Office of Technology Assessment Survives First Vote

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) is still alive following very contentious action on the House floor last week. The outlook for this congressional support agency remains very tentative, with congressional leaders still pledging to eliminate it in the final version of the appropriations bill.

OTA funding is contained in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which totals $1.7 billion in the House version of this legislation. When this bill, H.R. 1854, was brought to the House floor last week it did not include OTA funding (the current budget is $22 million.) In opening remarks, Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ron Packard (R-CA) stated, “we believe this bill is a significant step in the way of not only balancing the budget but of showing the American people that we can downsize, that we can right size our budget, but also that we can modernize the Congress and make it more effective, more efficient....”

A number of Republican and Democratic members rose in defense of OTA. Rep. Vic Fazio (D-CA), ranking Minority Member on the subcommittee, criticized the majority by saying that “it proposes eliminating the one agency that helps us sort out the fact from fiction over increasingly technical and complex policy questions.” Fazio pointed out that total spending in this bill was $26 million under its 602(b) allocation, or spending limit. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) stated, “it is extremely important that we not take this shortsighted approach to eliminate what amounts to approximately a $22 million item....” Weldon is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, and a senior member of the House Science Committee.

What should have been a series of ordinary roll call votes on the question of OTA funding was anything but routine. Fazio offered an amendment in support of OTA. Rep. Amo Houghton (R-NY) offered an amendment to the Fazio amendment to reduce OTA’s FY 1996 budget to $15 million, and make it a part of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The House then voted on whether Fazio’s amendment should be changed as suggested by Houghton. It agreed to do so by a vote of 228 to 201.

The House then voted on changing H.R. 1854 by this amendment. This vote went against the agency, members opposing by 213-214 the $15 million in OTA funding. Democrats charged that the House Republican leadership ignored two of their members who were attempting to vote. The House floor erupted into controversy, with House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) later saying, “I have been here now 19 years, and I have not in my experience seen the depth of feeling that occurred on this particular issue because...the thing that we all hold most dear is our ability to represent over 500,000 people....”

The next day, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) addressed the House saying, “The disposition of the vote on the Fazio amendment was entirely appropriate and conducted within the proper parliamentary procedure of this Chamber. Having said that, it is also true that many Members, most especially Members on this side of the aisle who had supported the Houghton language earlier, felt that their victory had been snatched from them.” House leaders agreed to vacate the contested vote from the night before. The House then voted 220 to 204 for the $15 million in OTA funding.

OTA’s future is far from settled. This legislation now moves to the Senate, where the Senate Republican Conference is on record in favor of OTA’s elimination. The Secretary of this conference is Senator Connie Mack (R-FL), who is also chairman of the Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Mack has been clear in his intention to abolish OTA.

A key vote will occur on the Senate floor when it considers this legislation. If the full Senate votes in support of OTA, the agency will go into the all-important conference committee in a much stronger position. Tradition holds that House and Senate conferees attempt to resolve differences in the two versions of a bill by striking middle ground.

The conference committee, when all is said and done, will probably determine OTA’s fate. These committees write the final version of a bill, and although it must return for a vote in each chamber, it will be an up or down vote. It is quite unusual to defeat a conference report. Packard has already said, “I’m going to fight to shut it down in conference.” The degree of support in the Senate for OTA will determine how large a fight there will be to eliminate it.