ý"CRS reports themselves do not have copyright
restriction because they are ýgovernment documents and
can be freely disseminated"ý
And the CRS won't admit it even though there is such a
policy at
ýhttp://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#511...\
The article about the CRS reports in the Washington
Post at
ýhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-\dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR200506\\2701509.html
ý ý mentioned that copyright ýinfringement. ý"...CRS
has consistently said it is not designed to serve any
ýsort of public ýinformation function. In past years,
it has said that could ýcreate a number of ýlegal and
practical problems, contending, for example, that
ýinterest groups ýand lobbyists would inundate its
office with complaints and ýcomments in hopes ýof
influencing what CRS analysts wrote. It has also
ýexpressed fears that it ýcould be held liable for
what it said in the reports ýor be sued for copyright
ýinfringement..."ý
also
See from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/06/062805.html#2\
ý"CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"ý
Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research
Service reports ýautomatically made available to the
public? At first glance, the policy ýappears to
reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy
on the part of ýCRS and the Congress. But there is
more to it than that, congressional ýofficials say.ý
CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress,
and only for Congress.ý
ý"CRS assists every Member and committee," said
Director Daniel P.Mulhollan in ýMay 23 testimony
before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of
our work ýis confidential and focuses solely,
directly, and specifically on the needs of ýthe
congressional community. CRS has no public mission."ý
By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing
itself from the larger and ýhigher-profile Government
Accountability Office.ý
More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with
the Office of Technology ýAssessment (OTA), which was
dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, ýan
event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS
officials.ý
What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional
agenda of its own aside ýfrom support to members of
Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no ýposition
on disputed policy matters.ý
CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional
support agency, which ýconstitutes its central claim
to continued funding, would only be diluted by ýdirect
interactions with public consumers.ý
ý"Over time, CRS products might come to be written
with a large public audience ýin mind and could no
longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS
ýDirector Mulhollan said in a written statement
yesterday.ý
And the current congressional leadership apparently
agrees.ý
ý"CRS has received clear indication from its oversight
committees that no ýchange in the current policy is
authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote ýyesterday.ý
ý"It is important to recognize that while the
restriction on public access to ýCRS products is
frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the
reality is ýthat the policy is a congressional one,"
he noted.ý
In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its
products, little can be done ýto discourage the trend
toward further public availability of CRS products
ýbrought about without the permission of a Member or
committee."ý
A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it
believed direct public ýaccess to CRS products would
have unfavorable legal and institutional
ýconsequences.ý
See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution
of CRS Written ýProducts," March 9, 1999:ý
ý http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html
Mike Yared
mike_yared@yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 06 2009 - 09:25:44 PST