The U.S. Air Force last week issued updated guidance both to foster and to limit contacts with Chinese military personnel, based in part on classified Defense Department directives.

“With the rise of PRC influence in the international community and the increasing capabilities of the Chinese military, Air Force military-to-military relationship with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), and the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is becoming more crucial than before,” the Air Force document stated.

See Conduct of USAF Contacts with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Government of the Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the PRC, Air Force Instruction 16-118, August 5, 2015.

The Instruction provides a framework for conducting reciprocal US-PRC visits to each other’s military installations.

“The success of these visits, whether US or PRC-led, directly affects relationships between the US and the PRC, as well as our relationships with our allies and partners, and is thereby important in support of national and regional politico-military objectives.”

But the Instruction also identifies numerous topical areas that are likely to be off-limits for USAF-PRC military contacts.

“[P]rohibited contacts… may involve: force projection operations, nuclear operations, advanced combined-arms and joint combat operations, advanced logistical operations, chemical and biological defense and other capabilities related to weapons of mass destruction, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, joint war-fighting experiments and other activities related to a transformation in warfare, military space operations, other advanced capabilities of the armed forces, arms sales or military-related technology transfers, release of classified or restricted information, and access to a DoD laboratory.”

The new USAF Instruction implements two classified DoD Instructions, which have not been released: Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) C-2000.23, Conduct of DoD Contacts with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and DoDI S-2000.24, Conduct of DoD Contacts with the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the PRC.

The Congressional Research Service produced a related report on U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress, updated October 27, 2014.

With the impending retirement of the longtime Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, there is an opportunity for a fundamental reconsideration of the function and operation of the Library of Congress. In particular, the time may be ripe for a massive expansion of the Library’s digitized holdings, enabling universal public access to its historic and cultural riches.

There are “Great New Possibilities for the Library of Congress!” according to the headline of an article by Harvard professor Robert Darnton in the New York Review of Books, August 13 (sub. req’d, exclamation mark in the original).

Dr. Billington (who oddly goes unmentioned by name in the NY Review article) is a figure of exceptional stature, and he has been for a long time. The 1959 book Tolstoy or Dostoevsky by the eminent literary critic George Steiner included an acknowledgment of thanks to Billington along with Isaiah Berlin, Alexandre Koyré, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, among other icons of a prior era. More recently, in 2004, former FAS President Jeremy J. Stone facilitated a trip by Dr. Billington to Iran to meet with the director of that country’s National Library, the first such visit to Iran by any U.S. government official in many years. (Originally “unannounced” and confidential, the trip was, ahem, disclosed by the Federation of American Scientists and reported in the New York Times, and it is now cited in Billington’s official bio.)

But one thing Dr. Billington has not been, by most accounts, is a digital pioneer who could lead the Library of Congress boldly into the unfolding media and communications environment of the present day. (However, his bio notes to the contrary that “His proposal in 2005 for the creation of a World Digital Library was endorsed by UNESCO in 2007 and launched online at www.wdl.org in April 2009.”)

The time for a change may have come.

“While other great libraries were leading the way into the digital future, [the Library of Congress] failed to manage its own information technology,” wrote Prof. Darnton in the NY Review.

“A new regime at the Library of Congress (LOC) could digitize its collections and link them with collections in other libraries, archives, and museums so that everyone has access to the resources that are everyone’s heritage… The repository of the LOC would then serve as the heart of a digital circulatory system that would energize the entire country,” Darnton wrote.

Perhaps so, although the chain of causality in that vision is a little vague. But much less ambitiously, the arrival of new leadership at the Library of Congress might also set the stage for a change of policy authorizing public access to non-confidential products of the Congressional Research Service, which is formally a part of the Library (though CRS too goes unmentioned in the NY Review article).

Until then, unauthorized access will have to do. New and updated reports from CRS that Congress has not seen fit to make publicly available online include the following.

A Guide to U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, updated August 7, 2015

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016, August 7, 2015

FY2016 Appropriations for the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis, August 7, 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges: Same-Sex Marriage Legalized, August 7, 2015

Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, updated August 7, 2015

The environmental impacts of military operations are increasingly becoming factors in the planning and execution of military activities.

“The military has a new appreciation for the interdependence between military missions, the global community, and the environment,” according to a newly revised and reissued Army doctrinal manual. See Environmental Considerations, ATP 3-34.5, August 10, 2015.

Of course, military operations by their nature are not environment-friendly. “The primary mission of the military is to fight and win wars. Warfare is destructive to humans and to the natural environment.”

Even so, environmental impacts of military action can be limited and managed up to a point, the Army manual says. “Integrating environmental considerations into the planning process helps to identify, prevent, and mitigate potential threats to the environment (including those that affect historical and cultural resources) and environmental threats to personnel.”

This is not a matter of sentimentality or political correctness, the manual emphasizes, but of military self-interest and tactical necessity. “Integrating environmental considerations into operations will benefit FHP [force health protection, i.e. the health of U.S. and allied soldiers]. Environmental degradation jeopardizes the well-being of the local population and can undermine HN [host nation] support for U.S. policies.”

“Environmental damage created by U.S. forces conducting operations, however unintentional (such as the damage to Babylon), may be used as a weapon in the public information campaign against U.S. operations and can undermine U.S. strategic objectives,” the manual says.

Establishment of a U.S. military base in Iraq’s historic city of Babylon in 2003 caused “major damage” to surviving antiquities at the site, the Washington Post and other news organizations reported.

As a rule, U.S. Air Force personnel should not employ physical violence against news reporters who disobey their instructions, newly updated Air Force guidance says.

If reporters are present at the scene of an accident or incident in which Air Force classified information is exposed, Air Force officials should “explain the situation and ask the media to cooperate.”

But “Do not use force if media representatives refuse to cooperate unless declared an NDA [National Defense Area],” the Air Force guidance advises.

“If photographs are taken after a warning is issued, Air Force officials must ask civilian law enforcement authorities to stop further photography of the exposed classified information and to collect all materials with that coverage.”

However, “If no civilian law enforcement authorities are on the scene and media representatives take unauthorized pictures, do not seize the materials or hold the photographer.” Rather, the senior Air Force official at the scene should “immediately contact the managing editor or news director” of the news organization and “request the return of media coverage having suspected classified information.”

That is one of the scenarios envisioned in a newly updated Air Force Instruction 35-104 on “Media Operations,” dated 13 July 2015.

The Instruction generally favors constructive engagement with the news media, both on principle and out of self-interest.

“Releasing official information through the media can help create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of national interest and policies, as well as mitigate any adverse effects from unofficial, misinformed, or hostile sources,” the Instruction states.

Of course, Air Force personnel are directed “not [to] release classified information” to members of the news media. Interestingly, however, the new Instruction also says that there are “circumstances when exposure to sensitive or classified information is allowed.”

“The commander may grant access [to sensitive or classified information] if the reporter agrees to a security and policy review of the communication product. Agreement to a security and policy review in exchange for this type of access is strictly voluntary; however, if a reporter does not agree, then access to sensitive information may be denied. If a reporter agrees to a security and policy review, it will be conducted solely to ensure that sensitive or classified information is not included in the product.”

In general, “the primary responsibility for protecting classified information lies with the Air Force, not the reporter, and the reporter can justifiably refuse any requests for prior review,” the Air Force Instruction said.

Mass murder involving firearms has become more prevalent in the United States over recent decades, according to data presented in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

In the 1970s, there was an average of 1.1 such mass homicide incidents per year, with 5.5 victims murdered and 2.0 wounded per incident. The numbers have increased each decade since then. By 2010-2013, there was an average of 4.5 incidents per year, with 7.4 victims murdered and 6.3 wounded per incident.

The CRS report said that the prospects for a legislative response to such mass murders might possibly be enhanced if the quality and specificity of reporting on them were improved.

“With improved data, policymakers would arguably have additional vantage points from which to assess the legislative proposals that are inevitably made in the wake of these tragedies.”

CRS therefore suggested requiring federal agencies to report annually on firearms-related mass murders, including data on (1) offender acquisition of firearms, (2) types of firearms used, (3) amounts and types of ammunition carried and shots fired, (4) killed and wounded counts, (5) offender histories of mental illness and domestic violence, and (6) victim-offender relationships.

A copy of the new CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News. See Mass Murder with Firearms, 1999-2013, July 30, 2015.

Other new and updated products from CRS include the following.

Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. 924(e)): An Overview, updated July 29, 2015

The Iran Hostages: Efforts to Obtain Compensation, updated July 30, 2015

Consumer and Credit Reporting, Scoring, and Related Policy Issues, July 30, 2015

NLRB Weighs In on Insulting Facebook Posts Cases, CRS Legal Sidebar, July 31, 2015

License Plates and Public Signs: Government First Amendment Speech, CRS Legal Sidebar, July 29, 2015

Patent Litigation Reform Legislation in the 114th Congress, updated July 29, 2015

Filling the Senate “Amendment Tree,” CRS Insights, July 28, 2015

Defense Health Program Funding Shortfall for Fiscal Year 2015, CRS Insights, July 30, 2015

The Federal Tax Treatment of Married Same-Sex Couples, updated July 30, 2015

Expansion of WTO Information Technology Agreement Targets December Conclusion, CRS Insights, July 28, 2015

Mexico’s Oil and Gas Sector: Background, Reform Efforts, and Implications for the United States, updated July 30, 2015

The 2015 National Military Strategy: Background and Questions for Congress, CRS Insights, July 29, 2015

Noteworthy new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from online public distribution include the following.

China’s Recent Stock Market Volatility: What Are the Implications?, CRS Insights, July 20, 2015

Can Military Servicemembers Carry Firearms for Personal Protection on Duty?, CRS Insights, July 17, 2015

Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2014, July 22, 2015

Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue, CRS Insights, July 20, 2015

OPM Data Breach: Personnel Security Background Investigation Data, CRS Insights, July 24, 2015

Cyber Intrusion into U.S. Office of Personnel Management: In Brief, July 17, 2015

U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation Following “El Chapo” Guzmán’s Escape, CRS Insights, July 21, 2015

Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations, updated July 22, 2015

North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation, updated July 21, 2015

Iran Nuclear Agreement, updated July 22, 2015

Agricultural Biotechnology: Background, Regulation, and Policy Issues, updated July 20, 2015

A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, July 21, 2015

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): Background, Operations, and Issues, July 21, 2015

U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2016 Appropriations, July 21, 2015

U.S. Agricultural Trade with Cuba: Current Limitations and Future Prospects, July 23, 2015

Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief, July 24, 2015

FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, July 22, 2015

Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, updated July 24, 2015

The European Union: Questions and Answers, updated July 24, 2015

Airline Passenger Rights: The Federal Role in Aviation Consumer Protection, updated July 21, 2015

Update on the Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak of 2014-2015, July 20, 2015

Verification of international treaties and arms control agreements such as the pending Iran nuclear deal has traditionally relied upon formal inspections backed by clandestine intelligence collection.

But today, the widespread availability of sensors of many types complemented by social media creates the possibility of crowd-sourcing the verification task using open source data.

“Never before has so much information and analysis been so widely and openly available. The opportunities for addressing future [treaty] monitoring challenges include the ability to track activity, materials and components in far more detail than previously, both for purposes of treaty verification and to counter WMD proliferation,” according to a recent study from the JASON defense science advisory panel. See Open and Crowd-Sourced Data for Treaty Verification, October 2014.

“The exponential increase in data volume and connectivity, and the relentless evolution toward inexpensive — therefore ubiquitous — sensors provide a rapidly changing landscape for monitoring and verifying international treaties,” the JASONs said.

Commercial satellite imagery, personal radiation detectors, seismic monitors, cell phone imagery and video, and other collection devices and systems combine to create the possibility of Public Treaty Monitoring, or PTM.

“The public unveiling and confirmation of the Natanz nuclear site in Iran was an important early example of PTM,” the report said. “In December 2002, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), an independent policy institute in Washington, DC, released commercial satellite images of Natanz, and based on these images assessed it to be a gas-centrifuge plant for uranium isotope separation, which turned out to be correct.”

An earlier archetype of public arms control monitoring was the joint verification project initiated in the late 1980s by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Federation of American Scientists and the Soviet Academy of Sciences to devise acceptable methods for verifying deep reductions in nuclear weapons. The NRDC actually installed seismic monitors around Soviet nuclear test sites.

In the 1990s, John Pike’s Public Eye project pioneered the use of declassified satellite images and newly available commercial imagery for public interest applications.

Recently, among many other examples, commercial satellite imagery has been used to track development of China’s submarine fleet, as discussed in this report by Hans Kristensen of FAS.

Jeffrey Lewis and his colleagues associated with the Armscontrolwonk.com website are regularly using satellite imagery and related analytic tools to advance public understanding of international military programs.

“The reason that open source data gathering [for treaty verification] is an easier problem is that, increasingly, at least some of it will happen as a matter of course,” the JASONs said. More and more people carry mobile phones, are connected to the Internet, and actively use social media. Even with no specific effort to create incentives or crowd-sourcing mechanisms there is likely to be a wealth of images and sensor data publicly and freely shared from practically every country and region in the world.”

The flood of open source data naturally does not solve all verification problems. Much of the data collected may be of poor quality, and some of it may be erroneous or even deliberately deceptive.

There are “enormous difficulties still to be faced and work to be done before claiming confidence in the reliability of data obtained from open sources,” the JASON report said.

“The validity of the original data is especially problematic with social media, in that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable (especially when reporting on unanticipated or extreme events) and there can be strong reinforcement of messages — whether true or not — when a topic ‘goes viral’ on the Internet.”

“In addition to such errors, taken here to be honest mistakes and limitations of sensors, there is the possibility of willful deception and spoofing of the raw data, including through conscious insertion or duplication of false information.”

“Key to validating the findings of open sources will be confirming the independence of two or more of the sources. Multi-reporting — ‘retweeting’ — or posting of the same information is no substitute for establishing credibility.”

On the other hand, the frequent repetition of information “can provide an indication of importance or urgency… The occurrence of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was first noted in the United States as an anomalous increase in text-messaging.” Because the information moved at near light speed, it arrived before the seismic waves could reach US seismic stations.

“Commercial satellites have also provided valuable data for analysis of (non-)compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and open sources proved valuable in detecting the use of chemical weapons in Aleppo, and in subsequent steps to remove such weapons from Syria. They also informed the world about the Russian troop movements and threats to Ukraine.”

While the US Government should take steps to promote and exploit open source data collection, the report said, it should do so cautiously. “It is crucial that citizens or groups not be put at risk by encouraging open-source activities that might be interpreted as espionage. The line between open source sensors and ‘spy gear’ is thin.”

In short, the JASON report concluded, “Rapid advances in technology have led to the global proliferation of inexpensive, networked sensors that are now providing significant new levels of societal transparency. As a result of the increase in quality, quantity, connectivity and availability of open information and crowd-sourced analysis, the landscape for verifying compliance with international treaties has been greatly broadened.”

*     *     *

Among its recommendations, the JASON report urged the government to “promote transparency and [data] validation by… keeping open-source information and analysis open to the maximum degree possible and appropriate.”

Within the U.S. intelligence community, such transparency has notably been embraced by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under its director Robert Cardillo.

But the Central Intelligence Agency has chosen to move in the opposite direction by shutting off much of the limited public access to open source materials that previously existed. Generations of non-governmental analysts who were raised on products of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service now must turn elsewhere, since CIA terminated public access to the DNI Open Source Center in 2013.

FAS has asked the Obama Administration to restore and increase public access to open source analyses from the DNI Open Source Center as part of the forthcoming Open Government National Action Plan.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service introduces the “Dark Web” and its implications for law enforcement and security.

“The Dark Web is a general term that describes hidden Internet sites that users cannot access without using special software. Users access the Dark Web with the expectation of being able to share information and/or files with little risk of detection,” the CRS report said.

“This report illuminates information on the various layers of the Internet, with a particular focus on the Dark Web. It discusses both legitimate and illicit uses of the Dark Web, including how the government may rely upon it. Throughout, the report raises issues that policy makers may consider as they explore means to curb malicious activity online.” See Dark Web, July 7, 2015.

Other new or updated reports from CRS on topics of current policy interest include the following.

Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, July 15, 2015

Is There a Judicial Remedy for Victims of Federal Data Breaches?, CRS Legal Sidebar, July 15, 2015

Iran: U.S. Economic Sanctions and the Authority to Lift Restrictions, July 15, 2015

State and Local “Sanctuary” Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement, July 10, 2015

Recent Shooting in San Francisco Raises Questions about “Sanctuary Cities” and Compliance with Immigration Detainers, CRS Legal Sidebar, July 9, 2015

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress, July 14, 2015

Federal Disaster Assistance Response and Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, July 9, 2015

Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, July 14, 2015

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, July 15, 2015

Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register, July 14, 2015

Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016), July 10, 2015

H.R. 6: The 21st Century Cures Act, July 8, 2015

Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment, July 7, 2015

Reestablishment of Diplomatic Relations with Cuba, CRS Insights, July 10, 2015

Display of the Confederate Flag at Federal Cemeteries, CRS Insights, July 10, 2015

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, July 15, 2015

Momentum appears to be gathering in favor of providing authorized public access to CRS reports. (The access offered by Secrecy News is “unauthorized” by Congress or CRS.)

“By providing public access to CRS reports, we can elevate our national discourse and make it easier for citizens to cut through the misinformation that too often confuses the national debate,” wrote Reps. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) and Mike Quigley (D-IL) in a June 17 letter to the House Administration Committee. See “Should Congressional Research Service Reports Be Public?” by Hannah Hess, Roll Call, July 14.

Meanwhile, CRS has recently updated its arguments in opposition to such public access. See “Considerations Arising from the Public Dissemination of CRS Products,” April 2015.

News of the Earth these days is such that one welcomes news from elsewhere, especially when it concerns a prospect as spectacular as the impending flyby of Pluto by the NASA spacecraft New Horizons that will take place on July 14.

In reality, of course, New Horizons also represents news from Earth, having been built by humans and launched from Cape Canaveral in January 2006. Moreover, the New Horizons probe is not simply a technological artifact; it is the result of a political process and a policy debate. At issue were not only the parameters of the mission — its scope, timing, budget, and so on — but also the fact it uses a nuclear power source fueled, appropriately if controversially, by plutonium.

The plutonium-238 isotope used by New Horizons is an exceptionally hazardous material that is dangerous to produce, manufacture into suitable form, handle, transport and launch. The hazards are sufficient, in the eyes of some, to preclude its use altogether.

NASA and Department of Energy engineers did not dismiss public concerns about the safety of plutonium-fueled power sources, but they argued that the risks could be mitigated to an acceptably low level by proper design.

“Safety was the principal design driver for the [plutonium-fueled General-Purpose Heat Source used aboard New Horizons],” according to a 2006 retrospective account of its development. “The main safety objective was to keep the fuel contained or immobilized to prevent inhalation or ingestion by humans.” See “Mission of Daring: The General-Purpose Heath Source Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator” by Gary L. Bennett, et al.

In effect, the design of the plutonium power source was predicated on the assumption that a launch accident or other mishap would occur, and that any resulting health and safety impact had to be minimized. Simulations were performed to validate the design, but fortunately no real-world test of the safety of the device under extreme conditions ever came to pass.

The GPHS plutonium power source has been used successfully on some of the boldest and most productive missions of space exploration ever undertaken, including Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, and New Horizons.

For the most part, these missions were conducted with commendable openness, especially in earlier years. When one young critic raised questions about the use of plutonium power sources and the hazards of high-velocity Earth flybys in the Galileo mission prior to its 1989 launch, project manager John Casani of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory forthrightly invited him to come inspect the spacecraft in its clean room at JPL and to discuss the alternatives.

“Pluto is going to change us,” wrote analyst Dwayne Day last month, anticipating the possible consequences of the New Horizons mission for science, art, culture, politics, and space policy. See “Deep in space, corner of No and Where,” The Space Review, June 15, 2015.

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Lessons Learned and Issues for Congress, updated July 2, 2015

Acquisition Reform in House- and Senate-Passed Versions of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735), July 2, 2015

Iran’s Foreign Policy, updated June 30, 2015

Iran: Efforts to Achieve a Nuclear Accord, updated July 1, 2015

Puerto Rico’s Current Fiscal Challenges: In Brief, June 30, 2015

Burma’s Parliament Defeats Constitutional Amendments, CRS Insights, June 30, 2015

Ex-Im Bank’s General Statutory Authority Expires, CRS Insights, July 1, 2015

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV): World Health Organization Responses, CRS Insights, July 2, 2015

Job Creation in the Manufacturing Revival, updated July 2, 2015

The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime, updated June 30, 2015

Systemically Important or “Too Big to Fail” Financial Institutions, updated June 30, 2015

EPA and the Army Corps’ Proposed Rule to Define “Waters of the United States”, updated June 29, 2015

EPA and the Army Corps’ Proposed “Waters of the United States” Rule: Congressional Response and Options, updated June 29, 2015

The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape, updated June 29, 2015

The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress, updated July 2, 2015

U.S.-Republic of Korea Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, CRS Insights, June 30, 2015. The text of the proposed “123” agreement between the US and Korea is available here.

“The number of people incarcerated in the United States has increased dramatically over the past three decades,” a new report from the Congressional Research Service observes, from around 419,000 inmates in 1983 to about 1.5 million inmates in 2013.

“The incarceration rate increased from 179 per 100,000 people in 1983 to 478 per 100,000 in 2013,” generating mounting concerns about the economic, social and other consequences of the criminal justice system.

At this point, CRS says, “incarceration has probably reached the point of diminishing returns.”

The new CRS report looks at approaches to reducing the imprisoned population. “Because courts and correctional officials make decisions about who can safely be diverted from incarceration or granted early release, they may benefit from tools that can help in this process. Actuarial risk assessment tools may serve this purpose. Needs assessments could also help correctional officials make determinations about which offenders need higher levels of supervision and/or rehabilitative programming.”

A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News. See Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System, June 22, 2015.

Other new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Procedures for Congressional Action in Relation to a Nuclear Agreement with Iran: In Brief, June 23, 2015

Greenhouse Gas Pledges by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, June 29, 2015

U.S. Capital Markets and International Accounting Standards: GAAP Versus IFRS, June 25, 2015

Sex Trafficking: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law, June 25, 2015

Appointment and Confirmation of Executive Branch Leadership: An Overview, June 22, 2015

Judiciary Appropriations FY2016, June 18, 2015

Last year, CRS introduced a new product line called CRS Insights, which offers short takes on topics of current news or policy interest, typically with links to more substantive analyses by CRS and others. CRS Insights are provided to Congress “in response to client feedback asking for shorter, more succinct products that are published quickly in response to fast-moving public policy issues.”

Some of the latest examples include the following.

Economic Crisis in Greece, CRS Insights, June 29, 2015

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council Votes Down Chief Executive Election Reform, CRS Insights, June 22, 2015

Vietnam’s Communist Party Chief to Make Historic First Visit to Washington, CRS Insights, June 19, 2015

Protecting Civil Aviation from Cyberattacks, CRS Insights, June 18, 2015

South Carolina Church Shooting and Hate Crime in the United States, CRS Insights, June 18, 2015

France: Efforts to Counter Islamist Terrorism and Radicalization, CRS Insights, June 29, 2015

Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity, CRS Insights, June 24, 2015

Last year, the Congressional Research Service produced more than 1,000 new reports and more than 2,500 updates of previous reports for the use of Congress, according to the latest CRS annual report. Those figures do not include “approximately 62,000 requests for custom analysis and research” for individual members or Committees.

“For all public policy issues, Congress could rely on the authoritative, objective, timely, and confidential support that CRS offered at each stage of the legislative process,” the CRS annual report said.

In principle, CRS should be able to release all of its general distribution reports to the public, while maintaining the confidentiality of analyses prepared for individual members at their request. This common-sense distinction is observed, for example, by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), CRS’s sister organization, which releases many reports but withholds others.

“CBO makes its work widely available to the Congress and the public by releasing publicly all of its formal cost estimates and analytic reports,” CBO Director Keith Hall said in testimony earlier this month.

“In some circumstances, though, the needs of the Congress lead CBO to keep the results of an analysis confidential,” he said. “Such analyses include informal cost estimates and other types of information produced to assist in the development of legislation.”

But some warn that a similarly straightforward, non-neurotic approach to public release of CRS reports could have unintended negative consequences.

“Most reports are readily available through FAS, but that does not mean that the seemingly minor step of making them publicly available from the get-go won’t change the culture at CRS and how Congress uses CRS,” wrote Winslow Wheeler, a former GAO analyst who later worked with the Project on Government Oversight (which actually favors public distribution of CRS reports).

“Some (many) in Congress will be more encouraged to misuse CRS reports just as they now do GAO reports by manipulating the research question to manipulate the content of the report.  That practice is rife at GAO, but not now at CRS,” according to Mr. Wheeler, whose remarks were circulated in an online discussion list in response to a recent New York Times editorial.

“Officially writing for public consumption can also mean that the sometimes technical nature of CRS work will likely be dumbed-down for public consumption….  It could also mean thickening the bureaucracy at CRS if managers there get the notion they are writing for the public, not directly for staff in Congress.”

“The quality of CRS reports, like at GAO, is extremely uneven.  Some are excellent; a few are far from it.  [Writing for public release] will not likely result in more, better reports,” he contended.

As long as most CRS reports are publicly accessible through alternate, unofficial channels, this question can safely remain open.

Update: Former CRS staffer Bob Lyke suggests in a July 2 letter to the editor of the New York Times that “if reports were generally available, the danger is that they would start to be written for a wider audience, perhaps even unconsciously, not the immediate needs of Congress. The focus and scope might change, and the reports could take longer to write.”