Newly updated reports from the Congressional Research Service on various U.S. Navy programs include the following.
Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, March 14, 2013
Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues and Options for Congress, March 14, 2013
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, March 14, 2013
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, March 14, 2013
Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, March 14, 2013
Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, March 13, 2013
Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, March 13, 2013
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, March 1, 2013
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.