Loading issue research
Rebuild Congress's independent technology capacity so bipartisan compromise starts from a shared, evidence-based record.
Verification Status
AI-researched, unverifiedLast Reviewed
Jul 5, 2026
Cited Sources
7
What is failing, what we would change, and the conclusion we are willing to defend.
"Bipartisanship and compromise" is too often treated as a mood: be nicer, talk more, split the difference. That is not a technology policy. The practical problem is institutional: Congress keeps facing questions about AI, cybersecurity, privacy, chips, quantum computing, and digital identity with weaker in-house technical capacity than the executive agencies, companies, and advocacy groups trying to shape the outcome.
The old Office of Technology Assessment was Congress's own nonpartisan technology-assessment shop. It was created in the 1970s and effectively closed when Congress stopped funding it in 1995. GAO's Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics team now does important work for Congress, but the broader capacity gap remains visible every time a hearing turns into performative questioning instead of a shared factual record. The House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress proved the better pattern from 2019 through 2022: equal Republican and Democratic membership, more than 200 bipartisan recommendations, and a successor modernization subcommittee still tracking implementation. That is the model this issue builds on.
Create a modern Congressional Technology Assessment Office, governed by an equal-party, bicameral board, producing public option memos on major emerging-technology questions before Congress votes on broad preemption, liability, procurement, or funding bills.
Expand GAO STAA and CRS technical support at the same time, with clear lane markers: GAO remains the audit and oversight engine; CRS remains the member-facing research service; the new office focuses on forward-looking technology options and tradeoffs.
Fund bipartisan committee technical staff and fellowships for technology-heavy committees, including staff jointly approved by chair and ranking member where a committee chooses that model.
Require a public "technology evidence docket" for major tech bills: the problem being solved, the factual assumptions, the tradeoffs, the preemption footprint, and what data would change the bill after enactment.
Make congressional data infrastructure part of modernization: bill text, amendments, agency comments, and implementation reports should be machine-readable enough that members, staff, journalists, and the public can audit the evidence trail.
The point is not to make Congress technocratic. Elected officials still decide. The point is to make both parties argue from a shared record before they choose. Bipartisanship that depends on personal goodwill disappears when the room changes. Bipartisanship built into the institution can survive the next hearing cycle.
Turn frustration into useful pressure.
If this position misses evidence or a lived consequence, challenge it. If it holds up, help test it locally and connect it to the issues around it.