Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

“Science and Technology Policy: Issues for the 109th Congress,” updated September 1, 2006.

“Navy Ship Names: Background For Congress,” updated September 1, 2006.

“Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation,” updated August 25, 2006.

“Homeland Security Research and Development Funding, Organization, and Oversight,” updated August 22, 2006.

David T. Lykken, a psychologist who did pioneering research and public education on the limits and abuses of polygraph testing, died last week at age 78.

With exceptional clarity he demonstrated that the polygraph is not a “lie detector” but simply a recorder of physiological responses to verbal stimuli. And, he explained, there is no set of physiological responses that corresponds uniquely to deception.

That does not mean the polygraph is worthless. There is empirical evidence to support its use in the investigation of specific incidents, where “guilty knowledge” of particular details may be usefully revealed by the polygraph.

“The use of the [polygraph] by the police as an investigative tool, while subject to abuse like any other tool, is not inherently objectionable,” Lykken wrote.

(Not only that, “It seems reasonable to conclude that whether O.J. Simpson did or did not kill his wife could have been determined with high confidence using a Guilty Knowledge Test administered within hours after he was first in police custody.”)

On the other hand, he said, the use of the polygraph for security screening of personnel, as is commonly done by U.S. intelligence agencies, cannot reliably achieve its purported goal of identifying spies or traitors and in many cases becomes counterproductive.

“I think it is now obvious that polygraph testing has failed to screen out from our intelligence agencies potential traitors and moles. On the contrary, it seems to have served as a shield for such people who, having passed the polygraph, become immune to commonsense suspicions.”

Lykken produced a body of work that is prominently cited in every bibliography of polygraph-related research. And he addressed the interested public in a highly readable 1998 book called “A Tremor in the Blood” (an allusion to Defoe), which is full of colorful observations as well as analytical rigor.

So, for example, he reports that Pope Pius XII condemned polygraph testing in 1958 because it “intrude[s] into man’s interior domain” (Tremor, page 47).

And “when Bedouin tribesmen of the Negev desert were examined on the polygraph, they were found to be far less reactive than Israeli Jews, whether of Near Eastern or European origin” (page 273).

Dr. Lykken was profiled in a September 20 obituary in the New York Times.

It is a sign of our times that the scientific critique of polygraph testing has gained almost no traction on government policy. To the contrary, the use of the polygraph to perform the sort of screening that Lykken termed a “menace in American life” is actually on the rise.

“From FY 2002 through 2005, the FBI, DEA, and ATF conducted approximately 28,000 pre-employment polygraph examinations” as well as tens of thousands more for other purposes, according to a major new report from the Justice Department Inspector General.

See “Use of Polygraph Examinations in the Department of Justice” (pdf), September 2006.

Characteristically, the new Inspector General report did not even consider the question of the polygraph’s scientific reliability.

In particular, as George Maschke of AntiPolygraph.org told CQ Homeland Security, the Justice Department report failed to grapple with a 2002 finding of the National Academy of Sciences that “[polygraph testing’s] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”

Aldrich H. Ames, the former CIA officer whose years of espionage against the United States went undetected by the polygraph, reflected on the mythology of the polygraph in a letter that he wrote to me from federal prison in November 2000.

When the U.S. Army established a password-protected internet portal called Army Knowledge Online a few years ago, it swallowed up untold thousands of unclassified records that had previously been publicly available on the world wide web, and then ceased to be.

One such item was the Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin (MIPB), a quarterly Army journal on military intelligence policy, doctrine, and technology.

Requests for softcopies of the unclassified MIPB were repeatedly submitted to the Army by the Federation of American Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act. After years of denials and deferrals, U.S. Army lawyers were finally unable to devise a legal rationale to justify continued withholding of the MIPB. Last week, the latest issues from 2004 and 2005 were fully released.

They may be found here, along with previous issues dating back to 1995.

Better yet, the Army told us that the MIPB will be restored to direct public access on the web so that FOIA requests will no longer be required.

Commercial vendors will happily sell you almost any Congressional Research Service report issued in the last decade, making CRS secrecy profitable for some but otherwise pointless. Yet Congress has stubbornly told the CRS not to make its reports directly available to the taxpaying public, who have already paid for them once.

Some recent CRS reports that are not otherwise freely available in public databases include the following (all pdf).

“Steel: Price and Policy Issues,” updated August 31, 2006.

“U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues,” September 8, 2006.

“Federal Counter-Terrorism Training: Issues for Congressional Oversight,” August 31, 2006.

“Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy — Issues and Options for Congress,” updated August 29, 2006.

“Free Mail for Troops Overseas,” updated August 22, 2006.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) has endorsed a proposal to task the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) to review the recent Intelligence Committee reports on pre-war intelligence to determine if they were properly declassified.

He acted in response to harsh criticism from Senate Democrats alleging that the Bush Administration had abused its classification authority to conceal embarrassing or offensive information in the reports that was unrelated to national security.

Instead of pursuing legislative action to compel declassification, as urged by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Roberts said that the PIDB should be asked to render a judgment, as originally proposed last week by Sen. Ron Wyden.

“Let’s let the Public Interest Declassification Board take a look at these reports,” said Sen. Roberts in the course of a heated debate on the Senate floor September 14.

“That was the suggestion by Senator Wyden, picked up by Senator Bond, endorsed by myself and I think by the Senator from West Virginia [Sen. Rockefeller]. That is the proper way to go about it,” Sen. Roberts said.

The endorsement by Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts is crucial to the activation of the Declassification Board, since the PIDB, under the terms of its enabling legislation, accepts congressional requests for declassification review only when they are “made by the committee of jurisdiction,” not by individual members.

The review of the contested Intelligence Committee reports will be the first such action to be undertaken by the Board, and it is likely to set a precedent, whether favorable or unfavorable, for similar reviews in the future.

The Public Interest Declassification Board, established by statute in 2000 and modified by the intelligence reform legislation of 2004, is composed of nine non-governmental persons appointed by the President and congressional leaders. Eight of the nine members have been named so far. A ninth member, who is to be designated by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, has still not been appointed.

The use of secret U.S. prison facilities abroad, first reported by Dana Priest in the Washington Post in November 2005, has since been confirmed by President Bush and has become the focus of controversy in the U.S. and elsewhere.

A new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service synthesizes what is now publicly known about the secret prisons and discusses some of the relevant legal concerns they raise. (“It is based on available open-source documentation, as cited, and not on any independent CRS investigation.”)

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

See “Undisclosed U.S. Detention Sites Overseas: Background and Legal Issues,” September 12, 2006.

Some miscellaneous other new products from CRS include the following (all pdf).

“Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy,” updated September 1, 2006.

“Israel: Background and Relations with the United States,” updated August 31, 2006.

“Saudi Arabia: Current Issues and U.S. Relations,” August 2, 2006.

“Sri Lanka: Background and U.S. Relations,” updated August 1, 2006.

“Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches — Background and Options for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

“Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

“Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

“Navy DDG-1000 (DD(X)), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

“Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

“Unmanned Vehicles for U.S. Naval Forces: Background and Issues for Congress,” updated July 26, 2006.

The Senate Judiciary Committee set the stage for further congressional debate over warrantless electronic surveillance by reporting out competing bills that are mutually contradictory.

A bill (S. 2453) sponsored by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter would sharply diminish judicial oversight of intelligence surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and expand unilateral presidential authority. On the other hand, a bill (S. 3001) sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein would reaffirm that FISA is the exclusive mechanism for conducting domestic intelligence surveillance, while making certain modifications in the Act. A third bill (S. 2455), sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine, was also reported out.

“The [Specter] bill makes compliance with FISA entirely optional, and explicitly validates the President’s claim that he has unfettered authority to wiretap Americans in the name of national security,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a critical commentary.

“I have been briefed on the terrorist surveillance program,” said Sen. Feinstein, “and I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for content collection on U.S. persons under the FISA process.”

“So I have offered this provision to ensure that the program is carried out under the law and to make it clear that FISA remains the exclusive authority for the content collection on U.S. persons,” she said.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) charged that the Bush Administration had deliberately withheld information about the surveillance program from Congress to frustrate congressional oversight.

“This refusal to respond to legitimate information requests from the Oversight Committee, combined with the administration’s over-restriction of member and staff access to the NSA program, is part of a cynical White House strategy to prevent Congress from either acting or forcing it to legislate on vital national security and privacy issues in the dark,” he said.

Sen. Russ Feingold concurred that due to excessive secrecy, “The Judiciary Committee was left to legislate in the dark, with many members blindly seeking to legalize illegal behavior without even an understanding of whether those changes are actually necessary.”

Meanwhile, in the House, a bill sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) faced opposition from the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies, as well as from civil libertarians.

The bill was examined in detail in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See “H.R. 5825 (109th Congress): ‘Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act'” (pdf), September 8, 2006.

The various competing bills were discussed, and notably analyzed by James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in a September 6 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on “Legislative Proposals to Update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

The full hearing record of three Senate Judiciary Committee hearings earlier this year on “Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Warrantless Surveillance Authority” has just been published (908 pages).

The House of Representatives approved a bill to establish a publicly searchable database of federally-funded grants and contracts. The Senate adopted the measure last week, and the White House indicated that the President would sign it.

“This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to create a Web site listing all grant awards and contracts in a manner that would be easily accessible and free of charge. In a nutshell, this is about [providing] information to taxpayers about how their hard-earned dollars are being spent,” said Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA).

“The legislation we are passing today is not comprehensive reform; it will not restore honesty and accountability in government,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). “It’s a modest, bipartisan step in the direction of open government. But in the climate we’re currently in, even a small step forward is worth supporting and celebrating.”

See the September 13 House floor debate on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 here.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Minority Leader, proposed an amendment that would require the declassification of certain classified portions of a Senate Intelligence Committee report regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Carl Levin charged last week that portions of the controversial report had been withheld from public disclosure in order to evade accountability or to conceal “highly offensive” information unrelated to national security.

See the text of Sen. Reid’s proposed amendment to the pending maritime security bill here.

Some notable recent reports of the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News that are not otherwise readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

“Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority,” updated August 16, 2006.

“Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,” updated August 11, 2006.

“Cuba: Issues for the 109th Congress,” updated August 8, 2006.

“Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress,” updated August 7, 2006.

“Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy,” updated August 3, 2006.

“Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research and Development,” updated August 3, 2006.

“The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),” updated July 28, 2006.

The U.S. Navy announced today that the “Sea Shadow” (IX-529), an experimental naval craft, and the Hughes Mining Barge (HMB-1), which was originally developed as part of the CIA’s 1974 Project Jennifer to help raise a sunken Soviet submarine, are available for donation to a suitable museum or organization.

“Ex-SEA SHADOW is contained inside HMB-1…. The donee may display the two vessels as currently configured as a single unit, or display them individually,” according to a notice in the Federal Register.

“If the Navy receives no interest by an eligible recipient within two years, the Navy reserves the right to remove the vessels from donation consideration and proceed with their disposal.”

See “Notice of Availability for Donation of the Test Craft Ex-SEA SHADOW (IX-529) and Hughes Mining Barge (HMB-1),” Federal Register, September 14.

Two partially declassified reports issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that were critical of pre-war intelligence on Iraq remain significantly overclassified, according to Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who said he would seek further disclosure.

Furthermore, portions of the two Intelligence Committee reports that were withheld conceal “certain highly offensive activities” and “deeply disturbing information,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

“I am very troubled that some information in these reports has been classified even though its release would have no impact on national security,” Sen. Wyden said.

“I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability,” he said in a September 8 news release.

“Portions of the report which the intelligence community leaders have determined to keep from public view provide some of the most damaging evidence of this administration’s falsehoods and distortions,” said Senator Levin in a September 8 floor statement.

“What remains classified, and therefore covered up, includes deeply disturbing information,” he said.

“Much of the information redacted from the public report does not jeopardize any intelligence source or method but serves effectively to cover up certain highly offensive activities.”

“Even the partially released picture is plenty bleak, about the administration’s use of falsehoods and distortions to build public support for the war. But the public is entitled to the full picture. Unless this report is further declassified, they won’t get it,” Sen. Levin said.

Senator Wyden announced that he would ask the Public Interest Declassification Board, an advisory board originally created by statute in 2000, to review the two reports and to render a judgment as to whether they were properly declassified.

This would be the first time that a Member of Congress has tasked the Board to perform such a declassification oversight function.

The two Senate Intelligence Committee reports, released last week in redacted form, are:

“The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress” (211 pages, 9 MB PDF file).

“Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments” (151 pages, 7 MB PDF file).