On January 6, 2013 Congress will convene to count electoral votes and to formally certify the results of the last presidential election.  The process was detailed by the Congressional Research Service in Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress, November 30, 2012.

The declining economic condition of many state governments is examined by CRS in State Government Fiscal Stress and Federal Assistance, December 3, 2012.

And for members of Congress who never had civics class, CRS explains how a bill becomes a law in Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress, November 30, 2012.   See also the elementary Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, December 3, 2012.

Other new and updated CRS reports that Congress has not made publicly available include the following.

Congressional Salaries and Allowances, December 4, 2012

Alternative Minimum Taxpayers by State: 2009, 2010, and Projections for 2012, December 4, 2012

Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2012, December 4, 2012

The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology, December 3, 2012

Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research and Development, December 3, 2012

Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, December 3, 2012

Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to Promote Industrial Competitiveness, December 3, 2012

IMF Reforms: Issues for Congress, December 4, 2012

China’s Economic Conditions, December 4, 2012

Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction, November 30, 2012

President Obama’s declared commitment to provide “an unprecedented level of openness in government” has often been criticized and mocked.  Depending on how one measures it, overall secrecy has actually increased rather than declined. Criminalization of unauthorized disclosures of information to the press has risen sharply, becoming a preferred tactic. Efforts to promote public accountability in controversial aspects of counterterrorism policy such as targeted killing have been blocked by threadbare, hardly credible national security secrecy claims.

But there are also some crucial sectors of the national security domain in which the Obama Administration can properly claim to be the most transparent Administration in history.  The size of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal is one such topic.

Today more detailed, official information is available about U.S. nuclear forces than ever before. For an overview, see US Nuclear Forces, 2012 by Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Last Friday, the State Department released the latest installment of data on U.S. strategic nuclear forces as counted under the New START Treaty.  The release is informative, and not particularly flattering to the Administration.

“The latest data set shows that the U.S. reduction of deployed strategic nuclear forces over the past six months has been very modest: 6 delivery vehicles and 15 warheads,” wrote Hans Kristensen of FAS in an analysis of the new release.

“The reduction is so modest that it probably reflects fluctuations in the number of deployed weapon systems in overhaul at any given time. Indeed, while there have been some reductions of non-deployed and retired weapon systems, there is no indication from the new data that the United States has yet begun to reduce its deployed strategic nuclear forces under the New START treaty,” he wrote.

This is useful information that permits arms control advocates (and opponents) to focus their efforts on debating policy, rather than on a wearisome effort to ascertain the basic facts.

For related background, see The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, Congressional Research Service, November 30, 2012.

The extraordinary rise in income inequality among Americans is painstakingly documented in a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service.

In the past few decades, the rich have gotten a lot richer as “those at the very top have reaped disproportionately larger gains from economic growth.”

“Based on the limited data that are comparable among nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most unequal of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of income dispersion,” the CRS report said.

Popular beliefs concerning the possibility of upward mobility in income are not well-founded, CRS said.

“Empirical analyses estimate that the United States is a comparatively immobile society, that is, where one starts in the income distribution influences where one ends up to a greater degree than in several advanced economies. Children raised in families at the bottom of the U.S. income distribution are estimated to be especially less likely to ascend the income ladder as adults,” the report said.  See The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons, November 29, 2012.

Congressional secrecy policy prohibits CRS from releasing its reports to the public.  Some other new and updated CRS reports that Congress has not made publicly available include the following.

Addressing the Long-Run Budget Deficit: A Comparison of Approaches, November 30, 2012

Economic Recovery: Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth in a Post-Crisis Economy, November 29, 2012

Tax Provisions to Assist with Disaster Recovery, November 29, 2012

Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, November 29, 2012

Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: An Overview and Resources for Outreach and Management, November 30, 2012

Health Benefits for Members of Congress, November 30, 2012

Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, November 30, 2012

Social Security Reform: Current Issues and Legislation, November 28, 2012

Casework in a Congressional Office: Background, Rules, Laws, and Resources, November 30, 2012

Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent History, Trends, and Policy Issues, November 29, 2012

DOD Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits Under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, November 27, 2012

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meetings in Vladivostok, Russia: Postscript, November 19, 2012

Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance, November 30, 2012

Colombia: Background, U.S. Relations, and Congressional Interest, November 28, 2012

Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, November 29, 2012

In almost every year since 2007, Congress appropriated less money for diplomatic security than had been requested.  In FY2012, the State Department sought $2.9 billion for security, and Congress enacted $2.6 billion.

The diplomatic security function, including its funding profile, was discussed in the light of recent attacks of U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya and elsewhere in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Background and Policy Issues, November 26, 2012.

Some other new and updated CRS reports that have not been made publicly available include the following.

Panama: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations, November 27, 2012

The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage, November 26, 2012

Financing the U.S. Trade Deficit, November 16, 2012

Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations, November 27, 2012

In a series of newly updated reports presumably intended for new Members of Congress who are unfamiliar with basic features of the federal budget, the Congressional Research Service presented the very rudiments of the budget process.  See:

Basic Federal Budgeting Terminology, November 26, 2012

Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, November 26, 2012

Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process, November 26, 2012

Budget Reconciliation Legislation: Development and Consideration, November 26, 2012

Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process, November 26, 2012

Legislative Procedures for Adjusting the Public Debt Limit: A Brief Overview, November 26, 2012

A study performed for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) “chronicles the policy history of civil and commercial remote sensing from 1960 through 2008.”

The study “highlights the difficulties in establishing a consistent government role in a field where public good and private profit exist side-by-side, and where business interests have the potential to contribute to and conflict with national security interests.”

See U.S. National Security and Economic Interests in Remote Sensing: The Evolution of Civil and Commercial Policy by James A. Vedda, The Aerospace Corporation, February 20, 2009.

The unclassified study was released yesterday by NGA three years after it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Executive branch decisions to classify national security information are subject to judicial review in Freedom of Information Act cases, government attorneys acknowledged in a brief filed yesterday.

That potentially explosive question arose following an extraordinary ruling by a federal judge ordering the U.S. Trade Representative to release a one-page classified document that had been requested under the FOIA by the Center for International Environmental Law.  The document’s classification was not “logical,” said DC District Judge Richard W. Roberts last March, and therefore it was not exempt from public disclosure.

The government appealed that ruling in September, but stopped short of asserting that the court had no authority to order release of the classified document.

Yesterday, in response to arguments presented in an amicus brief from media organizations, government attorneys made their acceptance of judicial review explicit in a final reply brief.

“We agree that district courts (and courts of appeals) play an important role in evaluating the government’s compliance with its obligations under FOIA, in Exemption 1 cases [involving national security classification] as well as others….”

“We have not sought to diminish the role of courts in FOIA Exemption 1 cases, nor have we suggested that the Executive’s determination that a document is classified should be conclusive or unreviewable,” attorneys wrote in the November 27 brief (at p. 8).

In other words, the government did not assert that the executive has some kind of transcendent Article II classification power, nor did government attorneys contend (à la Egyptian President Morsy) that the judicial review provisions of FOIA are an unconstitutional infringement on executive authority.

This was the crucial information policy question that was raised by the move to appeal Judge Roberts’ highly unusual disclosure order, and the government has more or less resolved it by submitting to the discipline of judicial review.

What remains is a bona fide dispute:  Was the decision to classify the USTR document well-founded and plausible, as the government insists, and therefore entitled to judicial deference?  Or was it illogical, as the lower court ruled, nullifying the document’s exemption from FOIA?

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February of next year.

New and newly updated reports from the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News that have not been made publicly available include the following.

Does Foreign Aid Work? Efforts to Evaluate U.S. Foreign Assistance, November 19, 2012

Congressional Redistricting: An Overview, November 21, 2012

Update on Controlling Greenhouse Gases from International Aviation, November 19, 2012

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, November 16, 2012

Gangs in Central America, November 26, 2012

The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer, November 26, 2012

The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for Congress, November 26, 2012

In a memorandum to agency heads last week, President Obama transmitted formal requirements that agencies must meet in order “to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”

Along with espionage and acts of violence, the National Insider Threat Policy notably extends to the “unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks.” To combat such unauthorized disclosures, agencies are required to “monitor employee use of classified networks.”

The new standards, which have not been made publicly available [update: now available here], were developed by an interagency Insider Threat Task Force that was established by President Obama in the October 2011 executive order 13587, and they reflect the ongoing tightening of safeguards on classified information in response to the voluminous leaks of the last few years.

But the latest issuance also illustrates the superfluousness (or worse) of current congressional action concerning leaks.  Executive branch agencies do not need Congress to tell them to develop “a comprehensive insider threat program management plan,” as would be required by the Senate version of the pending FY2013 Intelligence Authorization Act (section 509).  Such plans will go forward in any case.

Sen. Ron Wyden has placed a hold on the pending intelligence bill, citing objections to several of the proposed anti-leak provisions contained in Title V of the bill. He said the proposed steps were misguided or counterproductive.

“I am concerned that they will lead to less-informed public debate about national security issues, and also undermine the due process rights of intelligence agency employees, without actually enhancing national security,” he said on November 14.  (See related coverage from FDL, POGO, LAT.)

The most problematic measures in the Senate bill are those intended to restrict contacts between reporters and government officials.

Senator Wyden said that legislative actions to limit the ability of the press to report on classified matters could undermine or cripple the intelligence oversight process.

“I have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 12 years now, and I can recall numerous specific instances where I found out about serious government wrongdoing–such as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, or the CIA’s coercive interrogation program–only as a result of disclosures by the press,” he said.

*    *    *

The record of a July 2012 House Judiciary Committee hearing on National Security Leaks and the Law has recently been published.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Justice said it had recently completed a review of the Department’s use of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), but the report is classified and its findings have not been released.

“The OIG examined the number of disseminated FBI intelligence reports containing a reference to a U.S. person identity, the number of U.S. person identities subsequently disseminated in response to requests for identities not referred to by name or title in the original reporting, the number of targets later determined to be located in the United States, and whether communications of such targets were reviewed.  The OIG also reviewed the FBI’s compliance with the required targeting and minimization procedures,” according to a November 7 OIG memorandum on Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice.

A copy of the classified report has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Earlier this year, Sen. Ron Wyden placed a hold on reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act “because I believe that Congress does not have enough information about this law’s impact on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens, and because I am concerned about a loophole in the law that could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans’ communications.”

The Department of Defense issued a new Directive last week establishing DoD policy for the development and use of autonomous weapons systems.

An autonomous weapon system is defined as “a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.”

The new DoD Directive Number 3000.09, dated November 21, establishes guidelines that are intended “to minimize the probability and consequences of failures in autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems that could lead to unintended engagements.”

“Failures can result from a number of causes, including, but not limited to, human error, human-machine interaction failures, malfunctions, communications degradation, software coding errors, enemy cyber attacks or infiltration into the industrial supply chain, jamming, spoofing, decoys, other enemy countermeasures or actions, or unanticipated situations on the battlefield,” the Directive explains.

An “unintended engagement” resulting from such a failure means “the use of force resulting in damage to persons or objects that human operators did not intend to be the targets of U.S. military operations, including unacceptable levels of collateral damage beyond those consistent with the law of war, ROE [rules of engagement], and commander’s intent.”

The Department of Defense should “more aggressively use autonomy in military missions,” urged the Defense Science Board last summer in a report on “The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems.”

The U.S. Army issued an updated Army Field Manual 3-36 on Electronic Warfare earlier this month.

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following.

India-U.S. Security Relations: Current Engagement, November 13, 2012

A Guide to China’s Upcoming Leadership Transitions, October 16, 2012

U.S. Trade and Investment Relations with sub-Saharan Africa and the African Growth and Opportunity Act, November 14, 2012

Roles and Duties of a Member of Congress, November 9, 2012

The Congressional Research Service made a humorous appearance in the Doonesbury comic strip on November 24, in connection with the report on tax cuts that was withdrawn in response to criticism from some Republican Senators.

In fact, as often noted, members of Congress of both parties consistently withhold public access to most CRS reports.