Reviving the Role of CRS in Congressional Oversight
The Congressional Research Service once played a prominent role in supporting oversight by congressional committees. Although that support has diminished sharply in recent years, it could conceivably be restored in a new Congress, writes former CRS analyst Kevin R. Kosar in a new paper.
In the past, CRS “closely assisted Congress in a myriad of major oversight efforts, including the Watergate investigation, the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, and the Iran-Contra affair.”
But over time, Kosar writes, “CRS’ role in oversight declined due to various factors, most of which were out of its control. Congress changed. Congressional committees, particularly in the House of Representatives, lost capacity, and hyper-partisanism turned much oversight into political point-scoring rather than an exercise in governing that required expert assistance.”
See “The Atrophying of the Congressional Research Service’s Role in Supporting Committee Oversight” by Kevin R. Kosar, Wayne Law Review, vol. 64:149, 2018.
“CRS does not have to passively accept this fate,” said Kosar by email. His paper suggested various steps CRS could take to foster greater appreciation among committee leaders for the independent expertise CRS could provide.
CRS’s “raison d’être is to educate Congress, and it can engage its oversight and appropriations committees in a dialogue about the value of analysis and in-depth research. It can raise the issue of more extended oversight engagements and explain why they are valuable to Congress.”
“It is good for Congress, good for CRS staff, and good for the public to have nonpartisan experts more frequently and more deeply engaged in oversight,” he wrote.
Meanwhile, new and updated publications from CRS include the following.
Defense Primer: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Contracts, CRS In Focus, September 4, 2018
Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, September 4, 2018
Securities Regulation and Initial Coin Offerings: A Legal Primer, updated August 31, 2018
The “Flores Settlement” and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions, updated August 28, 2018
Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, updated August 31, 2018
Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 115th Congress, updated September 1, 2018
U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide, CRS In Focus, September 4, 2018
India: Religious Freedom Issues, updated August 30, 2018
The Made in China 2025 Initiative: Economic Implications for the United States, CRS In Focus, updated August 29, 2018
Questioning Judicial Nominees: Legal Limitations and Practice, updated August 30, 2018
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.