Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open CRS: Free Government Research Reports

Posted by samzenpus on from the 4-out-of-5-politicians dept.

securitas writes "Ted Bridis of the Associated Press reports that more than 8000 Congressional Research Service reports produced exclusively for legislators are now available to the public for free. The Center for Democracy & Technology's Open CRS project is a Web-based central clearinghouse that features several collections of government reports. The research service has '... a staff of more than 700 and a nearly $100 million budget ...' but 'CRS Reports do not become public until a member of Congress releases the report.' The Open CRS project wants your help in obtaining and adding reports to the database."

21 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Ok by KaptNKrunchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not like anything important won't get black inked anyway though.

  2. Re:FUCK THE GOVERNMENT by chez69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    nah, you might catch something

    --
    PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
  3. A nit worth picking ... by timothy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ted Bridis of the Associated Press reports that more than 8000 Congressional Research Service reports produced exclusively for legislators are now available to the public for free."

    Shouldn't that read something more like "Ted Bridis of the Associated Press reports that more than 8000 Congressional Research Service reports produced exclusively for legislators are now available to the public, who already paid for it, and whose children will keep paying thanks to reckless spending and cavalier taxation, at no additional charge"?

    That complaint aside, kudos to the people who helped liberate some of the knowledge (and probably some of the fluff) that tax dollars have paid for.

    Ahem.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:A nit worth picking ... by joeljkp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having had experience dealing with CRS in the past, I'm of the opinion that they are far from a fluff service.

      They provide comprehensive non-partisan reports on any subject imaginable at the request of the major decision-makers in this country. The public sees this in the short, clearly-worded descriptions that accompany every bill and resolution in the THOMAS system. They don't see the massive stacks of policy and historical reports intended to brief legislators on complex areas they may not have time to explore fully (or want a place to start).

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    2. Re:A nit worth picking ... by BlightThePower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think its reckless to spend money on a research service to inform democratically elected representatives with regard to the issues they are debating and making decisions upon?

      I think you take this libertarian notion of not paying taxes for anything superfluous too far, or would you rather politicians legislated on the basis of dog-eared back issues of Time magazine and National Geographic?

      --
      Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
    3. Re:A nit worth picking ... by securitas · · Score: 3, Insightful


      timothy,

      I thought about adding text to the write-up that pointed out the taxpaying public have already paid for those reports (and thousands more).

      I decided against it for a few reasons:

      1. Brevity
      2. The Open CRS site discusses that point
      3. I assumed that the 'staff of more than 700 and a nearly $100 million budget' quotation made it clear enough to Slashdot readers that the reports are funded by tax dollars
      4. 'Free' is much more economical than 'no additional charge'
      5. I didn't want to editorialize so I left that to the comments section.

      But point taken.

  4. Report on the Patriot Act by Woogiemonger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just for a heads up, a couple of the reports cover details on the Patriot Act including provisions that expire at the end of this year. Figured it was a topic of interest on /.

  5. If the government were truly free by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the government were truly representative of the People, you wouldn't have trouble with openness. As it stands, though, the People care more about their Big Macs and SUVs than voting.

    This project is doomed to stagnate. The People are satisfied with their little flag bumper stickers and patriotic country music. They have little interest in the minutiae of government.

    And who blames them? That's the reason we have representatives in the first place.

    1. Re:If the government were truly free by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the government were truly representative of the People, you wouldn't have trouble with openness. As it stands, though, the People care more about their Big Macs and SUVs than voting.

      The government *is* representative of the people: as you say yourself, the people doesn't give a fuck about the government, so it's no surprise the government doesn't give a fuck about the people either.

      People have the government they deserve: if all they can do is groan a little during tax time, but otherwise trust the administration to run things, what do you expect? The government will (and does) run amok eventually.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:If the government were truly free by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "As it stands, though, the People care more about their Big Macs and SUVs than voting."

      I'd find this more insightful if not for the fact that nearly all politicians are self-serving asses. The problem isn't with the voters, it's who's running.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:If the government were truly free by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As such we should abolish voting and replace it with something better.

      I prefer futarchy, myself.

      http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf

      Democracies often fail to aggregate information, while speculative markets excel at this
      task. We consider a new form of governance, wherein voters would say what we want, but
      speculators would say how to get it. Elected representatives would oversee the after-the-fact
      measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they
      expect to raise national welfare. Those who recommend policies that regressions suggest
      will raise GDP should be willing to endorse similar market advice. Using a qualitative
      engineering-style approach, we present three scenarios, consider thirty design issues, and
      then present a more specific design responding to those concerns.

    4. Re:If the government were truly free by wallykeyster · · Score: 3, Funny
      As it stands, though, the People care more about their Big Macs and SUVs than voting.

      How many voters does it take to change a lightbulb?

      None. Voters can't change anything.

    5. Re:If the government were truly free by tempest69 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People dont expect the government to be competent. They dont really expect the government to be active and efficient at resolving the issues of the everyday person. I'm quite suprised that the government is even close to the level of service that it maintains today.

      I dont care to worry about the day to day dealings of the government, Reading what congress changes daily (Reading the Full Bill with comprehension) would eat about 79 hours out of each day. When the Patriot Act was passed 98-0 how many of the senators actually read through the THOUSANDS of pages? I cant imagine more than five. The point is that it cant be done, and even if it could it would eat your life up.

      I want to be sure that I have a good shot at a good life. I want to have a fair and just government. We have some issues, but the down side is that America as a people tolerate things I find wrong. As long as your in a minority of your belief, you wont be heard.

      The Government does care about the people and their sensitivities. The problem is that people will always have some sort of opinion that is outside of what you feel is right.

      If people REALLY wanted their vote to count they would join the party opposed to their own, and vote against the primary election frontrunner who has an opinion you dislike. Then you've hedged your bets on issues you care about. You can still vote againt your new party in the general election..

      Vote with your wallet, The huge election money has to come from somewhere, make sure that your not spending money to elect the opposition. I'm wondering how many republicans permanantly switched to del-monte ketchup?

      It's late, I'm ranting,, I probably should have just popped this junk in a journal.

      Storm

  6. Re:seems like too much money by Parham · · Score: 2, Insightful

    100,000,000 / 700 = 142,857.14

    that's just for the staff costs... now take out their paper expenses, mail, telephone services, and all the other office stuff that comes with it. I've heard that paper costs an arm and a leg in some places, so I wouldn't put it past these people. Some of the top people probably do get paid a lot, but a majority probably wouldn't make more than the average person after all the expenses of running the place.

  7. Read this newsletter! by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you've not already subscribed to the Secrecy Newsletter from the Federation of American Scientists, or added their RSS feed to your reader, do it now! It's an incredibly fascinating -- and exasperating -- daily report on government secrecy around the world.

    Plus, Steven Aftergood has been publishing CRS reports for a while now. Here's what he has to say on why the CRS won't release 'em in the first place:

    "CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"

    Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research Service reports automatically made available to the public? At first glance, the policy appears to reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy on the part of CRS and the Congress. But there is more to it than that, congressional officials say.

    CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress, and only for Congress.

    "CRS assists every Member and committee," said Director Daniel P. Mulhollan in May 23 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of our work is confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the needs of the congressional community. CRS has no public mission." By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing itself from the larger and higher-profile Government Accountability Office. More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, an event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS officials.

    What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional agenda of its own aside from support to members of Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no position on disputed policy matters.

    CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional support agency, which constitutes its central claim to continued funding, would only be diluted by direct interactions with public consumers.

    "Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday.

    And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

    "CRS has received clear indication from its oversight committees that no change in the current policy is authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote yesterday.

    "It is important to recognize that while the restriction on public access to CRS products is frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the reality is that the policy is a congressional one," he noted.

    In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its products, little can be done to discourage the trend toward further public availability of CRS products brought about without the permission of a Member or committee."

    A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it believed direct public access to CRS products would have unfavorable legal and institutional consequences.

    See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written Products," March 9, 1999:

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html

    --
    Carousel is a lie!
  8. How Much Do Government Wonks Make? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google for the "GS" scale. Most government employees are anywhere from GS-5 to GS-9. Executives are around GS-13 to GS-15. It's not that much.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  9. I read a useful report from this service last week by rhess460 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think there is some good content, for example:

    U.S. Housing Prices: Is There a Bubble?
    May 16, 2003

    http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL31918/

  10. Authenticity by hobotron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a great step for authenticity, Lord only knows how many bad/misrepresented/outright made up reports have graced the committees' of our government.

    Hopefully this quasi peer review will help eliminate erroneous research.

    --
    There is truth in humor.
  11. Well, duh... by ankhcraft · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday. And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

    I worked as a contractor at Congressional Research Services for a bit over a year, so let me put in my two cents.

    Of course they agree, because it's an obvious truth. When does a author not consider their audience when writing a document? How hard would it be to try not to consider your audience when writing a piece? Furthermore, how cumbersome do you think it would be, administratively, to effectively convince one's employees not to worry about what hundreds of millions of people think about your writing, and just focus on a few hundred? Here's a better idea: Don't worry about any of the above, because CRS's job is to inform congressman and their staffers on the issues so that they may legislative effectively.

    In my stay at CRS, I learned a good amount about a part of our government which was previously entirely unknown to me. CRS does very good work for our congressman, and I was proud to build good software for CRS employees' and congressman to use alike.

    Also, it's worth noting that 99.999% of what you'll find in CRS reports are gleaned from sourced that any Joe Q. Public could find anywhere. It's condensed into a format that lets congressman read a lot of facts at once, without having to go read 20-30 books/magazines/publications to glean the same content.

    OpenCRS is probably as public as this stuff is ever going to get. This way, CRS still doesn't have to deal w/ the public. They can keep their target audience narrow and their coverage broad.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Well, duh... by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So I grasp what you're saying, We don't want CRS to become some politically-correct-don't-write-anything-really-us eful-the- public-might-see-it organization, but I really don't imagine that happening.

      I can.

      In the late 70s when there was congressional investigation over windfall profits by the oil companies. There were also trials resulting from it. The lawyers of those companies tried to subpeona the files of the CRS to try to use in their cases. (Likely it was a tactic to create a chilling effect).

      Now, multiply that by everly pressure group and lobbyist you can think of on any side of any issue. It's hard to write a balanced and neutral report when you're worried about being called to testify, or going to have your phone overflow with angry (insert-special-interest).

  12. Distributed Government Document Browsing by sjoplin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This new glut of public information gave me an idea. Something similar to Distributed Proofreaders but for scrutinising government documents. Volunteer readers would look at a few scanned pages, marking the ones that would be of broad interest, and then the most interesting get compiled into a list.

    If only there were 25 hours in a day.