Reports of the Congressional Research Service are predicated on the belief that readers in Congress or elsewhere care about the minutiae of government policy. But if this was ever true, is it still the case today?
The members of CRS’s presumed target audience have not yet made up their minds about any number of issues, and they eagerly look forward to weighing the competing arguments pro and con. Are there such people?
To Congress, CRS reports must be treated as a controlled substance. CRS is literally prohibited from making them directly available to the public. If anybody were able to get their hands on them, who knows what might happen?
Let’s find out. New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have been withheld from public distribution in the last few days include the following.
How Much Slack Remains in the Labor Market?, CRS Insight, August 5, 2016
Evolution of the Meaning of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act, August 8, 2016
Implementing Bills for Trade Agreements: Statutory Procedures Under Trade Promotion Authority, August 8, 2016
Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA, updated August 8, 2016
Overview of Funding Mechanisms in the Federal Budget Process, and Selected Examples, August 4, 2016
Automakers Seek to Align Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Regulations, CRS Insight, August 8, 2016
Al Qaeda’s Syria Affiliate Declares Independence, CRS Insight, August 5, 2016
Trafficking in Persons and U.S. Foreign Policy Responses in the 114th Congress, August 5, 2016
Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, updated August 8, 2016
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.