One way “to enhance citizen access to Government information,” a new Senate bill proposes, would be to require that Government documents “must be written clearly.”

By insisting on plain language in official documents, the bill “promotes transparency and accountability,” said lead sponsor Sen. Daniel Akaka.  “It is very difficult to hold the Federal Government accountable for its actions if only lawyers can understand Government writing. As we face an economic crisis and unprecedented budget deficits, the American people need clear explanations of Government actions.”

See “Introduction of the Plain Writing Act of 2009,” March 11.  A similar bill (HR 946) was introduced in the House last month.

Another Senate bill tackles the problem of judicial secrecy orders and confidential court settlements that deprive the public of significant health or safety information.

“The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that in any proposed secrecy order, the defendant’s interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety,” said Sen. Herb Kohl.

“Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine–by making a particularized finding of fact–that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety,” he said.

Speaking of sunshine, next week (March 15-21) is “Sunshine Week,” a national campaign to promote values of open government and freedom of information.  Background information and a calendar of events can be found here.

Noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News include the following (all pdf).

“North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons,” February 12, 2009.

“Japan’s Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests,” February 19, 2009.

“The United Arab Emirates Nuclear Program and Proposed U.S. Nuclear Cooperation,” March 10, 2009.

In an awkward and disturbing irony, the most significant bioterrorism incident in the U.S. to date — i.e., the 2001 anthrax attacks — apparently originated in a U.S. military laboratory that was engaged in biological defense research.  Yet the pursuit of such research, and perhaps the associated threat, has continued to expand.

“No one in the Federal Government even knows for sure how many of these labs there are in the United States, much less what research they are doing or whether they are safe and secure,” said Rep. Bart Stupak at a 2007 congressional hearing, the record of which has recently been published.  “What we do know is that the Federal Government has been funding the proliferation of these labs on an unprecedented scale.”

See “Germs, Viruses, and Secrets: The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States” (pdf), House Committee on Energy and Commerce, October 4, 2007 (published December 2008).

“High-containment laboratories play a critical role in the biodefense effort, offering the hope of better responses to an attack and a better understanding of the threat posed by bioterrorism,” according to a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service. “However, they also could increase the risk of a biological attack by serving as a potential source of materials or training.”

One approach to mitigating that risk would be to curtail such research.  Another approach, which is explored in the new CRS report, is to expand oversight of biodefense research facilities.  A copy of the new report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See “Oversight of High-Containment Biological Laboratories: Issues for Congress,” March 5, 2009.

“If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public,” according to a new memorandum on “Scientific Integrity” that was issued by President Obama on March 9.

Another presidential memorandum promises to limit the use of “presidential signing statements” that raise constitutional objections to provisions of enacted legislation.  President Obama said that whenever he issues such a signing statement, he will “make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.”  By contrast, many signing statements that were produced by the Bush White House employed broad, formulaic objections whose scope and precise application were unclear.

Chinese ships harassed a U.S. ship last Sunday in the South China Sea, prompting a formal U.S. government protest.  The Chinese actions were “dangerous” and “unprofessional,” according to the Pentagon.

But a Chinese government spokesman rejected the complaint.  “The U.S. claims are gravely in contravention of the facts and confuse black and white, and they are totally unacceptable to China,” said Ma Zhaoxu of the Foreign Ministry, as reported in the Los Angeles Times.

“The time is long overdue for an agreement to regulate military operations” between the two countries, writes my FAS colleague Hans Kristensen in an illuminating blog post that explains the background to the confrontation, including information about the surveillance mission of the U.S. vessel.  See “US-Chinese Anti-Submarine Cat and Mouse Game in South China Sea,” FAS Strategic Security Blog, March 9.

In fact, there is a 1998 agreement between the U.S. and China that established a “consultation mechanism to strengthen military maritime safety.”  But it was evidently inadequate to meet the needs of this latest dispute.

If anything good could come out of this episode, it would be to provide a foundation for a negotiated agreement between the United States and China on “Incidents at Sea” like the one between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.

The origins of that 1972 Agreement date back forty years.  Prior to 1968, a recent Navy Instruction (pdf) recalled, “numerous [incidents at sea] involving harassment or interference occurred between units of the Soviet and United States Naval surface and air forces.”  But the subsequent Agreement, which provided procedures for orderly contact and dispute resolution, “greatly reduced friction between the U.S. and Soviet/Russian Navies.”  See “United States/Russian Federation Incidents at Sea and Dangerous Military Activities Agreements,” OPNAV Instruction 5711.96C, November 10, 2008.

The new Instruction provides a table of standard communication signals for use in navy-to-navy contacts.  Thus “TX2” means “I am engaged in monitoring sea pollution” while “UY2” means “I am preparing to conduct missile exercises.”

“ZL3” means “your signal has been received but not understood.”

Many of the most substantive and significant documents generated by the Obama Administration to date are surprisingly absent from the White House web site.

President Obama recently ordered the reorganization of the National Security Council through a Presidential Policy Directive.  But the unclassified Directive is not even mentioned on the White House web site, much less posted there.  Secrecy News obtained a copy of the signed directive PPD-1 (pdf).

Another directive, Presidential Study Directive-1, mandated a review of the organization of homeland security and counterterrrorism activities.  Its existence is likewise unreflected on the White House web site.  A signed copy is here (pdf).

A new White House report on the interdiction of aircraft engaged in drug trafficking is similarly unmentioned on the White House web site.  It was published by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is available here (pdf).

The White House web site does notify Americans that the First Lady visited Miriam’s Kitchen last week to help feed the homeless, which is good to know.  But its web page about the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board does not provide meaningful information about the Board, not even a list of members.

In short, the current White House web site does not present a reliable or complete record of Presidential actions or activities.  For that, one still has to turn elsewhere.

An ad hoc group of several hundred federal employees and others has convened online to advocate improved “knowledge management” in the federal government.

Knowledge management refers generally to the production, preservation and exchange of knowledge in such a way as to maximize the sharing of information and to optimize its use.

“Although most federal agencies have some knowledge management activities, there is no centralized federal resource for knowledge management.  There is no government-sponsored support function for knowledge management.  There is no clearinghouse for data on extant activities, no library of best practices, and no consulation available,” according to the new Federal Knowledge Management Initiative.

“Over 700 Federal employees, contractors, academicians and interested members of the public have mounted a campaign to enhance collaboration, knowledge and learning in the Federal Government.”

“The objective is to establish formal knowledge management across government,” said Neil Olonoff, an Army employee contractor who started the new initiative on a volunteer basis.

The initiative is developing its developing its policy proposals along with educational and promotional materials on a public wiki site hosted by NASA.

Audio recordings of ten conversations between President Richard M. Nixon and Director of Central Intelligence Richard M. Helms are now available online.

The conversations, which took place in 1971 and 1972, addressed topics including Vietnam, the India-Pakistan War of 1971, the Soviet Union, China, the Bay of Pigs, and more.  Several of the recordings are still partially censored for national security reasons.

The materials were selected and prepared for online publication by Texas historian Dr. Luke Nichter.

The scale and sophistication of Iranian research in nuclear science and engineering are evident in a newly updated open-source bibliography.  Thousands of titles address topics from nuclear physics and nuclear reactor safety to laser isotope separation.

The bibliography was prepared by independent researcher Mark Gorwitz.  See “Iranian Nuclear Science Bibliography: Open Literature References” (pdf), March 2009.

Government safety investigators canceled a public briefing about an August 28, 2008 explosion that killed two persons at a chemical plant in Institute, West Virginia after operators of the plant said that public discussion of the accident could jeopardize “sensitive security information.”

Bayer CropScience, which runs the plant, told the U.S. Chemical Safety Board that relevant information about the plant is protected from public disclosure under the terms of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as interpreted by U.S. Coast Guard regulations.

The Board, which is an independent federal agency that investigates industrial accidents, canceled the March 19 public meeting while it seeks to evaluate the Bayer secrecy claims.  See “Board Cancels Hearing Under Bayer Pressure” by Ken Ward, Jr., The Charleston Gazette, February 25, 2009.

On their face, the Bayer secrecy claims do not seem well-founded.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act (pdf) invoked by Bayer states (at section 70103) that certain facility security information “is not required to be disclosed to the public.”  That apparently means its disclosure cannot be compelled under the Freedom of Information Act, but it doesn’t say that disclosure of such information is prohibited.

Coast Guard regulations (pdf) implementing the Act state that the plant information could be “sensitive security information,” which is protected from public disclosure.  But compliance with those regulations is binding only on “covered persons,” a category that does not include the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.

So these provisions would appear to have little relevance to this case, and to impose no non-disclosure obligations on the Chemical Safety Board.

“The whole purpose of these homeland security rules is supposed to be to increase public safety, not to reduce it,” said one federal official who expressed skepticism regarding Bayer’s reading of the secrecy requirements.

“We deserve the right to know in a timely manner what is happening in our community that could have such major effects on our health and safety. We also deserve the right to tell you our concerns and so inform the remainder of this investigation,” wrote Maya Nye of People Concerned About MIC [methyl isocyanate] and a coalition of other citizens groups in a letter to the Board this week.

A decision on how the Chemical Safety Board will proceed in this case is pending.

Meanwhile, the Bayer CropScience plant was cited last week for multiple violations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  See “Bayer Plant Cited for 13 Serious Violations Including Safety Issues” by Tony Rutherford, Huntington News, February 27, 2009.

A November 2008 Defense Department study of trends in national and international security was intended “to spark discussions … about the nature of the future security environment.” But the study (pdf), called the Joint Operating Environment 2008 (JOE 2008), has also triggered several unintended international reactions.

Last December, South Korean officials complained that JOE 2008 included North Korea in a list of nuclear weapons states.  The U.S. Joint Forces Command felt obliged to issue a news release disavowing that statement in the report.

“The statement regarding North Korea does not reflect official U.S. government policy regarding the status of North Korea.  The U.S. government has long said that we will never accept North Korea as a nuclear power,” the Joint Forces Command declared.

Then it turned out that Mexico was unhappy with the JOE’s discussion of that country’s potential vulnerability to criminal gangs and drug cartels, including the statement that “an unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States.”

“The Mexican ambassador has asked to see me and we hope to link up very soon,” said Gen. James Mattis of Joint Forces Command on February 12.  Mexico’s concerns about JOE 2008 were reported in “Mattis Plans Meeting with Mexican Ambassador over Controversy” by Fawzia Sheikh in Inside the Pentagon, February 19, 2009.

Perhaps as a result of such unwanted attention, JOE 2008 has been quietly removed from some Defense Department web sites like this one, which says the document is “currently unavailable.”

But it remains online at Joint Forces Command and is also posted here.

Hopefully, the Defense Department will not conclude that it must neuter its public statements or that it should move its security policy studies behind closed doors in order to avoid criticism or hurt feelings.  Instead, DoD and its counterparts abroad might come to appreciate that questionable, challenging and even erroneous statements can be openly discussed without doing any real harm to anyone.

Update: JOE 2008 also drew the attention of Israeli observers. See U.S. Army document describes Israel as ‘a nuclear power’ by Amir Oren, Haaretz, March 8, 2009:

In a rare breach of official American adherence to Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity, the U.S. military is terming Israel “a nuclear power” on a par with Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, all of which have declared their nuclear weapon status, and ahead of “nuclear threshold powers” Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and the “emerging” Iran.

The reference to Israel as a nuclear power is contained in a document published late last year by the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the Norfolk, Virginia-based headquarters in charge of preparing American forces for their military missions worldwide, including in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Israel’s nuclear program is rarely, if ever, explicitly mentioned in public, unclassified U.S. official documents….

“Evidently $30 million and 10 years wasn’t enough to finish the job of declassifying records on the involvement of U.S. intelligence agencies with Nazi and Japanese war criminals,” writes Jeff Stein in CQ Spy Talk.  “Congress has just budgeted another $650,000 to finish the job — really, they’re serious this time — of poring through some 8 million postwar pages.”  See “The Really Longest War: U.S. Still Spending on Nazi War Docs,” March 3.

“The Navy has classified regular reports about the material condition of its fleet, an about-face from when the reports were accessible as public documents under the Freedom of Information Act,” reports Philip Ewing in Navy Times.  See “Navy Classifies Ship Inspection Reports,” February 27.

“The Association of Health Care Journalists has urged President Barack Obama to end inherited policies that require public affairs officers to approve journalists’ interviews with federal staff.”

“The military is investigating how a secret briefing about national security got posted on the Web, including information about 93 tunnels found along the nation’s borders and a warning that Canada could become a terrorist gateway,” wrote Pam Zubeck in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  See “Military probes how secret briefing wound up on Web,” February 28.