Reports of the Congressional Research Service are predicated on the belief that readers in Congress or elsewhere care about the minutiae of government policy. But if this was ever true, is it still the case today?
The members of CRS’s presumed target audience have not yet made up their minds about any number of issues, and they eagerly look forward to weighing the competing arguments pro and con. Are there such people?
To Congress, CRS reports must be treated as a controlled substance. CRS is literally prohibited from making them directly available to the public. If anybody were able to get their hands on them, who knows what might happen?
Let’s find out. New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have been withheld from public distribution in the last few days include the following.
How Much Slack Remains in the Labor Market?, CRS Insight, August 5, 2016
Evolution of the Meaning of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act, August 8, 2016
Implementing Bills for Trade Agreements: Statutory Procedures Under Trade Promotion Authority, August 8, 2016
Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA, updated August 8, 2016
Overview of Funding Mechanisms in the Federal Budget Process, and Selected Examples, August 4, 2016
Automakers Seek to Align Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Regulations, CRS Insight, August 8, 2016
Al Qaeda’s Syria Affiliate Declares Independence, CRS Insight, August 5, 2016
Trafficking in Persons and U.S. Foreign Policy Responses in the 114th Congress, August 5, 2016
Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 8, 2016
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.