Updated below

The significance of China’s naval modernization programs and their impact on U.S. national security considerations are explored in a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. See “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress” (pdf), updated May 29, 2007.

Hans Kristensen of FAS observed that a recent Department of Defense annual report (pdf) on Chinese military power conspicuously declined to endorse press reports (mainly attributable to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times) that China intends to deploy five new Jin-class ballistic missile submarines.

“Are you building five SSBNs or not?” Hans inquired in a followup letter to the Embassy of China. “No one here even knows the answer to your question,” the Embassy replied.

See “Pentagon China Report Ignores Five SSBNs Projection,” Strategic Security Blog, May 25.

Update/Clarification: Although the new DoD report did not specify the development of five Jin-class ballistic missile submarines, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence stated in a report last year that China will build “probably five” such subs, as reported in the Washington Times on March 2.

“The chances for a radical change in leadership in Cuba are remote,” the Central Intelligence Agency assessed in a 1966 analysis (pdf) that was declassified last year.

“Fidel Castro is still the undisputed ‘maximum leader’ of the Cuban revolution and the dominant figure in Cuban politics, despite rumors to the contrary which circulated widely last spring.”

See “Castro’s Cuba Today,” Current Intelligence Weekly Special Report, 30 September 1966, declassified October 2006.

See also “Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances” (pdf), Congressional Research Service, updated May 3, 2007.

and “Cuba: Issues for the 110th Congress” (pdf), updated May 1, 2007.

“The United States and Canada maintain the world’s largest trading relationship, one that has been strengthened during the past fifteen years by the approval of two multilateral free trade agreements,” according to another recently updated Congressional Research Service report (pdf).

“But it has been over security-related matters, particularly defense spending, Iraq, and missile defense, that the two governments had their sharpest differences.”

“Notwithstanding these controversies, Canada and the United States have been working together on a number of fronts to thwart terrorism, including strengthening border security, sharing intelligence and expanding law enforcement cooperation.”

See “Canada-U.S. Relations,” updated May 15, 2007.

As frequently mentioned, the Congressional Research Service does not make its products directly available to the public. Some noteworthy new CRS reports obtained by Secrecy News and not readily accessible elsewhere include the following (all pdf).

“Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” updated May 24, 2007.

“Access to Government Information in the United States,” updated April 23, 2007.

“Security Classified and Controlled Information: History, Status, and Emerging Management Issues,” March 8, 2007.

“Security Classification Policy and Procedure: E.O. 12958, as Amended,” updated April 23, 2007.

“Central Asia’s Security: Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests,” updated April 26, 2007.

“Detection of Explosives on Airline Passengers: Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and Related Issues,” updated April 26, 2007.

“Treatment of ‘Battlefield Detainees’ in the War on Terrorism,” updated January 23, 2007.

“The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle,” updated April 26, 2007.

“Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and Issues,” updated April 23, 2007.

“Intelligence Issues for Congress,” updated May 16, 2007.

“National Science Foundation: Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction,” updated May 4, 2007.

“Crime and Forfeiture,” updated May 9, 2007.

“The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Three Years,” updated May 1, 2007.

A new Joint Chiefs of Staff publication (pdf) describes operational principles for executing deployment and redeployment — meaning transfer or withdrawal — of U.S. military forces.

“Redeployment operations, particularly for combat units, … should be identified and planned as early as possible,” the document instructs. “The operation or campaign is concluded when the national strategy end state is achieved and redeployment operations are complete.”

“Although the emphasis of this publication is on overseas deployments and redeployments, deployments within the homeland are possible in support of homeland defense and civil support.”

See “Deployment and Redeployment Operations,” Joint Publication 3-35, 7 May 2007.

Updated below

An unidentified Republican Senator placed a secret hold on the Open Government Act, a bipartisan bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the bill this week.

“Regrettably, an anonymous Republican hold is stalling this important Freedom of Information Act legislation, needlessly delaying long-overdue reforms to strengthen FOIA and to protect the public’s right to know,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a co-sponsor of the bill along with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

“It is both unfortunate and ironic that this bipartisan bill, which promotes sunshine and openness in our government, is being hindered by a secret and anonymous hold. This is a good government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike, can and should work together to enact,” Sen. Leahy said in a May 24 floor statement.

“I hope that the Senator placing the secret hold on this bill will come forward, so that we can resolve any legitimate concerns, and the full Senate can promptly act on this legislation,” he said.

Update: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has acknowledged that it was he who placed the hold on the bill. See this account from the Society for Professional Journalists, and this from Tapscott’s Copy Desk.

The Department of Defense has issued a new statement of security policy for the Raven Rock Mountain Complex, also known as Site R, which is one of the U.S. government’s emergency command centers and relocation sites.

Although it is located in Pennsylvania, not Virginia, Raven Rock was legally designated in 2003 as part of the Pentagon Reservation, and the new policy reflects that change.

Among other things, the policy dictates that “it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the … Raven Rock Mountain Complex without first obtaining the necessary permission.”

The policy was published in the Federal Register on May 25.

The role of domestic criminal activity in generating financial and operational support for terrorism is considered in a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.

So-called “terrorist precursor crimes” may include various types of fraud, counterfeiting, narcotics trade, and illegal weapons procurement.

“This report provides an overview of the types of terrorist precursor crimes known, and/or alleged, to have been employed by individuals and/or groups in the United States. The report highlights issues related to the breadth of this activity in the United States, as well as the opportunities for intelligence collection and law enforcement-related countermeasures.”

But it is not immediately clear that “terrorist precursor crime” is a useful analytical construct since only “a very small percentage of individuals engaged in such activity” are likely to have any “nexus to terrorism.”

A copy of the new CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News.

See “Terrorist Precursor Crimes: Issues and Options for Congress,” May 24, 2007.

Judge Reggie B. Walton was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by the Chief Justice of the United States effective May 19, Secrecy News has learned.

The FIS Court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, is composed of eleven District Court judges who are responsible for authorizing government requests for electronic surveillance and physical search of suspected foreign agents or terrorists within the United States.

Judge Walton has been a U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia since 2001, having been appointed by President George W. Bush.

He replaces Judge Claude M. Hilton of the Eastern District of Virginia, whose term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court expired on May 18.

His appointment to the Court was confirmed for Secrecy News by Mr. Sheldon Snook, media liaison and assistant to the chief district judge of the D.C. District Court.

An updated list of members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court may be found here.

A biography of Judge Walton is here.

Judge Walton has gained prominence lately as the presiding judge in the trial of former Vice Presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Last year he ruled (pdf) in favor of the Federation of American Scientists in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the National Reconnaissance Office.

Historians and other researchers may continue to access archival records at Los Alamos National Laboratory, officials said last week. But they also affirmed strict new limits on such access.

A story in Secrecy News (May 3) describing new restrictions on researchers was based on a misunderstanding by Lab personnel, Department of Energy and Lab officials said last week. Although there was a technical change in policy, access to the archives remains unaffected, the officials asserted.

The technical change occurred because Los Alamos National Security (LANS), the contractor that replaced the University of California as Lab manager, is not subject to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

But “the actual practices at the [LANL] archives have not changed substantially due to this situation with CPRA,” officials said, particularly since the California law did not affect federal records.

Despite the new assertions, however, the current access policy for private researchers at Los Alamos is significantly constrained compared to the recent past. And the latest statement of policy is crafted in such a way as to limit direct access to unclassified records to those that have been specifically marked for public release.

In the past, Lab archivists would assist researchers by looking for relevant materials and making them available if they were unclassified. If the materials were classified, the archivists would assist with processing the records for review. That is apparently no longer the case.

Priscilla McMillan, author of the 2005 book “The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer,” recalled that she had requested and received numerous archival records from Los Alamos over a period of two decades beginning in 1983 without ever filing a Freedom of Information Act request. She also performed research in the archive itself (usually but not always under supervision), a practice that is no longer permitted.

Today, according to an official statement, only records that are “clearly marked ‘Approved for Public Release’ may be released by the Lab archives without a FOIA request.”

“When anyone requests something from the archives that has a classification issue, FOIA has always been required,” the statement said, inaccurately.

It is of course understandable that some kind of formal review would be required prior to release of any classified records. But the wording of the current policy now requires researchers to file a FOIA request for any document — even an unclassified or previously declassified document — that is not “clearly marked ‘Approved for Public Release’.”

Notwithstanding official insistence that the current restricted access policy is “not new,” this is a departure from past practice that does not correspond to the recent experience of Ms. McMillan or other scholars and researchers.

An unclassified catalog of U.S. Air Force aircraft, weapons, and other systems — from the A-10 Thunderbolt to the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser — is presented in a new Air Force publication.

See The Air Force Handbook 2007 (326 pages, 17 MB PDF file).

Some noteworthy new (or newly acquired) reports of the Congressional Research Service include the following (all pdf).

“Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Request for Appropriations,” May 17, 2007.

“U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China,” May 18, 2007.

“North Korean Provocative Actions, 1950-2007,” updated April 20, 2007.

“North Korea: Terrorism List Removal?,” updated April 6, 2007.

“The North Korean Economy: Overview and Policy Analysis,” updated April 18, 2007.

“Presidential Directives: Background and Overview,” updated April 23, 2007.