Revisiting the Marshall Plan, and More from CRS
The Marshall Plan, the program of U.S. financial assistance that helped spark the economic recovery of western Europe following World War II, is considered to be one of the most successful U.S. foreign policy initiatives ever and one that might have implications for today.
“Although the Marshall Plan has its critics and occurred during a unique point in history, many observers believe it offers lessons that may be applicable to contemporary foreign aid programs,” according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service that reviews its achievements. See The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance, January 18, 2018.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues, updated January 17, 2018
Government Contract Bid Protests In Brief: Analysis of Legal Processes and Recent Developments, January 19, 2018
Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress, updated January 17, 2018
Prevalence of Mental Illness in the United States: Data Sources and Estimates, updated January 19, 2018
Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies, updated January 19, 2018
NLRB Rejects Former Standards Following Appointment of New Members, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 18, 2018
DNA synthesis and export controls remain the primary regulatory safeguards against de novo production of harmful biological agents, yet governance frameworks lack the situational awareness and enforcement capacity to keep pace with rapidly falling technical barriers.
Called today to speak on behalf of U.S. science and technology, Dr. Jedidah Isler, astrophysicist, educator, strategist, policy-maker, and science communicator, will provide constructive, nonpartisan feedback to the House Committee’s hearing “American Global Competitiveness at 250: Legislative Proposals to Secure U.S. Technology Leadership.”
“Federal data and access to it is not a partisan issue. It is a people issue. Our country cannot achieve greatness without access to the data that measure what we value, who we are, and where we’re heading.”
The United States’ biosecurity governance system is structurally incapable of detecting and responding to certain classes of threats. U.S. biosecurity tools have not kept pace with technological advancements or a changing threat landscape.