A Thousand Advisory Committees, and More from CRS
As of last year, there were 1,009 federal advisory committees comprised of 72,220 members who provided advice to the government at a cost of more than $367 million.
The operations of these federal advisory committees — which may also include commissions, councils, task forces, or working groups — are examined in a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. See Federal Advisory Committees: An Introduction and Overview by Wendy Ginsberg and Casey Burgat, October 27, 2016.
Other new and updated CRS reports that have not been made publicly available online include the following.
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated October 28, 2016
Iran: Politics, Human Rights, and U.S. Policy, updated October 25, 2016
Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, updated October 28, 2016
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, updated October 27, 2016
Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated October 25, 2016
Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, updated October 25, 2016
Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated October 25, 2016
Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and Issues, October 28, 2016
DHS Appropriations FY2017: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, October 27, 2016
Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Affordable Care Act, updated October 27, 2016
Video Broadcasting of Congressional Proceedings, October 28, 2016
The Social Security Retirement Age, October 28, 2016
Social Security: Calculation and History of Taxing Benefits, updated October 27, 2016
Did a Thermostat Break the Internet?, CRS Insight, October 26, 2016
If carbon markets are going to play a meaningful role — whether as engines of transition finance, as instruments of accurate pricing across heterogeneous climate interventions, or both — they need the infrastructure and standards that any serious market requires.
Good information sources, like collections, must be available and maintained if companies are going to successfully implement the vision of AI for science expressed by their marketing and executives.
Let’s see what rules we can rewrite and beliefs we can reset: a few digital service sacred cows are long overdue to be put out to pasture.
Nestled in the cuts and investments of interest to the S&T community is a more complex story of how the administration is approaching the practice of science diplomacy.