A new study says that there are signs that the digital divide is widening for some groups in California, particularly Latino and low-income residents. This conclusion is based on a statewide survey. The study also notes that computer use in California is similar to that in the nation as a whole.

• Californians & information technology, by Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, Jennifer Paluch, and Sonja Petek, The Public Policy Institute of California, in collaboration with The California Emerging Technology Fund. June 25, 2008

Baldassare says:

"...[T]here are tremendous differences in access to critical information that put many at a disadvantage in their everyday lives. At a time when technology's role is growing and in a state that has led the way, this poses a major policy challenge."

It isn't often you see a discussion FOIA, FBI, NARA, and Records Retention Plan and Disposition Schedules in the popular press. This article describes the frustrations of one researcher when he discovered that records had been destroyed by the FBI.

• The Department of Forgetting: How an obscure FBI rule is ensuring the destruction of irreplaceable historical records, By Alex Heard, Slate, June 24, 2008.

The system's fundamentals make sense, I guess--very complicated sense--but to me the disturbing part comes at the end of the line. At some point 25 years after a case closes, a file that isn't marked "permanent" gets pulled and looked at by one or two people inside the FBI. There are no "knowledgeable representatives of the NARA" monitoring this crucial moment. If it's decided internally that the file isn't important, it's gone.

Michael Ravnitzky, an FOIA researcher based in the Washington, D.C., area, is no fan of the Records Retention Plan and likens it to an open-ended manual for strip-mining a priceless public record. "The FBI got a list of exceptional files given to them by historians, and they said, 'We'll keep that,' " he says. "We'll keep large files. Smaller files, we'll keep a sampling. Everything else gets tossed. That's what the plan is." Based on documents Ivan Greenberg obtained from the FBI, he estimates that 250 million pages were destroyed between 1986 and 1995.

• The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom, May 2003-January 2005 : on point II : transition to the new campaign by Donald P. Wright, Timothy R. Reese ; with the Contemporary Operations Study Team. June 2008 (720 pages, PDF, 104Mb). Also available in paper copy from GPO.

From the Combat Studies Institute web site:

On Point II is the US Army's first historical study of its campaign in Iraq in the decisive eighteen months following the overthrow of the Baathist regime in April 2003. The book examines both the high-level decisions that shaped military operations after May 2003 as well as the effects of those decisions on units and Soldiers who became responsible for conducting those operations.

The authors, historians at the US Army's Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, based this account on hundreds of interviews with key participants and thousands of primary documents. Critical chapters in this book address the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, detainee operations (including the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison), reconstruction efforts, and the Army's response to the growing insurgency.

At the core of On Point II is the dramatic story of how after May 2003, the US Army reinvented itself by transforming into an organization capable of conducting a broad array of diverse and complex "Full Spectrum" operations. This was the new campaign that confronted American Soldiers beginning in May 2003 as they strived to create stability in Iraq.

See also: Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History, by Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, June 29, 2008.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has put online a preview of its famous Digital Library of Mathematical Functions (DLMF).

• NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions: Preview Release

From the Preface:

Abramowitz and Stegun's Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables is being completely rewritten with regard to the needs of today. The new DLMF (Digital Library of Mathematical Functions) will appear in a hardcover edition and as a free electronic publication on the World Wide Web. The authors will review the relevant published literature and produce approximately twice the number of formulas that were contained in the original Handboook. The DLMF will make full use of advanced communications and computational resources to present downloadable math data, manipulable graphs, tables of numerical values, and math-aware search. The authoritative status of the existing Handbook, and its orientation toward applications in science, statistics, engineering and computation, will be preserved.

Thus the utilitarian value of the Handbook will be extended far beyond its original scope and the traditional limitations of printed media. The term digital library has gained acceptance for this kind of information resource, and our choice of project title reflects our hope that the NIST DLMF will be a vehicle for revolutionizing the way applicable mathematics in general is practiced and delivered.

See also NIST Releases Preview Of Much-anticipated Online Mathematics Reference, ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008).

A few weeks ago, we posted a story about GAO selling exclusive access to GAO legislative histories to Thomson West (see "GAO *did* sell exclusive access to legislative history to Thomson West" and GAO subject for all GAO stories). This was a rich historical chunk of GAO information (20,597 legislative histories of most public laws from 1915-1995!!) and it was set to be locked up with T/W claiming exclusive rights and licensing access.

Well, not so fast. Carl Malamud, tireless hero of the public domain, got wind of the deal, and got the GAO to release 10 DVDs of legislative histories, containing 619,481 PDF files -- the pilot project scans they conducted. He has proposed a joint venture with the Internet Archive to scan the same materials with the same terms as Thomson West, give GAO one full copy of all their data AND put up the data online (presumably the Internet Archive) clearly marked as public domain material available for reuse without restriction. And what's more, Carl says, "If they say yes, we intend to ask Congress to earmark funds to pay the Internet Archive to scan this invaluable resource." !!

You can follow the paper trail on Carl's Federal Legislative History site. Below is the letter of unsolicited joint venture sent to GAO. Way to go Carl!!

[cross posted on LegalResearchPlus]

From Inside Google Book Search

"How do you find out whether a book was renewed? You have to check the U.S. Copyright Office records. Records from 1978 onward are online (see http://www.copyright.gov/records) but not downloadable in bulk. The Copyright Office hasn't digitized their earlier records, but Carnegie Mellon scanned them as part of their Universal Library Project, and the tireless folks at Project Gutenberg and the Distributed Proofreaders painstakingly corrected the OCR."

"Thanks to the efforts of Google software engineer Jarkko Hietaniemi, we've gathered the records from both sources, massaged them a bit for easier parsing, and combined them into a single XML file available for download here."

[Hat tip to BoingBoing for this news!]

[Cross posted on LegalResearchPlus]

We love free stuff!

And, thanks to the Center for Governmental Studies, an interesting free resource is now available. The folks at CGS have just created the PolicyArchive.

According to the PolicyArchive website:

"PolicyArchive is an innovative, new digital archive of global, non-partisan public policy research. It makes use of the power, efficiency, and economy of modern Internet technology to collect and disseminate summaries and full texts, videos, reports, briefs, and multimedia material of think tank, university, government, and foundation-funded policy research. It offers a subject index, an internal search engine, useful abstracts, email notifications of newly added research, and will soon expand to offer information on researchers and funders, and even user-generated publication reviews. Over time, it will grow to include policy content from international and corporate organizations."

They ask that you register on the front page. But take a look at the site. You can view 12,000 plus documents, including some CRS reports. There are also handy indexes, too. Take a look and if you have research to contribute to the site, they have a link for adding content. I also signed up for the free newsletter for the latest policy additions to the collection.

Hat tip to the terrific Sunlight Foundation blog for spotting this new resource.

I've been following the discussion on the GPO regionals report and especially the back and forth on whether to push for revising Title 44. I posted a response to the godort list that I'd like to share here:

I really didn't want to write about the Regionals Report until I had a chance to actually read through the 100 plus pages. But with the recent GODORT discussion about changing Title 44, I feel like I need to chip in on this one issue.

I am in total agreement with Stephen Hayes, who said, "DO NOT GO THERE. DON'T OPEN THAT PANDORA'S BOX. DO NOT TRY AND REVISE TITLE 44 UNLESS YOU WANT TO LOSE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE."

This is not the time to press for changes to Title 44. I say this as someone who feels that Title 44 could use some major changes -- starting off with eliminating the Sales program and creating a permanent endowment fund for GPO operations, especially cataloging, documents distribution and building on FDSys to create geographically dispersed, local electronic collections.

But I think we have a lot of educational work ahead of us AND a political culture to change. Both parties in Congress have shown themselves (as a group) to be:

- Largely ignorant about technological/internet issues.
- Lukewarm to hostile about Net Neutrality. - If we don't have Net Neutrality, any all e-docs program will die an inglorious death.
- Sympathetic to privatization of government information products.
- Too eager to support copyright absolutists by passing perpetual copyright on the installment plan.
- Believe that libraries are on their way out because "Everything is on the Internet"
- Unwilling to free their own stuff (CRS reports, etc)

While there are individual Members of Congress who don't fit the stereotypes above, I think the above statements are a pretty fair characterization of Congress as a whole, no matter which party has power. In this climate, I think that reopening Title 44 will likely lead to more privatization, more wholesale going digital regardless of supporting infrastructure and possible cost-recovery mandates.

One thing I think it is important to do is for GODORT and individual depository libraries to ramp up education and outreach to Congress and the general public. We need to get awareness of the uniqueness of our collections, free government databases and librarian expertise into the thinking of policymakers and constitutents alike. We should try running with GPO's "Easy as FDL" campaign for awhile. Then when we've helped people to understand that society benefits from free, unrestricted (mostly) access to information and from having experts in using that information, then it may be time to teach them about how much better it could be if we could have some changes to Title 44.

Trying to make changes to Title 44 before we've established our importance in the public mind and in the minds of policymakers seems like a mistake to me. Changes will be made that will benefit the interests of people who have established themselves as important parts of society.

Just my $0.02. Now I'll do my best to actually read the regionals report. It's so sad that we can't all be fully informed about everything, even within our own field.

I'm sure you've all seen the news that George Carlin (May 12, 1937 - June 22, 2008) passed away yesterday from heart failure (NYT obit). Carlin was an amazing comic and, what's more, a keen (if somewhat vulgar!) observer of the American condition including our politics and government. He's no doubt sitting on some roof somewhere laughing at all of us schmucks (see Frisbeetarianism!).

(Warning: NSFW!)

Piling on Jim's recent post about Web sites pushing for transparency, my buddy Howard just tweeted about a new site called Speechology -- "User-powered analysis of political debates, speeches and campaign ads." The developers got a minigrant from Sunlight Foundation in order to build a site that would archive political speeches/advertisements etc so that the public could then crowdsource (aka collaboratively fact-check) and discuss them. Nicely done!

While watching the countless debates of the 2007-2008 primary season, we noticed a trend: Moderator asks politician a question, politician dodges the question and instead uses the time to rehash his/her platform, moderator thanks politician and moves on to next question. In other cases, the candidates on stage would go back and forth, unequivocally contradicting one another on points of fact. The moderator--a journalist--simply moved on, leaving voters in the dark as to the truth.

The ads on television were no different: quotes taken out of context, completely unchecked accusations, citations in miniscule type...All of these political videos left us wondering who was right, and who was lying.

We created Speechology so that we don't have to wonder anymore. Speechology is an archive of videos that show politicians stumping for your vote. If a candidate said it on TV, we want you to be able to find it on here.

But instead of just showing you the video, we invite you to do your own research and then tell the rest of us what you found. Speechology is a place that does not care what your political preferences are. We only care if you contribute good research. If you would like to argue over politics, go somewhere else. Here, we value facts.

Web Sites Push For More Transparency and Accessibility In Government, By K.C. Jones, InformationWeek, June 23, 2008.

This article describes the work of OpenCongress and MetaVid, which give citizens an open window into government activities.

OpenCongress ...gives readers access to more detail and depth of information than traditional news stories. The free, open source, nonpartisan site does so by combining traditional news stories, summaries of bills, sponsors, status, roll calls on the latest issues put up for votes, and an area for user comments.

...MetaVid... archives video from proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Citizens who want to see what their representatives said on a specific issue can search for and play the specific footage they see.

No here's the rss2js script:

Carl Malamud’s Oregon page is now updated with the testimony from last week’s hearing:

http://public.resource.org/oregon.gov/

From Tim Stanley's Justia blog:

"Oregon's Legislative Counsel Committee had a meeting this morning to discuss the copyright claim on the Oregon Revised Statutes. After taking legal counsel from Dexter Johnson, talking with Karl Olson, Carl Malamud, three Oregon citizens and myself, they unanimously voted to not to enforce any copyright claims on the Oregon Revised Statutes. This great!!!"

And, I just read this on BoingBoing:

[Posted by Cory Doctorow]

"Rogue archivist Carl Malamud sez,

"Justia and Public.Resource.Org were invited, along with Karl Olson our counsel, to testify before the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee. We were joined by a public panel of wikipedians and open source advocates."

"The process was incredibly well organized. There was a comprehensive briefing packet prepared for the committee, the members asked lots of intelligent questions, and then Dexter Johnson the Legislative Counsel recommended to the committee that they waive assertion of copyright on their statutes. The Majority Leader placed the motion, the President of the Senate called the vote, and the vote was unanimous. This was democracy in action and was great to watch."

Today, The Sunlight Foundation announces a new project called Capitol Words which gives an at-a-glance view into the daily proceedings of the United States Congress through the simplest lens available-a single word.

For every day that Congress is in session, Capitol Words displays the most frequently used word in the Congressional Record.

For more about the project see John Wonderlich's post on The Open House Project website.

Of course, it has a widget (see below what it looks like and get the code here), an RSS feed, and an API. Try it, use it, re-use it!

[cross posted on Legal Research Plus]

For those of you following the question regarding the copyright of Oregon's Revised Statutes, you might want to visit: public.resource.org/oregon.

The State of Oregon has scheduled a hearing for June 19, 2008 to “consider its copyright policy in light of technological developments and the Internet.”

And, the Public.Resource site now has links to the testimony submitted by Carl Malamud, Tim Stanley and Karl Olson.

Also, if you want to listen to the hearing on Thursday, June 19th, there is a Real Video feed available .

[cross posted on legalresearchplus]

We are pleased to announce the AALL Hot Topic for the annual meeting in Portland, Oregon will be Push Back and Push Forward – Open Access in Oregon and Beyond. So mark your calendars: Sunday, July 13th at 4:15pm.

The program will feature Carl Malamud (public.resource.org) and Tim Stanley (Justia.com).

Recently, the State of Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee sent Justia a notice of copyright infringement and demand to cease and desist online publication of the Revised Statutes online. Carl Malamud and Tim Stanley will share the story of this struggle to keep the laws of Oregon freely available.

But what about the rest of the country? Can state governments prohibit others from downloading, reproducing or distributing their laws? Can courts provide similar restrictions by the nature of their vendor dealings (they do in California!)? Carl Malamud and Tim Stanley will address these questions, too, sharing their concerns and experiences in this area.

This session will provide both an update on a timely issue, and serve as a call to action on how each of us can get involved in the open access movement.

And, on the topic of Oregon, Peter Forsyth has an interesting post on the WikiProject Oregon site. I pasted it below for further reading and perhaps an inspiration for getting involved.

From WikiProject Oregon, posted by Peter Forsyth:

This Thursday, the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee (LCC) will be holding a hearing that should be of major interest to anyone with an interest in Oregon law, and in building (or using) public resources on the Internet. The topic: whether or not the laws that we, the people of Oregon write are in the public domain, or whether the State can prevent their republication by insisting on licensing arrangements.

A couple months back, the LCC — which provides legal advice to the state legislature, and edits draft legislation — issued a takedown notice to justia.com, which was hosting the Oregon Revised Statutes. Justia is a web site that publishes state laws (free of charge, and without advertising) from all states, in a standard format.

Legislative Counsel Dexter Johnson issued the takedown notice under direction from the LCC, and cited a 1953 law that gives it authority to make determinations about ownership of various works of the Legislature. He wrote that although the words of the laws themselves are in the public domain, some of the text involved in their publication — the section numbers, descriptive text, etc. — is owned by the State, and protected by copyright.

California-based nonprofit public.resource.org has been the leading advocate for getting this policy changed. They have retained counsel to challenge the policy. Their research indicates both that there aren’t solid legal grounds for this policy, and that it is contrary to the public interest.

The LCC has invited Public.resource.org to give testimony at their next public meeting, but there is no formal representation for Oregon’s community of wiki editors, bloggers, etc.

I expect to testify at the hearing, and would welcome the company of any other Oregon folks. Let me know if you want to come! Additionally, I’d encourage you all to write your legislators (find out who they are here), and the members of the LCC. I’ll try to work up a standard letter in the next day or two, so you don’t have to compose from scratch; watch this post for further news.

Daniel and I were talking yesterday about his new blog at the Alaska State Library. We thought it'd be a great idea to build a Questions and Answer Google Custom Search aimed at indexing library blogs that post answered reference questions. Think about having 1 search interface to all of the library answer sites on the internet? It'd be better than MetaFilter and answers.com put together!

So far we've got 5 sites in the custom search: Reference Question of the Week,  Homeless Law Blog, Radical Reference, Stanford Library Information Center, and Since You Asked.

We think this has potential to show off librarian expertise and librarian selected resources. If you are blogging your reference questions and answers in a way that preserves patron privacy, please leave us a comment or email us (admin AT freegovinfo DOT info) the link to your blog. If you're not currently doing something like this, but plan to, would you let us know that as well?

This search engine is not specifically focused on documents, but it would be great to have docs Q&A's represented. Here's hoping you can help.

[cross posted on LegalResearchPlus]


The good folks at public.resource.org have just released a new collection on their site: Justice.gov. This collection, once known as FLITE and then later as JURIS, is a digital collection of federal case law. The story behind this is quite fascinating, too.

From the Public.Resource.org site:

"Back when disco was king, the USAF decided that those new-fangled computers might be just the thing for the JAG Corps, so they set a bunch of flyboys down in front of keypunch machines and made a database of U.S. law called FLITE. After several turf-grabbing campaigns and a massive meeting of BOGSATT, the system was taken over by the Department of Justice and re-dubbed JURIS."


"But, the lawyers in Justice were jealous of their pin-stripe buddies in private practice, so they got themselves high-priced West and Lexis-Nexis accounts so that they could be professional. Then, they deleted the JURIS database from government computers so there would be no going back. Today, the U.S. government does not possess a digital copy of the cases and codes that make up the law of the land."

"One copy of JURIS survives, acquired by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC) of the University of Pennsylvania and available under a carefully restricted license agreement to those who pay the sum of $800 and agree not to redistribute the data. The LDC is a group of linguistic researchers and they acquire corpora of linguistic interest to analyze. By prohibiting redistribution and binding their members to such constraints, they are able to acquire commercial databases to analyze."


"Public.Resource.Org has purchased a copy of the JURIS database and we have requested that the Linguistic Data Consortium free this public domain data so that it may be examined by all. The database consists of 1,665 files totaling 3.1 gbytes. The 522 mega-words in the corpus yields approximately 2,091,628 pages of text."


"UPDATE: Friday, 13 June 2008. We have made the JURIS database available so that you may judge for yourself the importance of these files. You may browse the directory or download the 900 Mbyte tarball. There is a compelling public policy issue in the fact that the Department of Justice deleted 2 million pages of case law after establishing their for-pay contract with a commercial concern. Why did the government delete such a valuable asset that was created at taxpayer expense? Why would a copy not be kept just in case? Why does the government not have a digital copy of their own work product? These are questions of national concern and the public has a right to examine the evidence."

I just found out that the Alaska State Library has a new blog called "Since you asked: questions and answers from the Alaska State Library." Way to go Daniel!!

There are a couple of library sites that I know of that are blogging their questions and answers. There's Radical Reference and Stanford Library's Information Center. Anyone else doing that? I had a brainstorm (or maybe a squall :-) ) that if there are lots of libraries publishing their questions and answers, we could build a Google custom search engine of all the library Q&A sites. It'd be the best Q&A site on the 'net (no offense Jessamyn @ ask.mefi :-) )!

Leave me a comment if your library is currently doing that or you know of a library doing that.

[cross posted on LegalResearchPlus]

Statement Of Patrice McDermott, Director of OpenTheGovernment.org

Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, Committee on Homeland Security

H.R. 6193, The "Improving Public Access to Documents Act,"
Hearing: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

[excerpt from the prepared testimony]

"We have experienced a trend in our country away from trust in the public to a “need-to know” mind set. A few, primarily federal, departments and entities have either, in a few cases, been designated or have arrogated to themselves the power to say who has a need-to-know and only governments and a few private sector entities have been deemed worthy. The public and the press have been almost entirely excluded. At one point, the Department of Homeland Security even attempted to make Congressional staff sign nondisclosure agreements in order to prove they could be trusted into the inner circle of those
legitimate few.

Again, there is absolutely some finite amount of information that, for a certain amount of time, needs to be shared only in a limited fashion. The problem for the public is that we have “translucence, not transparency, i.e., transparency within the network, but opacity to those outside.”* The "need-to-share"" cannot be limited to agencies within governments and defense and homeland security contractors; it also must include, to the greatest extent possible, sharing relevant information with the public. The White House Memorandum and this legislation both recognize this by requiring “portion marking,” so that information in a document that is eligible for disclosure can be made public."

*Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, “Translucence Not Transparency: Reviewing Alasdair Roberts, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy In The Information Age.” I/S: A Journal Of Law And Policy For The Information Society, Vol. 2, Issue 1 (2006).

Rebecca posted about this in April, but I'd just like to remind everyone that the EPA blog is open for comments THIS WEEK (June 9-13, 2008). This is a great opportunity to provide your comments to EPA. As always, we recommend that you couch your comments in terms of access, authenticity, preservation and privacy!!

EPA is holding an on-line discussion among state, tribe, and other federal partners of EPA, as well as the public to foster collaboration on information access. For this discussion, we are using a blog which is a more interactive and personal form of technology. Everyone is invited to use this site to identify and share their best resources, tools, and ideas for improving access to EPA’s environmental information. This is a key part of the National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information – working with you to enhance information access.

This blog will be open for comment for one week (June 9-13, 2008). The blog will then be closed and a summary report will be posted on the “What We’ve Learned” section of the National Dialogue website by June 20th.

This was a really interesting post that I found on the Sunlight Foundation's Sun Spots blog:

"Earlier today, Lawrence Lessig spoke about Change Congress at the Free Press' fourth annual National Conference for Media Reform, being held this year in Minneapolis. As always, Larry gave a killer speech. You can watch an earlier speech he gave at the National Press Club in March when he launched Change Congress here."

"Not to be missed: In the current edition of The Nation, Christopher Hayes, the magazine's Washington editor, profiles Larry and Change Congress. It's an extensive profile and a good read. ...Cory Doctorow called the profile "fantastic." Hayes writes "playing David to various Goliaths (armed with a laptop as slingshot) is the defining narrative of Lessig's career." If you're a Lessig fan, it's a must read. If you're unfamiliar with this bona fide and burgeoning cult hero, check it out...And join the revolution!"

An interesting interview with Udi Manber, vice president in charge of search quality at Google:

• At Google, a search guru's dream comes true, by Stephen Shankland, CNet, June 5, 2008.

Manber says that even as recently as the early 1990s searching "was done by professionals in various limited domains. There was legal search, there was medical search, there was chemical search, and some limited news search. And it was done by a searcher--professional people....The idea that people will do the search themselves--that it'll democratize the whole thing and you don't have to go to a professional--that's the revolution."

He also says that Google "tunes" search results based on where you are physically in the world:

The other difference is it depends on location. If you do the same search from a different country, you get different results, even if it's the same language. We will tune the results by the country in which you're searching. It's by language and location.

I spend a good deal of time scouring newspapers and Web sites like Docuticker (RSS Feed) and UN Pulse (RSS Feed) in order to add digital government documents to my library's collections. Sometimes I have the url cataloged; or if I think the document is particularly in danger of disappearing, I'll upload them to the Internet Archive's govt documents collection. Below are a few that I've come across in my digitravels recently.

At the upcoming International Documents Taskforce (IDTF) meeting at ALA Annual Conference (GODORT conference schedule here), I'm giving a short presentation about digital collections. I'd really like to hear how/if others are doing digital collection development either randomly or as a matter of course. Please leave a comment and let me know your thoughts, ideas, and hopes. Please include any information you care to share -- what you do, how you do it, if you have favorite haunts/Websites etc.

• Addressing the global food crisis: Key trade, investment and commodity policies in ensuring sustainable food security and alleviating poverty. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
• The Contribution of Early Childhood Education to a Sustainable Society. UNESCO
• Carpet bombing in cyberspace. Armed Forces Journal
• The Employment Situation: May 2008. Bureau of Labor Statistics
• Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence. U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence.
  • Phase II Report on Public Statements (PDF; 2.5 MB)
  • Phase II Report on DoD Policy Office (PDF; 819 KB)
• Eighth Annual Trafficking in Persons Report. U.S. Department of State. Download in sections or as full report (PDF).