Numerous new reports of the Congressional Research Service on subjects of public interest and concern have been issued lately. Yet by design, they are not made readily available to the public. They include the following.
“The Department of Defense Rules for Military Commissions: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Proposed Legislation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice” (pdf), updated July 25, 2006.
“Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Military Commissions in the ‘Global War on Terrorism'” (pdf), July 6, 2006.
“Military Tribunals: Historical Patterns and Lessons” (pdf), July 9, 2004.
“Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses” (pdf), updated July 31, 2006.
“Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy” (pdf), updated July 25, 2006.
“Lebanon” (pdf), updated July 24, 2006.
“European Approaches to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism” (pdf), July 24, 2006.
“China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy Issues” (pdf), updated July 17, 2006.
“Banning Fissile Material Production for Nuclear Weapons: Prospects for a Treaty (FMCT)” (pdf), July 14, 2006.
“North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States” (pdf), updated July 6, 2006.
“International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy” (pdf), updated June 27, 2006.
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.