Up for Debate: Should U.S. Reduce Arms Sales Abroad?
Over the coming year, high school students around the country will debate whether the U.S. should reduce its arms sales to foreign countries.
Specifically, the national debate topic that was selected for the 2019-20 school year is: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.
As required by statute, the Congressional Research Service prepared a bibliography reflecting diverse points of view on U.S. arms sales to help inform student debaters on this topic.
“This selective bibliography, with brief annotations, is intended to assist debaters in identifying resources and references on the national debate topic,” the CRS document says. “It lists citations to journal articles, books, congressional publications, legal cases, and websites. The bibliography is divided into three broad sections: basic concepts and definitions, general overviews, and specific cases.”
The runner-up topic for this year’s national high school debate was: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially change its nuclear weapons strategy.
* * *
Other noteworthy new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Department of Defense’s JEDI Cloud Program, updated August 2, 2019
Department of Defense Energy Management: Background and Issues for Congress, July 25, 2019
U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy, updated July 29, 2019
3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role, August 2, 2019
Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History, updated August 1, 2019
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.
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.