Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, Or Not
In a major new report (pdf) that could serve as an appendix to the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Research Service performed a detailed assessment of the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.
“The discussions herein are organized on the basis of policy themes that are at the core of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, rather than through a review of each numbered item set out in the Commission’s final report,” the 73 page CRS report says.
“Each section of the report summarizes the pertinent elements of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation relevant to the section’s policy theme. Then a review is made of responses made by the Congress to implement, in whole or in part, the given recommendation. Where appropriate, notice is taken of Executive branch actions regarding the policy matter.”
A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “9/11 Commission Recommendations: Implementation Status,” December 4, 2006.
Update: See, relatedly, a review of the 9/11 Commission recommendations by Christian Beckner of Homeland Security Watch who examines “what the 110th Congress could potentially do to make progress on each and every one of [them].”
At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.
Moving postsecondary education data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education can meet its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources.
Supporting children’s development through health, nutrition, education, and protection programs helps the U.S. achieve its national security and economic interests, including the Administration’s priorities to make America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.”
To strengthen federal–state alignment, upcoming AI initiatives should include three practical measures: readiness assessments before fund distribution, outcomes-based contracting tied to student progress, and tiered implementation support reflecting district capacity.