Skip to content

CRS Resolution Introduced in the House

Yesterday advances were made in improving transparency in the federal government. Reps. Mike Quigley (IL-5) and Leonard Lance (NJ-07) introduced the Congressional Research Service Electronic Accessibility Resolution of 2012 (House Resolution 727), a resolution that creates a publicly available database of Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports and would thereby “enhance our democracy to provide citizens with access to unbiased and accurate CRS documents on legislation and other critical issues before Congress”.

This bipartisan resolution would provide public access to all CRS reports that do not contain confidential information (in some cases redactions could be made to allow portions of reports to be released). The resolution would provide access to those who fund this research —the public.

The American Library Association commends Reps. Quigley and Lance, as well as the resolution’s co-sponsors; Reps. Jim Cooper (TN-5), Timothy V. Johnson (IL-15) and Adam B. Schiff (CA-29), for taking this important step to increasing transparency and improving access to publicly funded government information. The ALA strongly supports this resolution and will work towards its passage.

The following two tabs change content below.

Jessica McGilvray

Jessica McGilvray is a former member of the Washington Office government relations team.

Latest posts by Jessica McGilvray (see all)


  1. Claudia Claudia

    When I first read this notice, it looked to me as though the $100 million pertained to the cost of providing electronic access to the various CRS reports. I only realized that this was the total cost of the Congressional Research Service, itself, after I read the Sunlight Foundation’s post:

    The bipartisan “Public Access to Congressional Research Service Reports Resolution of 2012” (aka H. Res 727) would ensure that reports by Congress’s $100 million-a-year think tank become available to the public on a website maintained by the House Clerk. (

    I hope my re-interpretation is the correct one!

  2. jmcgilvray jmcgilvray

    Claudia, You are correct that it is the research that costs around $100 million a year, not the proposed database. We do not at this time have an amount for the cost of the database. I apologize for the confusion!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *