A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has introduced legislation to restore an independent congressional technology advisory office, addressing concerns that policymakers lack the technical expertise needed to evaluate rapidly developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and fusion energy.
Five House members from both parties introduced H.R. 10946, known as the Congressional Office of Technology Improvement and Enhancement Act. The proposal would revive the former Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) under a new name, establishing a Congressional Office of Technology designed to provide independent research and technical guidance to legislators.
The original OTA operated for more than two decades before Congress eliminated its funding in 1995. Its closure removed an important source of independent technical expertise from the legislative branch, leaving lawmakers increasingly reliant on external research and government agencies when evaluating complex technological developments.
The bill’s sponsors argue that the gap has become more significant as emerging technologies increasingly influence national security, economic policy and everyday life.
“Congress can’t continue flying blind into the future,” said Representative Mark Takano, one of the legislation’s sponsors, emphasizing the need for independent experts to help lawmakers make informed decisions about emerging technologies.
A New Two-Tier Technical Advisory System
The proposed Congressional Office of Technology would operate through two levels of assistance, allowing lawmakers to access technical expertise quickly while also supporting more comprehensive research projects.
The first tier would provide expedited assistance to individual members of Congress and congressional committees. Under the proposal, the office would be required to respond to requests within 14 calendar days without requiring approval from its Technology Assessment Board.
Assistance could include research summaries, technical observations, preliminary findings, expert assessments and objective policy recommendations. Responses could be delivered in writing or orally, with confidential and expedited options available.
The office would draw on its existing research, internal expertise, publicly available information and consultations with federal agencies, universities and private-sector specialists.
Representative Sean Casten highlighted the difficulty lawmakers face when attempting to evaluate technologies outside their areas of expertise. While he described himself as knowledgeable about energy technology, he acknowledged that cybersecurity and gene-drive systems require different specialized knowledge.
Casten argued that improved access to independent technical assessments could help Congress avoid overlooking promising technologies or directing funding towards less effective alternatives.
Formal Assessments Would Require Bipartisan Oversight
The second tier would focus on more extensive technology assessments requiring review by the proposed Technology Assessment Board.
Members and committees could submit requests for formal investigations, with the board responsible for determining which projects should receive attention and prioritizing issues of national importance.
The legislation also introduces safeguards intended to maintain political balance. To the greatest extent practicable, formal assessments requested by members of one political party would need to match those requested by the other.
The office’s Director would be required to publish an annual report detailing how assessment requests were distributed between the parties. Completed formal assessments would also be made publicly available under the proposed legislation.
Another responsibility would involve continuously monitoring emerging scientific and technological developments. This horizon-scanning function would allow the office to identify important trends and communicate relevant findings to congressional members and committees.
The legislation would also establish formal coordination with the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office to reduce duplicated research and improve the use of existing government expertise.
Flexible Hiring Rules Aim to Attract Specialists
The proposed office would receive additional flexibility when recruiting technical professionals.
Its Director would be authorized to appoint personnel outside standard federal classification requirements, making it easier to recruit scientists, engineers and other specialists with relevant industry experience.
The office could also bring in professionals from universities, research institutions and private companies through temporary leave arrangements. Outside experts would be permitted to serve for up to one year, subject to conflict-of-interest protections.
The legislation also proposes changes to the office’s governance structure. Technology Assessment Board appointments would move from the Senate President pro tempore and House Speaker to joint appointments involving the majority and minority leaders of both chambers.
The board would additionally be required to submit an annual activity report to the relevant House and Senate committees within 90 days of the end of each calendar year.
AI Accelerates Demand for Independent Expertise
Artificial intelligence has become a central argument behind the effort to restore the former technology assessment office.
Representative Bill Foster argued that AI-driven developments are rapidly changing the technological landscape, making independent and forward-looking technical advice increasingly important for lawmakers.
The Federation of American Scientists has also supported the proposal. Its CEO, Daniel Correa, said the growing influence of AI is changing the assumptions underlying public policy faster than policymakers can develop the necessary expertise.
Beyond artificial intelligence, the proposed office would cover technologies with implications for national security, healthcare, energy and economic competitiveness.
Congress Seeks to Close Its Technology Knowledge Gap
The legislation reflects a broader challenge facing governments as technological innovation accelerates beyond the traditional pace of policymaking.
Technologies such as advanced AI systems, genetic engineering and fusion energy introduce complex questions that require specialized scientific and technical knowledge. Without access to independent assessments, lawmakers risk making decisions based on incomplete information or relying too heavily on research produced by organizations with their own commercial or political interests.
Reviving the OTA’s original mission through a modernized Congressional Office of Technology would provide legislators with a dedicated resource for evaluating these developments.
However, the proposal must still progress through the legislative process before the new office can be established. Its eventual effectiveness would depend on its funding, staffing, independence and ability to provide timely assessments across an increasingly broad range of technologies.
