The Department of Defense recently demonstrated the “Continuous Evaluation” of approximately 100,000 cleared military, civilian and contractor personnel, in order to validate their eligibility for access to classified information on an ongoing basis.

Continuous Evaluation (CE) refers to the automated monitoring of government and commercial databases for signs of criminal behavior, irregular financial activity, or other “triggers” that could lead to suspension of a security clearance. CE is a central feature of the emerging Insider Threat program that is intended to deter and detect espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosures of classified information, and other offenses by security-cleared personnel.

According to a new quarterly report on the Insider Threat program, the Department of Defense is on track to expand its Continuous Evaluation capability to 225,000 persons by the end of 2015, to 500,000 persons by the end of 2016, and to 1 million persons during 2017. (There are approximately 4.5 million cleared personnel in government and industry.) See Insider Threat and Security Clearance Reform, Quarterly Report, FY 2015, Quarter 2, June 2015.

But progress has been uneven. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence missed a December 2014 milestone for Continuous Evaluation of the most sensitive Top Secret and TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartment Information) clearance holders in government and industry. The revised goal is “to have CE completed on a portion of the TS and TS/SCI population in the Executive Branch by the end of FY 16,” the new quarterly report said.

The Insider Threat problem is a difficult one particularly since the fraction of employees who are spies, terrorists, or leakers is minuscule. Nor does this tiny contingent have a simple, readily identifiable profile. (Convicted spy Aldrich Ames and fugitive unauthorized-discloser Edward Snowden, for example, seem to have few traits in common, although both apparently passed their polygraph examinations without difficulty.)

Therefore, even though Continuous Evaluation is years away from full implementation, security policy officials are already looking beyond it for other options.

Last week, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA) invited researchers to submit proposals for its Scientific advances to Continuous Insider Threat Detection (SCITE) Program.

The SCITE Program seeks “a new class of insider threat indicators, called active indicators, where indicative responses are evoked from potential insider threats,” according to the June 18 Broad Agency Announcement issued by the IARPA “Office for Anticipating Surprise.”

“Current practice and research is heavily focused on passive indicators that monitor existing data sources for indicative behaviors,” IARPA said.

By contrast, “Active indicators introduce stimuli into a user’s environment that are designed to evoke responses that are far more characteristic of malicious users than normal users. For example, a stimulus that suggests that certain file-searching behaviors may be noticed is likely to be ignored by a normal user engaged in work-related searches, but may cause a malicious user engaged in espionage to cease certain activities.”

Mass killings of the sort that took place yesterday in Charleston, South Carolina are a distressingly frequent occurrence. There were 78 public mass shootings in the United States between 1983 and 2013, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

“According to CRS estimates, over the last three decades public mass shootings have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims,” the report said.

Of course, gun violence in America is much more common than mass killings. “While tragic and shocking, public mass shootings account for few of the murders or non-negligent homicides related to firearms that occur annually in the United States.” In 2011 alone, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, firearms were used to murder 8,583 people.

Nevertheless, despite these grim statistics, “over the last two decades, the nation has experienced a general decline in violent crime,” the CRS report said. “In 1992, 1.9 million violent crimes were reported, while 2011 saw 1.2 million. In the same period, the national murder rate dropped from 9.3 to 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants.” See Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy, March 18, 2013.

New reports from the Congressional Research Service on other topics include the following.

Cybersecurity Issues for the Bulk Power System, June 10, 2015

Overview of Health Insurance Exchanges, June 10, 2015

The Addition of Trainers to Iraq: Background for Congress, June 16, 2015

Ending Cash Flow Financing to Egypt: Issues for Congress, June 4, 2015

“Congressional Research Belongs to the Public,” declared a New York Times editorial today, and it is “absurd” that Congress would place any obstacles in the way of public access to Congressional Research Service reports, which provide impartial analyses of current policy issues.

Yet such obstacles continue to exist, and most CRS reports are not publicly disclosed by Congress.

A measure to require the online publication of non-confidential CRS products (H.Res. 34) was introduced in the House of Representatives last January by Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) and Rep. Martin Quigley (D-IL). But like several prior initiatives along the same lines, there is no sign thus far that their pending measure will advance into law or policy.

For the time being, at least, it is easier to circumvent congressional restrictions on distribution of CRS reports than it is to modify those restrictions.

Noteworthy new and updated CRS reports obtained by Secrecy News include the following.

Cybersecurity and Information Sharing: Comparison of Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress, June 12, 2015

Chinese Land Reclamation in the South China Sea: Implications and Policy Options, June 16, 2015

Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017 Election Reforms, June 9, 2015

China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States, updated June 14, 2015

Turkey After June 2015 Elections: Erdogan and the AKP Fall Short, CRS Insights, June 16, 2015

Financing the U.S. Trade Deficit, updated June 11, 2015

Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview, updated June 9, 2015

Cuba: Issues for the 114th Congress, updated June 12, 2015

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2016 Defense Appropriations Bills (H.R. 2685 and S. 1558), June 16, 2015

War Funding and the Budget Control Act: In Brief, June 11, 2015

Train and Equip Program for Syria: Authorities, Funding, and Issues for Congress, updated June 9, 2015

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, updated June 10, 2015

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 12, 2015

Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 12, 2015

Intelligence Authorization Legislation for FY2016: Selected Provisions, CRS Insights, June 15, 2015

Invasive Species: Issues in Brief, May 22, 2015

Not everyone values the kind of policy analysis that CRS performs, particularly since CRS reports are even-handed to a fault, and they refrain from advocacy of specific outcomes. As such, they do not immediately advance any particular policy agenda.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service may be an institution in jeopardy. CRS “has lost about one-fifth of its staff since 1993,” according to the Center for American Progress. “The House and Senate legislative branch appropriations bills both cut CRS funding by 14.2 percent from its FY 2010 inflation-adjusted level.” See “Congress Makes Itself Dysfunctional with Legislative Branch Cuts” by Harry Stein and Ethan Gurwitz, June 15.

At the same time, and despite official congressional strictures on publication, CRS is playing an increasingly prominent role in informing the public on a wide range of policy issues. CRS reports are cited numerous times each day in national news stories— which often link to the reports on the Federation of American Scientists website or those of other non-congressional publishers.

The House of Representatives yesterday approved its version of the FY 2016 intelligence authorization act (HR 2596).

The bill includes “several” new reporting requirements intended “to enhance Congress’ role in and understanding of the classification process,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA). One of these requirements is for a report to Congress noting each occasion in the past 5 years in which non-compartmented intelligence reporting has been disseminated through a (more restrictive) compartmented channel.

The bill passed by the House preserves a proposed new restriction on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board barring its access to covert action information. The Washington Post reported last week that the restriction was prompted by an op-ed written by the Board chairman suggesting that the Board might be able to assist in oversight of covert targeted killing operations.

Also yesterday, the Senate voted 78-21 to affirm a ban on torture and to limit the use of interrogation techniques to those that are included in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Appendix M). The measure was sponsored by Senators McCain and Feinstein.

“Current law already bans torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” Sen. McCain noted.

“However,” he said, “this amendment is still necessary because [after 9/11, so-called ‘enhanced’] interrogation techniques were able to be used, which were based on a deeply flawed legal theory, and those techniques, it was said, did not constitute ‘torture’ or ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.’ These legal opinions could be written again.” The amendment is intended to preclude that possibility.

“I ask my colleagues to support this amendment,” Sen. Feinstein said, “and by doing so, we can recommit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the United States does not torture–without exception and without equivocation–and ensure that the mistakes of our past are never again repeated in the future.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who opposed the amendment, said “the effect of this policy is to hand our entire interrogation playbook to groups such as the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ‘ISIL,” Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, which is a profound mistake.”

Updated below

The House Intelligence Committee inserted language in the pending intelligence authorization bill that would bar access by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to classified information pertaining to covert action.

“Nothing in the statute authorizing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should be construed to allow that Board to gain access to information the executive branch deems to be related to covert action,” according to the new Committee report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2016 (section 306), published yesterday.

To the extent that covert action is employed against terrorism and is therefore within the scope of PCLOB’s charter, the House Committee action would preclude PCLOB oversight of the implications of such covert actions for privacy and civil liberties.

That “unduly restricts” PCLOB’s jurisdiction, according to Rep. James Himes (D-CT), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who unsuccessfully sought to modify the provision.

It is possible that there is some tacit rivalry between PCLOB and the congressional intelligence oversight committees, particularly since the PCLOB found that the Section 215 program for collection of telephone metadata was unlawfully implemented while the oversight committees had approved and embraced it. (The recurring failure of the intelligence oversight committees to accurately represent broader congressional and public perspectives over the past decade is a subject that remains to be addressed.)

By contrast, the same House bill directed that the DNI shall provide the Government Accountability Office with the access to information that it needs to perform its authorized functions. The relevant directive (ICD 114) “shall not prohibit the Comptroller General [i.e., the head of the GAO] from obtaining information necessary to carry out an audit or review at the request of the congressional intelligence and defense committees.”

The new House Committee measure may be gratuitous in any event, since the PCLOB is an executive branch agency and is already subject to the authority of the Director of National Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and methods, and to regulate access accordingly.

The PCLOB has recently posted a plan for its review of two counterterrorism-related activities governed by Executive Order 12333.

“The Board plans to concentrate on activities of the CIA and NSA, and to select activities that involve one or more of the following: (1) bulk collection involving a significant chance of acquiring U.S. person information; (2) use of incidentally collected U.S. person information; (3) targeting of U.S. persons; and (4) collection that occurs within the United States or from U.S. companies,” the PCLOB plan said.

Yesterday, Senators Dianne Feinstein and John McCain introduced an amendment to the 2016 defense authorization act “to reaffirm the prohibition on torture.” The amendment would limit interrogation techniques to those included in the unclassified Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Appendix M). And it would require regular review of “to ensure that Army Field Manual 2-22.3 complies with the legal obligations of the United States and reflects current, evidence-based, best practices for interrogation that are designed to elicit reliable and voluntary statements and do not involve the use or threat of force.” The amendment had not yet been voted on as of yesterday.

Update: The origins of the House Intelligence Committee’s apparent animosity towards the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board were explored by Ellen Nakashima in Upset over op-ed, GOP lawmakers seek to curb privacy board, Washington Post, June 10, 2015.

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

Stored Communications Act: Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), May 19, 2015

United Nations Reform: Background and Issues for Congress, updated May 15, 2015

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Functions and Funding, May 15, 2015

In-Country Refugee Processing: In Brief, May 7, 2015

, updated June 2, 2015

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations, updated May 13, 2015

Burundi’s Electoral Crisis: In Brief, May 14, 2015

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service on nuclear weapons policy and other issues of topical interest include the following.

Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015 (See also the 2015 State Department compliance report released June 5, and reported in the New York Times on June 6.)

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments, updated June 2, 2015

Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements, updated May 11, 2015

Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation, updated May 11, 2015

Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship, May 6, 2015

U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, updated June 4, 2015

Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015 (and see, relatedly, the profile of SEAL Team 6 in the New York Times on June 6)

Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015

Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

Senate to Mull Potential Endgame for Guantanamo, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 5, 2015 (and see also The Senate’s Guantanamo Bill: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, Just Security, June 8)

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735 and S. 1376), June 3, 2015

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense–Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress, May 11, 2015

Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, updated June 1, 2015

Honduras: Background and U.S. Relations, updated May 20, 2015

Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015

Supreme Court Ruling Affects the Future of Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 5, 2015

Congressional Action on FY2016 Appropriations Measures, June 5, 2015

Supreme Court Issues Rare Unanimous Opinion in Religious Freedom Case, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015

Reported Office of Congressional Ethics Investigation Highlights Range of Ethics Considerations Surrounding Foreign Gifts Under Congressional Rules, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015

NFL Gives Up its Tax-Exempt Status, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015

FY2016 NDAA: A Comparison of House and Senate Provisions for Military Retirement Reform, CRS Insights, June 4, 2015

Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives, updated June 3, 2015

The Budget Reconciliation Process: Stages of Consideration, June 2, 2015

Federal Securities Law: Insider Trading, updated June 1, 2015

U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices, updated June 1, 2015

USA FREEDOM Act Reinstates Expired USA PATRIOT Act Provisions but Limits Bulk Collection, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015

The number of newly created national security secrets dropped to a record low level last year, but the financial costs of protecting classified information increased sharply, according to the latest data from the Information Security Oversight Office.

Original classification activity — meaning the designation of new classified information — declined by 20 percent in 2014 to a historic low of 46,800 original classification decisions, ISOO said in its new annual report for Fiscal Year 2014.

It was the fourth consecutive year of reductions in original classifications. ISOO has never reported a smaller number of original classification decisions. Ten years earlier (FY 2004), for example, original classification activity was reported at 351,150 original classification decisions.

What accounts for the continuing drop-off in the creation of new secrets? The answer is not entirely clear. It is in part a reflection of changes in the national security environment, as well as the vagaries of how agencies report their classification practices. ISOO director John P. Fitzpatrick said it was also likely to be a consequence of the Fundamental Classification Guidance Review that was performed under the Obama executive order in 2010-2012 in an effort to improve the quality of agency classification guides.

In the course of that Review, all existing guides were “scrubbed” to ensure that they provided current classification guidance and in some cases they were also refined to improve their clarity. One result, Mr. Fitzpatrick said yesterday, was that some agency classification decisions that might have otherwise been counted as new secrets were instead deemed to be “derivative” classification decisions that were based on the improved classification guidance.

Significantly, however, the volume of derivative classification decisions also declined for the past two years. Therefore, even if some reported classification actions were displaced from the original classification category to the derivative classification category, the overall result is still a net reduction in new national security classification activity, a significant policy achievement in itself.

While the number of new secrets dropped to a record low last year, however, the cost of protecting those secrets reached a record high.

“The total security classification cost estimate within Government for FY 2014 is $14.98 billion,” the ISOO report said, up from $11.63 billion in FY 2013.

The increase was primarily due to Department of Defense expenditures on information systems security, which increased by a reported $3.2 billion in FY 2014.

While some of the reported increase can be explained by improved accounting methods, much of it “was attributable to the many new initiatives underway in the aftermath of the serious security breaches that have occurred in recent years,” the ISOO report said. The breaches were not specified in the report, but major changes in security policy were prompted by the WikiLeaks disclosures of 2010.

These new DOD initiatives include measures to “improve network security by reducing anonymity, enhancing access controls and user monitoring, establishing enterprise auditing, restricting the removal of media, and developing insider threat programs.”

“None of these improvements come without considerable cost,” the ISOO report said.

The new ISOO report included several other notable observations, such as these:

*     In FY 2014 there were 813 formal classification challenges filed by authorized holders of classified information — government employees or contractors — who believed the information was wrongly classified. In response to the challenges, agencies overturned the classification status of the information in whole or in part in 453 of the cases (56 percent). In FY 2013, by comparison, there were only 68 such challenges and only 12 of them led to changes in classification.

*     The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel maintained its record of granting public appeals of Mandatory Declassification Review requests that had been denied by executive branch agencies in the majority of cases presented to it, in whole or in part. Out of 451 documents considered by the Panel on appeal, 181 were declassified in their entirety, and 157 were declassified in part. The continued classification of 113 documents was affirmed by the Panel.

The Fundamental Classification Guidance Review that apparently led to the recent reduction in national security classification must be performed every five years. The next such Review will soon begin and is due to be completed in 2017.

NASA has released a long-awaited Nuclear Power Assessment Study that examines the prospects for the use of nuclear power in civilian space missions over the next 20 years.

The Study concludes that there is a continuing demand for radioisotope power systems, which have been used in deep space exploration for decades, but that there is no imminent requirement for a new fission reactor program.

The 177-page Study, prepared for NASA by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, had been completed several months ago but was withheld from public release due to unspecified “security concerns,” according to Space News. Those concerns may have involved the discussion of the proposed use of highly enriched uranium as fuel for a space reactor, or the handling of plutonium-238 for radioisotope power sources.

Nuclear power can be enabling for a variety of space missions because it offers high power density in compact, rugged form. Radioisotope power sources (in which the natural heat of decay is converted into electricity) have contributed to some of the U.S. space program’s greatest achievements, including the Voyager I and II probes to the outer solar system and beyond. But development of nuclear reactor technology for use in space has been dogged by a repeated series of false starts in which anticipated mission requirements failed to materialize.

“The United States has spent billions of dollars on space reactor programs, which have resulted in only one flight of an FPS [fission power source],” the new NASA report noted. That was the 1965 launch of the SNAP 10-A reactor on the SNAPSHOT mission. It had an electrical failure after a month’s operation and “it remains in a 1300-km altitude, ‘nuclear-safe’ orbit, although debris-shedding events of some level may have occurred,” the report said.

The development and use of space nuclear power raises potential environmental safety and public health issues. As a result, the NASA report said, “it may be prudent to build in more time in the development schedule for the first launch of a new space reactor. Public interest would likely be large, and it is possible that opposition could be substantial.”

In any case, specific presidential approval is required for the launch of a nuclear power source into space, pursuant to Presidential Directive 25 of 1977.

“For any U.S. space mission involving the use of RPS [radioisotope power sources], radioisotope heating units, nuclear reactors, or a major nuclear source, launch approval must be obtained from the Office of the President,” the report noted.

U.S. intelligence spending remains at the frontier of national security classification and declassification policy, as some new scraps of intelligence budget information are divulged, most other information is withheld, and a simmering demand for greater disclosure persists in Congress and elsewhere.

Last month the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) released heavily redacted versions of its annual budget justification books for Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013.

The declassified portions of the NGA budget documents reflect an emphasis on improved sharing of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) products and an ongoing reliance on commercial satellite imagery.

“The FY 2013 budget request reflects a continuation of NGA’s Vision to provide on-line, on-demand access to GEOINT knowledge and to create new value by broadening and deepening analytic expertise.”

The documents allude briefly to development of “next-generation sensor/system collection capabilities” as well as a “next-generation exploitation capability [that] will enable analysts to [deleted].”

The documents were processed for declassification in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

(The control markings on the original budget documents included “RSEN,” which is an abbreviation for “Risk Sensitive.” This term “is used to protect especially sensitive imaging capabilities and exploitation techniques,” according to ODNI classification guidance.)

Also last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed the aggregate amount of national intelligence spending for Fiscal Year 2005: it was $39.8 billion. With this retrospective release, a full decade’s worth of official figures on U.S. intelligence spending from 2005 through 2014 have now been published.

That is not good enough, say some members of Congress, who have reintroduced legislation in the House and the Senate to require disclosure of each individual intelligence agency budget total.

“The biggest threat to the successful implementation of a vital national program is the combination of unlimited money with non-existent oversight,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) last month. “Requiring the public disclosure of top-line intelligence spending [at each intelligence agency] is an essential first step in assuring that our taxpayers and our national security interests are well served.”

“Disclosing the top-line budgets of each of our intelligence agencies promotes basic accountability among the agencies charged with protecting Americans without compromising our national security interests,” said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo), who co-sponsored the legislation.

“Revealing the overall intelligence budget number has not jeopardized national security, as opponents of the proposal argued at the time, and has led to a more open and informed debate on national security spending,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). “My House colleagues and I are pushing to declassify the topline budget numbers for each intelligence agency to provide Americans with more information about how their tax dollars are spent, in a responsible manner that protects national security.”

Similar legislation was introduced in the previous Congress but was not acted upon.

A Congressional Research Service report on The Federal Grand Jury, May 7, 2015, presents “a brief general description of the federal grand jury, with particular emphasis on its more controversial aspects–relationship of the prosecutor and the grand jury, the rights of grand jury witnesses, grand jury secrecy, and rights of targets of a grand jury investigation.”

In Brief: Options to Help Meet a Congressional Requirement for Nuclear Weapon “Pit” Production, May 22, 2015, describes sixteen options for increasing the production of plutonium pits for thermonuclear weapons.

A CRS report on Wartime Detention Provisions in Recent Defense Authorization Legislation was updated on May 28, 2015 to include discussion of the pending FY2016 defense authorization bills.

Overview of Constitutional Challenges to NSA Collection Activities, May 21, 2015, presents an updated survey of recent litigation on the constitutionality of U.S. intelligence surveillance programs.

U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners, May 21, 2015, examines the economic impacts of free trade agreements.

An Overview of the Employment-Population Ratio, May 27, 2015, considers the significance of the proportion of the population that is employed at any given time.

Former Presidents: Pensions, Office Allowances, and Other Federal Benefits, May 27, 2015, has been updated to reflect legislation that was recently introduced to place limits on such pensions.

Some other recent CRS products obtained by Secrecy News include the following.

Rules and Practices Governing Consideration of Revenue Legislation in the House and Senate, May 26, 2015

The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding, updated May 26, 2015

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy, updated May 27, 2015

Trade Promotion Authority: Frequently Asked Questions, updated May 27, 2015

Foreign Holdings of Federal Debt, updated May 28, 2015

Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements, updated May 21, 2015

Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Member and Committee Requirements, updated May 21, 2015

“Finding data on federal grants and contracts awarded to states and congressional districts, local governments, nonprofit organizations, contractors, and other eligible entities may present challenges,” a new report from the Congressional Research Service observes.

The various tools that are available to help meet those challenges are cataloged and described by CRS in Tracking Federal Funds: USAspending.gov and Other Data Sources, May 13, 2015.

Other noteworthy new and updated CRS reports include the following.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: Ongoing Outbreak, CRS Insights, May 19, 2015

Selected Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 114th Congress, May 19, 2015

Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies, updated May 19, 2015

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress, updated May 13, 2015

Critical Infrastructures: Background, Policy and Implementation, updated May 12, 2015

Human-Induced Earthquakes from Deep-Well Injection: A Brief Overview, updated May 12, 2015

Candidates, Groups, and the Campaign Finance Environment, CRS Insights, May 19, 2015

Uncertainty in Financial Projections of Social Security, CRS Insights, May 14, 2015

Freedom of Navigation and Territorial Seas, CRS Legal Sidebar, May 18, 2015

Iran, Gulf Security, and U.S. Policy, updated May 19, 2015

Perspectives on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) “Torture Report” and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: In Brief, updated May 14, 2015

Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief, May 19, 2015

Sunset of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, memorandum for the House Judiciary Committee, May 19, 2015