This is a part of a report of a US executive agency. Chicago style has some specific rules for citing US government reports, but also recognizes a role for "discretion and common sense" in the selection of elements, given that public documents of this kind are not uniform.
The fifteenth edition I have on my desk gives an example (17.317):
Ralph I. Straus, Expanding Private Investment for Free World Economic Growth, special report prepared at the request of the Department of State, April 1959, 12.
(This is using the "note" style as opposed to "bibliography", as are other examples below.)
The commissioning agency itself might be given as author in other cases. This shows a pattern for an executive branch document with an identifiable human author, associated with some department.
Treating the chapter by Stein as a "contribution to a multiauthor book" (17.69), for which the canonical pattern is:
Anne Carr and Douglas J. Schuurman, "Religion and Feminism: A Reformist Christian Analysis," in Religion, Feminism, and the Family, ed. Anne Carr and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 11-32.
we might obtain:
Bernhard J. Stern, "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations," in Technological Trends and National Policy, Including the Social Implication of New Inventions, report prepared for the Subcommittee on Technology to the National Resources Committee (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, June 1937), 39-66.
The publisher can be shortened to "GPO" if you like. It can be omitted if there is other identifying information, such as a congressional report series number which makes it obvious that this is a government publication, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
For some specific queries raised -
The original form "Report ... in Technological Trends ..." does not seem right, since the Trends document is the report. And since Technological Trends ... is the book title, it gets the italic treatment; the fact that this was a report to a specific agency is additional data.
Including the "report of" part means that you are giving an (institutional) author for the book itself. A key principle is (17.293) that you should include "the elements needed to find the work in a library catalog," which may include the originating executive department, if that's listed as the author. Checking around, it looks like several catalogs do just that, although it's not really too hard these days to find the book given just the title. I would suggest keeping it in order to provide the extra breadcrumb, and some context for the type of publication that this is.
The Committee and its Subcommittee get capitals because these are proper nouns. But "report" doesn't because it's descriptive of the fact that this is a report.
If you wish to include the section number, note that this is Section IV of Part One, and there is another Section IV later, so it's not right to say it is just Section IV. If you give the page range then this information is redundant - just having the page information is probably the preferred style, judging from other examples.
