SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 559 



In the general debate, Davis offered this definition: 



Technology assessment is a mechanism which may be used to evaluate the im- 

 pacts, good and had, which new or developing technology may be expected ro have 

 on legislative programs with which the Congress may deal; the intent is not to eval- 

 uate the technology itself, but to evaluate the impacts — physical, economic, mm.i1 

 and political. Most importantly, it is designed not only to provide Congress with 

 early warnings ot possible troubles — but to help move new technologies into action 

 rapidly in areas of society where they can be helpful. 



Mosher, the Republican floor leader for the debate, elaborated: 



I >iten, we in the Congress are flying blind — or at least much more in the dark 

 than is necessary or good — to the extent that we do not obtain better information 

 and advice than we now have so as to be more sure of what we actually are doing 

 when we make decisions which involve the use of new technology. * * * 



Let us face it, Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly outmanned and 

 outgunned by the expertise of the executive agencies. We desperately need a stronger 

 source of professional advice and information, more immediately and entirely respon- 

 sible to us and responsive to the demands of our own committees, in order to more 

 nearly match those resources in the executive agencies. 



The Brooks amendments attracted a great deal of attention and 

 support on the floor. Instead of an 11-member Technology Assessment 

 Board, including 4 House and Senate Members, the Comptroller Gen- 

 eral, Director of the Congressional Research Service, 4 public ap- 

 pointees of the President and the Board Director, Brooks proposed a 

 10-member Board with 5 House and 5 Senate Members. He stated that 

 through use of his appointive power, the President could control the 

 Board under the committee proposal. Davis argued: 



I do not think that there are many Members of Congress who could afford the 

 time that ought to be given as a member of the Board. * * * If we were placing some 

 of our power in somebody else's hands, that would be a horse of a different color. 

 But we are not doing it, andl think in this instance my friend from Texas (Mr. Brooks) 

 has found that he is on a witch hunt. He has found a danger that just does not exist. 



OTA BILL PASSES WITH BROOKS AMENDMENTS 



Only a small minority of the total membership was on the House 

 floor, following the hour-long general debate and another hour oc- 

 cupied with amendments. The Science Committee managers of the bill 

 decided not to drag out further discussion of the Brooks amendments, 

 but to bring both the amendments and the bill to a quick vote. On a 

 division vote, the Brooks amendments were adopted, 29-19, and then 

 the bill passed by a comfortable roll call margin of 256-118 



The sponsors of the OTA bill paid close attention to development 

 of the bill in the Senate, where a bipartisan group of Senators led by 

 Kennedy, B. Everett Jordan (Democrat of North Carolina), and Cordon 

 Allott (Republican of Colorado^ were carrying the ball. In an unusual 

 burst of activity on Senate legislation, four Science Committee mem- 



