There are more than 50 federal statutes that pertain to some aspect of cybersecurity, according to the Congressional Research Service. Those statutes, and the potential impact on them of several pending legislative proposals, are described in a new CRS report.  See “Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions,” December 7, 2011.

The Congressional Research Service gained a new Director this week, but it has recently lost several of its most experienced and accomplished analysts.

Librarian of Congress James Billington appointed Mary B. Mazanec to be the new CRS Director of the Congressional Research Service.  She has been serving as acting Director since the retirement of her predecessor, Daniel Mulhollan, last April.

“Dr. Mazanec has advanced degrees in law and medicine and brings a breadth of experience that will be valuable in leading CRS and ensuring that CRS continues to provide comprehensive and objective research and analysis that meets the needs of Members and staff,” the Librarian said in a December 5 news release.

But with the departure of numerous senior staff, CRS is also experiencing deeper changes that will leave it with diminished capacity to provide original analysis and insight to Congress and other would-be consumers.

The CRS Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade division lost one intelligence policy analyst, Alfred Cumming, earlier this year.  Another, Richard Best, is retiring.  “Those positions will not be filled for the foreseeable future,” according to a CRS official.  Two other positions in the Asia section are also not going to be filled, the official said, due to budget constraints.

Last month, CRS Specialist Frederick M. Kaiser, author of hundreds of studies on government secrecy, congressional oversight and related issues, retired after more than three decades at CRS.  His expertise and his institutional memory could not be easily replaced even if there were a will and a budget to do so.  Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) paid tribute to Mr. Kaiser this week in the Congressional Record.

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative libertarian who is a former congressional staffer and Reagan Administration official, contended recently that congressional support agencies — such as CBO, GAO, CRS and, earlier, OTA — had been deliberately targeted by some Republican leaders.  As centers of nonpartisan analysis and evaluation, he said, these agencies are perceived by some as an obstacle to ideological control of congressional debate that must be weakened or eliminated. (“Gingrich and the Destruction of Congressional Expertise,” New York Times Economix blog, November 29, 2011.)

“It is essential that Congress not cripple what is left of its in-house expertise,” he wrote.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service explores ongoing legal debates over the tracking of private cell phones and vehicles by law enforcement agencies.

“It is undeniable that… advances in technology threaten to diminish privacy,” the CRS report says.  “Law enforcement’s use of cell phones and GPS devices to track an individual’s movements brings into sharp relief the challenge of reconciling technology, privacy, and law.”

The 22 page CRS report provides a survey of relevant Fourth Amendment law, federal electronic surveillance statutes and case law, pending GPS-vehicle tracking cases, and electronic surveillance legislation that is before Congress.

“The primary debate surrounding cell phone and GPS tracking is not whether they are permitted by statute but rather what legal standard should apply: probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or something less,” the report says.

A copy of the CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See “Governmental Tracking of Cell Phones and Vehicles: The Confluence of Privacy, Technology, and Law,” December 1, 2011.

Congress is the most transparent and publicly accessible branch of government, and yet there are many aspects of the legislative process that are opaque and off-limits to public awareness, according to a disquisition on legislative secrecy from the Congressional Research Service.

“Compared with the White House, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress is the most transparent national governmental institution,” the CRS report said.  “Yet the congressional process is replete with activities and actions that are private and not observable by the public.”

“Both secrecy and transparency suffuse the lawmaking process,” the report said. “Legislative secrecy has clearly declined over the decades, but it has been part of the policymaking process from Congress’s very beginning, and it remains an integral aspect of the lawmaking process.”

“Today, Congress operates largely in the sunshine. Ironically, studies have shown that the more open Congress has become, the less the citizenry like what they see, hear, and read about the lawmaking process.”

The report describes the motivations and occasions for legislative secrecy, which it says can facilitate legislative negotiations, promote candor, and foster free deliberation.  The CRS report does not mention the congressional policy of denying direct public access to CRS reports, or the persistent public efforts to defeat that policy.

See “Congressional Lawmaking: A Perspective On Secrecy and Transparency,” November 30, 2011.

Congress has the constitutional authority to conduct its business in secret and to close its proceedings to the public whenever it deems secrecy necessary.  A new report from the Congressional Research Service reviews the justification, history and frequency of secret sessions of Congress.

“Since 1929, the Senate has held 56 secret sessions, generally for reasons of national security or for consideration of impeachment questions. On December 20, 2010, for example, the Senate met in closed session to discuss the New START Treaty with Russia,” the CRS report said.  “Since 1830, the House has met behind closed doors only four times: in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 2008.”

“The proceedings of a secret session are not published unless the relevant chamber votes, during the meeting or at a later time, to release them. Then, those portions released are printed in the Congressional Record.”  See “Secret Sessions of the House and Senate: Authority, Confidentiality, and Frequency,” November 30, 2011.

Pending legislation to authorize and require military detention of suspected terrorists — which advanced in the Senate yesterday — was examined, section by section, in a Congressional Research Service report that was updated earlier this month.  See Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills, November 18, 2011.

Other new or newly updated CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians, November 16, 2011

Russia’s Accession to the WTO and Its Implications for the United States, November 16, 2011

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, November 14, 2011

Gun Control Legislation, November 7, 2011

Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations, November 2, 2011

The history, missions and operations of the nine U.S. military combatant commands (COCOMs) are detailed in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

Collectively, these military commands operate across the globe.  “In a grand strategic sense, the [Unified Command Plan] and the COCOMs are the embodiment of U.S. military policy both at home and abroad.  The COCOMs not only execute military policy but also play an important role in foreign policy,” the CRS said.

The CRS report presents some critical discussion of the role of the COCOMs in shaping U.S. policy.  The report cites a series of stories by Dana Priest in the Washington Post in September 2000 which said the COCOMs “had evolved into the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire’s proconsuls– well-funded, semi-autonomous, unconventional centers of U.S. foreign policy.”

“Some national security experts consider this [Washington Post] series as the catalyst of the continuing debate as to whether or not COCOMs have assumed too much influence overseas, thereby diminishing the roles other U.S. government entities play in foreign and national security policy,” the CRS report said.  “The assertion that COCOMs have usurped other U.S. government entities in the foreign policy arena may deserve greater examination,” the report added.

Congress has prohibited CRS from making its publications directly available to the public.  A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See “The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congress,” November 7, 2011.

The expanding role of women in combat is examined in another new report from the Congressional Research Service.

“Laws prohibiting women from serving in combat units were repealed in the early 1990s,” the CRS report noted. “However, since then, it has been U.S. military policy to restrict women from certain units and military occupations, especially ground combat units. In recent years, efforts have been underway to remove these restrictions. Opponents have questioned the need to modify or remove these restrictions and the purposes for doing so.”

Meanwhile, “In 10 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of female members have been deployed, and hundreds wounded and/or killed. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), as of August 31, 2011, over 26,000 female members were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. On numerous occasions women have been recognized for their heroism, two earning Silver Star medals.”  See “Women in Combat: Issues for Congress,” November 8, 2011.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that was supposed to provide independent oversight of U.S. counterterrorism policies remains dormant and out of service because its members have still not been named and confirmed.

In a report that was newly updated this month, the Congressional Research Service traced the origins of the Board from a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission through its initial establishment as a White House agency to its reconstitution as an independent agency chartered by statute in 2007.

The Board was assigned two overriding missions: It was supposed to “analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties”;  and to “ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism.”

So had the Board been functional, it might have been a valuable participant in current deliberations over military detention authority, for example.  It might also have conducted investigative oversight into any number of other counterterrorism policies, as mandated by law.  But for all practical purposes, there is no Board.

Last January, President Obama named Elisebeth C. Cook and James X. Dempsey to serve on the Board.  The Senate has not acted on their nomination.  Even if they had been confirmed, however, they would not have constituted a quorum.  Thus, the Board’s activation is still dependent on presidential nomination of additional Board members.  See “Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status,” November 14, 2011.

The U.S. government response to the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a brutal paramilitary group in Uganda, is discussed in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

The Obama Administration has provided humanitarian and operational support to Ugandan efforts to counter the LRA.  Most recently, the U.S. has authorized the deployment of U.S. military advisers to assist the Ugandan military in the anti-LRA campaign.

“The U.S. approach to the LRA raises a number of issues for policymakers, some of which could have implications far beyond central Africa,” the CRS report said. “A key question, for some, is whether the response is commensurate with the level of threat the LRA poses to U.S. interests, and whether the deployment of U.S. military personnel could lead to unintended consequences. More broadly, decisions on this issue could potentially be viewed as a precedent for U.S. responses to similar situations in the future.”

A copy of the new report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See “The Lord’s Resistance Army: The U.S. Response,” November 21, 2011.

U.S. government programs to identify and deport criminal aliens were detailed in an exhaustive report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.

The Department of Homeland Security has four programs that deal with criminal aliens, which are discussed in the report.

“While consensus exists on the overarching goal to identify and remove serious criminal aliens, these programs have generated controversy,” CRS said, on grounds that “the programs may have adverse impacts on police-community relations, may result in racial profiling, and may result in the detention of people who have not been convicted of criminal offenses and may not be subject to removal.”

CRS estimated that the number of noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails – “a subset of all criminal aliens” – was 173,000 in 2009.

See “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens,” October 21, 2011.

The New York Times reported today that DHS “will begin a review on Thursday of all deportation cases before the immigration courts… with the goal of speeding deportations of convicted criminals and halting those of many illegal immigrants with no criminal record.”  See “U.S. to Review Cases Seeking Deportations” by Julia Preston, New York Times, November 17.

Some other new Congressional Research Service reports obtained by Secrecy News are linked below (all pdf).  Pursuant to congressional policy, CRS has been prohibited from making them directly available to the public.

“Military Retirement Reform: A Review of Proposals and Options for Congress,” November 17, 2011

“FY2012 Appropriations Overview: Status of Discretionary Appropriations Legislation,” November 10, 2011

“U.S. Natural Gas Exports: New Opportunities, Uncertain Outcomes,” November 4, 2011

“Legislative Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Proposals,” November 1, 2011

“Economic Growth and the Unemployment Rate,” October 28, 2011

“Presidential Policy Directive 8 and the National Preparedness System: Background and Issues for Congress,” October 21, 2011

Between January and June 2011, the United Nations documented 1,462 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, which was a 15% increase over the same six months the year before.  Anti-government forces, e.g. the Taliban, were responsible for 77% of the casualties and pro-government forces were responsible for 12%.  (The remainder were indeterminate.)  These and other casualty figures were compiled from published sources by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in “Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians,” September 30, 2011.

Some other recently updated CRS reports include the following (all pdf).

“Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A Summary,” October 20, 2011

“Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments,” October 5, 2011

“Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations,” October 4, 2011

“National Security Professionals and Interagency Reform: Proposals, Recent Experience, and Issues for Congress,” September 26, 2011