Is anyone tracking this?  What is a "waiver authority?"

H.R.2213 - To amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2213

I don't know what to make of this "Bill".

Is it the crack in the armor we've been waiting for, or just another half-hearted attempt about to get shot down by high ranking security officials.

I think it's bullshit and discriminatory.

If the polygraph can tell a lie, make everyone do it, or no one.

This "Bill" has no chance of seeing the light of day.

---

John,

While in principle, I think less reliance on polygraphy is desirable, I cannot support this legislation. It's a half-measure that establishes a favored (and a disfavored) class of applicants. This legislation skirts the overriding issue that polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever, and continues the charade that it is somehow reliable. It should be allowed to die in committee.

George W. Maschke wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 4:15am:

While in principle, I think less reliance on polygraphy is desirable, I cannot support this legislation.

Right on, Sir.

The principle being that any use of the polygraph results by themselves, to make a determination about one’s credibility, is an abusive policy.  The polygraph “test” is inherently probabilistic and laced with subjective conjecture.  Allowing it to be used - at all - is a national disgrace.

So, if this Bill passes, you can get a waiver to the polygraph if you’re a:

1) Certified cop for 3 years, not currently under investigation and have completed a polygraph in the last ten years, or
2) Federal law enforcement officer for 3 years, not under investigation, hold a “Tier 4/5” background investigation, or
3) Active duty, Reserve, or a veteran of the Armed Forces for at least 3 years, holds, or has held within the past 5 years at least a secret clearance, “Tier 4/5” background investigation, and has received or is eligible to receive an honorable discharge.

The reason for this Bill, is because too many people are failing to “successfully complete” the polygraph.  Right?  WTF? 

I love the name too – Anti-Border Corruption Act.  The corruption is actually between the burgeoning polygraph industry and the senior officials in the Offices of Security.

I think these congresspeople have had a whiff of what’s going on.  At least they’re willing to raise a bullshit flag.  Let’s write letters, email the crap out of them, use twitter and other social media to call attention to this problem.  Part of the Education step that Doug Williams professes.

If anyone can find contact info for the following, please post to this thread:

Ms. MCSALLY, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. HURD, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, and Mr. VELA.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.

While grilling Comey last week, Senator Flake asks if the FBI can share their program's polygraph policy.  He complains that the CBO "failure" rate is 65%, and would like to know how the FBI is able to have more favorable results.

Is there such a policy?  How can you have a standard when the "results" can be so subjective?

https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3A2EFD44-08A0-4F99-B7FF-E8F3176EBF15

John M. wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:

While grilling Comey last week, Senator Flake asks if the FBI can share their program's polygraph policy.

Flake has an appropriate last name.  You could paper the walls of the Taj Mahal with FBI polygraph horror stories.  Where is he getting data that the FBI runs a good program?   ::)  It's like advertising an airline because it's had fewer fatal crashes than it's competitor.   :P

It is very difficult to reach one of these members of congress, unless you live in their actual district.

I obtained this email address ( whistleblower@mail.house.gov) that should get some attention.  Feel free to copy and paste my letter.

Sir/Ma'am,

On April 27th, 2017, Representative Martha McSally introduced H.R. 2213 – Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.

I believe this Bill should not pass because it doesn’t go far enough, and because it is discriminatory by unfairly providing accommodations to a favored group of people.

At issue, is whether the Customs and Border Patrol can issue waivers to certain law enforcement and military members, so that they can avoid taking the polygraph.

The reason for this Bill is because they can’t get enough people to “pass” the polygraph.  Reportedly, two-thirds of all applicants fail the “test”.  This “test” is inherently probabilistic and laced with subjective conjecture.  Allowing it to be used - at all - is a national disgrace.

It is absurd to use the “results” as the sole basis for determining someone’s credibility.  The EPPA and DOD regulations strictly prohibit these actions.  There are many reasons why someone would produce a false positive during a polygraph test and using the physiological responses of an individual under duress to ascertain their trustworthiness, is a fundamentally flawed policy.

This Bill is a half-measure that establishes a favored (and a disfavored) class of applicants. It also skirts the overriding issue that polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever, and continues the charade that it is somehow reliable.

Please do everything in your power to stop this Bill from passing in the House.

Very respectfully,

John M.


****UPDATE****

Reply from Homeland.Security@mail.house.gov -

The Committee considered this measure on May 3, 2017, and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation with an amendment, by voice vote.
The Committee filed its report on this measure and the House is expected to consider it this week.

It is recommended that you contact your local representative to voice your opinion, as the Committee has finalized its actions on this measure and it will be pending before the House of Representatives.

The measure, its amendments, and disposition can be found at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105918 The Committee’s Action sheet provides a better summary of the Committee’s action on this measure. Committee Action [PDF]

HR 2213 is on the House floor this week.  http://docs.house.gov/floor/

CSPAN coverage of House proceedings begin at 10.  Set your DVRs for the afternoon sessions!  Although it sailed through committee, Skopos Labs only gives it a 1% chance of passing.

The debates will be revealing.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213

John M. wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

If anyone can find contact info for the following, please post to this thread: Ms. MCSALLY, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. HURD, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, and Mr. VELA.

If they're all House members, just send mail to: "Washington DC 20515". ;)

Well, they legislated on 21 of 23 Bills this week.  Only HR 984 and 2213 were not brought forward.  Coincidence?

Maybe the polygraph industrial complex has an objection to this waiver that they are seeking?

Or, very possibly... my congressman heard me blowing the damn whistle and decided to do something about it.

Either way, can't miss TV starts Monday at 2pm on C-SPAN.

John M. wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:

It is very difficult to reach one of these members of congress, unless you live in their actual district.

Yes, there's a concept known as "Congressional courtesy", whereby members will generally refer inquiries from outside their own districts to the House or Senate representative of the district from which the inquiry originated. 8-)

xenonman wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

Yes, there's a concept known as "Congressional courtesy", whereby members will generally refer inquiries from outside their own districts to the House or Senate representative of the district from which the inquiry originated.

......and if your Congressman happens to be a sycophant jackass like mine, you are out of luck.   >:(

Here’s the Committee on Homeland Security’s report to Congress. 

Some interesting comments in this.  Most noticeably, last month, the CBP piloted a "revised version" of its polygraph examination with the intention to improve polygraph “pass” rates.

-      “(the Bill) can provide CBP with immediate relief so that they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents from a pool of applicants that already maintain the public’s trust and put their lives on the line for our security and safety on a daily basis.”

-      “We are simply losing ground every single month, and there is no end in sight as we continue to lose agents and officers through attrition, without the ability to quickly hire new ones. At the current hiring rate, approximately 150–200 applicants go through the process in order to hire one agent or officer. This means CBP needs to have hundreds of thousands of people apply just to meet their current needs. Hiring more agents and officers will boost our national security and bring good jobs to our local economy.”

-      “The Committee is concerned with CBPs inability to reach its current authorized employment levels and the impact to the Nation’s security and economic growth causes by CBP officer and agent shortage. As a result, the Committee is providing this temporary waiver authority for these three, narrowly tailored exemptions to alleviate the immediate shortage of CBP officers and Border Patrol agents while changes are piloted to the polygraph examination.”

-      “Though the Committee recognizes that this measure may improve, on a limited basis, CBP’s ability to onboard new employees, there are larger challenges associated with the hiring process, most especially as relates to the polygraph program. The Committee intends to carry out oversight of the use of this waiver authority in addition to any reforms CBP may consider for the administration of its pre-employment polygraph examinations. The Committee is aware that CBP launched a pilot to test a revised version of its polygraph examination in late April 2017 with the intention of improving pass rates, shortening the overall time needed to administer the polygraph, and potentially address concerns about how these polygraphs are administered.”

Legislation begins tomorrow at noon on C-SPAN – set your DVRs!

---

I checked all three C-Span channels, but there was no discussion of the CBP or polygraphs that I could find. 8-)

Something has happened to this Bill.  It was on the schedule for last week - http://docs.house.gov/floor/Default.aspx?date=2017-05-15.

It never made it to the floor.  Click on "next day" at the bottom of the page and see for yourselves - http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20170515

I tweeted @RepMcSally (the Bill's sponsor) to ask what happened to it - she has yet to reply.  Not holding my breath.

I did my part.  I'd like to think I had something to do with it being shot down - who knows?

More likely scenario is that the Polygraph Industrial Complex caught wind and slammed the door.

---

At 1:34 this afternoon the House Leader indicated that this Bill will be legislated next week. 

http://docs.house.gov/floor/

Skopos now gives it a 10% chance of passing.  What do you think its chances are?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213

John M. wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 7:51pm:

Skopos now gives it a 10% chance of passing.  What do you think its chances are?

maybe 7.5% !  (unless someone tacks on an amendment to exempt the IC from its provisions) ::)

This Bill pertains specifically to the CBP.  The debates on it will hopefully expose the insanity however.  I hope to see my Congressman read my letter on the House Floor at some point.

BTW, did you see the season finale of "The Americans" on FX this week?  It further exposes the "Lie Behind the Polygraph".

The House of Representatives is meeting to debate H.R. 2213 now. You can watch here:

http://www.fednet.net/?p=67560

H.R. 2213 passed by a wide margin (282-137) yesterday:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/336811-house-votes-to-allow-lie-detector-exemptions-for-border-patrol

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 11:07am:

H.R. 2213 passed by a wide margin (282-137) yesterday:

Unreal.

It's astonishing how brazenly ignorant of the polygraph process our congresspersons are.

Those that voted against this Bill (all democrats), did so because they don't want any more border enforcement.  I sent tweets to all of them during the floor debates.

I'm starting on my Senators now (Rubio & Nelson).

I think this Bill will eventually pass - what do you think now George?

John M. wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 9:55pm:

I think this Bill will eventually pass - what do you think now George?

I, too, expect it will eventually pass.

John M. wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 9:55pm:

Unreal. It's astonishing how brazenly ignorant of the polygraph process our congresspersons are.

I agree, but not surprised.  I'm not sure if they are brazenly ignorant or just totally corrupt.  I think it's that latter.  I understand your opposition to this bill and agree with you completely.  Could it be a good thing, however?  It seems to me that the entire premise of this bill involves the fact that the polygraph doesn't work. 

Wandersmann wrote on Jun 9^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:

Could it be a good thing, however?

Yeah, only if that one brave man you keep talking about shows up.

You should have seen the debates.  All they (the dems) kept talking about was watering down the screening process.

The fact that 60% of applicants are failing it, should be the freaking biggest red flag!

DIA's failure rates from 2011-2015 reportedly ranged from 15% - 22%.

The time has come to put a stop to this madness.

For the 2,000th time, answer the question!

---

Senators Durbin and Duckworth have introduced a bill (S.1560) that would block H.R.2213 and expand polygraph screening to currently serving CBP employees as well as mandating polygraph screening for Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/two-democratic-senators-want-to-block-house-bill-to-waive-polygraphs/2017/07/13/db5d3e30-6758-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1560/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22polygraph%22%5D%7D&r=1

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 8:28am:

Senators Durbin and Duckworth have introduced a bill (S.1560) that would block H.R.2213 and expand polygraph screening

There you go John M., Xeno and Wandersmann--reach out to these democrats and set them straight!

Ex Member wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 2:51pm:

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 14th, 2017 at 8:28am: Senators Durbin and Duckworth have introduced a bill (S.1560) that would block H.R.2213 and expand polygraph screening There you go John M., Xeno and Wandersmann--reach out to these democrats and set them straight!

Democrats speak with forked tongue! :D

Ex Member wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 2:51pm:

There you go John M., Xeno and Wandersmann--reach out to these democrats and set them straight!

I'm glad they are going to expand polygraph screening.  That is the only way it will go away.  Pretty soon the number of victims will outnumber the number of people profiting from this system by 1000 to one.  The more innocent victims, the sooner this thing comes to an end.  If they made lawyers, judges, and Congressmen pass a polygraph to keep their jobs the whole thing would be gone tomorrow.   ;)

Quickfix, just curious .......... would you have any problem disbarring an attorney, removing a Federal judge from the bench, or removing a Congressman from office for failing a polygraph?   :-?

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Quickfix, just curious .......... would you have any problem disbarring an attorney, removing a Federal judge from the bench, or removing a Congressman from office for failing a polygraph?    https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/huh.gif

Your question doesn't really make a lot of sense.  Lawyers, judges and congressmen don't require polygraphs to do their jobs, since they don't have or require daily access to classified information.  Even if they did, polygraph testing is not a requirement to hold a clearance or have access to classified information.  Military attorneys (and judges or that matter) are not polygraphed unless they assigned to CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.  It's matter of agency requirements, not job requirements.  Therefore, your question is apples vs oranges. 

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Congressmen pass a polygraph

Is the polygraph required of those on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees?  I know that their staffs must have security clearances. ::)

The EPPA is quite general when it comes to governmental employers:


Sec. 2006. Exemptions

(a) No application to governmental employers. This chapter shall not apply with respect to the United States Government, any State or local government, or any political subdivision of a State or local government.

quickfix wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

Lawyers, judges and congressmen don't require polygraphs to do their jobs, since they don't have or require daily access to classified information.

I disagree.  It was always explained to me that it was all about trustworthiness.  It was all about the potential damage that could be done to society by a bad apple.  535 Senators and Congressman ruling over 341,000,000 people.  Think of the damage they can do if they are corrupt (as most of them are)  :-[  Trustworthiness plays a role there.   How about the damage that can be done by a crooked or incompetent judge ?  Isn't trustworthiness and issue?  None of these people have a right to be a member of Congress or a right to be a licensed attorney.

xenonman wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 1:13pm:

Is the polygraph required of those on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees?  I know that their staffs must have security clearances.

Good question Xenonman.  Back in the day I am pretty certain that they could not be  forced to volunteer to be polygraphed.  By the way, forced to volunteer is the accurate description for 99% of the Federal employees who submit to the polygraph.  Only morons truly volunteer to be polygraphed.  Being forced to volunteer doesn't make it mandatory, you only lose your livelihood and are blacklisted from future government service if you don't.  It's the same play on words right out of the Soviet Marxist governing manuals.   Things may have changed regarding staffers forced to be polygraphed, but I doubt it.   :-?

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 8:28am:

Senators Durbin and Duckworth have introduced a bill (S.1560) that would block H.R.2213 and expand polygraph screening to currently serving CBP employees as well as mandating polygraph screening for Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

Here is the text.  More perception deception.

They misdirect right up front - "The Secretary of Homeland Security may not hire any applicant for a law enforcement position who does not pass a polygraph examination".

Then they mandate "Targeted Polygraph Reinvestigations" and even "Random Polygraph Examinations".  Notice that there is no authorization to take unfavorable actions against someone for not "passing" it though.

This opens the door to the type of abuse and corruption that happened to me.

Rubio, Nelson and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be hearing from me soon. Promise.

---

John M. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

Rubio, Nelson and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be hearing from me soon. Promise

It is done.

I urge you all to copy and paste this message to your individual senators and the HSGAC @ https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/contact/committee

Sirs,

It has come to my attention that Senate Bill S.1560 has been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for review.

It is extremely important that the following issue be addressed before all else, concerning this Bill:

SEC. 3.

(a) Applicants.—Beginning not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security—

(1) shall require that polygraph examinations are conducted on all applicants for law enforcement positions; and

(2) may not hire any applicant for a law enforcement position who does not pass a polygraph examination.

(b) Targeted Polygraph Reinvestigations—Beginning not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, as part of each background reinvestigation, shall administer a polygraph examination to—

(1) every CBP law enforcement employee who is determined by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to be part of a population at risk of corruption or misconduct, based on an analysis of past incidents of misconduct and corruption; and

(2) every ICE law enforcement employee who is determined by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to be part of a population at risk of corruption or misconduct, based on an analysis of past incidents of misconduct and corruption.

(d) Random Polygraph Reinvestigations—Beginning not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall—

(1) randomly administer a polygraph examination each year to at least 5 percent of CBP law enforcement employees who are undergoing background reinvestigations during that year and have not been selected for a targeted polygraph examination under subsection (b)(1); and

(2) randomly administer a polygraph examination each year to at least 5 percent of ICE law enforcement employees who are undergoing background reinvestigations during that year and have not been selected for a targeted polygraph examination under subsection (b)(2).

The Bill forbids the CBP and ICE from hiring an individual who fails the polygraph examination, but fails to address the issue of what to do with an existing law enforcement official that does not pass a polygraph examination.  Even DOD regulations state that no unfavorable administrative actions shall be taken based solely on the results of the polygraph examination.

Answering this question is crucial to ensure that abuse and corruption don’t take place in the Customs and Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement like they have at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I urge you to raise this issue with the committee as individual and civil rights are at stake.

Very Respectfully,

John M. wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

I urge you all to copy and paste this message to your individual senators and the HSGAC

John -

      I was getting ready to send this message to my Senator, but I'm a bit confused as to what we are asking.  As I understand the cut and paste message, we are O.K. with applicants not being hired due to the polygraph and we also want on-board officials to be fired if they don't pass a polygraph?  Don't we want to fight this idiotic instrument at all levels?   Are we just trying to put on-board officials through the same hell as applicants to make more victims and get more support for the anti-polygraph community? :P

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

but I'm a bit confused as to what we are asking

I believe that once they admit that they can't do anything to an existing employee based solely on the "results", why do them at all?

It's exposing the lie that George professes and Doug despises.

It's easier for them to accept a few cracked eggs and deny innocents a job - because they didn't have it to begin with, and they can feel like there was no harm done.  It's a completely different thing to ruin a individual's life by using the polygraph "results" as the sole reason for doing so.

If this Bill passes as it is currently written, there will be polygraph abuse and corruption at CBP and ICE - just like at DIA.

Everyone here realizes right?  That given the current CBP polygraph failure rates, THOUSANDS of people will lose their livelihoods each year if they take unfavorable actions against them based solely on their polygraph "results".

If you go in to a polygraph knowing that they can't take any unfavorable administrative actions against you, why worry at all?  Hell, why waste our tax money even doing it?

It's a shame, a ruse, a deception.

See AntiPolygraph.org's latest blog post, "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin Hypocritically Embraces Polygraph 'Testing,'" and please share on social media:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/07/28/democratic-senator-dick-durbin-hypocritically-embraces-polygraph-testing/

John M. wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

I urge you all to copy and paste this message to your individual senators and the HSGAC

John -  Now for my next challenge.  I attempted to send this to my senators but was not able because I do not have their Email addresses to include on the form.  I searched for about an our and could only find their website.  Have you figured out how to get their email address to enable form completion?

Wandersmann wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 6:26pm:

Have you figured out how to get their email address to enable form completion?

There is usually a Link called "Contact".  Here's Rubio's - https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

I think it's best if you just say;

Sirs,

It has come to my attention that Senate Bill S.1560 has been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for review.

It is extremely important that the following issue be addressed before all else, concerning this Bill:

The Bill forbids the CBP and ICE from hiring an individual who fails the polygraph examination, but fails to address the issue of what to do with an existing law enforcement official that does not pass a polygraph examination.  Even DOD regulations state that no unfavorable administrative actions shall be taken based solely on the results of the polygraph examination.

Answering this question is crucial to ensure that abuse and corruption don’t take place in the Customs and Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement like they have at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I urge you to raise this issue with the committee as individual and civil rights are at stake.

Very Respectfully,

// S //

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

See AntiPolygraph.org's latest blog post, "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin Hypocritically Embraces Polygraph 'Testing,'" and please share on social media:

Notice how Durbin uses the term "Quick fix" disparagingly.    :D

Notice how Durbin also basically says, it doesn't work, so let's use it!   :-[

I just got this from Senator Bill Nelson.  Nothing yet from Senator Rubio or the HSGAC/Senator Johnson.

Dear Mr. M:

            Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 1560, the Integrity in Border and Immigration Enforcement Act. I understand your concerns and appreciate your taking the time to be involved and informed about matters important to Florida and our nation.

            Introduced by Senator Richard Durbin, this legislation is pending before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
  Bill Nelson

John M. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate.

Let's polygraph him on that statement.  ;D  Until Anti-polygraph.org is able to grease his palms with more money than the polygraph lobby, I wouldn't hold my breath.    >:(  I also sent messages to my Senators and received similar responses.  I'm going through the motions like a good citizen, but not the slightest bit optimistic that these whores have even a shred of conscience. 

Sadly, HR 2213 is opposed by the dems and S.1560 will undoubtedly be opposed by the repubs, for basically the same reason:

- To polygraph, or not to polygraph?

It's time to say goodbye to the myth of 'lie detection' and accurately label it a violation of ones individual rights.

It is also defamation of character, denial of reasonable accommodations and due process.

Stranglehold baby.

John M. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:33pm:

Sadly, HR 2213 is opposed by the dems and S.1560 will undoubtedly be opposed by the repubs, for basically the same reason: - To polygraph, or not to polygraph?

When I worked for the government I was required on one occasion to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington.  The reason was to enable us to see how horrible things can get when people in authority abuse their power.  This requirement created by the very people who sign off on ruining people's lives with the polygraph.  I hope there is an eternal Hell for all of them. 

When the Roman Empire collapsed and Rome was overrun by Barbarians, what was left moved to Constantinople and became  the Byzantine Empire.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, what was left moved to Washington and took over a huge part of our government.  Although the human rights abuse involved in the application of the polygraph to ruin innocent people's lives simply to exert control is right out of the Marxist playbook, even the Soviets weren't dumb enough to believe that it worked.   :'(

Rep. Martha McSally provides the Opening Statement to today's Homeland Security Committee meeting.  A video of the meeting and text of the testimonies is here:

https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/line-border-security-agent-officer-perspective/

I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet.  Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?

John M. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet.  Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?

I won't take that bet John because I agree with you.  It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.  They still have the problem of too many good applicants flunking the poly.  I predict there will be a miracle occur in which applicants will start passing their polygraphs by huge numbers.  The passing percentage will explode.  Because it is pseudo-science and a fraud they can cook the books anyway they want.  It's just like when high school physics students aren't getting the correct answers in the lab tests and then the students figure out what the correct answers should be.  Miraculously, the lab results start to correctly fall in line.   ;D

Wandersmann wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 12:16am:

It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.

This is a most interesting comment that really strikes a chord with me.

When I first got into the polygraph field in 2004, I was told by a highly regarded long-time practitioner that the "test" was mainly about one thing: MONEY.

From what I've seen over the years, that old timer was right.

But, back then, being a freshly minted Backster-trained -- and APA-validated -- "dedicated to truth" forensic psycho-physiologist, I refused to believe him.

Now, over 13 years later, I have to say that sage insider observation was (and is) largely correct-- especially when it comes to PCSOT "te$ting."

I wish I had known then what I know now.

If anyone has any questions about the polygraph "te$ting" proce$$, please contact me.

I'll be happy to tell you the truth about the "te$t."

Telephone consultations are free, as I consider it a public service.

My contact info -- as well as links to articles revealing the truth about the polygraph "te$t" -- can be found at www.polygraphman.com.

Bingo, Mr. Mangan.  You wouldn't even believe how big the problem is at the federal level.

I'd bet that the majority of members on this site know the truth as well.

I remember... my second attempt at the polygraph was in a dark hotel room just off base.  After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes.  Finally a new guy came in and ran through the questions again and again.  And then, he got to interrogate me.  After witnessing me have a breakdown, he confessed to me that he hated his job and was sorry for what he was doing.

Here's a question for all the APA members out there?  How many of you actually have a conscience and are sorry for what you are doing?

But it's not just the "operators" that are to blame.  Politicians and senior officials at all levels look the other way and allow the abuse to continue... but, I digress.

Currently, Skopos Labs gives this Bill a 41% chance of passing.  I find it noteworthy that factors considered in the prediction include Government Operation and Politics.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213

John M. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 7:55pm:

After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes.

John M -  I've got you beat by a long shot.  My first polygraph in May, 1986, I was in the torture chamber for 8 hours !!!!!!  I had two toilet breaks, no lunch.  I was often hooked up and left alone for an hour or two at a time.  My 2012 nightmare was almost as bad.  I was hooked up and left alone for over an hour.  I feel a kinship to former Stasi prisoners at Hohenschoenhausen and KGP prisoners at Lubyanka.  The Stasi and KGB a**holes are long gone, but our a**holes are still going strong.   >:(

Several articles have surfaced recently that discuss this Bill in relation to Beto's support for it.

It's sad to see our politicians weaponize the use of the polygraph. Come to think of it, could this be why the government got an exemption to the EPPA in the first place?

There are many things in this article that deserve comment.

One of the polygraph believers' overused statistics is that in seven years, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” So, with 60,000 employees, this represents .0003 of the work force annually. How does this compare with other Federal Agencies?

https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-help-trump-and-gop-1220


Some excerpts:

Polygraph tests have been part of CBP’s efforts to confront the corruption and misconduct that have plagued the agency in recent years. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that between 2005 and 2012, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” The report noted that CBP uses polygraph tests as part of employment background checks “to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct” — and it recommended that the agency consider expanding the tests. The report specifically noted that CBP internal affairs officials were expressing “concerns about the suitability of the officers and agents hired during [employment] surges because most of these officers and agents did not take a polygraph examination.”

n April of 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo pushing for authority to waive the polygraph tests in order to expedite the hiring of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags — the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was a plan “to water down hiring standards.” Tom Jawetz, the Center for American Progress’ Vice President for Immigration, told Univision that “many agents brought on beforehand who had not gone through a polygraph were cooperating with cartels and subject to corruption.” James Tomsheck, the CBP’s former head of internal affairs, called the idea of waivers “preposterous” in light of what the polygraph tests had been finding.

Compared to other law-enforcement agencies, “a larger number of people failed the exam, but the admissions of the applicants who failed the exam were hair-raising,” Tomsheck told The Nation. “The most shocking, frankly terrifying, were the many applicants who admitted that they were infiltrators. That they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization and had for some period of time. They had been directed to apply for the job solely for the purpose of feeding information back to the criminal organization they worked with.”

Two days after the Trump administration’s memo, Republicans introduced legislation to allow the polygraph tests to be waived. The bill — which did not even get a committee hearing — was authored by Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally, an immigration hardliner and supporter of a border wall. During the floor debate, she described the measure as a necessary step to “provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents.”

Democrats adamantly objected. New Mexico Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham — the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — said “eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation’s safety, given this agency’s historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption.” She asserted that “no other federal law enforcement agency in the country—not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service—makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., declared: “Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump’s views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you.”

O’Rourke opted to join Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed. In a statement after the vote, he echoed McSally’s rationale for the legislation, asserting that to address staffing shortfalls, the bill was necessary to “help speed up the hiring process and provide the CBP Commissioner additional authorities to recruit and hire quality CBP officers and Border Patrol agents.”

I do not think that anyone takes Beto serious.

CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.

The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.

If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program

Ron

wrote on Jan 6^th, 2019 at 3:48am:

I do not think that anyone takes Beto serious. CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already. The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC. If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program Ron

Ron,

Beto O'Rourke is no longer a member of the House of Representatives and H.R. 2213, on which he voted "aye," did not pass or even come to a vote in the Senate.

What specific rumors have you heard about EyeDetect?

George

Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.

One of them that was hired in past times waited a long time  to take a polygraph and almost signed on with a state agency. 

I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about. 

George

I did not mention that Idaho State Police adopted the Eye Detect for the employee screening process.  Apparently this is the same thing CBP is trying to do. 

The following link is the announcement that appears to be in sync with Idaho State Police announcing the usage.

https://converus.com/blog/idaho-state-police-job-applicants-say-eyedetect-reduces-stress-of-hiring-process/

In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.

I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.

wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 3:26pm:

In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive. I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.

EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been shown to reliably detect lies at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. There are no studies on the effects of health problems on either of these two pseudosciences.

wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 3:18pm:

Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.

Note that the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 specifically mandates polygraph screening:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3243/text/enr

For CBP to substitute EyeDetect for polygraphy would be a direct violation of the law. I would be interested in any additional details you might learn about this.

George

I was not aware of this.  It appears the polygraph lobby was able to get polygraph nominated as the primary device.

Since Senator Romney from Utah he is probably helping the company as most politicians give strong support to the base.

If CBP wants this technology bad enough, someone will pull the right strings to make it happen. 

Ron


wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 3:18pm:

I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.

Being easier has nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of a test that is fundamentally flawed.

For further info, see Dr. Richardson's testimony to US Senate - https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml

Is the use of the EyeDetect system even covered by the EPPA? Theoretically, you could spread rumors that it will eventually be used in every case - everywhere there was ever a question of truthfulness.

Looks like ol' H.R. 2213 has been resurrected and is now called H.R. 1609: To amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes.

Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), is the Sponsor.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1609