Perla has been resolute in pushing for transcripts of committee hearings, and decided to formulate a letter to Congressional leadership. We've been editing back and forth today, and decided that the best way to be sure we included all of the important details would be to send the letter to the Open House Project group, to let you all see it and weigh in.
What other specific elements should we include?
Thanks Perla for your initiative.
Also, let us know if you or your organization would like to be a signatory.
Dear (Chairperson, Speaker, Minority Leader, etc. )
As you know, the recently passed ethics reform legislation, S.1, contains a provision requiring all committees of the U.S. Senate to make available online the transcripts of all hearings held within 21 days. This Senate rules change -- which will create greater transparency for the work of the Senate -- constitutes a substantial recognition of the public as a partner in the legislative process. We strongly applaud your passage of this provision and urge its prompt implementation.
We are writing to today urge the Senate to use 21st century formats to implement these reforms. As the digital age is upon us, we hope that Congress will provide meaningful digital access to the proceedings of the House and Senate, both on the floor and in committee.
Specifically, we are writing to ask that you consider making these proceedings publicly available online in the form of audio, video, and a written transcript. All three forms are vital to the dissemination of committee activity to the public. Video captures emotions, words and context in a much richer way than other media. In addition, audio is necessary for people who are visually impaired, and transcripts are necessary for the hearing impaired. In fact, 29 USC requires that "a text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided" (29 U.S.C. 794d, commonly referred to as "Section 508").
We also request that the video, audio, and transcripts be permanently archived, and available without a fee to the public for education, research, and legal reference.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
We would be happy to meet with you or your staff at any time to discuss this issue. Please contact (John or Perla) at your convenience.
-- John Wonderlich
Program Director The Sunlight Foundation (202) 742-1520 ext. 234
It looks great John, thanks again for all of your work on this critical issue. The only thing that gives me pause is the "without a fee" language referring to access to a permanent archive...it seems demanding in tone (also it might be reasonable to have some type of fee to access older items to help cover the costs of the deep archive we're proposing). I think just saying "...available to the public..." is better at this stage.
-Chris
On 10/12/07, John Wonderlich <johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perla has been resolute in pushing for transcripts of committee hearings, > and decided to formulate a letter to Congressional leadership. We've been > editing back and forth today, and decided that the best way to be sure we > included all of the important details would be to send the letter to the > Open House Project group, to let you all see it and weigh in.
> What other specific elements should we include?
> Thanks Perla for your initiative.
> Also, let us know if you or your organization would like to be a > signatory.
> Dear (Chairperson, Speaker, Minority Leader, etc. )
> As you know, the recently passed ethics reform legislation, S.1, contains > a provision requiring all committees of the U.S. Senate to make available > online the transcripts of all hearings held within 21 days. This Senate > rules change -- which will create greater transparency for the work of the > Senate -- constitutes a substantial recognition of the public as a partner > in the legislative process. We strongly applaud your passage of this > provision and urge its prompt implementation.
> We are writing to today urge the Senate to use 21st century formats to > implement these reforms. As the digital age is upon us, we hope that > Congress will provide meaningful digital access to the proceedings of the > House and Senate, both on the floor and in committee.
> Specifically, we are writing to ask that you consider making these > proceedings publicly available online in the form of audio, video, and a > written transcript. All three forms are vital to the dissemination of > committee activity to the public. Video captures emotions, words and context > in a much richer way than other media. In addition, audio is necessary for > people who are visually impaired, and transcripts are necessary for the > hearing impaired. In fact, 29 USC requires that "a text equivalent for every > non-text element shall be provided" (29 U.S.C. 794d, commonly referred to > as "Section 508").
> We also request that the video, audio, and transcripts be permanently > archived, and available without a fee to the public for education, research, > and legal reference.
> Thank you very much for your consideration.
> We would be happy to meet with you or your staff at any time to discuss > this issue. Please contact (John or Perla) at your convenience.
> -- > John Wonderlich
> Program Director > The Sunlight Foundation > (202) 742-1520 ext. 234
John Wonderlich wrote: > Perla has been resolute in pushing for transcripts of committee > hearings, and decided to formulate a letter to Congressional > leadership. We've been editing back and forth today, and decided that > the best way to be sure we included all of the important details would > be to send the letter to the Open House Project group, to let you all > see it and weigh in.
Nice.
Three comments.
First, technically, S. 1 doesn't require transcripts specifically.
"`(2)(A) Except with respect to meetings closed in accordance with this rule, each committee and subcommittee shall make publicly available through the Internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any meeting not later than 21 business days after the meeting occurs." (effective 90 days after the enactment, which was Sept. 14)
As the letter noted, because of Section 508 (which I know nothing about), transcripts are effectively required as a result of S. 1, but not directly.
Second, until you get near the end of the letter, it's not clear what the letter is asking for. It sounds from the second paragraph that it is just asking that S. 1 be enforced.
Third, it'd be nice to reference the OHP report's section on this, since we touched on video formats and related issues and made some concrete suggestions.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to Tortoise (in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)
This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for public information access.
After thinking briefly about it, I'm inclined to say that public documents should only be made available for a fee by the gov't (usually on a cost-recovery basis) when that's the only way that they're going to be available. If there's no other way to authorize the data's production or publication, or no other model is feasible, then I'd rather see a fee than no data.
That said, however, I'm also inclined to make a broad argument for public governmental information to be provided without a fee. If public information's dissemination is a public good, then I'd think it follows that it should be accessible with as few barriers as possible.
I'm sure there are a lot of examples of this struggle we could come up with; one that comes to mind first is the GPO's preliminary web presence which (as far as I know) was built around recovering the cost of making their materials available.
Another example would be documents from the US patent office. Patents that have been awarded are freely available, but the application materials documentation is not (the "file wrapper"). This means that companies thinking about appying for a patent are less likely to look up similar applications that have failed before, and that no third party is going to be able to do broad analysis that might detect meaningful trends in the length of time necessary for different types of patents to be approved. I can imagine all sorts of benefits that access to this data might have, perhaps letting potential applicants know the average number of times applications need to be revised before passage, etc. As long as the USPTO charges $50 dollars or so for each, this data's potential impact will be limited to those with a sufficiently specialized interest willing to look into specific applications.
I'm interested in what others think, though, about when it might be appropriate to charge for government publications.
John
On 10/12/07, Chris Kinnan <kin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks great John, thanks again for all of your work on this critical > issue. The only thing that gives me pause is the "without a fee" language > referring to access to a permanent archive...it seems demanding in tone > (also it might be reasonable to have some type of fee to access older items > to help cover the costs of the deep archive we're proposing). I think just > saying "...available to the public..." is better at this stage.
> -Chris
> On 10/12/07, John Wonderlich <johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perla has been resolute in pushing for transcripts of committee > > hearings, and decided to formulate a letter to Congressional leadership. > > We've been editing back and forth today, and decided that the best way to be > > sure we included all of the important details would be to send the letter to > > the Open House Project group, to let you all see it and weigh in.
> > What other specific elements should we include?
> > Thanks Perla for your initiative.
> > Also, let us know if you or your organization would like to be a > > signatory.
> > Dear (Chairperson, Speaker, Minority Leader, etc. )
> > As you know, the recently passed ethics reform legislation, S.1, > > contains a provision requiring all committees of the U.S. Senate to make > > available online the transcripts of all hearings held within 21 days. This > > Senate rules change -- which will create greater transparency for the work > > of the Senate -- constitutes a substantial recognition of the public as a > > partner in the legislative process. We strongly applaud your passage of this > > provision and urge its prompt implementation.
> > We are writing to today urge the Senate to use 21st century formats to > > implement these reforms. As the digital age is upon us, we hope that > > Congress will provide meaningful digital access to the proceedings of the > > House and Senate, both on the floor and in committee.
> > Specifically, we are writing to ask that you consider making these > > proceedings publicly available online in the form of audio, video, and a > > written transcript. All three forms are vital to the dissemination of > > committee activity to the public. Video captures emotions, words and context > > in a much richer way than other media. In addition, audio is necessary for > > people who are visually impaired, and transcripts are necessary for the > > hearing impaired. In fact, 29 USC requires that "a text equivalent for every > > non-text element shall be provided" (29 U.S.C. 794d, commonly referred > > to as "Section 508").
> > We also request that the video, audio, and transcripts be permanently > > archived, and available without a fee to the public for education, research, > > and legal reference.
> > Thank you very much for your consideration.
> > We would be happy to meet with you or your staff at any time to discuss > > this issue. Please contact (John or Perla) at your convenience.
> > -- > > John Wonderlich
> > Program Director > > The Sunlight Foundation > > (202) 742-1520 ext. 234
-- John Wonderlich
Program Director The Sunlight Foundation (202) 742-1520 ext. 234
> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we > might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for > public information access.
It is never appropriate if the information must be created for a governmental purpose. If there are costs involved with making it more usable to purposes outside the scope of the intended purpose for creation, then marginal cost is appropriate IF and only if there is no other way to fund access (or if there are printing costs). Governments that charge large fees for compiling information simply aren't following other laws which require them to keep their information organized.
"3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost."
Some more principles ... many of which already existed in law, but need to be restated because some yahoo developed a concept that governments need to act as stewards of the value of information and extract as much profit or revenue from their secondary use (as if that will keep our taxes down!) which continues to crop up again and again. "Of, for, by" is all I have to say.
II. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACCESS COUNCIL PRINCIPLES
The recommendations that are forwarded in this report are based on the 12 guiding principles that were adopted by GIAC in January 1996. Those principles are:
1. Access to government information is a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy.
2. Responsive provision of information access and the dissemination of government information are essential functions of government.
3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost.
4. All citizens, regardless of geographic, physical, cultural, socio-economic status or other barriers, shall have equitable and affordable access to government information.
5. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other information access policy laws must be complied with and enforced at all levels of government.
6. Privacy is a right that must be maintained and protected in the context of changing technology.
7. Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible.
8. Government shall ensure that government employees and citizens have the tools, applications, training and support for electronic access.
9. Interaction among citizens, governments, businesses and organizations shall be promoted through the use of information technology and networks.
10. Citizens shall be enabled and encouraged to be consumers and producers of electronic information and services.
11. The State shall ensure that all citizens of Minnesota have the benefits of Universal Service.
12. Effective competition in telecommunications services in Minnesota is an essential component of effective access and interactive use of government information and services in electronic form.
What about letting the Gov recover costs by advertising?
The recent move by the NY Times to open its archive highlights the compromise. They now offer their archives freely, with plenty of advertisements along side.
Another proven model is to have advertisements inside RSS/XML feeds. Just like with TV syndication, embedding ads around valuable content is a good way to generate revenue.
On 10/13/07, John Wonderlich <johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we might > apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for public > information access.
> After thinking briefly about it, I'm inclined to say that public documents > should only be made available for a fee by the gov't (usually on a > cost-recovery basis) when that's the only way that they're going to be > available. If there's no other way to authorize the data's production or > publication, or no other model is feasible, then I'd rather see a fee than > no data.
> That said, however, I'm also inclined to make a broad argument for public > governmental information to be provided without a fee. If public > information's dissemination is a public good, then I'd think it follows that > it should be accessible with as few barriers as possible.
> I'm sure there are a lot of examples of this struggle we could come up with; > one that comes to mind first is the GPO's preliminary web presence which (as > far as I know) was built around recovering the cost of making their > materials available.
> Another example would be documents from the US patent office. Patents that > have been awarded are freely available, but the application materials > documentation is not (the "file wrapper"). This means that companies > thinking about appying for a patent are less likely to look up similar > applications that have failed before, and that no third party is going to be > able to do broad analysis that might detect meaningful trends in the length > of time necessary for different types of patents to be approved. I can > imagine all sorts of benefits that access to this data might have, perhaps > letting potential applicants know the average number of times applications > need to be revised before passage, etc. As long as the USPTO charges $50 > dollars or so for each, this data's potential impact will be limited to > those with a sufficiently specialized interest willing to look into specific > applications.
> I'm interested in what others think, though, about when it might be > appropriate to charge for government publications.
Regarding government agencies using advertising to finance information products:
GAO has a Comptroller General's decision at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/307317.pdf What is informative is why this specific case is an exception to the general rule that federal agencies should *not* accept advertising in their publications and why they can't use non-appropriated funds to pay for specific activities unless specifically authorized to do so.
The decision says, "although there is no governmentwide legal restriction, federal policy is generally opposed to commercial advertising in federal publications." In support, the decision cites the "Government Printing and Biding Regulations," Title III, sec 13. You can find this document at http://www.house.gov/jcp/jcpregs.pdf (even though the House has not set up a website for the JCP in this congress). The document is admittedly out-of-date, but this particular policy statement would seem to transfer easily from print pubs to online info.
This is an interesting thread. There is more on the gov info and pricing topic from both CRS and GAO -- as well as from other sources. A lot of it varies depending on the agency's mission and statute, however, so it may be helpful to focus specifically on legislative info.
[mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of simeøn Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:40 AM To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: transcript and media letter
Hi all,
What about letting the Gov recover costs by advertising?
The recent move by the NY Times to open its archive highlights the compromise. They now offer their archives freely, with plenty of advertisements along side.
Another proven model is to have advertisements inside RSS/XML feeds. Just like with TV syndication, embedding ads around valuable content is a good way to generate revenue.
On 10/13/07, John Wonderlich <johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Chris.
> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we might > apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for public > information access.
> After thinking briefly about it, I'm inclined to say that public documents > should only be made available for a fee by the gov't (usually on a > cost-recovery basis) when that's the only way that they're going to be > available. If there's no other way to authorize the data's production or > publication, or no other model is feasible, then I'd rather see a fee than > no data.
> That said, however, I'm also inclined to make a broad argument for public > governmental information to be provided without a fee. If public > information's dissemination is a public good, then I'd think it follows that > it should be accessible with as few barriers as possible.
> I'm sure there are a lot of examples of this struggle we could come up with; > one that comes to mind first is the GPO's preliminary web presence which (as > far as I know) was built around recovering the cost of making their > materials available.
> Another example would be documents from the US patent office. Patents that > have been awarded are freely available, but the application materials > documentation is not (the "file wrapper"). This means that companies > thinking about appying for a patent are less likely to look up similar > applications that have failed before, and that no third party is going to be > able to do broad analysis that might detect meaningful trends in the length > of time necessary for different types of patents to be approved. I can > imagine all sorts of benefits that access to this data might have, perhaps > letting potential applicants know the average number of times applications > need to be revised before passage, etc. As long as the USPTO charges $50 > dollars or so for each, this data's potential impact will be limited to > those with a sufficiently specialized interest willing to look into specific > applications.
> I'm interested in what others think, though, about when it might be > appropriate to charge for government publications.
Steven Clift wrote: > John Wonderlich wrote: >> Thanks, Chris.
>> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria >> we might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate >> for public information access.
(snip)
> Way back when, I staffed a legislatively created Minnesota Government > Information Access Council which deliberated these issues back in > 1996: http://www.publicus.net/articles/mngiacreport.htm
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to Tortoise (in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)
OpenCRS has a new list of fugitive Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports from the last two months up on the OpenCRS.com site -- full list below.
We've had great success getting all of these reports in the past two lists with the help of this list and other volunteers. Please help us continue to get the new reports online!
RL34259 November 23, 2007 A Predatory Lending Primer: The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
RL34214 October 19, 2007 A Primer on the Higher Education Act (HEA)
RL34227 October 31, 2007 Agricultural Exports and the 2007 Farm Bill
RL34235 October 31, 2007 Air Pollution as a Commodity: Regulation of the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Market
RL34212 November 5, 2007 Analysis of the Proposed Tax Exclusion for Canceled Mortgage Debt Income
RL34250 November 14, 2007 Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Drought: Federal Reservoir and Species Management
RL34239 November 6, 2007 Biofuels in the 2007 Energy and Farm Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison
RS22744 October 25, 2007 California Wildfires and Federal Assistance
RS22747 November 2, 2007 California Wildfires: The Role of Disaster Insurance
RS22753 November 8, 2007 Child Support Enforcement: $25 Annual User Fee
RL34252 November 15, 2007 Child Welfare: Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy
RL34224 October 30, 2007 College Costs and Prices: Issues for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
RL34228 November 20, 2007 Comparison of the House and Senate 2007 Farm Bills
RS22742 October 23, 2007 Cuba's Political Succession: From Fidel to Raul Castro
RS22752 November 9, 2007 Dispute Settlement Under the Proposed U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement: An Overview
RL34257 November 21, 2007 Earned Value Management (EVM) as an Oversight Tool for Major Capital Investments
RL34254 November 16, 2007 Executive Order 13,438: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
RS22761 November 23, 2007 Extending Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to Service Workers: How Many Workers Could Potentially Be Covered?
RL34236 November 5, 2007 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Proposals to Regulate Their Mortgage Portfolio Size in the 110th Congress
RS22759 November 9, 2007 Farm Legislation and Taxes in 2007
RL34251 November 14, 2007 Federal Programs Available to Unemployed Workers
RL34247 November 9, 2007 Federal Regulation of Substances Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and the Use of Carbon Monoxide in Packaging for Meat and Fish
RL34243 November 7, 2007 Foreign Aid Reform: Issues for Congress and Policy Options
RL34242 November 6, 2007 Gender Identity Discrimination in Employment: Analysis of H.R. 3686 in the 110th Congress
RL34238 November 5, 2007 Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act: Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations
RS22743 October 24, 2007 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Laws Covering Medicare and Medicaid: An Overview
RS22758 November 8, 2007 Iran's Ballistic Missile Programs: An Overview
RS22741 October 22, 2007 Is Securitization an Obstacle to Subprime Borrower Workouts?
RS22762 November 26, 2007 Loan Forgiveness for Public Service Employees Under the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program
RL34258 November 19, 2007 North American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the Future
RL34256 November 21, 2007 North Korea's Nuclear Weapons: Latest Developments
RL34248 November 14, 2007 Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
RL34221 October 25, 2007 Patents on Tax Strategies: Issues in Intellectual Property and Innovation
RS22745 October 25, 2007 Religion and the Workplace: Legal Analysis of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as It Applies to Religious Organizations
RL34237 November 9, 2007 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
RS22746 October 29, 2007 SCHIP: Differences Between H.R. 3963 and the Vetoed H.R. 976
RL34255 November 20, 2007 Senate Policy on 'Holds': Action in the 110th Congress
RS22740 November 8, 2007 Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment: Analysis of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007
RL34211 October 16, 2007 State and Local Taxes and the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
RL34216 November 9, 2007 Tax Gap: Proposals in the 110th Congress to Require Brokers to Report Basis on Publicly Traded Securities
RL34245 November 8, 2007 Tax Treaty Legislation in 2007: Explanation and Economic Analysis
RL34219 November 2, 2007 Terrorism Risk Insurance Legislation in 2007: Issue Summary and Side- by-Side
RS22751 November 2, 2007 The Central African Republic
RS22748 October 26, 2007 The Circumstances In Which an Officer May Ask Questions Concerning Alienage
RS22756 November 13, 2007 The Homeowners' Defense Act: An Overview
RS22755 November 19, 2007 The Primary Residence Exception: Legislative Proposals in the 110th Congress to Amend Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code
RL34249 November 13, 2007 The Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2007: An Overview
RL34246 October 26, 2007 Tuberculosis: International Efforts and Issues for Congress
RS22757 November 15, 2007 U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan
RL34241 November 7, 2007 Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Overview and Assessment
RL34253 November 15, 2007 Weak and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U.S. Policy
RL34244 November 7, 2007 Would a Housing Crash Cause a Recession?
------------------------------------ Ari Schwartz Deputy Director Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202 637 9800 fax 202 637 0968 a...@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org ------------------------------------
Thanks. Already been passing the list around the office, we've got about 30 reports we are targeting so far. I'll pass along more to some friends and family that have volunteered for the CRP-corps. So we should make a nice dent in this list.
Thanks. Sean
Sean Moulton Director, Federal Information Policy OMB Watch 1742 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 234-8494 Fax: (202) 234-8584 _____
From: Ari Schwartz [mailto:a...@cdt.org] To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com Cc: Sean Moulton [mailto:smoul...@ombwatch.org] Sent: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:41:55 -0500 Subject: New OpenCRS Fugitive List
OpenCRS has a new list of fugitive Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports from the last two months up on the OpenCRS.com site -- full list below.
We've had great success getting all of these reports in the past two lists with the help of this list and other volunteers. Please help us continue to get the new reports online!
RL34259 November 23, 2007 A Predatory Lending Primer: The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
RL34214 October 19, 2007 A Primer on the Higher Education Act (HEA)
RL34227 October 31, 2007 Agricultural Exports and the 2007 Farm Bill
RL34235 October 31, 2007 Air Pollution as a Commodity: Regulation of the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Market
RL34212 November 5, 2007 Analysis of the Proposed Tax Exclusion for Canceled Mortgage Debt Income
RL34250 November 14, 2007 Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Drought: Federal Reservoir and Species Management
RL34239 November 6, 2007 Biofuels in the 2007 Energy and Farm Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison
RS22744 October 25, 2007 California Wildfires and Federal Assistance
RS22747 November 2, 2007 California Wildfires: The Role of Disaster Insurance
RS22753 November 8, 2007 Child Support Enforcement: $25 Annual User Fee
RL34252 November 15, 2007 Child Welfare: Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy
RL34224 October 30, 2007 College Costs and Prices: Issues for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
RL34228 November 20, 2007 Comparison of the House and Senate 2007 Farm Bills
RS22742 October 23, 2007 Cuba's Political Succession: From Fidel to Raul Castro
RS22752 November 9, 2007 Dispute Settlement Under the Proposed U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement: An Overview
RL34257 November 21, 2007 Earned Value Management (EVM) as an Oversight Tool for Major Capital Investments
RL34254 November 16, 2007 Executive Order 13,438: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
RS22761 November 23, 2007 Extending Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to Service Workers: How Many Workers Could Potentially Be Covered?
RL34236 November 5, 2007 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Proposals to Regulate Their Mortgage Portfolio Size in the 110th Congress
RS22759 November 9, 2007 Farm Legislation and Taxes in 2007
RL34251 November 14, 2007 Federal Programs Available to Unemployed Workers
RL34247 November 9, 2007 Federal Regulation of Substances Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and the Use of Carbon Monoxide in Packaging for Meat and Fish
RL34243 November 7, 2007 Foreign Aid Reform: Issues for Congress and Policy Options
RL34242 November 6, 2007 Gender Identity Discrimination in Employment: Analysis of H.R. 3686 in the 110th Congress
RL34238 November 5, 2007 Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act: Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations
RS22743 October 24, 2007 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Laws Covering Medicare and Medicaid: An Overview
RS22758 November 8, 2007 Iran's Ballistic Missile Programs: An Overview
RS22741 October 22, 2007 Is Securitization an Obstacle to Subprime Borrower Workouts?
RS22762 November 26, 2007 Loan Forgiveness for Public Service Employees Under the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program
RL34258 November 19, 2007 North American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the Future
RL34256 November 21, 2007 North Korea's Nuclear Weapons: Latest Developments
RL34248 November 14, 2007 Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
RL34221 October 25, 2007 Patents on Tax Strategies: Issues in Intellectual Property and Innovation
RS22745 October 25, 2007 Religion and the Workplace: Legal Analysis of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as It Applies to Religious Organizations
RL34237 November 9, 2007 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
RS22746 October 29, 2007 SCHIP: Differences Between H.R. 3963 and the Vetoed H.R. 976
RL34255 November 20, 2007 Senate Policy on 'Holds': Action in the 110th Congress
RS22740 November 8, 2007 Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment: Analysis of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007
RL34211 October 16, 2007 State and Local Taxes and the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
RL34216 November 9, 2007 Tax Gap: Proposals in the 110th Congress to Require Brokers to Report Basis on Publicly Traded Securities
RL34245 November 8, 2007 Tax Treaty Legislation in 2007: Explanation and Economic Analysis
RL34219 November 2, 2007 Terrorism Risk Insurance Legislation in 2007: Issue Summary and Side-by-Side
RS22751 November 2, 2007 The Central African Republic
RS22748 October 26, 2007 The Circumstances In Which an Officer May Ask Questions Concerning Alienage
RS22756 November 13, 2007 The Homeowners' Defense Act: An Overview
RS22755 November 19, 2007 The Primary Residence Exception: Legislative Proposals in the 110th Congress to Amend Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code
RL34249 November 13, 2007 The Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2007: An Overview
RL34246 October 26, 2007 Tuberculosis: International Efforts and Issues for Congress
RS22757 November 15, 2007 U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan
RL34241 November 7, 2007 Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Overview and Assessment
RL34253 November 15, 2007 Weak and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U.S. Policy
RL34244 November 7, 2007 Would a Housing Crash Cause a Recession?
------------------------------------ Ari Schwartz Deputy Director Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202 637 9800 fax 202 637 0968 a...@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org ------------------------------------
