Bill Overview
Title: Office of Technology Assessment Improvement and Enhancement Act
Description: This bill renames and revises the functions and duties of the Office of Technology Assessment which, composed of a Technology Assessment Board and a director, provides Congress with assessments of probable technology application impacts. Specifically, the bill renames the office the Congressional Office of Technology, and it requires the office to undertake additional duties, such as providing to Members of Congress (1) certain information without the need for board review, (2) certain technical assistance on legislation related to science and technology without the need for board review, and (3) objective policy options on how Members may achieve goals with respect to science and technology policy. The bill authorizes individual Members of Congress to submit to the board a request that the office undertake an assessment activity. Additionally, the bill requires the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office to coordinate technology assessment activities with the office to avoid duplication or overlapping of research activities. The bill also (1) allows the office to temporarily appoint specified technical and professional personnel to work for the office, (2) requires the office to make the findings of completed analyses publicly available, (3) revises the appointment of board members, (4) requires the board to hold an annual meeting at which Members of Congress may appear and present information regarding technology assessment activities, and (5) requires the board to report annually on the activities of the office.
Sponsors: Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41]
Target Audience
Population: People whose wellbeing may be indirectly affected by technology-related legislation informed by U.S. Congress
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) directly works with Congress and impacts legislative decision-making processes.
- The participants in the legislative process, such as Congress members, their aides, and their offices, are directly affected.
- It indirectly affects the entire U.S. population as the office informs policies that impact national science and technology legislation.
- Informed legislation on scientific and technological matters can potentially affect various demographic sectors, such as tech companies, educational institutions, and the workforce.
- The accessible findings by the OTA can contribute to public knowledge and understanding, indirectly benefiting the general populace.
Reasoning
- The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) primarily influences technology-related legislation, which has widespread indirect effects.
- Congress members, their aides, and those in legislative roles are directly affected by this policy. Indirectly, this impacts the general public through informed policy making.
- High-tech industry professionals and educational institutions may experience more direct benefits due to improved legislative understanding of technological advancements.
- Given the budget constraints, the office will have limited staff and resources, potentially affecting the speed but not necessarily the quality of assessments.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional Aide (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will greatly assist our work in crafting better-informed tech policies.
- The availability of objective policy options will streamline legislative processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More informed tech policies could reduce regulatory burdens over time.
- I hope this leads to more consistent and stable policy environments for businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
University Professor (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved access to credible assessments will enrich academic research.
- This could also enhance student engagement with real-world technology policy issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More robust assessments will inform policy recommendations in my work.
- There are potential risks if coordination with GAO and CRS is inefficient.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retiree (Columbus, OH)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The opportunity for Congress to have informed opinions is beneficial to all citizens.
- Publicly available assessments will improve public understanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Healthcare Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I anticipate more clarity in tech regulations concerning healthcare devices.
- This could to lead to better health outcomes indirectly, benefiting everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Elementary School Teacher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved tech assessment could enrich curriculum resources.
- It is not immediately clear how this policy will affect teachers directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to more detailed assessments will improve my reporting quality.
- There might be some focal lag before significant change becomes observable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
CEO of a Tech Company (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined assessments can speed up innovative legislation, benefiting the tech industry.
- There may still be bureaucratic hurdles that limit true reformative potentials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public Librarian (Chicago, IL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Public access to OTA's findings can improve digital literacy resources.
- The bureaucratic nature of the office might limit access to cutting-edge information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $7500000 (Low: $6500000, High: $8500000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $9000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $11000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $16000000)
Key Considerations
- Interagency coordination and resource sharing costs.
- Potential requirement for technical staff hiring and training.
- Public dissemination of findings and its associated expenditures.
- The acts' influence on legislative effectiveness regarding technology policy.