Office of Technology Assessment, defunded and closed in 1995
Congress gave the Office of Technology Assessment, created under the Technology Assessment Act of 1972, the statutory function to provide early indications of the probable impacts of technology; it appropriated $21,970,000 for the office with a cap of 143 staff for fiscal year 1995, then appropriated $3,615,000 for fiscal year 1996 to carry out its orderly closure, with no more than 17 employees paid except for severance.
3,615,000 US dollars, appropriation for the orderly closure of the office of technology assessment, FY1996. 21,970,000 US dollars, appropriation for office of technology assessment salaries and expenses, the last operating year, FY1995. US Government Publishing Office, Public Law 104-53, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (109 Stat. 514), retrieved 2026-10-02.
The move, and what it needed
Congress built its own analytic office, governed by a bipartisan board of members, to give legislators early warning on technology choices, and later closed it through the appropriations bill rather than by repeal, cutting its funding by roughly five sixths in one year and capping staff for the wind-down.
Preconditions
- A legislature with its own budget for in-house analytic agencies
- Bipartisan support strong enough to protect a small agency through spending rounds, which failed here
- A statutory mandate that survives defunding, so the function can be revived without new law
Where else it has been used: European parliaments built technology assessment offices on the model, including the German Bundestag's TAB, which cites the US office as its model; the US original closed while the copies continued.
Limits: Technology assessment is adjacent to strategic foresight, not the same thing: the office studied technologies on request from congressional committees rather than running whole-of-government scenarios. It is filed here because its statute, 2 U.S.C. 472(c), states an anticipatory function, to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology (govinfo, US Code 2023 edition, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title2/html/USCODE-2023-title2-chap15-sec472.htm). Both figures are appropriations, not spending or output: they show the money Congress gave, not what the office produced, and the 143 and 17 figures are statutory staff caps, not headcounts. The FY1995 figure comes from a different source, Public Law 103-283 in the Statutes at Large (108 Stat. 1423), inside a PDF on page 11 of the file (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-108/pdf/STATUTE-108-Pg1423.pdf). The authorising statute was not repealed and still appears in the US Code, so the office was ended by withdrawing funds rather than by abolishing its legal basis; it could be refunded without new legislation. The 1996 act also carried $2,500,000 of FY1995 funds forward to September 1996, so the FY1996 closure figure is not the whole of the wind-down money. Started is the year of the authorising Act, not the year the office first reported.