Intelligence Community Spending, & More from CRS
In a deeply fractured political environment, the work of the Congressional Research Service may be even more valuable than ever. Non-partisan to a fault, CRS provides the same policy analysis to Republicans and Democrats, to problem-solvers and to nihilists. CRS reports can therefore help to establish a common framework for debate, and a shared vocabulary for discussion. They are at least a place to start a conversation.
One newly updated CRS report “examines Intelligence Community (IC) funding over the past several decades, with an emphasis on the period from 2007-2017.” See Intelligence Community Spending: Trends and Issues by Anne Daugherty Miles, November 8, 2016.
It was issued along with a new companion report on the structure and management of U.S. intelligence. See Intelligence Community Programs, Management, and Enduring Issues, also by Anne Miles, November 8, 2016.
Other new and updated Congressional Research Service reports include the following.
Internet Gambling: Policy Issues for Congress, November 7, 2016
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated November 8, 2016
Cuba: Issues for the 114th Congress, updated November 8, 2016
FY2017 Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution (CR): In Brief, updated November 7, 2016
Women in Congress, 1917-2016: Biographical and Committee Assignment Information, and Listings by State and Congress, updated November 7, 2016
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, updated November 8, 2016
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, updated November 8, 2016
What Is the Farm Bill?, updated November 8, 2016
When Does Sovereign Immunity Protect Property Owned by State Sponsors of Terrorism?, CRS Legal Sidebar, November 8, 2016
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.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.
FAS has partnered with ICLEI USA to launch the CRI Local Advisory Council.