|
|
| Invitee Comments: Professor Granger Morgan | ||
| (Return to Comment Selection) In one important area - science and technology-based policy analytic support to the US Congress - the United States has lost ground since the Carnegie Commission issued its reports. In 1995 funding for the Office of Technology Assessment was ended as part of an economy drive during the early days of the Gingrich revolution.1 OTA opponents argued at the time that the Congress had plenty of other sources of information and that the reports supplied by OTA could be readily replaced by other sources. Recent conversations I have held with Members and with senior Congressional Staff clearly indicate that this has not happened. Congress has many sources of short-term assistance on simple issues of fact, including the Congressional Research Service. They also make regular use of the National Research Council when they want longer-term detailed studies. But in between there is a gap – Congress has no reliable balanced impartial sources of analysis and synthesis on policy problems to which it can turn for help on time scales of 4 to 9 months.2 Of course, sometimes Congress gets lucky when a group in a university or a think tank fills the gap with careful impartial analysis. But often there is no one addressing an important problem of national interest, or there are only the self-serving pleadings of special interests groups. In June of 2001, a number of us ran a workshop in Washington, D.C. with the objective of starting a national conversation on the need for improved institutions to provide the Congress with balanced impartial analysis and synthesis on policy problems that involve significant technical content.3 The operating assumption of this workshop was that there is no single correct institutional solution. We set out to enumerate a number of alternative models that might be used, stressing that these strategies were not mutually exclusive and could be combined in various ways. Strategies that we outlined included:
Congress is a representative body made up largely of non-technical members. One of the clearest insights we drew from the deliberations of the workshop was that Congress is not likely to create new institutional arrangements to obtain improved analytical advice on its own. If large numbers of constituents tell the Congress they need this, then they are likely to act. If few outside of the Congress push for such changes, little will happen. Partly in response to the workshop, the past year has witnessed several attempts within the Congress to make a change. H.R. 2148, introduced by Congressman Rush Holt, and co-sponsored by a significant number of members from both parties, would simply refund the OTA at a level of $20-million per year. While this bill has attracted a number of Republican co-sponsors, it does nothing at all to provide political cover for Republicans who do not wish to admit that terminating the OTA was a mistake.4 The House leadership has made it clear that they will not allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote. S.1716, introduced by Senator John Kerry, contained language to create a National Science and Technology Assessment Service (sort of an OTA-lite). That language then was moved to S.1766 and to the senate version of HR.4 the energy bills. The language passed the Senate but is being blocked by the House leadership in the Conference. It appears most unlikely that this language will survive. Last year Senator Jeff Bingaman inserted language in the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, S.1172 to fund a $1-million technology assessment pilot program at the GAO. In conference (Report 107-259), the amount was reduced to $500,000. Biometric technology for border security was chosen as the topic for this initial assessment. The resulting GAO report will be released in a few weeks. Congressional Staff who have been briefed on the work report that they are quite happy with the results.5 GAO will likely be asked to do additional assessments next year. As a follow-on to the workshop we ran last year, we are under contract with RFF Press to publish a book on Science and Technology Advice to the Congress. Reviews of the draft manuscript have been completed and revisions are now in progress. We have sufficient resources available to put a copy of this book in the hands of every member of both the House and Senate. The table of contents is attached. At the moment, my greatest concern is that the issue of improving the science and technology advice available to the Congress will get labeled in partisan terms. There are many Republicans members who believe strongly in the importance of such advice, but there are also signs in the House, that a number of people on both sides may politicize this debate. That would be most unfortunate. Getting the facts right including the complex facts and insights that can only be obtained through careful analysis - should in the long run be in the interests of members of all persuasions who wish to serve and advance the public interest. The technical community must continue to communicate this message to the Congress. The following are examples of several recent writings on this topic:
Table of Contents of the book Science and Technology Advice to the Congress (M. Granger Morgan and Jon Peha, eds.) now under contract at RFF Press. CONTENTS
Contributors
PART I
Analysis, governance and the need for better institutional arrangements
PART II
Technical Advice for the Congress: Past trends and present obstacles
PART III
Thinking About Alternative Models
PART IV
Where Do We Go From Here?
(Return to Top) Posted 8.9.02 |
|
Hosted by
The Program for the Human Environment |