Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), the most outspoken opponent of proposals to permit direct public access to Congressional Research Service reports, recently lost his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee in the initial fallout of the unfolding corruption scandals in Congress.
But it is unclear whether his sensible successor, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-CA) (R-Mich.), will be any more amenable to online public access to CRS products. It may be that this inevitable step will have to await the election of a whole new Congress that actually values public access to government information.
In the meantime, members of the public can get their CRS fix from “unauthorized” sources.
In addition to the FAS archive of CRS reports, there are rich complementary collections at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center and at CDT’s OpenCRS.com, among others.
Here are some notable new or recently updated CRS reports from FAS that are not available from those other sites.
“Balancing Scientific Publication and National Security Concerns: Issues for Congress,” updated February 2, 2006.
“National Emergency Powers,” updated February 10, 2006.
“Jordan: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues,” updated March 14, 2006.
“Global Climate Change: Federal Research on Possible Human Health Effects,” updated February 10, 2006.
“‘Bunker Busters’: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005-FY 2007,” updated February 21, 2006.
“The Exon-Florio National Security Test for Foreign Investment,” updated March 15, 2006.
“Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues,” updated March 14, 2006.
“Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress,” updated January 18, 2006.
“Navy DD(X), CG(X) and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress,” updated March 7, 2006.
“Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq: Effects and Countermeasures,” February 10, 2006.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.