Some time ago, I asked about the disappearance of the Congressional
Research Service reports. An anonymous person sent me these articles
explaining the fate of these reports. It's scandalous, but with so many
scandals I'm not sure where to rank it on the scandal meter. By the
way, who is a ranking Democratic member collaborating with this crap?
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio) December 16,
2003
Ney says nay
The Ohio House member wants the public kept in the
dark
The Congressional Research Service spends about $73
million a year preparing highly regarded reports for
lawmakers. The service, a division of the Library of
Congress, employs some 700 to dig up the facts on
everything from electronic voting to stem-cell
research. It has developed a fine reputation for
presenting the information in a distinctly detached
and objective fashion. Members of Congress often use
the information to make important decisions.
The material is great stuff. The trouble is, the
public cannot gain access. Essentially, the decision
was made by Bob Ney, a Republican from St. Clairsville
who chairs the House Administration Committee, which
oversees the research service. The ranking Democrat on
the committee agreed with Ney, ending a two-year pilot
program that made indexes of the reports and the full
texts available on the Web.
Ney's reasoning? There are times when the facts
requested by a member might not fit the position he or
she has already staked out in public.
''Let's say that I'm working on an issue and I'm
trying to look for some research that helps me to get
my point across... and all of a sudden, the
Congressional Research Service sends me over something
and I read it and I say, 'Oh, no, it's not going to
help,' '' Ney told the Associated Press.
Just imagine the horror if the facts got in the way.
Actually, Ney's principal objection appears to be
giving opponents access to free research. Those
citizens who paid for the research in the first place?
The Ney response seems to be: Who cares?
Under a compromise of sorts, it will now be up to the
individual member of Congress who asked for a
particular report to determine whether to post it on a
Web site.
Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Democrat, and
Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington, are backing a
bill to again make the reports fully available on the
Web. But Ney, describing the reports as confidential
staff research, is saying nay.
Another brave stand from the congressman who ordered
''Freedom fries'' and ''Freedom toast'' to be served
in the House cafeteria after the French objected to
the military intervention in Iraq.
Copley News Service
December 11, 2003
Ney draws line at public access to research
by Paul M. Krawzak Copley News Service
WASHINGTON – Year after year, the Congressional
Research Service produces thousands of exclusive,
coveted reports and analyses that help lawmakers make
sense of complex issues and legislation. Yet
taxpayers, who finance the service to the tune of $80
million a year, have no guaranteed access to the
publications. Critics of the limited availability
say as long as taxpayers are footing the bill, they
ought to have access to the reports, which are noted
for their balance and thoroughness.
Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, has played a decisive role in
the argument by potentially expanding access to some
degree while leaving the basic restrictive policy
unchanged.
As chairman of the House Administration Committee,
which has jurisdiction over the CRS, Ney launched a
new service that allows lawmakers to make reports of
their choosing available via a link in their
congressional Web sites.
"It used to be nothing went up online" for the public
to see, Ney said. "Now we're telling members if you
want to do a work product and put it on-line, that's
fine."
At the same time, Ney called a halt to efforts to
provide greater public access to the research. He
ended a two-year pilot project, which allowed the
public to search through the otherwise inaccessible
CRS database via links on the Web sites of
participating congressmen.
Some lawmakers believe the public is entitled to all
or most of the reports. "It seems to me that (CRS)
work ought to be available to whoever might find it to
be helpful or useful," said Rep. Ted Strickland,
D-Lucasville, who favors complete disclosure. "This
work is being done at taxpayers' expense. What we're
talking about is just research."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Reps. Christopher
Shays, R-Conn., and Jay Inslee, D-Wash., have
introduced legislation that would make most of the
reports available on congressional Web sites, while
excluding research requested by individual lawmakers.
Defenders of limited access point out that while CRS,
an arm of the Library of Congress, is publicly
financed, its role is to provide research to Congress,
not the public.
"If we use the argument that everything the public
pays for is released, then maybe we ought to do the
CIA budget publicly," Ney said. "We don't because of
some of the initial harm it may do."
Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Bethlehem Township, said making
the research public would stifle lawmakers' use of the
service. "If every report on every issue is going to
be made public to the world they might as well close
up shop because people aren't going to request
anything," he said.
Regula said if reports requested by lawmakers were
exempt from disclosure, as the legislation proposes,
that might allay concern. He said he would have to
read the legislation before deciding whether to
support it.
In a letter to colleagues, Ney said the committee was
"preserving direct member relationships with
constituents ... safeguarding the confidentiality of
CRS communications with congressional offices, and ...
ensuring that CRS products and resources are focused
on the needs and agenda of Congress."
But others outside Congress say the research would be
beneficial to the public and the public has a right to
it.
Demand for the reports and their unavailability have
created a niche for enterprises such as Penny Hill
Press, a Maryland firm, which acquires reports within
days of their issue and sells them to federal
agencies, foreign governments, lobbyists, law firms
and corporations for up to $29.95 a report.
Walt Seager, owner of the business, employs "a lot of
legwork" to acquire the publications, which he
primarily gets from congressional offices. He declined
to discuss his methods in detail.
Steven Aftergood, director of the project on
government secrecy at the Federation of American
Scientists, a group that promotes arms control, favors
broad release of the reports.
"They are informational in nature, they are in most
cases excellent introductions to complex subjects and
they are paid for by the taxpayer," he said. "So the
notion that Congress would block access to such
reports is both absurd and insulting."
Lawmakers worry that if the analyses become public, it
could hurt them politically. Ney, for instance, would
hesitate to request a report that might contradict his
position and become public, he said.
Ney, an advocate of government support for the steel
industry, said if he asked for research on protective
tariffs and it showed that tariffs were bad, "all of a
sudden it becomes very difficult for me, even though I
disagree with CRS, to go against... official research.
And then I can't support the tariffs the way I need to
and 11,000 steelworkers lose their jobs."
Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat
on the Administration Committee, agrees with Ney. "He
feels that we've reached a good middle ground by
allowing members to post these," said his spokeswoman,
Beth Bellizzi. Making them completely available to the
public would "change the complete character of the
product," perhaps resulting in less candid analysis,
she said.
Congress has a separate investigative arm that also
produces reports for members. The General Accounting
Office's reports ultimately are released to the
public.
"We don't write our reports to please any individual,"
GAO spokesman Jeff Nelligan said. "Everything we do is
for public consumption whether it be a member of
Congress, their staff or the public."
Nelligan said virtually all GAO reports are available
on the agency's Web site, from which they are
downloaded 1.2 million times every month by the
public.
This week, Ney ruled out changing his mind on the
issue. Without his support, proposals to broaden
public access to the reports have little chance of
success. The legislation would have to win approval in
his committee, which has jurisdiction over the
research service, before it could receive
consideration in the full House.
The Plain Dealer
Cleveland, Ohio
December 8, 2003
Rep. Ney says nay on access to research for taxpayers
By Stephen Koff, Plain Dealer Bureau Chief
Washington, DC – Tax dollars pay for members of
Congress to get top- notch research on the
environment, trade and other subjects the kind of
research college students and teachers dearly covet.
But congressional leaders, chiefly Ohios Bob Ney, have
decided the highly regarded reports from the
Congressional Research Service should not be freely
shared with teachers, students or anyone else. Despite
the battles pitched by journalists, academics,
interest groups and even some lawmakers, Congress
closely held research reports are likely to remain,
for the most part, in the private domain of public
officials.
The reports, considered objective and highly reliable,
are prepared for the benefit of members of Congress,
not the public, says Ney, the Ohio Republican who
chairs a House committee with oversight of the
Congressional Research Service.
The reports dont make specific policy recommendations.
But they present facts in a way that can be easily
understood by lawmakers grappling with such varied
subjects such as stem cell research, homeland
security, military weapons or affirmative action.
Though it has its own $73 million budget, the CRS
actually serves as an extension of the congressional
staff, Ney says, and staff work is generally a private
matter between a lawmaker and his or her aides.
That doesnt mean reports dont find their way to the
public. Some members of Congress will release them on
an issue-by-issue basis. And a Maryland company, Penny
Hill Press, manages to obtain CRS copies through means
it wont disclose. Congressional refusal to make the
reports readily available assures Penny Hill Press a
steady commerce.
Penny Hill Press owner Walt Seager wont say how he
gets his extensive catalogue of the reports, but says
it involves a lot of shoe leather and a lot of
cauliflower ear from working sources on the phone.
They dont like it, he says of CRS and its
congressional overseers, but theres nothing they can
do.
But that means taxpayers are paying twice once for CRS
to do its job, and then for Penny Hill Press to obtain
and provide copies. It rankles proponents of open
government.
“We dont charge at the National Gallery of Art. We
paid for everything in there, and we get the benefit
of it,” said John Samples, director of the Center for
Representative Government at the Cato Institute, a
libertarian think tank in Washington. “Thats true
here, too. The stuff is valuable. It’s not as
valuable as what’s in the National Gallery of Art, but
its valuable.”
Besides, he said, More information for a democracy is
better than less information.
Ney, however, puts it in a different context. Using an
example he calls purely hypothetical, Ney says: “Lets
say that I say to CRS, I would like a report crafted
that specifically targets in on some steel issues, and
something comes out so adverse that I choose not to
release that. Why should I be forced to release that?
Somebody else should be able to do their homework
within Congress, and then they can choose whether to
release it or not.”
That is the compromise he has agreed to: If individual
members of Congress want to put out reports they
personally ordered, fine. Ney, chairman of the House
Administration Committee, notes that Rep. John Larson
of Connecticut, the ranking Democratic member on the
committee, agreed to that deal. They made the decision
in September after terminating an experiment in which
CRS reports were made more widely available on the
Web.
The week before Thanksgiving, Rep. Christopher Shays,
Democrat of Connecticut, introduced a bill with
Democrat Jay Inslee of Washington to reverse the
restrictions and make most CRS reports available on
the Internet. Its information that was funded and
researched with taxpayer dollars, and it should be
available to the public, said Shays spokeswoman Sarah
Moore.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain introduced a
similar measure in February. The new House version has
been referred to Neys committee for consideration
where, Ney makes clear, its fate is pretty much
sealed, because further action will take Neys say-so.
This is a democracy, Ney says. “But if you read the
tea leaves, the ranking [Democratic] member and I are
not in favor of this.”
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
