debates on major pieces of legislation such as the 1980 Energy Security Act; Superfund; the Clean Air Act; and the Foreign Assistance Act. Also, the agency contributed to specific technical issues that puzzled nontechnical congressional stafffrom risk reform to long-term African development; from acid rain to dismantling nuclear weapons; from the Strategic Defense Initiative to police body armor. One study on global climate change helped Congress evaluate more than 131 pieces of legislation. At its busiest, OTAs testimony for various committees averaged more than once a week. The executive branch and State governments were not outside the OTA reach. OTA published the landmark work on computers in schools. This eventually led to support for teachers as the way to make the best investment in technologya key policy change in education. OTAs repeated work on the farm bill prompted important changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And OTAs comprehensive series of analyses on nuclear waste management set out issues of technology and policy for both industry and the military. [ Careful Analysis, Shared With the World ] In the course of every study, OTA accumulated vast amounts of raw information. By a projects completion, OTA had created a report with value-added. OTA staff excelled at identifying the principal strands of analysis, weighing the evidence of each, and synthesizing essential pieces. The creed of OTA was to come[pagefive]

PAGE 7

as close as possible to objective analysis. It was a point of pride when reports were cited both by an issues defenders and its detractors, as happened most recently in debates regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement and Oregons Medicaid program. The public and private sectors have recently discovered the benefits of organizing work around functional teams. OTA started with this model. It was used in every project. Team members came from different disciplines and backgrounds, with different experiences and perspectives, yet they always seemed to share a commitment to their product and not incidently to the American people. When work took OTA into new subject areas, staff broke ground for new intellectual pursuits. This was true in risk policy. And it was true when OTA developed the analytical methods to identify priorities for agricultural conservation. During OTAs lifetime, international interdependence changed from slogan to reality. OTA was ahead of the curve, conducting international case studies and exploring previously ignored aspects of international security. In fact, between 1985 and 1990, OTAs studies of the impacts of technology on the economy, environment, and security of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe made clear that the demise of centrally planned economies was inevitable. As a result of all this, OTA gradually became recognized worldwide as the top institution of its kind. Representatives from about one-third of the worlds nations visited OTA one or more times to learn how OTA worked; how it became so valuable to Congress and the American people; and how these foreign nations might develop their own OTAs. Austria, Denmark, the European Community, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden have copied or adapted the OTA style. Similar organizations are being discussed or formed in Hungary, Japan, Mexico, the Peoples Republic of China, Russia, Switzerland, and Taiwan.[pagesix]

PAGE 8

The above is simply the most visible aspect of OTAs international impact. Visitors from other countries stopped by OTA almost every week to discuss specific technologies or technology-related issues. Several OTA staff spoke frequently about OTA in other countries. A number accepted temporary details to academic or government positions overseas. And still others traveled abroad to teach short courses on technology assessment. [ The Written Word ] In its 24 years, OTA published nearly 750 full assessments, background papers, technical memoranda, case studies, and workshop proceedings. OTA reports were recorded as being remarkably useful, thorough, comprehensive, rigorous. At their best, OTA reports were among the most cited references on their subjects. Landmarks, they were called, definitive, and the best available primers. From 1992 to 1994, twelve assessments won the National Association for Government Communicators prestigious Blue Pencil Award, successfully competing against as many as 850 other publications in a single year. In the same 3 years, 12 additional reports were named among the 60 Notable Government Documents slected annually by the American Library Associations Government Documents Round Table representing the best Federal, State, and local government documents from around the world. In typical comments, the Journal of Foreign Affairs claimed that, The Office of Technology Assessment does some of the best writing on security-related technical issues in the United States. A former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative called OTAs 1992 report on trade and the environment, the Bible. A Senator described OTAs work on the civilian impacts of defense downsizing as * a superb study and the standard by which all similar efforts will be judged. And the head of one states plant protection agency described OTAs study of[pageseven]

PAGE 9

non-indigenous species as a benchmark which will be the most heavily referenced document for years to come. OTAs reports were often bestsellers at the Government Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service: GPO sold 48,000 OTA reports in 1980 alone. Commercial publishers reprinted at least 65 and translated two reports all or in part. The Superintendent of Documents selected 27 OTA reports to display in the Peoples Republic of China in 1981. And OTA itself reissued reports that had unusual staying power. For example, OTAs 1975 report on tanker safety and the prevention of oil spills was reissued in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez accident. Likewise, OTA combined the summaries of two particularly popular reportson tropical forests and biological diversityand reprinted them in 1992. [ The People Behind the Projects ] OTA staff represented every major field of science and technology, ranging from board-certified internists to Ph.D. physicists. OTA staff were sought out to serve their respective professional associations. A number were elected to offices or boardsthe International Society for Technology Assessment, the International Association for Impact Assessment, the Association for Women in Development, the Ecological Society of America, etc. Two staff formed the Risk Assessment and Policy Association and others went on to found their own companies. Above all else, OTA staff were teachers. As a result of their efforts, hundreds of thousands of people are better informed not only about science and technology but also about the structure and function of Congress. OTA served 30-60 congressional committees and subcommittees each year. Thirty-one Senators and Representatives had the privilege to serve on OTAs Technology Assessment Board and we became among the Congress most knowledgeable members on issues of science and technology.[pageeight]

PAGE 10

Each year, at least several hundred advisory panelists and workshop participants also took part in OTAs work. Some years, OTA tapped as many as 1,500 leaders from academia, non-governmental groups, State and local governments, and industry. OTAs advisors valued the experience and said it made them more fit for decisionmaking in their own fields. Some were experts; some were stakeholders. Still others were members of the larger public. As early as 1975, OTA incorporated public participation and stakeholder involvement into a major study of offshore energy development. Nearly 15,000 people were involved. Later approximately 800 African farmers and herders were included in an evaluation of the United States-funded African Development Foundation. In addition, OTA provided 71 scientists and engineers with a challenging and memorable year on Capitol Hill as Morris K. Udall Congressional Fellows or congressional fellows in health policy. Many of OTAs younger employees gained a taste for researchand for public serviceat OTA and went on to graduate school to become the next generation of business leaders, scientists, engineers, and policy analysts. OTAs record depended upon remarkable support staff as much as it did on the agencys analytical staff. Their work was the standard against which other Government agencies were measuredand often found lacking. People came from around the world to attend OTA meetingsand often commented that OTAs workshops were the most well supported, best organized, and most productive they had ever attended. Contractors were gratified by the ease with which their travel arrangements and invoices were handled. OTA processed hundreds of security clearances efficiently and without incidentwithout which OTA could not have done its work in national defense. Reports sped through OTAs publishing process[pagenine]

PAGE 11

[pageten]and grew steadily more attractive through the years. The staff of OTAs Information Center could find even the most obscure research materialand provided a friendly agencywide gathering place. The Information Center, the technical support office, and the agencys electronic dissemination program kept OTA at the cutting edge of technology for research and for public access to the agencys work. OTA was a small agency. It was a generous place. For some, colleagues became like second families and these relationships extended to committee and personal staffs. Friendship, joy, and grief seemed to be shared without regard to job description. Many at OTA value this legacy as much as any other. But of course, OTA was not perfect. At times, its greatest strengths flexibility, tolerance, the preponderance of technical skillsbecame its biggest weaknesses. One outsider looked at OTAs work and commented, You must have just about the most interesting job there is. I know that many at OTA, for much of their time, felt exactly that way. Although OTA closes on September 29, 1995, the Congress will continue to benefit from its work. Stark evidence of the dedication of OTA staff is the fact that they continued working to the end. More than 30 reports will be delivered to requesting committees even after the doors are closed. OTA soon will be a memory, and we will discover what is lost. But we can salvage something. Those of us who have used OTA reports know that most of them have long shelf lives. The really important issuesthe issues OTA worked ondo not get solved and go away in one Congress. In January 1996, all of OTAs reports will be issued on CD-ROM OTAs final legacy. We should be proud of it.

PAGE 12

EDWARD M. KENNEDYMASSACHUSETTSUnited States SenateWASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101statementof the TAB vice chairmanEdward M. KennedyOctober 13, 1995 The Honorable Amo Houghton Chair, Technology Assessment Board Congress of the United States Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Amo and Friends of OTA: I wish I could be with all of you today for the final meeting of the Technology Assessment Board. As one of the sponsors of the bipartisan legislation that created OTA 23 years ago, I watched with pride as this unique agency became a worldrenowned source of information and analysis on technology issues. Standing at the intersection of science and government, OTA played an extremely valuable role in helping Congress to understand the significance of scientific and technological advances and harness them for the benefit of the American people. OTA helped us evaluate and respond effectively to challenges in fields ranging from agriculture to law enforcement, from adolescent health to nuclear disarmament. In my view, Congress made a serious mistake in choosing to terminate OTA. It is ironic that OTA is being eliminated to save money. The fact is, OTA has saved money for the federal government many times over, by guiding us away from unwise expenditures and toward cost-effective ones. OTA was a bargain for the America people. Its large impact on the legislative process was far out of proportion to the relatively small sums allotted to the agency each year. You recognized these facts, Amo, and fought hard to save OTA in the last few months. Fritz, Ted, Orrin, Chuck, Claiborne and I did our best in the [pageeleven]

PAGE 13

[pagetwelve] Senate to match your efforts in the House. We came up a few votes short, but it wasn't for lack of trying. We won hands down on the merits, but we lost narrowly on the politics, and I regret that very much. Roger Herdman has been an outstanding captain of this ship. He has been a gifted administrator and a good friend to all of us. That we came so close to saving OTA was a measure of how far Roger and OTA's superb staff brought us. In his Inaugural Address, President Kennedy challenged the American people to "invoke the wonders of science, instead of its terrors...Together," he said, "let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, and tap the ocean depths." OTA has helped us meet those challenges, and more. I'm proud to have worked with all of you, and prouder than ever of OTA. Sincerely, Edward M. Kennedy

PAGE 14

Message to the OT A StaffOctober 13 1995I do not think we can impose limits on research. Through hundreds of thousands of years, mans intellectual curiosity has been essential to all the gains we have made. Although in recent times we have progressed from chance and hit-or-miss methods to consciously directly research, we still cannot know in advance what the results may be. It would be regressive and dangerous to trammel the free search for new forms of truth. Margaret Mead American Anthropologist Politicians are famously ill equipped to make scientific decisions. Thats precisely why the Office of Technology Assessment was established. History is replete with examples of shortsighted political decisions in the research field. Everyone knows the vital role King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain played in financing the crucial voyages of Christopher Columbus. Few can identify the people in the other countries who refused to finance Columbus research. They are deservedly anonymous. Yet the people who turned Columbus down probably were making sound political decisions for their time. It was only later those decisions proved disastrous. As avid supporters of the Office of Technology Assessment, we fear a similar mistake has been made by the current Congress. Politics is about todays vote. Research is about the future. The ability of Congress to harness science for the good of the American people will be diminished in your absence. It would be a great favor to us if you would please accept our deep appreciation for your years of extraordinary service in behalf of this country. Sen. Edward KennedyRep. Amo Houghton Senate Co-ChairHouse Co-Chair Technology Assessment BoardTechnology Assessment Board messageto the Office of Technology Assessment staff[pagethirteen]

PAGE 15

[pagefourteen]CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. EXTENSION OF REMARKS [ Office of Technology Assessment: Defense Against the Dumb. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.of California, in theHouse of Representatives, September 29, 1995 ] Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of existence for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. 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 publics 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 dont 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-1960s 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.statementof TAB memberGeorge E. Brown, Jr.

PAGE 16

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 agencys 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[pagefifteen]

PAGE 17

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 1960s, we did not want the legislature 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[pagesixteen]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 OTAs 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.

PAGE 18

statementof the TAAC chairmanJames C. HuntAs a member of the Technology Assessment Advisory Council for the past eight years and as Chair of the Council this last year, I had the opportunity to learn about and review each of OTA's research and assessment programs. In addition, I served on OTA's project Advisory Panels, chairing one of them, and worked with OTA staff on two reports. To me, OTA's well-hidden, most valuable resource was the diverse, experienced and motivated professional staff who had an amazing capacity, despite limited resources, to attract the best minds, expert in any given field, and to gain their enthusiastic participation in developing, for the Congress, reports that are broadly desired by a multitude of other agencies, institutions, and individuals. Indeed, the broadly based relationship among OTA leadership and professional staff, industry and academic institutions and their people impressed on me the quality value that OTA's information and analysis provided the Congress. By working side-by-side with Advisory Panel Members, I grew to respect and appreciate the expertise and commitment of the OTA staff and their dedication to nonpartisan, accurate and evenhanded study and analysis. My fellow members of the Council and I did all that we could to make the case for OTA during the 1995 debate. It was gratifying to see that those very people most familiar with OTA's contributions not only recognized the importance of OTA, but also allocated time from very busy schedules to make the case for OTA's needed continued existence. I share the sense of loss and regret in the outcome. The Congress and the public will miss an impartial, omnipresent arbiter of technology applications. My eight year association with the people of OTA provided a wonderfully instructive, enjoyable life experiencean experience that means a lot to me,[pageseventeen]

PAGE 19

one that I will always treasure. OTA made a difference for thoughtful legislative policy that will be difficult to replace. Indeed, it seems to me that the challenge to the Congressional leadership is to develop an even better approach and a more superior mechanism for technology assessment. For their steady hand on the tiller at OTA, the Congress and the public at large owe Roger Herdman and Jack Gibbons a debt of gratitude.[pageeighteen]

PAGE 20

statement [pagenineteen]of the directorRoger C. HerdmanEarly in fiscal year 1995 Congress signaled that the overwhelming priority to achieve a balanced budget would require such budgetary restrictions that funds could no longer be appropriated to continue OTA. This communication in the first quarter of the year influenced the agenda for FY 1995 and initiated the events of the last three quarters of the year. During that time:[s]OTA and OTAs Board made as persuasively as possible the case that OTAs contributions to Congress were valuable and not obtainable elsewhere. Comprehensive, non-partisan, unbiased, accurate information and analysis on complex science and technology issues are important to informed policy making.[s]Expressions of support for OTAs funding came from academia, industry, public interest groups, distinguished citizens and scientific societies. Particularly gratifying and appreciated was written support from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine, since these institutions by their quality, scope of work and expertise have been scientific colleagues to OTA and now should be the natural places for Congress to turn for help in filling the analysis and information gaps left by OTA's abolishment.[s]OTAs Board held press conferences, testified at hearings, spoke on the floor of the House and Senate and in conference, introduced amendments to fund OTA in both houses of Congress and voted for OTA at every opportunity.[s]A final decision on OTA funding was not reached until conference committee, at which point it was decided to give OTA a closeout budget which allowed for 60 calendar days severance to staff and a small team to ensure an orderly closeout of the agency and proper conservation and dissemination of OTA work and other assets.

PAGE 21

[pagetwenty][s]Few new requests were received and then only for short term projects that OTA could (and did) deliver before the end of the fiscal year.[s]OTA staff worked to the final day of FY 1995 and in the process prepared a record 61 reports (full Assessments or Background Papers), either finishing or at least issuing a partial report on almost all requests pending. In early FY 1996 the closeout staff distributed all Reports, prepared electronic versions for the Internet of recent OTA work and a set of CD-ROMs of all of OTAs work Reports. The completion of OTAs responsibilities and the conservation and dissemination of the agencys work were made possible only by the thoughtful provision of the closeout budget and severance initiated by the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The required archiving to the National Archives, financial accounting, and the orderly distribution of OTAs physical assets to other congressional agencies were also enabled by this appropriation. A complete set of OTA reports was made available for the University of Maryland (College Park), George Mason University in Fairfax, VA., the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the Library, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Sets of recent reports (1991-1995) were made available to a number of academic and technology assessment centers: Princeton University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Cornell University, Stanford University, University of Oklahoma, Washington University, St. Louis, MO., NAS/NRC, George Washington University, Harvard, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University. Internet websites for 1994 and 1995 electronic reports were arranged at the Government Printing Office (http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota), the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nas.edu), and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University (http:// www.wws.princton.edu). OTAs archival CD-ROMs are available from the Government Printing Office.

PAGE 22

OTAs FY 1995 productivity was at record heights as staff met their responsibility to complete millions of dollars of work in progress and provided almost without exception a report on every pending congressional requestsome by the regular process, sixteen that were distributed on return from the Government Printing Office after the close of FY 1995, and some by in-house desktop publishing or photo duplication. This final body of work covering the spectrum of science and technology issues coming before Congress and the American people completes the legacy of OTA a legacy of quality and commitment. OTA soon will be a memory, and we will discover what is lost. But we can salvage something. Those of us who have used OTA reports know that most of them have long shelf lives. The really important issuesthe issues OTA worked ondo not get solved and go away in one Congress. In January 1996, all of OTAs reports will be issued on CD-ROMOTAs final legacy. We should be proud of it. Amo Houghton, M.C., Congressional Record, September 28, 1995.[pagetwentyone]

PAGE 23

recordof OTA's organization, operations, and abolishmentThe beginning of FY95 found management and staff of the Office of Technology Assessment involved in adjusting to and continuing the implementation of a major reorganization. The major structural and personnel actions of that reorganization took place during FY94, but as OTA learned, any major restructuring is an ongoing process of adaptation and adjustment. New policies and procedures designed to complement the reorganizationsuch as a formal project tracking system and a process of project-long internal peer review (shadow panels and project kibitzers)were also being developed and put in place. In addition, the analytical agenda of the agency was a full and challenging one. Due to the elections of November 1994, OTA staff were beginning the process of ascertaining the research needs of the new Republican chairpersons, and planning the years research agenda in ways that could accommodate new requests from them. Thus, the activities at the opening of FY95, in early fall of 1994 had a double focus: the conduct of a wide range of important research and the continuing challenge of guiding a newly reorganized agency. This focus was blurred in December 1994, when the Senate Republican Caucus voted in favor of the elimination of OTA, and shifted entirely in the ensuing months, as further legislative actions moved closer and closer to a formal decision for elimination. [ Organization ] The Office of Technology Assessment was established by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 [86 Stat.797] as a congressional support agency with the mission of helping Congress deal with policy issues affected by the complexities of science and technology, from biotechnology to fusion energy, from telecommunications to space launch capabilities. OTA was designed to operate in a uniquely expert, objective, and nonpartisan fashion.[pagetwentytwo]

PAGE 24

OTAs staff represented every major field of science and technology. It was organized into two major divisions (down from three in previous years) comprising six research programs (down from nine); these are described in the next section. Administrative support offices supported the analytical work of OTA. There were offices for budget and finance, personnel, contracts, information services, telecommunications and information systems, building services, and publishing. The Congressional and Public Affairs Office handled much of the agencys congressional liaison and press work, and relations with the Board and the Technology Assessment Advisory Council. OTA was governed by a 12-member, bipartisan congressional Technology Assessment Board of six Senators and six Representatives, equally divided by party. In addition, a distinguished council of 10 leaders from science and technology, business and industry, and education provided advice as the Technology Assessment Advisory Council. OTA undertook assessments at the request of any congressional committee Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. The OTA Board could also request work, as could OTAs Director. In practice, most assessments were requested by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of a committee, and a great many were supported by more than one committee. The Technology Assessment Board made the final decision on whether OTA could proceed with an assessment and reviewed all reports prior to their release. Most of OTAs work concentrated on in-depth assessment that took one to two years to complete. Drawing on past and current work, OTA also met immediate congressional needs with a variety of analytical support such as briefings, testimony, and special reports.[pagetwentythree]

PAGE 25

[ Fiscal Year 1995 Activities ] The key overlay for the agencys activities was a nearly physical sense of uncertainty, a 10 month long environment of clear and immediate uncertainty about the agencys entire future. It was a period of extreme ups and downs, with the ups being a sense that the agency would continue to exist in some form but with the loss of a substantial proportion (from 20 to 50 percent) of its resources and, especially, staff. The downs were periods when OTAs termination seemed the most likely outcome. We mention the mood, or climate, of the agency during most of FY95 because the agencys operations took place in that context. Despite the uncertainty of each staff persons future and the decision by the Congress that OTA was not worth saving, or perhaps because of these factors, the agencys productivity reached all time highs. As indicated in the Directors statement, OTA produced and released in some form a total of 61 research Reports and Background Papers plus the usual administrative documents (an Annual Report and catalogs of publications). The 61 research documents delivered to the requesting Committees and the Congress as a whole comprise several classes of products. Many were finished as originally planned, with scope, format, and timing unchanged. Others, however, were revisedsome in depth of analysis, some in scope of topics addressedand some were unchanged in scope but collapsed in time by working many many extra hoursin order to deliver before OTAs elimination. Some of the projects OTA had underway at the beginning of FY95 had to simply be dropped, or had one or more of multiple planned documents dropped, and these projects are thus not in the 61 completions. The 61 Reports and Background Papers completed and delivered are listed, along with the requesting and endorsing Members and Committees, at the conclusion of this statement.[pagetwentyfour]

PAGE 26

[ Abolishment ] The decision by the Congress to abolish OTA effective September 30, 1995, followed a year of uncertainty and ever changing prospects for survival. The process began in December 1994 with a vote by the Senate Republican Caucus to recommend termination of the agency and gathered momentum with the naming of Senator Mack as Chairman of the Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Mack co-authored the Caucus report and had publicly vowed to abolish the agency. Considerable debate followed in both houses of the Congress, beginning with a joint hearing between the House and Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittees. The Subcommittees discussed alternative proposals for trimming the $1.3 billion legislative branch budgets. Although OTA represented less than 1 percent of the legislative branch budget (1/20th the size of the General Accounting Office alone), early in the 104th Congress OTA became a symbol of the Congressional Leaderships ability to reduce the size of governmenta function, an agency, and its associated cost within the legislative branch of government. This became the principal argument behind the House and Senate Leaderships decision to debate the future of OTA in the appropriations process rather than through the agencys authorizing and oversight committees, the Senate Rules and House Science Committees. In the House, most questions put to the leadership regarding OTAs fate were referred to Representative Bob Walker, Chairman of the House Science Committee and close colleague of Speaker Gingrich. Chairman Walker, nonetheless, was silent in all open Committee and floor debates regarding OTAs fate although he occasionally made statements to the press praising the quality of OTAs work but expressing concern about synchronization of OTAs work products with the Congressional rhythm. In the Senate, only Senator Mack seemed openly intent on eliminating OTA with virtually all others professing an open mind on the subject.[pagetwentyfive]

PAGE 27

With proposed elimination on the table, OTAs supporters in Congress, led by the members of the Technology Assessment Board and many others, argued the case for OTAs unique contributions to the legislative process, including its nonpartisan oversight and management, its outreach-oriented research process (reaching over 5,000 distinguished experts annually), the exceptional quality of its staff and the work they produced (over half of OTAs professional staff held PhDs spanning the science and technology-related disciplinesunique in the legislative branch), and the importance of the function in todays increasingly technology dependent world (OTAs structure is being emulated in governments around the world), especially when few in Congress come from science and technology backgrounds. The science and technology community also registered its support for OTA with strong letters of endorsement from the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Physical Society, the Federation of American Scientists, and many others from academia, industry, and overseas. [HOUSE DEBATE] The formal process for elimination began in the House Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee. In their testimony the heads of the Legislative support agencies as well as Members of TAB, including Reps. Houghton, Oxley, Brown, Dingell, and McDermott sharply distinguished the roles of these agencies. Chairman Packard, however, delivered an appropriations bill eliminating funding for OTA arguing that the information provided by OTA can be acquired elsewhere. This position did not prevail; Mr. Houghton, Chair-designee of TAB, and Mr. Fazio, ranking minority member of the Legislative Branch subcommittee, and a long time OTA supporter, fashioned a floor amendment (actually two different versions with Mr. Fazio subsequently deferring to Mr. Houghtons version) designed to preserve[pagetwentysix]

PAGE 28

the function of OTA and making it a part of the Library of Congress. However, the House Rules Committee would only allow floor debate on amendments that were revenue-neutral compared with the Committee-passed bill, though that bill was below the legislative branch allocation included in the draft House budget resolution. As a result, Mr. Fazio and Mr. Houghton chose, as a placeholder, to propose reducing the Library of Congress appropriation by several percent to provide for OTA since that line item was the only amount increased over the previous year in the Committee-passed bill, vowing to restore the amount reduced in the House-Senate Conference on the bill. Apparently, the LOC feared the restoration of the reduction might not be delivered in the conference since the Librarian of Congress began to counsel members against the HoughtonFazio amendment. The floor debate on this amendment was heavily in favor of OTA with only Chairman Packard arguing against the amendment. The amendment prevailed by a wide margin. Floor statements in support of the agency came from both sides of the aisle including Representatives Weldon, Boehlert, Hyde, Houghton, Clinger, Walsh, Morella, Fazio, Brown, Dingell, Kennedy, Engel, Moran, and Skaggs. EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENTS OF SUPPORTERS ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESTORE FUNDING TO OTA DURING THE HOUSE FLOOR DEBATES INCLUDED: [ Representative Brown ] At a time when budget cuts are a priority, some have questioned whether Congress needs a support agency whose primary mission is to assess technology and its implications for society. I hope you will answer that question with an emphatic yes because I believe today we need OTA more than ever before. I have been involved with OTA from the very beginning and have watched its development from my vantage point on the OTA Board since 1975. Congress established OTA because there was a great need to have our own independent and objective source of[pagetwentyseven]

PAGE 29

information on complicated scientific and technological issues. I am convinced that this need is stronger than ever because science and technology permeate so many of the issues that we consider, such as space, energy, environment, and health. When OTA was created, no one knew exactly how it was going to work. There were times during the early years when we were not quite sure it would work at all. I think few of us would have predicted what a vital role OTA would play in the legislative processes over the years, and how valuable its work would be to so many different committees and to Members from both sides of the aisle. [ Representative Houghton ] We should not go blind into the 21st century thinking about a whole variety of things, not understanding science. There are only 3 scientists in this body. Most people do not consider the scientific implications here. They are critically important. I have been involved as a businessman, before I came here, in cutting, cutting, cutting all my life. That is the nature of what business does. Never once did we cut the research, because it not only affects the cost but particularly it affects the revenues. If we are going to go into this next century and our major war will be economic rather than military, we must know what our legislative body can do and what other people are going to do in the world around us. Therefore, I plead either to support the Fazio amendment or my particular amendment in terms of preserving an element of scientific understanding without which I think we are going to be in terrible trouble. [ Representative Fazio ] I think is important to restore the Office of Technology Assessment to that group of agencies that have shown an outstanding ability to assist this Congress in its workload. There is no question in my mind that this is an organization that, if eliminated, would be seriously missed by this institution and I think by the people who elect us and send us to Washington[pagetwentyeight]

PAGE 30

to serve every 2 years. Mr. Chairman, this is a very complex world we are part of. Many of us are trained in the social sciences and humanities. We are not physicists, chemists. There are very few of us that have scientific degrees. Yet we as a Congress, in almost every committee of jurisdiction, are assigned a responsibility of very frequently, particularly in the appropriations process, making fundamental judgments about questions relating to science and technology that are beyond our ability to understand without the assistance of people who are expert. What have we done? Instead of going out and hiring a group of people who are standing by to advise us, we have created a small entity with a core staff that works with thousands of people, from the academic world, from the private sector, from national laboratories, from any number of places where scientists are employed in this country, to help us solve the problems that come to us on a regular basis. We have had this agency, which has a $22 million budget, pay for itself hundreds of times over by giving this Congress the kind of advice it needs to prevent mistakes from being made. Some are, anyway. We have not always used OTA to the extent we should. But my suggestion is, rather than eliminate it, lets let the new majority, if they are so inclined, to change it, to reform it, to mold it, to make it more useful. I think this meat ax approach should be rejected. [ Representative Weldon ] Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one issue during the brief time that I have here today, and that is the issue of the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment. As a senior member of the Committee on Science and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, it is extremely important that we not take this short-sighted approach to eliminate what amounts to approximately a $22 million item in our legislative branch appropriations bill. The Office of Technology Assessment touches the acts of this Congress in ways[pagetwentynine]

PAGE 31

that none of us really are aware of or understand. In the area of defense, the subcommittee that I chair oversees approximately $35 billion of expenditures. That is more than five Cabinet-level agencies. Much of the research that we do is dependent upon the long-term work that has been done by the Office of Technology Assessment. Just last week we marked up the 1996 authorization bill for the military and we plussed up the national missile defense accounts and theater missile defense accounts by $800 million. Much of the documentation and the arguments to justify that plus-up came from reports and studies done by the Office of Technology Assessment; their study on missile proliferation around the world, their work on the development of arms and the need for arms control and the needs of defending the American people. All of that factual investigative work that took in some cases months and years was done by OTA. It would be extremely short-sighted for us to eliminate this agency. And, in fact, we and the taxpayers would be the losers in the end. And there is no other agency that can do that work. [ Representative Dingell ] [I]n a time when we are talking about risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, getting the Congress the best possible information we can get is a very important undertaking. And having OTA to provide that kind of assistance to the Congress is absolutely indispensable. OTA, because of the fine technical work and because of the careful research which it has done on advanced questions involving technology and advanced information systems, has saved the Congress literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the time of its existence. To cut it back at a time when other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of this kind of advice to a legislative body would be a great shame, and would indeed cost us vastly more than any piddling savings that could be made by eliminating that agency. I would urge my colleagues to recognize this is a cost-benefit, efficient, and desirable step in continuing the existence of OTA.[pagethirty]

PAGE 32

[ Representative Boehlert ] I rise in strong support of this amendment to preserve the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] I fail to see precisely what problem the elimination of OTA is supposed to solve. Is the problem that we suffer from a surfeit of clear, objective, analysis on the complex technical issues confronting the Nation? Is the problem that we expect that the questions facing the Congress are likely to become simpler and less related to technology? Is the problem that as individual Members we have more time, energy, and staff to delve into perplexing scientific and technical materials? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. And for that reason, the response to the proposal to eliminate OTA should also be a resounding no. OTA is the Agency that gives Congress half a chance at making sense of the growing welter of complex, technical issues we must consider. Without OTA, we will be ever more at the mercy of special interests, who appear at our doors with their particular take on the issues, their own tailored explanations, their specifically crafted data. Now of course I know why some Members want to eliminate OTAto save a little money. But as I have said before, the public has asked us to do more with lessnot to do more knowing less. There are other items we should examine before limiting our access to the most precious commodity in Washingtonreliable information. The writer Kurt Vonnegut once defined the information revolution as the ability of human beings to actually know what they are talking about, if they really want to. OTA has given us the ability to participate in that revolution. It is a revolution we should embrace, not reverse. Support this amendment, and support the ability of Congress to know what it is talking about. [ Representative Kennedy ] Since its inception in 1972, OTA has served as the scientific arm of Congress. In the effort to spend the dollars more wisely, it seems to me that OTA is more critical today than ever before. OTA helps Congress determine what[pagethirtyone]

PAGE 33

projects should be undertaken, streamlined and made more effective. It is often said that knowledge is power. Having the right information, the right knowledge, will allow us to better be able to make the right decisions. In this case, OTA provides us with the knowledge, gives us the power. [ Representative Clinger ] I think it really does not make a whole lot of sense as we move into a more technologically driven era to be taking away the tool that really give us in Congress the opportunity to assess the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of various technologies. I know as the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that we rely, in doing that oversight as to the effectiveness of programs, OTA provides us with invaluable information. So, you know, we seem to be going in the wrong direction when we really are going to have a much more scientifically, technically driven society, to be taking away the resource that enables us to make rational decisions as to what we should be investing in. I think it would be a terrible mistake to do away with OTA entirely. [ Representative Morella ] As the chair of the Science Subcommittee on Technology, I can attest to the importance of OTA. It provides in-depth analyses of science and technology issues for Congress on a bipartisan basis. Reports are initiated only after OTAs congressional governing board, consisting of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, agrees to proceed. OTA is a small agency that is able to do its job effectively because of its access to expertise from across the country, calling on industry, academia, and other experts to obtain free assistance. It has voluntarily reduced its management staff by 40 percent since 1993, and it continues to save Federal dollars by relying on temporary experts on staff. OTAs reports have led to important cost-saving innovations for our agencies as well. OTAs continued existence is critical to our resolution of complicated policy questions through an[pagethirtytwo]

PAGE 34

objective analysis of difficult issues. Currently, OTA is working on reports examining weapons proliferation, the human genome project, air traffic control, nuclear waste cleanup, and advanced telecommunications networks. [ Representative Engel ] Yes, let us cut waste. Let us cut the things that do not work. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Eliminating OTA? Give me a break. That is one of the things that has worked. It is one of the things that has been good. [ Representative Skaggs ] So much of the work of this place now goes on really in a second language, the language of science and technology, whether it is space issues or research issues or environmental issues. Without OTA, essentially, to do simultaneous translation of the language that is very inaccessible to most of us who have not been trained in technical fields, we will essentially be engaging in an act of unilateral disarmament on very, very key national issues. Far from being a luxury that we could do without, this is a necessity that we would be foolish to try to do without. The idea that there is play or leeway in the budgets of any of the other support agencies, GAO or CRS, is simply not true. Those budgets are being held static. There is no place else to put these functions. We need to keep them alive and well at the OTA. [ Representative Hyde ] It just seems to me in this era of fiber optics and lasers and space stations, we need access to an objective, scholarly source of information that can save us millions and billions. We should not eviscerate everything that makes us a more effective Congress. So, I support the Houghton amendment. [ Representative Moran ] The Office of Technology Assessment has done a great job over the years in supplying us with the information we need to make difficult decisions.[pagethirtythree]

PAGE 35

[ Representative Walsh ] Efforts to eliminate funding for this program are a short-sighted move that Congress will regret as the OTA is an invaluable resource in determining the budgetary impact of new scientific developments. The OTA is a bipartisan agency that relies on technical and scientific expertise from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, and other well-respected institutions. The reports that OTA submits to congressional committees are thorough, top-notch documents that provide expert guidance in advising how Congress should adapt to emerging technologies. Furthermore, OTA is an efficient, unbiased organization that has made recommendations which have saved the U.S. Government millions of dollars. For example, the OTA's study of a Social Security Administration plan to purchase computers helped save the Government $368 million. Other OTA recommendations have been influential in public policy decisions. OTA's reports on preventative Medicare services validated the benefits of mammography screening in the elderly. Another study demonstrated how cost prohibitive it would be to institute cholesterol screening in the elderly. The point I am trying to make is that OTA is a proven organization that provides tangible benefits, expertise, and savings to Congress. Efforts to eliminate all of the functions and personnel of the OTA are misguided. [HOUSE DEBATE: FINAL ACTION] The leadership, seemingly surprised by the vote supporting OTA, required a second vote this time, according to Members, with instructions from the leaderships whip organization to defeat the amendment. Mr. Houghtons amendment was actually accepted as a substitute amendment for Mr. Fazios amendment on the first vote so, technically, a second vote was required to insert the amendment, but in virtually all circumstances such a vote would be handled by a routine voice vote since the same language would be the subject of both votes. The effect of the whip action narrowed the gap and near the[pagethirtyfour]

PAGE 36

end of the time allocated for the vote with passage of the amendment losing by one vote, the speaker pro-tem gaveled down the vote on signal, according to Members, from a member of the House whip team. At the time, two Members intending to vote aye were dashing down the aisle wishing to cast their votes. The House erupted in pandemonium; the leadership called for recess until the next day. At that time, the House leaders, commenting that they did not wish to have even a perception that Members might be cut off voting, proposed a de novo vote on the Houghton amendment that, this time, passed by a substantial margin. By the end of House action, members had voted on exactly the same amendment three times within twelve hours. OTA had survived House action with a 25 percent budget cut. [SENATE DEBATE] The debate then moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Legislative Branch Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Mack and accompanied by Senator Bennett, heard testimony prior to the final House action on the legislative appropriations bill from Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Kennedy as well as Director Herdman. Sen. Grassley argued that Sen. Mack, in presenting the host of recommendations he co-authored with Senator Domenici included in the Republican Conference Resolution of December 1994, had agreed to revisit the OTA issue on March 1 as he had revisited the issue of elimination of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). Senator Mack stated that Sen. Grassley had misunderstood and no such discussion was planned and that the JEC case was different from the OTA case since the House Appropriations Committee agreed to preserve the JEC. Senators Hatch and Kennedy made strong presentations for OTAs appropriation and Senators Mack and Bennett commented that there were plenty of reports available on subjects OTA has studied. Senator Mack presented a Chairmans mark to the full Appropriations Committee that included the closing of OTA. Senators Hollings and Stevens offered an[pagethirtyfive]

PAGE 37

amendment to preserve OTA with a one percent reduction in the appropriations of the other support agencies, necessary to preserve revenue neutrality of the bill. They repeated the arguments for preserving the agency but the LOC had continued to express concern to members in the Senate, arguing that even a 1 percent reduction of its budget was too much. At the final Appropriations Committee meeting the amendment failed to pass once again, setting the stage for a floor amendment debate. Senator Hollings offered the amendment on the floor, co-sponsored by Senators Hatch, Stevens, Robb, Lieberman, Wellstone, and Kennedy. Forceful support was offered in favor of the amendment by Senators Stevens, Hatch, Grassley, Kennedy, Glenn, Pell, Moynihan, and Murray (and subsequent extension of remarks by Senator Inouye, who was not present for the vote), but the amendment was tabled and Senator Macks close-out budget mark was approved. EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENTS OF SUPPORTERS ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESTORE FUNDING TO OTA DURING THE SENATE FLOOR DEBATES INCLUDED: [ Senator Stevens ] When it comes down to it, we have used technology in this country to stay ahead militarily, to stay ahead economically, to meet the needs of our people, and yet here we are about ready to do away with the one entity in the Congress that tries to collate and analyze and deliver to Members of Congress credible, timely reports on the development of technology. I believe, more than most people realize, that we are changing the course of history in this Congress, but this is not one of the hallmarks of that change. This entity [OTA] ought to be out in the forefront of that change, and it will not be unless it is properly funded and maintained.[pagethirtysix]

PAGE 38

[ Senator Hollings ] Those who are frustrated and say, 'If I cannot cut this, where can I cut?' I cannot understand those who are committed to ignorance. We are trying to find out. We are trying to learn. We, who have been dealing with the Office of Technology Assessment, study very closely and look at their particular commitments. We just do not take anything and everything. In fact, all of the requests made are bipartisan. They come from the chairmen and the ranking members of the committees themselves. We get way more requests than we respond to and cannot take on each and every question that would come. So it comes with a real need from the Congress itself. OTA has responded. It has done a professional job. There is no criticism in this debate about the quality of work. I am not going to try to overwhelm you and bring all the studies and everything else. But we can get into a few of them. I am pleased I have checked this amendment through with our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Washington, and I will be glad to adjust it. Do not tell me that we can give everything to GAO; we know GAO can do it. That is not true. I worked closely for years as chairman of the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, working with Elmer Staats and everything else. What we had to do was cut out all the term papers that were being made for high school graduates and everything over there. They will take on anything to keep the work going. Let us not do that. Let us keep the Office of Technology Assessment at an economical price and continue it and not abolish it in the political urge to get rid of something here. [ Senator Grassley ] By statute, OTA must secure unbiased information regarding the impact of technological application. OTA is one of the few truly neutral sources of[pagethirtyseven]

PAGE 39

information for the Congress. In a very real sense, OTA is our source of objective counsel when it comes to science and technology and its interaction with public policy decision making. There are plenty of places for information in this town, but so many of these sources of information come from the private sectorand there is nothing wrong with the private sector; there is nothing wrong with organizations protecting their own interests, even if it is in the area of science and technology. But if we do not have an unbiased source of information, then we have to rely on organizations with a stake in keeping alive programs that benefit their interests. [ Senator Kennedy ] The Office of Technology Assessment has performed the task we assigned to it superbly. It continues to serve an indispensable role. It should bear its fair share of the current budget crisisbut it should not be abolished. [ Senator Hatch ] I do not think we should make the mistake of cutting OTA yet. I am the first to admit that we have to make cutbacks here. I think OTA has to suffer its fair share. So I am not arguing for 100 percent of OTA's budget. I wish we could because I think it is working over the long run, because this is the one arm of Congress that does give us, to the best of their ability, unbiased, scientific and technical expertise that we could not otherwise get where most everybody has confidence in what they do. [ Senator Pell ] I am in support of the effort to preserve the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA, on whose board I currently sit, has been of profound and indispensable use to the Congress in the carrying out of its function of an independent source of complex, unbiased analysis[pagethirtyeight]

PAGE 40

of the technology issues facing our country today. I firmly believe that it would be short-sighted and unwise for us to eliminate entirely this agency, even as we strive to effectuate budget savings with the Legislative Branch. [ Senator Murray ] OTA is a unique and valuable asset of the Congress. For many years it was also unique to the United States; but within the past few years, it has been used as a model by many democratic nations for establishing their own technology assessment organizations. [ Senator Glenn ] [T]he OTA has proved itself time and again in hundreds of studies across the board spectrum of technology assessment. Throughout its tenure, it has become recognized around the world of its cogent, professional, and unbiased work. It would be foolhardy to shelve that expertise now in a blind effort to simply slash budgets. [ Senator Moynihan ] I am sure most of us will also agree that the Office of Technology Assessment has an important role. It has been here a quarter century. It was established for a role and it ought to continue. [CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ACTION] OTAs last chance for survival was in the House-Senate conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Legislative Appropriations bill. Chairman Packard offered to accede to the Senate position for elimination but Representative Fazio introduced an amendment to fund OTA without a reduction in the LOC appropriation. The Committee registered a tie vote; thus the amendment failed to be approved.[pagethirtynine]

PAGE 41

The Senate mark for closing down OTA was thus agreed to in conference and any possibility of additional attempts would be frustrated by the overall federal budget impasse with the White House; OTA quietly began preparations for suspending operations, transferring assets to other support agencies as instructed in the legislation, and out-placement of OTA staff to other careers. It should be noted that the Senate mark included funds for 60-day severance for all OTA employees and arrangements for a closeout staff of seventeen during fiscal year 1996. This provision enabled OTA staff to concentrate up to the last days on completing almost all pending requests for committees, issuing 61 reports (sixteen of which were distributed after October 1) and also allowed the closeout team to carry out necessary final tasks, such as proper archiving to the National Archives and to create a set of CD-ROMs comprising all 755 of OTAs reports from 1972 to closure. Furthermore, with the help of the Architect of the Capitol, physical assets were made available to other congressional agencies. Recognition for this constructive provision, which maximized responsible preservation of OTA assets and responsibilities, is due to Senator Mack and the Appropriations Committees. [A NOTE ABOUT FISCAL YEAR 1996 ACTIVITIES] Because OTAs research activities were terminated as of the end of FY95, there will be no Annual Report for fiscal year 1996. As mentioned in the Directors statement, OTA was given an appropriation sufficient to conduct agency closeout activities and authority to continue 17 staff members for a few months for that purpose. Most of those activities are described elsewhere in this Annual Report, but they comprise personnel and financial recordkeeping and processing; delivery to Congress and dissemination to a wider audience of the reports finished at the close of FY95; preparation of the archival CD-ROM and establishment of continuing Internet sites for OTA OnLine; distribution of OTAs computers and other information[pageforty]

PAGE 42

technology, furniture, and other physical assets, through the administrative control of the Architect of the Capitol; distributing to the extent possible the remaining stocks of OTAs publications; closing out and paying final invoices for contracts and purchase orders; and the archiving of OTAs records and other essential papers for inclusion in the National Archives. [IN CONCLUSION] Five aspects of the final year and termination stand out dramatically in retrospect. First, the staff of OTA worked extremely hard, when some would argue they had little reason to, to finish as many of the projects as possible before the shutdown. The result is an impressive body of work that will be of value to Congress and the public for years to come. The actions of the staff clearly and convincingly demonstrated their belief in the importance of the work they were doing. Second, the staff of the agency conducted themselves during this trying period with an unmatched level of professionalism that serves only to enhance the reputation of the agency and stands as a true piece of evidence of the dedication of those individuals. No individual lashed out in the media at the Congress or its Members or staff, even when frustrated or angered by some of the misinformation about OTA that was circulating from time to time or simply by the idea that the staffs work was of insufficient value to continue. And no one threw down work in progress and walked away. Third, in general, staff members have found new employment in good positions. OTA evidently is, as we have been told often, a very good place to have been in terms of career prospects. This excellent record of finding new positions holds in spite of the fact that a great many project staff, as mentioned above, continued working up to the very last days in September, although there is some correlation with how long it is taking some individuals to find new jobs with how long they delayed their job search in order to complete work.[pagefortyone]

PAGE 43

Fourth is the sense of frustration that permeated these final months, as staff struggled to understand the decision to eliminate the agency despite their efforts over the years to operate in a nonpartisan fashion, building relationships and working for both Republicans and Democrats, both House and Senate, and conducting what we believed to be accurate, independent, valuable research. The fifth, and last, aspect that stands out is the sense of pride all OTA staff feel at the often heroic efforts undertaken by those who knew us best: the Members of the congressional Board, their staffs, the Technology Assessment Advisory Council, and a great many of our peers and colleagues in academia, industry, and other sectors. It made a difference in the attitude of staff, and was personally rewarding to see those efforts, even though they ultimately failed, on OTAs behalf.[pagefortytwo]

PAGE 44

[pagefortythree] releasesof the industry, commerce, and international security division[ The Industry, Commerce, and International Security Division was comprised of three research programs: Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure; Industry, Telecommunications, and Commerce; and International Security and Space. ] In FY 1995, this division published 14 assessment reports and 15 background papers. Fusion Energy Program: The Role of TPX and Alternate Concepts (BP)[requested by] House Committee on ScienceNuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency[requested by] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Senate Committee on Foreign Relations [endorsed by] House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence House Committee on Armed Services Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsOther Approaches to Civil-Military Integration: The Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Armed ServicesU.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space[requested by] House Committee on ScienceThe National Space Transportation Policy: Issues for Congress[requested by] House Committee on ScienceReducing the Costs of Collecting Meteorological Data (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and EnvironmentElectronic Surveillance in a Digital Age (BP)[requested by] Congressman Michael G. Oxley

PAGE 45

Issue Update on Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Governmental AffairsThe Lower Tiers of the Space Transportation Industrial Base (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Science, Space, and TechnologyTelecommunications Technology and Native Americans[requested by] Senate Committee on Indian AffairsEnvironmental Technology: Analysis of Selected Federal R&D Programs (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Science Senate Committee on Environment and Public WorksForeign Eligibility for U.S. Technology Funding (BP)[requested by] Senator John D. Rockefeller, IVWireless Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure[requested by] House Committee on ScienceInternational Partnerships in Large Science Projects (BP)[requested by] House Committee on ScienceA History of the Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Armed Services and its Subcommittee on Defense Technology, Acquisition, and Industrial Base House Committee on Armed ServicesRenewing our Energy Future[requested by] House Committee on Science and its Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Senator Charles E. Grassley House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture;[pagefortyfour]

PAGE 46

and Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water DevelopmentDistributed Interactive Simulation of Combat (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Armed Services and its Subcommittee on Defense Technology, Acquisition, and Industrial Base House Committee on Armed ServicesAssessing the Potential for CivilMilitary Integration: Selected Case Studies (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Armed Services and its Subcommittee on Defense Technology, Acquisition, and Industrial Base House Committee on Armed ServicesReducing Earthquake Losses[requested by] House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and its Subcommittee on ScienceBringing Health Care Online: The Role of Information Technologies[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human ResourcesInformation Technologies for the Control of Money Laundering[requested by] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on InvestigationsFlat Panel Displays in Perspective[requested by] Senate Committee on Armed ServicesAdvanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car[requested by] House Committee on Commerce House Committee on Science Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs[pagefortyfive]

PAGE 47

Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Safeguards (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Senate Committee on Foreign Relations [endorsed by] House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence House Committee on Armed Services Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsImproving the Prospects for Success in Future International Peace Operations: Tactics, Technology, Training (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Armed Services Senate Committee on Armed ServicesGlobal Communications: Opportunities for Trade and Aid[requested by] House Committee on International RelationsInnovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technologies[requested by] Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation House Committee on Science, Space and TechnologyThe Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America[requested by] Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs and its Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Credit Formation House Committee on Public Works and Transportation and its Subcommittee on Investigations and OversightThe Effectiveness of Research and Experimentation Tax Credits (BP)[pagefortysix]

PAGE 48

releasesof the health, education, and environment division[ The Health, Education, and Environment Division was comprised of three research programs: Education and Human Resources; Environment; and Health. ] In FY 1995, the Health, Education, and Environment Division published 12 assessment reports and 20 background papers. Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources [endorsed by] House Committee on Education and Labor Senate Appropriations CommitteeThe Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Adults (BP)[requested by] House Committee on the Budget House Committee on Ways and MeansAgriculture, Trade, and Environment: Achieving Complementary Policies[requested by] Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry House Committee on Agriculture House Committee on Foreign AffairsCosts and Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Elderly Men (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on HealthHospital Financing in Seven Countries (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Ways and Means and its Subcommittee on Health [endorsed by] Senator Edward Kennedy Senator Charles GrassleyState of the States on Brownfields: Programs for Cleanup and Reuse of Contaminated Sites (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials[pagefortyseven]

PAGE 49

EPA Superfund Actions and ATSDR Public Health Data (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous MaterialsEffectiveness and Costs of Osteoporosis Screening and Hormone Replacement Therapy (BP), Vol. 1[requested by] Senate Special Committee on AgingEffectiveness and Costs of Osteoporosis Screening and Hormone Replacement Therapy (BP), Vol. 2[requested by] Senate Special Committee on AgingCoverage of Laser Technology by Health Insurers (BP)[requested by] Senator Edward Kennedy [endorsed by] Senate Special Committee on Aging Senate Committee on the Budget Congressman John DingellAdverse Reactions to HIV Vaccine: Medical, Ethical and Legal Issues (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on HealthFederal Technology Transfer and the Human Genome Project (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Appropriations Senate Committee on Labor and Human ResourcesCleaning Up Contaminated WoodTreating Sites (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent AgenciesLearning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources House Committee on Education and Labor[pagefortyeight]

PAGE 50

Environmental Policy Tools: A Users Guide[requested by] Senate Committee on Environment and Public WorksChallenges for U.S. Agricultural Research Policy[requested by] Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and ForestryTargeting Environmental Priorities in Agriculture: Reforming Program Strategies[requested by] Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and ForestryGauging Control Technology and Regulatory Impacts in Occupational Safety and Health: An Appraisal of OSHAs Analytic Approach[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources House Committee on Education and LaborImpacts of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria[requested by] House Committee on Energy and Commerce Senate Committee on Labor and Human ResourcesRisks to Students in School[requested by] House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Health and the Environment House Committee on Education and LaborBiologically Based Technologies for Pest Control[requested by] House Committee on Agriculture House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands[pagefortynine]

PAGE 51

Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities[requested by] House Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheriesNuclear Wastes in the Arctic: An Analysis of Arctic and Other Regional Impacts from Soviet Nuclear Contamination[requested by] Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense Senate Committee on Governmental AffairsEducation and Technology: Future Visions (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources [endorsed by] House Committee on Education and Labor Senate Appropriations CommitteeScreening and Testing Chemicals in Commerce (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Research and DevelopmentCurrent Status of Federal Involvement in U.S. Aquaculture (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheriesSelected Technology Issues in U.S. Aquaculture (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheriesThe Effectiveness of AIDS Prevention Efforts (BP)[requested by] House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment[pagefifty]

PAGE 52

Impact of Health Reform on Rural Areas: Lessons from the States (BP) Occupational Training for Young People in the United Kingdom (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources House Committee on Education and LaborDoes Vocational Education Help the Forgotten Half?: Short-Term Economic Consequences of High School Vocational Education for Non-College-Students (BP)[requested by] Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources House Committee on Education and LaborTechnology and Policy for Suppressing Grain Dust Explosions in Storage Facilities (BP)[pagefiftyone]

PAGE 53

[ The Technology Assessment Advisory Council (TAAC) was established by OTAs statute, and members were appointed by OTAs Congressional Technology Assessment Board (TAB). The Council advised TAB and the Director on issues and other matters related to science, technology, and technology assessment. ] James Hunt, [ Chairman ] Dr. Hunt is Distinguished Professor, Health Sciences Center, at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He previously served as Chancellor of the Health Science Center and as the Dean of Medicine for the University. Prior to joining the University, he served as Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic. Max Lennon, [ Vice Chairman ] Dr. Lennon is President and CEO of Eastern Foods, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Previously he served as President of Clemson University. He also served on the faculties of Ohio State University, (Vice-President for Agricultural Administration and Executive Dean for Agriculture, Home Economics and Natural Resources), University of Missouri, and Texas Tech University. Lewis M. Branscomb Dr. Branscomb is the Albert Pratt Pubic Service Professor at Harvards John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is a former executive of International Business Machines. Prior to joining IBM, he was the Director of the National Bureau of Standards. Herbert D. [Ted] Doan Mr. Doan is a Partner with Doan Associates. He was Chairman and Founder of Doan Resources Corporation. He served as President of the Dow Chemical Company for nine years.membersof the Technology Assessment Advisory Council[pagefiftytwo]

PAGE 54

Neil E. Harl Dr. Harl is the Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Economics at Iowa State University, where he has served on the faculty since 1964. Joshua Lederberg Dr. Lederberg was President of Rockefeller University, New York. He is the former Chairman of the Department of Genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and is a Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine. John F. M. Sims Dr. Sims is Vice President for Marketing for Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. He previously served as Director of the Office of Mineral Development with the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Dr. Sims also taught Geological Engineering at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. L. Douglas Smoot Dr. Smoot is Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering and Technology, at Brigham Young University. He is also Director of the Advanced Combustion Engineering Research Center. He has been associated with the Brigham Young University since 1967. Dr. Smoot previously served as a visiting assistant professor at the California Institute of Technology and as an engineer with Lockheed Propulsion.[pagefiftythree]

PAGE 55

Marina v.N. Whitman Dr. Whitman is a Professor at the Institute of Public Policy Studies at the University of Michigan. Previously she served as the Vice President and Group Executive for Public Affairs Staffs Group at General Motors Corporation. She also served as Vice President and Chief Economist at General Motors. Prior to joining General Motors she taught at the University of Pittsburgh. [ Statutory Members ] Charles A. Bowsher Mr. Bowsher is Comptroller General of the United States and Director of the U. S. General Accounting Office. Daniel Mulhollan Dr. Mulhollan is Director of the Congressional Research Service, U. S. Library of Congress.[pagefiftyfour]

PAGE 56

listingof the staff for fiscal year 1995OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR Roger Herdman, Director Barbara Linkins, Executive Assistant Debra Datcher, Manager, Special Projects Kerry Kemp, Managing Editor Gilda Squire, Secretary [ Congressional and Public Affairs ] James Jensen, Director, Congressional Affairs Jean McDonald, Director, Press Affairs Barbara Ketchum, Administrative Secretary Karen Piccione, Administrative Assistant Eugenia Ufholz, Congressional Affairs Officer INDUSTRY, COMMERCE, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION Peter Blair, Assistant Director Pidge Chapman, Division Administrator James Curlin, Senior Associate [ Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program ] Emilia Govan, Program Director Tina Aikens, Administrative Secretary Robert Atkinson, Senior Analyst Richard Brody, Analyst Audrey Buyrn, Senior Associate Alan Crane, Senior Associate Kevin Dopart, Senior Analyst Gregory Eyring, Senior Analyst Marsha Fenn, Office Administrator Eric Gille, Research Assistant Tom Hausken, Analyst Gay Jackson, PC Specialist Paul Komor, Senior Analyst Karen Larsen, Senior Analyst Jan Linsenmeyer, Analyst Steven Plotkin, Senior Associate Robin Roy, Senior Analyst Kelley Scott, Analyst Joanne Sedor, Senior Analyst Matthew Weinberg, Analyst [ International Security and Space Program ] Alan Shaw, Program Director Jacqueline Boykin, Office Administrator Michael Callaham, Senior Analyst Arthur Charo, Senior Analyst Dean Cheng, Analyst Gerald Epstein, Senior Analyst Anthony Fainberg, Senior Associate Don Gallagher, Secretary Yousef Hashimi, Analyst[pagefiftyfive]

PAGE 57

Thomas Karas, Senior Associate Ellis Lewis, Administrative Secretary Brian McCue, Senior Analyst Jack Nunn, Senior Associate Mark Suskin, Analyst Mary Tyszkiewicz, Analyst Christopher Waychoff, Senior Analyst Ray Williamson, Senior Associate [ Industry, Telecommunications, and Commerce Program ] Andrew Wyckoff, Program Director John Alic, Senior Associate Karen Bandy, Senior Analyst Steven Bonorris, Analyst Alan Buzacott, Analyst Vary Coates, Senior Associate William Creager, Congressional Fellow Paul Doremus, Analyst Elizabeth Emanuel, Office Administrator Wendell Fletcher, Senior Associate Karry Fornshill, Secretary Ken Freeman, Senior Analyst Stephanie Gajar, Analyst Frank Gallo, Analyst Linda Garcia, Senior Associate Steve Herzenberg, Senior Analyst Diane Jackson, Administrative Secretary David Jensen, Analyst William Keller, Senior Analyst Todd LaPorte, Analyst Jerry Sheehan, Analyst Jean Smith, Senior Analyst Michael Snyder, Analyst Rodney Sobin, Analyst Karolyn St. Clair, PC Specialist Gregory Wallace, Research Analyst Robert Weissler, Senior Analyst Joan Winston, Senior Associate Fred Wood, Senior Associate David Wye, Senior Analyst HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION Clyde Behney, Assistant Director Carol Bock, Division Administrator Phyllis Windle, Senior Associate [ Education and Human Resources Program ] Denise Dougherty, Program Director Paula Bruening, Senior Analyst Kathleen Fulton, Senior Analyst Gregg Jackson, Senior Analyst Ethan Leonard, Research Analyst Martha Livingston, Analyst Katie Maslow, Senior Associate Kathleen McCormally, Research Assistant[pagefiftysix]

PAGE 58

Mary McDonald, Analyst Robyn Nishimi, Senior Associate Cecile Parker, Office Administrator Linda Rayford, PC Specialist Isabelle Smith, Analyst John Wirt, Senior Analyst [ Environment Program ] Robert Niblock, Program Director Kathleen Beil, Office Administrator Mark Boroush, Senior Analyst Michael Bowes, Senior Analyst Mark Brown, Senior Analyst David Butler, Analyst Richard Carr, Research Analyst Elizabeth Chornesky, Senior Analyst Donna Downing, Senior Analyst Matt Draud, Analyst Patricia Durana, Senior Analyst Beckie Erickson, Research Analyst Robert Friedman, Senior Associate Betsy Gunn, Senior Analyst Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary Joan Harn, Senior Analyst Alison Hess, Senior Associate Elise Holland, Research Analyst Kim Holmlund, Administrative Secretary Lois Joellenbeck, Analyst Peter Johnson, Senior Associate Sharon Knarvik, Secretary Kirsten Oldenburg, Senior Analyst Dalton Paxman, Senior Analyst Michael Phillips, Senior Associate Cameron Proffitt, Research Analyst German Reyes, Senior Analyst William Westermeyer, Senior Analyst Robin White, Senior Analyst [ Health Program ] Sean Tunis, Program Director Elise Berliner, Congressional Fellow Charlotte Brown, Secretary Jill Eden, Senior Analyst Monica Finch, Secretary Hellen Gelband, Senior Associate Michael Gough, Senior Associate Elizabeth Hadley, Senior Analyst Jacqueline Keller, Research Analyst David Klingman, Senior Analyst Arna Lane, Research Analyst Justin Latus, Research Analyst Robert McDonough, Senior Analyst Cynthia Palmer, Milbank Fellow Elaine Power, Senior Associate Helga Rippen, Analyst Rochelle Rollins, Milbank Fellow Eric Rosenthal, Analyst Dwayne Smith, Research Assistant[pagefiftyseven]

PAGE 59

Louise Staley, Office Administrator Carolyn Swann, PC Specialist Judith Wagner, Senior Associate BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICE Jack Boertlein, Budget and Finance Officer Carolyn Datcher, Senior Accounting Technician Frances Hemingway, Senior Finance Analyst Alan King, Accounting Technician Carrie Miller, Accounting Technician PERSONNEL OFFICE William Norris, Personnel Director Barbara Bradley, Administrative Assistant Lola Craw, Payroll/Benefits Officer Gail Turner, Personnel Specialist PUBLISHING OFFICE Mary Lou Higgs, Manager, Publishing Services Cheryl Davis, Electronic Publishing Specialist Dorinda Edmondson, Senior Electronic Publishing Specialist Denise Felix, Production Editor Susan Hoffmeyer, Graphic Designer Linda Long, Electronic Dissemination Specialist William Moore, Production Editor J. Christine Onrubia, Senior Graphic Designer Bonnie Sparks, Electronic Publishing Specialist Theodore Williams, Publications Distribution Technician TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS Sylvester Boyd, Manager, Telecommunications and Information Systems Mary Beth Breitbach, Systems Support Analyst Brenda Hahn, Systems Support Analyst Philip Jackson, Assistant Manager, Telecommunications and Information Systems Vincent McCall, Systems Technician Wazir Shpoon, Systems Technician CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT OFFICE Karen Cox, Director of Contracts Paul Starr, General Counsel Greg Joyce, Senior Procurement Specialist[pagefiftyeight]

PAGE 60

INFORMATION CENTER Gail Kouril, Manager, Information Center Tracey Amey, Librarian Nancy Bennett, Reference Librarian Jacqueline Curro, Reference Librarian Sandra Massengill, Information Specialist Debra McCurry, Assistant Manager, Information Center SERVICE CENTER Carlton Agee, Service Center Supervisor Michael Brown, Service Center Technician BUILDING SERVICES Kevin McNair, Facilities Manager Robert Raines, Clerk/Courier MEDICAL SERVICES Janet Hammond, Resident Nurse CONFERENCE CENTER Edie Grandstaff, Coordinator Sean Copeland, Assistant Coordinator[pagefiftynine]

PAGE 61

listingof awards and fellowship programsOTA REPORTS RECOGNIZED AS NOTABLE [ Office of Technology Assessment reports, prepared to provide the U.S. Congress with thorough analyses of cutting-edge science and technological issues, have garnered awards for outstanding quality in publications. The following OTA titles have been honored for writing, editorial content, layout and design, and cost-effectiveness. ] NOTABLE DOCUMENTS PANEL OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS ROUND TABLE [ GODART selects those documents they consider to be the best of the government information sources produced at the federal, state, and local levels and across the globe. These documents expand our knowledge, enhance the quality of life, and/or contribute to an understanding of government. ] After the Cold War: Living with Lower Defense Spending Biological Rhythms: Implications for the Worker Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production Genetic Monitoring and Screening in the Workplace Global Arms Trade Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States Health Care in Rural America Making Government Work: Electronic Delivery of Federal Services Preparing for An Uncertain Climate, Volume 2 Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions U.S. Diary Industry at a Crossroads: Biotechnology and Policy Choices[pagesixty]

PAGE 62

BLUE PENCIL AWARDS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS [ NAGC conducts the Blue Pencil Competition as an annual recognition of outstanding government communications projects and producers. OTA reports consistently recognized in this competition included: ] Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime Biological Components for Substance Abuse and Addiction Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach Cystic Fibrosis & DNA Tests: Implications of Carrier Screening Electronic Bulls and Bears: U.S. Securities Markets and Information Technology Energy Efficiency in the Federal Government: Government by Good Example? Evaluation of the Oregon Medicaid Proposal Exploring the Moon and Mars Genetic Monitoring and Screening in the Workplace HIV in the Health Care Workplace Redesigning Defense: Planning the Transition to the Future U.S. Defense Industrial Base Rural America at the Crossroads: Networking for the Future Technologies for Understanding and Preventing Substance Abuse and Addiction Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions THE MORRIS K. UDALL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM [ The Udall Fellowship Program was awarded to up to six individuals each year for a one-year appointment at OTA. It was established in April 1991 by the Technology Assessment Board in honor of Morris K. Udall, retired congressman from Arizona who served 30 years in the House of Representatives and 18 years on the Technology Assessment Board. Qualified candidates demonstrated exceptional ability in areas needed in OTAs work, such as the physical or biological sciences, engineering, law, economics, environmental and social sciences, and public policy. Candidates possessed significant experience in technical fields or management or had completed research at the doctoral level. ][pagesixtyone]

PAGE 63

[ Fellow, 1995-96 ] Joyce Smith [ Fellows, 1994-95 ] Elise Berliner William Creager [ Fellows, 1993-94 ] Dean Cheng Betsy Gunn Lois Joellenbeck [ Fellows, 1992-93 ] Lucian Hughes Thomas Vischi [ Fellow, 1991-92 ] Carol Edwards [ Fellows, 1990-91 ] Jacqueline Corrigan Kathy Hudson David Recker [ Fellows, 1989-90 ] Robin Gaster Evridiki Hatziandreu Paul Komor [ Fellows, 1988-89 ] Mary Bruns Gale Morse Willie Pearson Marie Walsh Marc Zimmerman [ Fellows, 1987-88 ] Barbara Boardman Michael Gluck Jana Milford Robin Roy Mark Schaefer [ Fellows, 1986-87 ] Susan Koch Philip Shapira [ Fellows, 1985-86 ] Stephen Budiansky Gregory van der Vink Theodora Colborn Kathy Wagner [ Fellows, 1984-85 ] Richard Denison Greg Eyring Marcel LaFollette Arati Prabhakar [ Fellows, 1983-84 ] Gerald Epstein Gary Ellis Randolph Ware Howard Levenson Miriam Heller[pagesixtytwo]

PAGE 64

[ Fellows, 1982-83 ] Robert Cook-Deegan Julia Crowley Richard Hersh Eric Hyman [ Fellows, 1981-82 ] Nanette Newell Susan Cohen Robert Dillon Linda Curran [ Fellows, 1980-81 ] Judith Randal James Ryan Rosina Bierbaum Norman Balmer Arthur Kohrman Gerald Kleinenberg [ Fellows, 1979-80 ] Yupo Chan Pamela Doty Raymond Williamson Chris Elfring [ Fellows, 1978-79 ] James Beall James Cornehls Robert Friedman Arlene Maclin Daniel Panshin Leonard Saxe William Scanlon Irene Szopo [ Fellows, 1977-78 ] Ruann Pengov Lynne Pietz Michael Riddiough[pagesixtythree]

PAGE 65

CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWSHIP IN HEALTH POLICY [ The Milbank Memorial Fund and OTA established the Congressional Fellowship in Health Policy in 1992 to be served at OTA beginning in September 1992. The program sought candidates with substantial training and experience in research and a strong interest in health policy. The fellowship provided an opportunity for an individual of proven ability and considerable promise to work with OTA researchers to assist Congress in its deliberations of science and technology issues affecting our Nations health policy and to gain a better understanding of the ways in which Congress establishes national policy related to these issues. The Fund and OTA invited applications from individuals who had demonstrated ability in research on issues of health policy. Applicants possessed doctorates in the social sciences or related areas or had terminal scientific or professional degrees and considerable training in research using the policy sciences. ] [ Fellows, 1994-95 ] Cynthia Palmer Rochelle Rollins [ Fellow, 1993-94 ] Gerard Fergerson [ Fellow, 1992-93 ] Sean Tunis[pagesixtyfour]

PAGE 66

listingof the advisory panel members*INDUSTRY, COMMERCE, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION [ Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program ][s]Advanced Automotive Technology Project Don Kash [ Chairperson ] Professor of Public Policy George Mason University Steve Barnett, Principal Global Business Network Ron Blum, Senior Auto Analyst International Union United Auto Workers Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Malcolm R. Currie, Chairman M-B Resources, Inc. John DeCicco, Senior Research Associate American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Kennerly H. Digges, Assistant Director National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Christopher Flavin, Vice President for Research Worldwatch Institute Christopher Green, Director General Motors NAO R&D Center Dave Greene, Senior Research Staff Center for Transportation Analysis Oak Ridge National Laboratory Maurice Isaac, Manager Automotive Technical Programs GE Automotive Mary Ann Keller, Managing Director Furman, Selz, Inc. Gunnar Larsson, Vice President of Research Volkswagen AG Marianne Mintz, Transportation Systems Engineer Environmental & Economic Analysis Section Argonne National Laboratories Robert Mull, Director Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Ford Motor Company Nobukichi Nakamura, Project General Manager Toyota Motors_____________[*Affiliations are at time of appointment to panel or workshop.][pagesixtyfive]

PAGE 67

Peter T. Peterson, Director Marketing Strategies and Product Applications U.S. Steel[s]Reducing Earthquake Losses Gilbert F. White [ Chairperson ] Professor University of Colorado Jesus Burciago, Assistant Fire Chief Los Angeles County Fire Department Charles D. Eadie, Assistant Planning Director City of Watsonville, California Dean C. Flesner, Vice President of Operations State Farm Fire and Casualty Company I.M. Idriss, Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California at Davis Cynthia Ingham, Assistant Director for Capital Programs University of California at Los Angeles Tom Jordan, Professor and Department Chair Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joseph Kelly, Senior Consulting Engineer Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Howard Kunreuther, Director of Risk Management Center The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Mike Lynch, Earthquake Program Manager Kentucky Department of Emergency Services Steven A. Mahin, Professor Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California at Berkeley Diane F. Merten, Chair Benton County Emergency Management Council Joanne M. Nigg, Director Disaster Research Center University of Delaware Dennis K. Ostrum, Consulting Engineer Southern California Edison Vernon H. Persson, Chief Division of Safety of Dams California Department of Water Resources James Smith, Executive Director Building Seismic Safety Council Paul G. Somerville, Senior Associate Woodward Clyde Consultants Robert S. Yeats, Professor Department of Geosciences Oregon State University[pagesixtysix]

PAGE 68

Nabih Youssef, President Nabih Youssef and Associates[s]Renewing Our Energy FutureRobert W. Fri [ Chairperson ] President Resources for the Future Jim Batchelor, Vice President Technical Services SF Services, Inc. Art Brooks, President Sun Earth, Inc. Edward J. Carlough, General President Sheet Metal Workers International Association John Corsi, Chairman and CEO Solarex J. Michael Davis, Director Sales and Marketing Golden Technologies Company, Inc. David Dawson Forest Policy Consultant Elizabeth Paine Hughes Commissioner, State of Maine W. Densmore Hunter, Department Manager, Process R&D Weyerhauser Company Renz D. Jennings, Commissioner Arizona Corporation Commission David Kearney, President Kearney and Associates John Kennedy, Product General Manager Space Systems and Advanced Applications Allied-Signal Aerospace Alden Meyer, Director Climate Change and Energy Program Union of Concerned Scientists Roberta Nichols, Manager Electric Vehicle Strategy and Planning Car Product Development Ford Motor Company Mike Nicklas, President Innovative Design Dale Osborn, Vice President Kenetech/U.S. Windpower, Inc. Bruce Pasternack, Senior Vice President Booz Allen and Hamilton Maria Richter, Principal Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. Victor Shaio, President New Energy Corporation of Indiana Scott Sklar, Executive Director Solar Energy Industries Association Carl Weinberg Weinberg Associates[pagesixtyseven]

PAGE 69

Robert H. Williams, Senior Research Scientist Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Kurt E. Yeager, Senior Vice President Technical Operations Electric Power Research Institute[s]The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America Marie Howland [ Chairperson ] Director, Department of Urban Planning University of Maryland Marc Bendick, Principal Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. Scott Bernstein, President Center for Neighborhood Technology John A. Butler, Vice President National Urban League John Claypool, Executive Director Greater Philadelphia First Robert Embry, President Abell Foundation Pete C. Garcia, President and CEO Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. Peter R. Gilezan1Environmental Consultant PR Gilezan Company Franklin James, Professor of Public Policy University of Colorado Mark Kaufman, Senior Vice President Director of Corporate Development Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Thomas Larson Transportation Consultant Tom Moody2Former Mayor of Columbus, Ohio Mitchell L. Moss, Director Urban Research Center New York University Robert Paaswell, Director University Transportation Research Center City College, New York Sergio Rodriguez, Deputy City Manager City of Miami Beach Charles Royer, Former Mayor of Seattle Senior Lecturer Department of Public Health and Community Medicine University of Washington Paul L. Silverman, Vice President Geltmore, Inc. Carl Swearingen, President BellSouth Georgia BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Joel Tarr, Professor of History Carnegie Mellon University[pagesixtyeight]

PAGE 70

Mary Margaret Whipple, Chairman Arlington County Board Regina Williams, City Manager City of San Jose Robert D. Yaro, Executive Director Regional Plan Association_____________[1Retired Director of Environmental and Energy Affairs, Chrysler Corporation2Retired][ Industry, Telecommunications, and Commerce Program ][s]Bring Health Care Online: The Role of Information Technologies Clement McDonald [ Chairperson ] Distinguished Professor of Medicine Indiana University School of Medicine June Abbey, Director of Research Institute of Innovation Shadyside Hospital Stephen Deutsch, Professor Labor Education and Research Center University of Oregon Elliott Fisher, Associate Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School Bonnie Guiton Hill, Dean McIntire School of Commerce University of Virginia James Hazelrigs, Executive Director Medical Database Commission State of North Carolina Susan Horn, Senior Scientist Institute for Health Care Delivery Research Intermountain Health Care James Hunt, Distinguished Professor Health Sciences Center University of Tennessee Nancy Milio, Professor of Health Policy & Administration University of North Carolina Lori Muhlstein Market Manager of Health Care Bell Atlantic Corporation John Nyman, Associate Professor Institute for Health Services Research University of Minnesota Madison Powers, Senior Research Scholar Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Jane Preston, President American Telemedicine Association Marsha Radaj, Vice President of Operations Wisconsin Health Information Network William Reed Quantum Health Resources, Inc.[pagesixtynine]

PAGE 71

Bert Tobin, Executive Vice President Benton International Bradley Ware Fairfax, VA_____________[*Until December 1994][s]Environmental Technology: Analysis of Selected Federal R&D Programs Thomas Gladwin [ Chairperson ] Leonard N. Stern School of Business New York University Alvin Alm, Director & Vice President SAIC Carol Andress, Economic Development Specialist Environmental Defense Fund Darryl Banks, Director Technology and Environment Program World Resources Institute Mary Bernhard U.S. Chamber of Commerce Harry Fatkin, Division Vice President Polaroid Corporation Robert Frosch, Senior Research Fellow John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Stephen Gage, President Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program Great Lakes Manufacturing Technology Center Kenneth Geiser, Director Toxics Use Reduction Institute University of Massachusetts-Lowell Gary Hunt, Director North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction Greg Pitts, Director Environmental Programs Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation Robert Pojasek, Senior Program Director Cambridge Environmental, Inc. Linda Giannelli Pratt, Program Manager San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Elizabeth Rose, Assistant Vice President Environmental Affairs Northern Telecom, Ltd. C. Thomas Sciance Sciance Consulting Services, Inc John Sheehan, Legislative Director & Assistant to the President United Steel Workers of America[pageseventy]

PAGE 72

William Sonntag, Jr., Director Government Relations National Association of Metal Finishers[s]Information Technologies for the Control of Money Laundering Eloy Garcia, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Operational Commander W. Douglas Johnson, Assistant Director Division of Banking Office of the Comptroller State of Florida Robert MacAllister, Vice President & Senior Associate Counsel The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Bruce Porter, Associate Professor of Computer Science University of Texas at Austin Priscilla Regan, Assistant Professor Department of Public & International Affairs George Mason University Joel Reidenberg, Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law Robert Serino, Deputy Chief Counsel Office of the Comptroller of the Currency U.S. Department of the Treasury John Stern University of South Carolina David Vogt, Assistant Director Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN] Sarah Welling, Professor of Law College of Law University of Kentucky[s]Innovative and Commercialization of Emerging Technologies Avtar S. Oberai [ Chairperson ] Consultant Paul Brickmeier, Vice President of Advanced Development SVG Lithography Systems, Inc. Linda A. Capuano, Vice President Conductus, Inc. Sidney C. Chao Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc. Robert Cook-Deegan, Director Division of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences Mark Cunningham Oppenheimer and Company Mark Eaton, President JMC Ventures Robert T. Fraley, Group Vice President and General Manager New Products Division Monsanto Company[pageseventyone]

PAGE 73

Charles E. Harris, Chairman and CEO Harris & Harris Group, Inc. Maryellen R. Kelley, Visiting Professor Industrial Performance Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ken Kennedy, Director Center for Research in Parallel Computation Rice University William G. Morin, Director of Technology Policy National Association of Manufacturers Mark Myers, Senior Vice President Xerox Corporation Walter H. Plosila, Executive Director North Carolina Alliance for Competitive Technologies John T. Preston Director of Technology Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michael A. Rappa, Associate Professor Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard S. Rosenbloom David Sarnoff Professor of Business Administration Harvard Business School Maxine L. Savitz Garrett Processing Division Allied-Signal Aerospace Louis Tornatzky, Director Southern Technology Council Southern Growth Policies Board Stephen Turner, President and CEO Oncor Inc. Les Vadasz, Senior Vice President Intel Corporation[s]Telecommunications Technology and Native Americans: Opportunities and Challenges David Iha [ Chairperson ] Provost Kauai Community College Haunani Apoliona, President Alu Like Honolulu, Hawaii George Baldwin, Professor California State University at Monterey Bay Manley Begay, Executive Director American Indian Economic Development Project John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Ann Bishop, Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign[pageseventytwo]

PAGE 74

Connie Buffalo, President Electronic Pathways Vice President, Mind Extension Institute Jones Interactive Steve Cisler, Senior Scientist Advanced Technology Group Apple Computer, Inc. Nedra Darling, Director Reel Indian Productions Gary Garrison, Telecommunications Project Manager American Indian Higher Education Consortium Willie Hensley, Commissioner Economic Development Alaska Department of Commerce Russell Huffman, Jr., Public Health Director Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Rio Lara Bellon Telecommunications Network Project Extension Indian Reservation Program Washington State University and Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Joseph Orozco, Producer California Indian Radio Project Indigenous Communications Association Randy Ross Telecommunications Consultant Joan Timeche, Program Director Center for American Indian Economic Development Co-Executive Director, National Executive Education Program for Native American Leadership Northern Arizona University Charles Trimble, President Red Willow Institute Dave Warren, Vice President Media Resources Associates, Inc. Madonna Peltier Yawakie, Tribal Nations Market Manager US West Communications[s]Wireless Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure Rob Kling [ Chairperson ] Professor University of California, Irvine Alfred F. Boschulte, President and Chairman NYNEX Mobile Communications Company Timothy J. Brennan Resources for the Future Steven D. Dorfman, President Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company Francis J. Erbrick, Senior Vice President United Parcel Service[pageseventythree]

PAGE 75

Susan Hadden1, Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin Ellwood R. Kerkeslager, Vice President AT&T Jim Lovette, Principal Scientist Apple Computer, Inc. John Major, Senior Vice President Motorola, Inc. Howard Miller, Senior Vice President-Broadcast Public Broadcasting Service Alex Netchvolodoff, Vice President-Public Policy Cox Enterprises, Inc. Stewart D. Personick, Assistant Vice President Bellcore William W. Redman, Jr., Commissioner North Carolina Utilities Commission W. Scott Schelle, Chief Executive Officer American Personal Communications Jim Strand, President Lincoln Telecommunications William F. Sullivan, General Manager KPAX-TV Laurel L. Thomas Telecommunications Consultant Marilyn B. Ward, Division Commander Orlando Police Department Daniel Weitzner, Deputy Director Center for Democracy and Technology_____________[1Deceased.][ International Security and Space Program ][s]Defense Modeling and Simulation Project George Rathjens [ Chairperson ] Professor of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Donald Blumenthal, Consultant Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Jerome Bracken, Adjunct Professor of Operations Research Yale University Edward C. Brady, Managing Partner Strategic Perspectives, Inc. David R. Cheriton, Professor of Computer Science Stanford University Paul K. Davis, Corporate Research Manager The RAND Corporation Col. Trevor N. Dupuy President The Dupuy Institute[pageseventyfour]

PAGE 76

John Englund, President Analytic Services, Inc. Joseph P. Fearey, Project Scientist Corps Battle Simulation Jet Propulsion Laboratory Amoretta M. Hoeber, President AMH Consulting John D. Kettelle Consultant Frank Lanza, President and Chief Operating Officer Loral Corporation Creve Maples, Principal Investigator Sandia National Laboratory Jed Marti, Senior Computer Scientist Sarcos Research, Inc. Duncan Miller, Senior Staff Lincoln Library Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stuart H. Starr, Director of Plans Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lawrence D. Stone, Senior Vice President Metron, Inc. Jack Thorpe, Corporate Vice President Science Applications International Corporation Verena S. Vomastic, Research Analyst Institute for Defense Analyses Jordan Weisman, President Virtual World Entertainment_____________[*Deceased June 5, 1995.][s]The National Space Transportation Policy: Issues for Congress Ronald Brunner [ Chairperson ] Director Center for Public Policy Research University of Colorado Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., President and CEO The Aerospace Corporation Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 Astronaut and Consultant Radford Byerly, Jr. Consultant Thomas Burson, Vice President and General Manager Space Transportation McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Paul J. Coleman, Jr., Director National Institute for Global Environmental Change University of California at Los Angeles Lt. Gen. Donald L. Cromer, USAF [ retired ] President Hughes Space and Communications Company[pageseventyfive]

PAGE 77

Henry J. Dinenno, Vice President Advanced Programs & Business Development Space Systems Division Rockwell International Corporation Isaac T. Gillam, IV, Senior Vice President OAO Corporation Michael D. Griffin, Senior Vice President Program Development Space Industries Frederick H. Hauck, President and CEO INTEC Clark W. Hawk, Director Propulsion Research Center University of Alabama at Huntsville Douglas A. Heydon, President Arianespace, Inc. Joan Johnson-Freese, Associate Professor Department of National Security Studies Air War College Jon B. Kutler, President Quarterdeck Investment Partners, Inc. Ronald G. Peterson, Vice President & General Manager Space/Strategic Propulsion Hercules Aerospace Company James D. Phillips, Director of Engineering Development [retired] Kennedy Space Center Thomas F. Rogers, President Sophron Foundation Jerome Simonoff Consultant Larry N. Speight, Vice President Space and Strategic Systems Honeywell Courtney A. Stadd, Managing Partner Global Technology Ventures Peter B. Teets, President Information and Services Sector Lockheed Martin Corporation David W. Thompson, President and CEO Orbital Sciences Corporation Joseph P. Zimonis, Executive Vice President & General Manager USBI Company[s]Nuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency James E. Goodby1 [ Chairman through March 23, 1993 ] Distinguished Service Professor Carnegie-Mellon University James F. Leonard2 [ Chairman since June 1, 1993 ] Executive Director Washington Council on Non-Proliferation[pageseventysix]

PAGE 78

George Anzelon, Associate Division Leader Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Will D. Carpenter Chemical Industry Consultant Lewis A. Dunn, Assistant Vice President Science Applications International Corporation Randall Forsberg, Executive Director Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies Thomas R. Fox, Director Office of National Security Technology Pacific Northwest Laboratories Alan R. Goldhammer, Director of Technical Affairs Industrial Biotechnology Association John M. Googin3, Senior Staff Consultant Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Robert G. Gough, Senior Member Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories Elisa D. Harris4, Senior Research Analyst The Brookings Institution Geoffrey Kemp, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Joshua Lederberg5, Professor Rockefeller University John W. Lewis Center for International Security and Arms Control Stanford University Lee W. Mercer, Corporate Export Manager Digital Equipment Corporation Matthew S. Meselson Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Harvard University Stephen M. Meyer Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gary Milhollin, Director Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Marvin M. Miller, Senior Research Scientist Department of Nuclear Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Janne E. Nolan, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution William C. Potter, Director Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies[pageseventyseven]

PAGE 79

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Professor Division of Natural Sciences State University of New York at Purchase Lawrence Scheinman6, Associate Director Peace Studies Program Cornell University Leonard S. Spector, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Sergio C. Trindade, President SE2T International, Ltd._____________[1Resigned March 22, 1993, to become Chief U.S. Negotiator for Safe and Secure Dismantlement of Nuclear Weapons.2Panel member until June 1, 1993; panel chair after June 1, 1993.3Deceased.4Resigned January 29, 1993, to join National Security Council staff.5Ex-officio; Member of Technology Assessment Advisory Council.6Resigned August 13, 1993, to become Counselor for Nonproliferation in the U.S. Department of Energy.] [workshops] Assessing the Potential for CivilMilitary Integration The Effectiveness of Research and Experimentation Tax Credits Fusion Energy Program: The Role of TPX and Alternate Concepts Global Communications: Opportunities for Trade and Aid Improving the Prospects for Success in Future International Peace Operations: Tactics, Technology, Training International Partnerships in Large Science Projects Issue Update on Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments Other Approaches to Civil-Military Integration: The Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries Reducing the Costs of Collecting Meteorological Data U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space[pageseventyeight]

PAGE 80

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION [ Education and Human Resources Program ][s]Federal Technology Transfer and the Human Genome Project LeRoy B. Walters [ Chairperson ] Center for Bioethics Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Charles Auffray, Project Director Genethon Evry, France David Botstein, Professor Department of Genetics Stanford University Medical Center Robert M. Cook-Deegan, Senior Program Officer National Academy of Sciences Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Professor University of Michigan Law School James F. Haley, Jr., Partner Fish and Neave Marilyn Hartig Bristol-Myers Squibb Max D. Hensley, Vice President for Intellectual Property Gilead Sciences, Inc. Thomas D. Kiley Consultant William A. Linton, III, President and Chairman Promega Corporation Lita L. Nelsen, Director Technology Licensing Office Massachusetts Institute of Technology Deborah Nickerson Department of Molecular Biotechnology University of Washington David A.A. Owen, Director Industrial Collaboration & Licensing Medical Research Council London, United Kingdom J. David Roessner, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Joseph Straus Max Planck Institut for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright, and Competition Law Munich, Germany J. Craig Venter, President and Director The Institute for Genomic Research Teri F. Willey, Associate Director Purdue Research Foundation Ronald G. Worton, Geneticist-in-Chief Hospital for Sick ChildrenToronto, Canada[pageseventynine]

PAGE 81

[s]Learning to Work: Making the Transition From School to Work Edward Donley [ Chairperson ] Former Chairman Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Thomas Bailey, Director Institute on Education and the Economy Teachers College Columbia University Sue E. Berryman, Senior Education Specialist The World Bank David Finegold, Policy Analyst The RAND Corporation Douglas Fraser, Professor Labor Studies Wayne State University Daniel Gescheidle, President Educational Foundation Thomas Kane, Visiting Fellow Economic Studies The Brookings Institution Robert Klabenes, Provost Oklahoma State University-Okmulgee Alan Lesgold, Professor of Psychology Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh Paul Osterman, Professor Alfred P. Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hilary Pennington, President and CEO Jobs for the Future Hillard Pouncy Consultant Marilyn Raby, Director Curriculum Services Sequoia Union High School District Piedad Robertson, Superintendent and President Santa Monica Community College Nan Skelton, Director Training and Youth Development Hubert Humphrey Institute David Stern, Professor of Education and Executive Director National Center for Research in Vocational Education Susan Stucky, Associate Director Institute for Research on Learning Marina v.N. Whitman, Professor Institute for Public Policy Studies University of Michigan Joan Wills, Director Center for WorkForce Development Institute for Educational Leadership[pageeighty]

PAGE 82

[s]Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection Allen Glenn [ Chairperson ] Dean, College of Education University of Washington Milton Chen, Director Center for Education and Lifelong Learning KQED Chris Cross, President Council for Basic Education Molly Drake, Director Alternate Teacher Preparation Program University of South Florida Lee Ehman, Professor of Education Indiana University Geoffrey Fletcher, Interim Executive Deputy Commissioner Curriculum, Assessment, and Professional Development Texas Education Agency Keith Huettig, Board of Directors National School Boards Association Yolanda Jenkins, Education Specialist Compaq Computers, Inc. Stanley Johnson, Science Teacher Jefferson Junior High School Leslie Lemon Hunt, Second Grade Teacher Beauvior Elementary School Henry R. Marockie, Superintendent of Schools West Virginia State Department of Education Argelio B. Perez Education Consultant Dwight Prince, Principal Robert E. Lee Elementary School Tom Snyder, President Tom Snyder Productions Adam Urbanski, President Rochester Teachers Association Valerie J. Wilford, Executive Director Illinois Valley Library System Art Wise, President National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Kristina Woolsey, Distinguished Scientist Advanced Technology Group Apple Computer, Inc. [ Environment Program ][s]Agriculture, Trade, and Environment: Achieving Complementary Policies Alexander F. McCalla [ Chairperson ] Director, Agriculture & Natural Resources Department The World Bank[pageeightyone]

PAGE 83

Sandra Batie Elton R. Smith Professor of Food & Agricultural Policy Michigan State University William L. Bryant, Chairman W.L. Bryant Company Anne Chadwick, Trade Policy Advisor California Department of Food & Agriculture The Chadwick Company John M. Duxbury, Director Agricultural Ecosystems Program Cornell University Peter Emerson, Senior Economist Environmental Defense Fund Dan Esty, Director Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy David Frederickson, President Minnesota Farmers Union Stephen R. Gliessman, Director Department of Agroecology Program University of California Ralph W.F. Hardy, President Boyce Thompson Institute Robbin Johnson, Corporate Vice President Cargill, Inc. Jack Laurie, President Michigan Farm Bureau Kitty Reichelderfer Smith, Director of Policy Studies Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture Ann Veneman, Counsel Patton, Boggs, & Blow Justin R. Ward, Senior Resource Specialist Natural Resources Defense Council Cecil A. Watson Farmer Pete Wenstrand, President National Corn Growers Assoc.[s]Aquaculture: Food and Renewable Resources from U.S. Waters Don Abt Marine Biological Laboratory Oceanographic Institute Woods Hole Jan Auyong, Project Manager Mar Res Associates John Bardach, Senior Marine Advisor Environment and Policy Institute Merry Camhi, Ecologist/Staff Scientist Audubon Society John S. Corbin, Manager Aquaculture Development Program Honolulu, Hawaii[pageeightytwo]

PAGE 84

Mike Freeze, Vice President Keo Fish Farm, Inc. Michael Hastings, Executive Director Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center Timothy K. Hennessy, President Ekk Will Waterlife Resources Bille Hougart, Vice President Oceanic Institute Robert Hulbrock, Aquaculture Coordinator California Department of Fish and Game Ann Kapuscinski, Associate Professor Sea Grant College Program University of Minnesota Roy Martin, Executive Director National Aquaculture Council National Fisheries Institute Joseph McCraren, Executive Director National Aquaculture Association Ted McNulty, Aquaculture Coordinator Arkansas Development Finance Authority David Ortman, Director North West Office Friends of the Earth John Pitts Consultant Bradley H. Powers, Director Aquaculture/Seafood Programs National Association of Aquaculture Coordinators Robert R. Stickney, Professor School of Fisheries University of Washington Hugh Warren, III, Executive Vice President Catfish Farmers of America[s]Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control Katherine Reichelderfer Smith [ Chairperson ] Director, Policy Studies Program Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture Paul A. Backman, Professor and Director Biological Control Institute Department of Plant Pathology Auburn University Ring T. Carde, Professor Department of Entomology University of Massachusetts Willard A. Dickerson, Plant Pest Administrator North Carolina Department of Agriculture Roger C. Funk, Vice President of Human & Technical Resources The Davey Tree Expert Company[pageeightythree]

PAGE 85

Harry J. Griffiths, Chairman Entomological Services, Inc. Judith A. Hansen, Superintendent Cape May County Mosquito Extermination Commission Dennis L. Isaacson, Program Director Noxious Weed Control Section Oregon Department of Agriculture Deborah B. Jensen, Vice President Conservation Science & Stewardship The Nature Conservancy Gary H. Johnston National Park Service Tobi L. Jones, Special Assistant to the Director Department of Pesticide Regulation California Environmental Protection Agency Peter M. Kareiva, Professor Department of Zoology University of Washington Allen E. Knutson, Associate Professor and Extension Entomologist Texas Agricultural Extension Service Texas A&M University James B. Kramer Family Farmer James Krysan1Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Anne E. Lindsay Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency David W. Miller, Vice President for Research & Development EcoScience Corporation Timothy L. Nance, Crop Consultant Gro Technics Consulting Thomas C. Roberts2Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Sally J. Rockey Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Judith St. John3Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture David O. TeBeest, Professor Department of Plant Pathology University of Arkansas Jeffrey K. Waage, Director International Institute of Biological Control William S. Wallace Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Lewis H. Waters4Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior[pageeightyfour]

PAGE 86

Michael E. Wetzstein, Professor Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia David M. Whitacre, Vice President of Development Sandoz Agro, Inc._____________[1Until February 1995.2From April 1995.3From June 1995.4Until March 1995.][s]Environmental Policy Tools: A Users Guide Richard N.L. Andrews, Professor and Director Environmental Management and Policy Program Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Donald A. Deieso, President and CEO Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. E. Donald Elliott, Chairman Environmental Law and Litigation Yale Law School Deeohn Ferris Consultant Caren Glotfelty, Deputy Director Office of Water Management Department of Environmental Resources State of Pennsylvania Joseph Goffman, Senior Attorney Environmental Defense Fund Danield S. Greenbaum, President Health Effects Institute Linda E. Greer, Senior Scientist Natural Resources Defense Council F. Henry Habicht, II, Senior Vice President Strategic/Environmental Planning Safety-Kleen Corporation Randy Johnson, Commissioner Board of Hennepin County Commissioners Howard A. Latin, Professor of Law & Justice John J. Francis Scholar Rutgers University School of Law Lester B. Lave James H. Higgins Professor of Economics Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie-Mellon University Pat Leyden, Deputy Executive Officer Stationary Source Compliance South Coast Air Quality Management District[pageeightyfive]

PAGE 87

Steven B. Lovejoy, Professor Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Warren R. Muir, President Hampshire Research Associates, Inc. Helen Petrauskas, Vice President Environmental and Safety Engineering Ford Motor Company Ernest S. Rosenberg, Director External Affairs & Compliance Support Health, Environment, and Safety Occidental Petroleum Corporation[s]Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities Don Kash [ Chairperson ] John T. Hazel Sr. & Ruth D. Hazel Chair of Public Policy The Institute of Public Policy George Mason University Paul Bisulca, Assistant to the Governor Environmental Affairs Penobscot Indian Nation Tom Bowes, Director of Hydro Operations Consumers Power Paul Brouha, Executive Director American Fisheries Society Glenn Cada, Aquatic Ecologist Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tom Carlson, Lead Scientist Pacific Northwest Laboratory George Eicher, President Eicher Associates, Inc. Christopher Estes Statewide Instream Flow Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game John Hall National Marine Fisheries Serivce [retired] Mona Janopaul, Conservation Counsel Trout Unlimited Chris Katopodis, Habitat Management Engineer Freshwater Institute Julie Keil, Director Hydro Licensing Portland General Electric Company Dale Kelley, Executive Director Alaska Trollers Association Jack Mattice, Senior Project Manager Electric Power Research Institute C. Paul Ruggles Fisheries & Environmental Consultant Jerry Sabattis, Program Coordinator Hydro-Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation[pageeightysix]

PAGE 88

Ted Strong, Director InterTribal Fish Commission Ned Taft, Program Manager Environmental Services Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. Gary Whelan, FERC Project Coordinator Michigan Department of Natural Resources Ron Wilson Attorney[s]Gauging Control Technology and Regulatory Impacts in Occupational Safety and Health: An Appraisal of OSHAs Analytic Approach John Froines [ Chairperson ] Professor Center for Occupational & Environmental Health University of California Nicholas Ashford, Professor Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Crandall, Senior Fellow Economics Study Program The Brookings Institution Morton Corn, Professor School of Hygiene & Public Health The Johns Hopkins University William Dickens, Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California James Holt, Senior Economist & Vice President for Research Employment Policy Foundation William Kelly, Vice President & General Manager Fibres Division Carborundum Company Karl Kronebusch, Assistant Professor LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs University of Wisconsin Lester Lave, Professor Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie-Mellon University Thomas McGarity, Professor School of Law University of Texas John Mendeloff, Professor School of Public & International Affairs University of Pittsburgh Stephen Rappoport, Professor Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering University of North Carolina Susan Rose-Ackerman, Professor School of Law Yale University[pageeightyseven]

PAGE 89

Margaret Seminario, Director Department of Occupational Safety & Health AFL-CIO Barbara Silverstein1, Director of Research Department of Labor and Industries State of Washington James Smith Chief Economist [ retired ] United Steel Workers of America_____________[1Resigned December 1993 upon accepting federal service appointment.][s]Nuclear Waste in the Arctic: An Analysis of Arctic and Other Regional Impacts from Soviet Nuclear Contamination Robert P. Morgan [ Chairperson ] Professor of Technology and Human Affairs Washington Universtiy St. Louis, Missouri John F. Ahearne, Executive Director Sigma Xi The Scientific Research Society James S. Allen, Manager Advanced Programs Georgia Tech Research Institute Susan Eisenhower, Director Center for Post Soviet Studies Murray Feshbach, Research Professor Georgetown University Paula Garb, Researcher Global Peace & Conflict Studies Program University of California Marvin Goldman, Professor Emeritus of Radiological Sciences University of California Joshua Handler, Research Coordinator Greenpeace International Edway R. Johnson, President and CEO E.R. Johnson Associates, Inc. John J. Kelley, Associate Professor Institute of Marine Science University of Alaska Malcom MacKinnon, III, President MacKinnon Searle Consortium, Ltd. Stephanie L. Pfirman, Associate Professor and Chair Barnard College Columbia University Lydia V. Popova, Director Nuclear Ecology Program Socio-Ecological Union, Moscow Caleb Pungowiyi, Director Inuit Circumpolar Conference William L. Templeton, Senior Research Advisory Pacific Northwest Laboratory[pageeightyeight]

PAGE 90

William R. Wiley, Senior Vice President Science & Technology Policy Battelle Memorial Institute [ Health Program ][s]Effectiveness and Costs of Osteoporosis Screening and Hormone Replacement Therapy Robert P. Heaney John A. Creighton Professor Creighton University Steven R. Cummings, Research Director College of Medicine University of California Barbara L. Drinkwater, Research Physiologist Pacific Medical Center Deborah T. Gold, Assistant Professor Duke University Medical Center Susan L. Greenspan, Director Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment Center Beth Israel Hospital Caren Marie Gundberg, Assistant Professor Department of Orthopedics Yale University School of Medicine Sylvia Hougland, Associate Director Laboratory for Clinical Computing Conrad C. Johnston, Director Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism Indiana University School of Medicine Shiriki K. Kumanyika, Associate Director for Epidemiology Center for Biostatistics & Epidemiology College of Medicine Pennsylvania State University Edward O. Lanphier, II, Executive Vice President Commercial Development Somatix Therapy Corporation Donald R. Lee, Vice President Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals Robert Lindsay, Chief, Internal Medicine Helen Hayes Hospital Betsy Love, Program Manager Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders Providence Medical Center Robert Marcus, Director Aging Study Unit Virginia Medical Center Lee Joseph Melton, III, Head Clinical Epidemiology Department of Health Sciences Research Mayo Clinic Gregory D. Miller, Vice President Nutrition Research/Technical Services National Dairy Council Morris Notelovitz, President & Medical Director Womens Medical & Diagnostic Center & the Climacteric Clinic, Inc.[pageeightynine]

PAGE 91

William Arno Peck, Dean Washington University School of Medicine Diana B. Petitti, Director Research and Evaluation Kaiser Permanente Southern California Permanente Medical Group Neil M. Resnick, Chief Geriatrics Brigham and Womens Hospital Gideon A. Rodan, Executive Director Department of Bone Biology Merck, Sharp & Dohme Research Mehrsheed Sinaki, Professor Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Mayo Medical School Milton C. Weinstein Henry J. Kaiser Professor Health Policy and Management Harvard School of Public Health[s]Hospital Financing in Seven Countries Rosemary Stevens [ Chairperson ] University of Pennsylvania Stuart Altman, Dean Heller Graduate School Brandeis University Jan E. Blanpain School of Public Health Leuven University The Netherlands Harry P. Cain II Federal Employee Program Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Louis P. Garrison, Jr., Director of Health Economics Syntex Development Research Annetine Gelijns Columbia University John Iglehart, Editor Health Affairs Ellen Immergut, Associate Professor Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lynn E. Jensen, Vice President Group on Health Policy and Programs American Medical Association Bengt Jonsson, Professor Stockholm School of Economics Stockholm, Sweden Kenneth G. Manton Duke Center for Demographic Studies Duke University Edward Neuschler, Director Policy Development & Research Health Insurance Association of America[pageninety]

PAGE 92

Jean-Pierre Poullier, Director of Education, Employment, and Social Affairs Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Paris, France Mark Schlesinger, Associate Professor Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Yale University[s]Impacts of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Gail Cassell, Professor & Chairman Department of Microbiology University of Alabama Anne Bolmstrom, President AB Biodisk Robert J. Bywater, Director Anti-Infective Assessment SmithKline Beechman Animal Health Barry Eisenstein, Vice President Lilly Research Labs Prabhavathi B. Fernandes, Vice President Drug Discovery Biomolecular Screening Winston Frederick Infectious Disease Research Howard University Hospital Joshua Lederberg, Professor The Rockefeller University Stephen Lerner, Professor of Medicine Wayne State University School of Medicine Harper Hospital/Division of Infectious Diseases Stuart Levy, Professor of Medicine and of Molecular Biology & Microbiology Tufts University Medical School Robert C. Moellering, Jr., Physician-InChief & Chairman Department of Medicine New England Deaconess Hospital Barbara Murray, Professor of Medicine and of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics Department of Infectious Diseases University of Texas Medical School Tom OBrien, Medical Director Microbiology Laboratory Brigham and Womens Hospital Lone Simonsen Consultant Harry Taber, Acting Director Division of Infectious Diseases NY State Department of Health Alexander Tomasz, Professor & Head Laboratory of Microbiology The Rockefeller University Richard Wenzel, Associate Chairman Department of Internal Medicine The University of Iowa[pageninetyone]

PAGE 93

Craig Townsend, Chairman Department of Chemistry The Johns Hopkins University Michael Zasloff, President Magainin Research Institute[workshops] Adverse Reactions to HIV Vaccine: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues Education and Technology: Future Visions Impact of Health Reform on Rural Areas: Lessons from the States Risks to Students in School Screening and Testing Chemicals in Commerce[pageninetytwo]

PAGE 94

narrativeof the Office of Technology Assessment ActPUBLIC LAW 92-484. 92d CONGRESS, H.R. 10243. OCTOBER 13, 1972. AN ACT [ To establish an Office of Technology Assessment for the Congress as an aid in the identification and consideration of existing and probable impacts of technological application; to amend the National Science Foundation Act of 1950; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the Technology Assessment Act of 1972. ][Findings and Declaration of Purpose] SEC. 2The Congress hereby finds and declares that: [a]As technology continues to change and expand rapidly, its applications are 1.large and growing in scale; and 2.increasingly extensive, pervasive, and critical in their impact, beneficial and adverse, on the natural and social environment. [b]Therefore, it is essential that, to the fullest extent possible, the consequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood, and considered in determination of public policy on existing and emerging national problems. [c]The Congress further finds that: 1.the Federal agencies presently responsible directly to the Congress are not designed to provide the legislative branch with adequate and timely information, independently developed, relating to the potential impact of technological applications, and 2.the present mechanisms of the Congress do not and are not designed to provide the legislative branch with such information. [d]Accordingly, it is necessary for the Congress to 1.equip itself with new and effective means for securing competent,[pageninetythree]

PAGE 95

unbiased information concerning the physical, biological, economic, social, and political effects of such applications; and 2.utilize this information, whenever appropriate, as one factor in the legislative assessment of matters pending before the Congress, particularly in those instances where the Federal Government may be called upon to consider support for, or management or regulation of, technological applications. [Establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment] SEC. 3 [a]In accordance with the findings and declaration of purpose in section 2, there is hereby created the Office of Technology Assessment [hereinafter referred to as the Office] which shall be within and responsible to the legislative branch of the Government. [b]The Office shall consist of a Technology Assessment Board [hereinafter referred to as the Board] which shall formulate and promulgate the policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carry out such policies and administer the operations of the Office. [c]The basic function of the Office shall be to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology and to develop other coordinate information which may assist the Congress. In carrying out such function, the Office shall: 1.identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs; 2.where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships; 3.identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific programs;[pageninetyfour]

PAGE 96

4.identify alternative programs for achieving requisite goals; 5.make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs; 6.present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate legislative authorities; 7.identify areas where additional research or data collection is required to provide adequate support for the assessments and estimates described in paragraph 1 through 5 of this subsection; and 8.undertake such additional associated activities as the appropriate authorities specified under subsection [d] may direct. [d]Assessment activities undertaken by the Office may be initiated upon the request of: 1.the chairman of any standing, special, or select committee of either House of the Congress, or of any joint committee of the Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the ranking minority member or a majority of the committee members; 2.the Board; or 3.the Director, in consultation with the Board. [e]Assessments made by the Office, including information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committee or other appropriate committees of the Congress. In addition, any such information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings produced by the Office may be made available to the public except where 1.to do so would violate security statutes; or 2.the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold such information in accordance with one or more of the numbered paragraphs in section 552[b] of title 5, United States Code.[pageninetyfive]

PAGE 97

[Technology Assessment Board] SEC. 4 [a]The Board shall consist of thirteen members as follows: 1.six Members of the Senate, appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, three from the majority party and three from the minority party; 2.six Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three from the majority party and three from the minority party; and 3.the Director, who shall not be a voting member. [b)Vacancies in the membership of the Board shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the functions of the Board and shall be filled in the same manner as in the case of the original appointment. [c] The Board shall select a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members at the beginning of each Congress. The vice chairman shall act in the place and stead of the chairman in the absence of the chairman. The chairmanship and the vice chairmanship shall alternate between the Senate and the House of Representatives with each Congress. The chairman during each even-numbered Congress shall be selected by the Members of the House of Representatives on the Board from among their number. The vice chairman during each Congress shall be chosen in the same manner from that House of Congress other than the House of Congress of which the chairman is a Member. [d]The Board is authorized to sit and act at such places and times during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of Congress, and upon a vote of a majority of its members, to require by subpoena or[pageninetysix]

PAGE 98

otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths and affirmations, to take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. The Board may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems necessary, except that no recommendation shall be reported from the Board unless a majority of the Board assent. Subpoenas may be issued over the signature of the chairman of the Board or of any voting member designated by him or by the Board, and may be served by such person or persons as may be designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the Board or any voting member thereof may administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses. [Director and Deputy Director] SEC. 5 [a]The Director of the Office of Technology Assessment shall be appointed by the Board and shall serve for a term of six years unless sooner removed by the Board. He shall receive basic pay at the rate provided for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. [b]In addition to the powers and duties vested in him by this Act, the Director shall exercise such powers and duties as may be delegated to him by the Board. [c]The Director may appoint with the approval of the Board, a Deputy Director who shall perform such functions as the Director may prescribe and who shall be Acting Director during the absence or incapacity of the Director or in the event of a vacancy in the office of Director. The Deputy Director shall receive basic pay[pageninetyseven]

PAGE 99

at the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. [d]Neither the Director nor the Deputy Director shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving as such Director or Deputy Director, as the case may be; nor shall the Director or Deputy Director, except with the approval of the Board, hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or institution with which the Office makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act. [Authority of the Office] SEC. 6 [a]The Office shall have the authority, within the limits of available appropriations, to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including, but without being limited to, the authority to 1.make full use of competent personnel and organizations outside the Office, public or private, and form special ad hoc task forces or make other arrangements when appropriate; 2.enter into contracts or other arrangements as may be necessary for the conduct of the work of the Office with any agency or instrumentality of the United States, with any State, territory, or possession or any political subdivision thereof, or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution, with or without reimbursement, without performance or other bonds, and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes [41 U.S.C. 5]; 3.make advance, progress, and other payments which relate to technology assessment without regard to the provisions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes [31 U.S.C. 529];[pageninetyeight]

PAGE 100

4.accept and utilize the services of voluntary and uncompensated personnel necessary for the conduct of the work of the Office and provide transportation and subsistence as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons serving without compensation; 5.acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for or resulting from the exercise of authority granted by this Act; and 6.prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems necessary governing the operation and organization of the Office. [b]Contractors and other parties entering into contracts and other arrangements under this section which involve costs to the Government shall maintain such books and related records as will facilitate an effective audit in such detail and in such manner as shall beprescribed by the Office, and such books and records [and related documents and papers] shall be available to the Office and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, for the purpose of audit and examination. [c]The Office, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall not, itself, operate any laboratories, pilot plants, or test facilities. [d]The Office is authorized to secure directly from any executive department or agency information, suggestions, estimates, statistics, and technical assistance for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act. Each such executive department or agency shall furnish the information, suggestions, estimates, statistics, and technical assistance directly to the Office upon its request.[pageninetynine]

PAGE 101

[e]On request of the Office, the head of any executive department or agency may detail, with or without reimbursement, any of its personnel toassist the Office in carrying out its functions under this Act. [f]The Director shall, in accordance with such policies as the Board shall prescribe, appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. [Establishment of the Technology Assessment Advisory Council] SEC. 7 [a]The Office shall establish a Technology Assessment Advisory Council [hereinafter referred to as the Council]. The Council shall be composed of the following twelve members: 1.ten members from the public, to be appointed by the Board, who shall be persons eminent in one or more fields of the physical, biological, or social sciences or engineering or experienced in the administration of technological activities, or who may be judged qualified on the basis of contributions made to educational or public activities; 2.the Comptroller General; and 3.the Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library ofCongress. [b]The Council, upon request by the Board, shall 1.review and make recommendations to the Board on activities undertaken by the Office or on the initiation thereof in accordance with section 3[d]; 2.review and make recommendations to the Board on the findings of any assessment made by or for the Office; and 3.undertake such additional related tasks as the Board may direct. [c]The Council, by majority vote, shall elect from its members appointed under subsection [a][1] of this section a Chairman and a Vice Chairman, who shall serve for such time and under such conditions as[pageonehundred]

PAGE 102

the Council may prescribe. In the absence of the Chairman, or in the event of his incapacity, the Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman. [d]The term of office of each member of the Council appointed under subsection [a][1] shall be four years except that any such member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. No person shall be appointed a member of the Council under subsection [a][1] more than twice. Terms of the members appointed under subsection [a][1] shall be staggered so as to establish a rotating membership according to such method as the Board may devise. [e] 1.The members of the Council other than those appointed under subsection [a][1] shall receive no pay for their services as members of the Council, but shall be allowed necessary travel expenses [or, in the alternative, mileage for use of privately owned vehicles and per diem in lieu of subsistence at not to exceed the rate prescribed in sections 5702 and 5704 of title 5, United States Code], and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of duties vested in the Council, without regard to the provisions of subchapter 1 of chapter 57 and section 5731 of title 5, United States Code, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 2.The members of the Council appointed under subsection [a][1] shall receive compensation for each day engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Council at rates of pay not in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest rate of basic pay set forth in the General Schedule of section 5332[a] of title 5, United States Code, and in addition shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses in the manner provided for other members of the Council under paragraph [1] of this subsection.[pageonehundredone]

PAGE 103

[Utilization of the Library of Congress] SEC. 8 [a]To carry out the objectives of this Act, the Librarian of Congress isauthorized to make available to the Office such services and assistance of the Congressional Research Service as may be appropriate and feasible. [b]Such services and assistance made available to the Office shall include, but not be limited to, all of the services and assistance which the Congressional Research Service is otherwise authorized to provide to the Congress. [c]Nothing in this section shall alter or modify any services or responsibilities, other than those performed for the Office, which the Congressional Research Service under law performs for or on behalf of the Congress. The Librarian is, however, authorized to establish within the Congressional Research Service such additional divisions, groups, or other organizational entities as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act. [d]Services and assistance made available to the Office by the Congressional Research Service in accordance with this section may be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Office, as agreed upon by the Board and the Librarian of Congress. [Utilization of the General Accounting Office] SEC. 9 [a]Financial and administrative services [including those related to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and procurement] and such other services as may be appropriate shall be provided the Office by the General Accounting Office.[pageonehundredtwo]

PAGE 104

[b]Such services and assistance to the Office shall include, but not be limited to, all of the services and assistance which the General Accounting Office is otherwise authorized to provide to the Congress. [c]Nothing in this section shall alter or modify any services or responsibilities, other than those performed for the Office, which the General Accounting Office under law performs for or on behalf of the Congress. [d]Services and assistance made available to the Office by the General Accounting Office in accordance with this section may be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Office, as agreed upon by the Board and the Comptroller General. [Coordination With the National Science Foundation] SEC. 10 [a]The Office shall maintain a continuing liaison with the National Science Foundation with respect to 1.grants and contracts formulated or activated by the Foundation which are for purposes of technology assessment; and 2.the promotion of coordination in areas of technology assessment, and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication or overlapping of research activities in the development of technology assessment techniques and programs. [b]Section 3[b] of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended [42 U.S.C. 1862[b]], is amended to read as follows: [b] The Foundation is authorized to initiate and support specific scientific activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation, national security, and the effects of scientific applications upon society by making contracts or other arrangements [including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance][pageonehundredthree]

PAGE 105

for the conduct of such activities. When initiated or supported pursuant to requests made by any other Federal department or agency, including the Office of Technology Assessment, such activities shall be financed whenever feasible from funds transferred tothe Foundation by the requesting official as provided in section 14[g], and any such activities shall be unclassified and shall beidentified by the Foundation as being undertaken at the request of the appropriate official. [Annual Report] SEC. 11 The Office shall submit to the Congress an annual report which shall include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of technology assessment techniques and identification, insofar as may be feasible, of technological areas and programs requiring future analysis. Such report shall be submitted not later than March 15 of each year. [Appropriations] SEC. 12 [a]To enable the Office to carry out its powers and duties, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Office, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, not to exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate for the two fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, and thereafter such sums as may be necessary. [b]Appropriations made pursuant to the authority provided in subsection [a] shall remain available for obligation, for expenditure, or for obligation and expenditure for such period or periods as may be specified in the Act making such appropriations.[pageonehundredfour]

PAGE 106

[Approved October 13, 1972.] [Legislative History] House Reports No. 92-469 [Comm. on Science and Astronautics] and No. 92-1436 [Comm. of Conference]. Senate Report No. 92-1123 [Comm. on Rules and Administration]. Congressional Record, Vol. 118 [1972] February 8, considered and passed House. September 14, considered and passed Senate, amended. September 22, Senate agreed to conference report. October 4, House agreed to conference report.[pageonehundredfive]

PAGE 107

generalinformation about OTA publications[ Copies of OTA publications can be obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office and/or the National Technical Information Service. ][s]GPO Ordering Information To order from the Superintendent of Documents of the Government Printing Office (GPO) call: 202|512|1800 Indicate the title, GPO stock number, quantity, and VISA, MasterCard, or prepaid Superintendent of Documents deposit account number. You can also order by mail or fax. Orders should be mailed to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 fax: 202|512|2250 Shipping and handling charges are included in the price. Federal Express service is available for an additional $8.50 per order.[s]NTIS Ordering Information OTA publications are also available in either paper or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service. Orders may be placed using a NTIS deposit account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or government purchase order. To confirm prices and place an order call: 703|487|4650 Rush order 1-800|553|NTIS[s]Other Availability of OTA Reports A complete collection of OTA reports can be viewed at the following depository/university libraries: University of Maryland College Park, MD George Mason University Fairfax, VA University of California Santa Barbara, CA Sets of recent reports (1991-1995) are located in a number of academic and technology assessment centers including:[pageonehundredsix]

PAGE 108

Carnegie Mellon University Cornell University George Washington University Harvard University National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Princeton University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Stanford University University of Oklahoma Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Washington University, St. Louis, MO[s]Internet Access Recent OTA reports are available in electronic format. Internet websites for 1994 and 1995 published reports can be accessed from: Government Printing Office (http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota) National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nas.edu) Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (http://www.wws.princton.edu)[s]CD-ROM OTAs archival CD-ROMs are available for sale from the Government Printing Office.[pageonehundredseven]

PAGE 109

[pageonehundredeight]SENATE ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa ROGER C. HERDMAN, Nonvotingmembersserving as the Technology Assessment Board of the 104th CongressAMO HOUGHTON, New York, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Vice Chairman TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL JAMES C. HUNT, Chairman Distinguished Professor Health Sciences Center University of Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee MAX LENNON, Vice Chairman President and CEO Eastern Foods, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia CHARLES A. BOWSHER Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. LEWIS M. BRANSCOMB Albert Pratt Public Service Professor JFK School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts HERBERT [TED] DOAN President [Ret.] The Dow Chemical Company Midland, Michigan NEIL E. HARL Charles F. Curtis Distinguished Professor Iowa State University Ames, Iowa JOSHUA LEDERBREG Professor, Rockefeller University New York, New York DANIEL MULHOLLAN Director, Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. JOHN F.M. SIMS Vice President, Marketing Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska L. DOUGLAS SMOOT Dean, College of Engineering and Technology Brigham Young University Salt Lake City, Utah MARINA v.N. WHITMAN Professor, Institute of Public Policy Studies University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan HOUSE GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E71AWXGZG_Y2QDKT INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T20:45:13Z PACKAGE AA00055446_00013
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES