This Is Huge: New Project Releases All Current (Non-Confidential) Congressional Research Service Reports

from the big-big-news dept

Thu, Oct 20th 2016 3:55pm — Mike Masnick

Going back nearly a decade, we've been talking about the ridiculousness of Congress refusing to publicly release reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). As we've discussed many times, CRS is an in-house think tank for Congress that is both famously non-partisan and actually really good at what they do. CRS reports tend to be really useful and highly credible (which is part of the reason why Congress isn't a fan of letting them out into the public). Of course, as works of the federal government, CRS reports are in the public domain, but the way it's always worked is that the reports are released only to members of Congress. These include both general reports on topics that are released to every member of Congress, or specific research tasked by a member for the CRS to investigate and create a new report. The members who receive the reports are able to release them to the public, and some do, but the vast majority of CRS work remains hidden from public view. For the most part, both CRS and Congress have resisted any attempt to change this. Going back decades, they've put together a mostly ridiculous list of reasons opposing plans to more widely distribute CRS reports.

Some members of Congress keep introducing bills to make these public domain CRS reports actually available to the public. We've written about such attempts in 2011, 2012, 2015 and earlier this year. And each time they get shot down, often for completely ridiculous reasons, including the belief that making these reports public will somehow hurt CRS's ability to continue to do good, non-partisan research.

At times, different organizations and groups have taken up the cause themselves. Back in 2009, Wikileaks hit the jackpot and released nearly 7,000 such CRS reports. Steve Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists has been posting CRS reports to a public archive for quite some time. There's also Antoine McGrath's CRSReports.com and some other sites that all create archives of CRS reports that they've been able to collect from various sources.

But earlier this week, there was a new entrant: EveryCRSReport.com. Unlike basically all of the other aggregators of CRS reports that collect released reports and aggregate them, it appears that EveryCRSReport basically has teamed up with members of Congress who have access to a massive stash of CRS reports loaded onto the Congressional intranet, all of which have been released via the site -- and it appears that the site is automatically updated, suggesting that the still nameless Congressional partners have set up a way to continually feed in new reports. To avoid public pressure or harassment (one of the core reasons used by Congress and CRS to reject proposals to open up the content), the site removes the names and contact info of the CRS staffers who create the reports. The reports that are available are not just in unsearchable PDFs, but they're fully HTML and fully searchable.

Here are a few reports that folks around here might find interesting: an analysis of ACTA and a recent deep dive into the net neutrality debate. Here's an interesting one on promoting internet freedom globally. Since the peaceful transition of presidential administrations has suddenly become a hot topic (not for good reasons), here's a CRS report on that from just last month. It's also good to see that they have a recently updated list of cybersecurity reports and research for Congressional staffers to dig into (though it's unclear how many actually do so).

And, yes, of course, there's one on the "going dark" encryption debate, in which the CRS report rightly notes that backdoors are a bad idea, according to basically all experts:

In considering future legislation on or regulation of encrypted systems and communications, the issue of exceptional access has been raised: is it possible to create a system with sufficiently narrow and protected access points that these points can only be entered by authorized entities and not exploited by others? Experts have generally responded, no. For instance, one group of computer scientists and security experts contends that requiring exceptional access "will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation-states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend." As was the case during the crypto wars of the 1990s, new technology (the Clipper Chip) was introduced that was intended to only allow access to certain communications under specified conditions. Researchers were soon able to expose vulnerabilities in the proposed system, thus halting the implementation of the Clipper Chip.

This is a really awesome resource -- it's a goldmine of useful information, and very thorough, careful research. I've only just started digging in.

The whole thing was put together by Demand Progress* and the Congressional Data Coalition, which is a project created by Demand Progress and R Street (which our think tank, the Copia Institute, is a member of). It will be interesting to see how (if?) Congress and the CRS react to this. Hopefully, they don't freak out, and seek to shut down the various sources of this material. This really is a fantastic resource of carefully done, thorough research on a variety of topics, all technically in the public domain. Check it out.

Hopefully it will help both the rest of Congress and CRS to recognize that actually making publicly funded research public is not such a bad thing. The site itself was put together by Dan Schuman, who used to work for CRS, and he's actually written up a fascinating blog post about why he did it and why the internal culture at CRS, against such public releases, is wrong, but endemic to the organization (he didn't begin questioning it himself until after he left):

Over time, I came to realize that the policy concerning public access to CRS reports was counterproductive. Members of Congress could get the reports. Lobbyists and special interests could get the reports from Congress or from private vendors for a fee. Former congressional staff could ask their friends on the hill for a copy. But the general public, unless they knew a report existed, really did not have access.

And that’s too bad. CRS reports are written for intelligent people who are not necessarily policy experts. In a world that’s awash with 5 second YouTube ads, horse race political coverage, and the endless screaming and preening of political figures, these reports are a good way to start to understand an issue.

But he also notes that there are problems with CRS -- some of which CRS blames on the fact that reports are being released to the public -- including the fact that the reports have become "even-handed to a fault" to avoid pissing off Congress itself in talking down a bad idea. While some of this may also be attributed to worries about reports going public, this seems kind of silly. This is good and credible taxpayer funded research that's in the public domain. If Congress can learn from it, so can the public:

CRS used to be a very different agency. It used to provide unvarnished advice for members of Congress on the crucial issues of the day. But over time, and especially during the 1990s, the mode of analysis changed to a description of issues, moving away from an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of various courses of action. I don’t mean to overstate this, and there are many examples still of prescient analysis, but there was a real change in the way CRS did its work, in large part because of existential concerns. In short, CRS was concerned about irritating its congressional masters by attacking a pet project or cherished belief. The old-timers still had great latitude, but the agency became sclerotic.

Part of this calcification included a fear of public access to the reports. At one time, CRS had published a newsletter about its latest research. And now, while its employees still testify before Congress, they were discouraged and then generally prohibited from sharing their work even with their academic peers. Agency staff grew more insulated and isolated.

But on top of that, recognizing that there are benefits to this research being public, hopefully means that CRS can get beyond just giving out "even handed to a fault" research, and can actually get back to making real recommendations. Over the years, we've discussed the ridiculous move by Newt Gingrich a couple decades ago to kill off the Office of Technology Assessment, which actually helped Congress understand complex technological issues in a non-partisan way. A functioning CRS could do the same thing and help put an end to stupid technology debates that often feature clueless arguments on all sides. CRS shouldn't fear this role, nor should it fear its research being public. It's a great resource and having it public is great for everyone.

* I'm on the board of Demand Progress, but had no idea about this particular project from them, and, in fact, heard about it from someone else entirely...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, congressional research service, education, knowledge, public domain, resources

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 4:46pm

They'll Be Missed
The Centers for Disease Control used to fund research into the causes of death in the United States. But in 1996 after studies found that guns can be dangerous, they were punished.

First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. When that failed they pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget - the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year - and outlawed research on gun control.

Small wonder the CRS resists having their reports released to the public. If they're as non-partisan and highly credible as you say, they're doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re: They'll Be Missed
  Zee republicans are the problem? But, they are the same as the democrats...which would mean... the democrats are the problem and so are the republicans
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    On gun control theses days, the parties are the same. Even Ronald Reagan is pro-gun control compared to Obama. (Yeah, I can give examples.) Sure, you can count on lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth that Hillary will take away everyone's guns, just like Bill and Obama were always going to. But the parties are in lock-step on the issue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 8:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
      > Even Ronald Reagan is pro-gun control compared to Obama.
      
      Good gun control means hitting what you aim at. Something most cops don't seem to be very good at.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wyrm (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
        Given the number of death-by-cop stories, they're very good at shooting what they're aiming at. In their case, gun control is not so much a problem as self-control.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Padpaw (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    The parties change every few decades anyway.
    
    For example the deep south used to be almost entirely democrat, which supported slavery and the confederation. While the North for the most part was republican and they supported freeing the slaves and the union of course.
    
    Amazing how time changes political parties eh. My source of course a book "History of the World, Volume 2 The United States. circa 1937, it is quite an enlightening read. As it cover from the end of the civil war up until the early 1930's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 7:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
      Look up, in this order:
      
      George Wallace
      Barry Goldwater
      Southern Strategy
      Powell Memorandum
      Project for a New American Century
      
      The dog whistling and tribalism date from Wallace and Goldwater, were perfected in the Southern Strategy and were the basis of the Powell Memorandum and the Project. Neoliberalism emerged from the Memorandum and were perfected in the application of the principles expounded in the Project. This is the basis of the corporate rights movements we're seeing today.
      
      Result: states' rights, sovereign citizens, hatred of government on principle, corporate sovereignty, expecting the market to resolve social problems, abandonment of traditional family and community values for enforced choice between alt-right and liberal tribalism...
      
      It's not time that changes them, it's attitudes. And attitudes are shaped by influential thought leaders, most of whom play to the gallery to get attention — and the votes they need to implement their policies. Basically, we need to be more considerate of the galleries we play to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re: They'll Be Missed
  When the Centers for Disease Control sees crime as a disease, they're clearly well outside their charter. Congress is funding them to address disease control and prevention (their name is a bit of a clue), and violent crime has nothing to do with that mandate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 7:12pm
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    If they had produced a report labeling "crime as a disease", you might have an intelligent point. But no-one is claiming that they did.
    
    The CDC's mandate also covers injury (hence the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) disability, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and more.
    
    A report on the leading causes of death is well within their charter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 6:33am
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    On the other hand, thank you for demonstrating my point (partisan opposition to a source of credible non-partisan reports).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spica, 20 Oct 2016 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re: They'll Be Missed
  
  But in 1996 after studies found that guns can be dangerous, they were punished.
  
  So they were trying to say that firearms are a "disease"?
  
  What about knives and other sharp, pointy objects?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 9:41pm
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    *sigh*
    
    The CDC's mandate also covers injury (hence the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) disability, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and more.
    
    A report on the leading causes of death is well within their charter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
      "The CDC's mandate also covers injury (hence the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) disability, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and more."
      
      So what did they have to say about US military intervention policy? That seems to have been involved in a lot of death and injury. And it even involves more weapons than "guns". Or would that have not been politically correct?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wyrm (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
        Nobody said anything about crime. The article mentioned guns, and a large part of deaths and injuries by gun are accidents. I would think that is within their mandate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pixelpusher220 (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
    They study them along with other violent causes of death and injury...it's just the guns that politically they aren't allowed to study.
    
    More correctly the CDC is banned on spending any money on such gun violence research.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
      "They study them along with other violent causes of death and injury."
      
      Seeing as how you seem to be an expert on CDC studies, could you provide a link to their study on sharp pointy objects, please?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
        Are you unable to search the internet?
        
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injuries.htm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:58pm
    
    Re: What about knives and other sharp, pointy objects?
    Ah, the hoary old inability to distinguish constructive tools from destructive weapons (wilful or not) rears its ugly head yet again...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 7:06am
      
      Re: Re: What about knives and other sharp, pointy objects?
      I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 21 Oct 2016 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        Think of putting together a meal in the kitchen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        You hunt Moose with knives?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 21 Oct 2016 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: You hunt Moose with knives?
        I don’t know what kind of kitchen you run, but there is no “hunting moose” in mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        You hunt Moose with knives?
        
        You've got the biggest balls of them all!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:35pm
        
        Re: Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        "Think of putting together a meal in the kitchen."
        
        Think of hunting a meal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        With a gun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Enif, 22 Oct 2016 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: I've seen knives cut things up, but I've yet to see one that can put things back together.
        
        Think of putting together a meal in the kitchen.
        
        Oh, okay then. Think of putting together a defensive force. Think of creating security. Think of building a nation. I could go on and on. All with guns.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 23 Oct 2016 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Think of building a nation ... with guns.
        Is that why you USians like to carry around guns all the time? In case you get called on, at short notice, to help build a nation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2016 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Think of building a nation ... with guns.
        Yeah, because the founders of the US didn't need to actually fight King George. They could have just asked politely and he would have been more than glad to let them start their new country. Right? I mean, he only sent *armed* troops because they were rude about it. Shame on them. Their own fault. Or something like that, huh? At least in British history books.
        
        Do I need to tell you what I think you're full of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2016 @ 5:07pm

Certifications
Too bad we can't have everyone in congress take some standardized tests to verify their actual understanding of tech and science before they are ever allowed onto boards and groups that end up determining the future of the nation. Put the people with the highest scores on the groups that they can actually understand and leave the ones who still trust homeopathic medicine and anti-vaccination proponents to argue over everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JustShutUpAndObey, 20 Oct 2016 @ 7:14pm
  
  Re: Certifications
  Stop making sense.
  Certifications and knowledge of facts are irrelevant. What's relevant (the ONLY thing that matters) is who is making campaign contributions. CRS can talk about climate change, but if Exxon is my biggest donor, EVEN IF I KNOW it's a real problem, my main problem is getting re-elected. I will always pretend to believe Exxon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 20 Oct 2016 @ 5:29pm

Net Neutrality
There is only one mention of Netflix in the entire report.

Since Netflix blocking was the majority of the problem, that's a little thin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re: Net Neutrality
  Since Netflix blocking was the majority of the problem, that's a little thin.
  
  No, it wasn't, actually.
  
  The Netflix issue was interconnection, which is further upstream. The net neutrality issue is last mile. Yes, they have some linkage, mainly in that the deliberate clogging of interconnection was *because* of ISPs trying to avoid net neutrality through sneaky bullshit ways, but even today's net neutrality rules don't actually stop ISPs from clogging interconnection points like they did.
  
  The reason the interconnection clogging went away soon after the net neutrality rules were put in place was because the ISPs realized that the FCC meant business, and it was going to create new interconnection rules next if they didn't shape up. So they did.
  
  So, yeah, again, the report is actually correct not to use the Netflix example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
briny, 20 Oct 2016 @ 6:03pm

I'll even accept "even-handed"
If nothing else, it gives you a tick-list of the opposing arguments that'll rear their ugly head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ukdah, 20 Oct 2016 @ 8:30pm

"Lobbyists and special interests could get the reports..."
"But the general public, unless they knew a report existed, really did not have access."

And that's just the way they like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 1:15am

Fracking...?
No mention of fracking in over 8K reports? Curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: Fracking...?
  Because it's actually called "Hydraulic fracturing" which gave me 9 apparently very relevant results.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sok Puppette (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 6:45am

You are wrong. Obviously wrong.
It is blindingly obvious what will happen if the CRS stuff is automatically available to the public.

It will become a resource for the press, and it will become a resource for advocacy organizations. You'll hear people using it out in public, in arguments that affect congresscritter's electability and public image. Every time the CRS says anything that actually MATTERS, it will get used politically.

Every time that happens, some dipshit in Congress will claim that the CRS is biased and deliberately wrote a report to give ammunition to their opponents. Eventually you'll get some Lamar Smith type who makes it a crusade. The CRS will find its funding and its very existence in jeaopardy. So it will stop saying anything that matters. And those reports you love will turn into shit.

Anybody with even a basic understanding of politics should see that.

WHY do you think Gingrich wanted to kill the OTA? So now you want to put the CRS in the line of fire?

That's really dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2016 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: You are wrong. Obviously wrong.
  So, knowledge is a great thing, so long as it's kept locked up. I see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]